Los Angeles Times
A touching tribute to Claremont. If ever there was a must read for this site, it's this. Really well done. Makes you realize how much you take a place for granted.
I just have to add one thing the writer missed: Heroes, which is the favorite hangout of Lauren and me. It's one of those big (and good) beer, big food, and toss the peanuts on the floor kind of places. If you go to a Claremont college, you can't miss it because Kate Fairley, a nice older Irish lady and college administrator, will always remind you to go - her son owns it.
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Friday, January 30, 2004
Never Say Die, by Michael Kinsley
Washington Post
Kinsley conducts an interview with a fictional senator from a modest upbringing who just won't quit the race, despite poor showings in every primary.
This brings to mind an obvious question: Why isn't Joe Lieberman leaving the race? Gephardt was much stronger, and he quit two weeks ago. Does he really believe that he has a shot? Better yet, does he really believe he was in a "three-way tie for third place" in New Hampshire? That just made him look sad. Even Kucinich would be on better ground saying something like "I'm in a six-way tie for not last."
I guess nobody wants to be the guy who taps Lieberman on the shoulder and says "Look Joe, we're running at Kucinich/Sharpton numbers here, not Edwards/Clark, and even those numbers aren't good enough. Time to make a graceful exit. It's over." Even I don't want to be that guy. If you're reading this, Joe, forget what I just said.
I guess he feels he can win Arizona. He picked up an endorsement by the Arizona Republic today, after all. That's the only angle that makes sense to me. He's going to kick-in his last few pennies to make a showing in a moderate state the other candidates aren't focusing on, hoping to eke out a victory. That might give him some actual momentum, as opposed to Joementum, which, unlike The Surge, is some kind of negative momentum that causes you to severely underperform despite being a national figure with major endorsements.
Kinsley conducts an interview with a fictional senator from a modest upbringing who just won't quit the race, despite poor showings in every primary.
This brings to mind an obvious question: Why isn't Joe Lieberman leaving the race? Gephardt was much stronger, and he quit two weeks ago. Does he really believe that he has a shot? Better yet, does he really believe he was in a "three-way tie for third place" in New Hampshire? That just made him look sad. Even Kucinich would be on better ground saying something like "I'm in a six-way tie for not last."
I guess nobody wants to be the guy who taps Lieberman on the shoulder and says "Look Joe, we're running at Kucinich/Sharpton numbers here, not Edwards/Clark, and even those numbers aren't good enough. Time to make a graceful exit. It's over." Even I don't want to be that guy. If you're reading this, Joe, forget what I just said.
I guess he feels he can win Arizona. He picked up an endorsement by the Arizona Republic today, after all. That's the only angle that makes sense to me. He's going to kick-in his last few pennies to make a showing in a moderate state the other candidates aren't focusing on, hoping to eke out a victory. That might give him some actual momentum, as opposed to Joementum, which, unlike The Surge, is some kind of negative momentum that causes you to severely underperform despite being a national figure with major endorsements.
General Malaise: Democrats, for the good of the country: Stop Wesley Clark!, by Peggy Noonan
Opinionjournal
Noonan claims that Clark's not just inexperienced. She claims he's a self-obsessed vacant loon, at least once you get to know him. This is an angle on Clark I haven't seen before. Check out some of her examples:
"On the night of John Kerry's win in Iowa, Gen. Clark went on 'Larry King Live.' The other guest was Bob Dole, not exactly an ideologically rigid man. His presence seemed to signal the establishment giving a big hello and an insider's teasing to the relatively new candidate. Remember how it went? Mr. Dole, a little emollient, then a little mischievous, told Gen. Clark, first, that 'somebody [had] to lose' in Iowa and, next, that 'politically you just became a colonel instead of a general.'"
He he. But check out Clark's response:
"This little barb set off a pompous harrumph of a retort: 'Well, I don't think that's at all--Senator, with all due respect, he's [Kerry's] a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership.'"
A president that can't take (or even understand) a joke? I guess there are worse things. Like this, for example:
"More telling is Gen. Clark on abortion. A pro-lifer wouldn't have the smallest of chances in the Democratic Party, but a certain Clintonian politesse is expected when the question is raised. 'Abortion is always a tragedy but denying a woman her reproductive rights under the Constitution would also be a tragedy'--that kind of thing. This is what Gen. Clark said when he met with the Manchester Union-Leader and was questioned by the newspaper's Joseph McQuaid:
Clark: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion--
McQuaid: At all?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Late-term abortion? No limits?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?
Clark: Nope, nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?
Clark: I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. . . . You don't put the law in there.
Gen. Clark was then asked, 'What about when she's grown up and at the prom, can you kill her then?' He said, 'Absolutely. Chase her across the dance floor. This is a personal decision for the mother.' Oh--sorry--I made that last part up. He did not advocate killing children 18 years after they're born. Though one wonders why not. Maybe he does have nuance. His campaign tried to spin it into a plus. He forgot to speak 'artfully,' 'precisely.' But he was nothing if not precise. He forgot to speak sanely."
Noonan claims that Clark's not just inexperienced. She claims he's a self-obsessed vacant loon, at least once you get to know him. This is an angle on Clark I haven't seen before. Check out some of her examples:
"On the night of John Kerry's win in Iowa, Gen. Clark went on 'Larry King Live.' The other guest was Bob Dole, not exactly an ideologically rigid man. His presence seemed to signal the establishment giving a big hello and an insider's teasing to the relatively new candidate. Remember how it went? Mr. Dole, a little emollient, then a little mischievous, told Gen. Clark, first, that 'somebody [had] to lose' in Iowa and, next, that 'politically you just became a colonel instead of a general.'"
He he. But check out Clark's response:
"This little barb set off a pompous harrumph of a retort: 'Well, I don't think that's at all--Senator, with all due respect, he's [Kerry's] a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership.'"
A president that can't take (or even understand) a joke? I guess there are worse things. Like this, for example:
"More telling is Gen. Clark on abortion. A pro-lifer wouldn't have the smallest of chances in the Democratic Party, but a certain Clintonian politesse is expected when the question is raised. 'Abortion is always a tragedy but denying a woman her reproductive rights under the Constitution would also be a tragedy'--that kind of thing. This is what Gen. Clark said when he met with the Manchester Union-Leader and was questioned by the newspaper's Joseph McQuaid:
Clark: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion--
McQuaid: At all?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Late-term abortion? No limits?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?
Clark: Nope, nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?
Clark: I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. . . . You don't put the law in there.
Gen. Clark was then asked, 'What about when she's grown up and at the prom, can you kill her then?' He said, 'Absolutely. Chase her across the dance floor. This is a personal decision for the mother.' Oh--sorry--I made that last part up. He did not advocate killing children 18 years after they're born. Though one wonders why not. Maybe he does have nuance. His campaign tried to spin it into a plus. He forgot to speak 'artfully,' 'precisely.' But he was nothing if not precise. He forgot to speak sanely."
Thursday, January 29, 2004
The Heart of Politics: One Woman, Two Senators and Presidential Ambitions: The Washington Tale of John Kerry and Teresa Heinz
Washington Post
This is a profile from 2002 of Kerry and Heinz. If you didn't think she's a liability to Kerry based upon her bizarre, disheveled, half-drunken TV appearances, you gotta read this. I won't even bother quoting from it, there's just too much there.
This is a profile from 2002 of Kerry and Heinz. If you didn't think she's a liability to Kerry based upon her bizarre, disheveled, half-drunken TV appearances, you gotta read this. I won't even bother quoting from it, there's just too much there.
Claremont Review of Books on Volokh
The Claremont Review of Books, run by my former teacher, advisor, and boss, Charles Kesler, is receiving some positive attention at Volokh. I have a subscription, so you must want one too. You can subscribe by clicking here.
BBC Apologises As Dyke Quits
BBC News
The real story for me is how on top of this some bloggers were from the beginning. If you check out this post and this post from Instapundit, you can see commentary from some of them on today's events. And if you want an example of the spot-on work by bloggers before this story broke, check out this post by CMC'er Jeff Jarvis back in July, 2003.
And by the way, have you ever checked out Instapundit's hit totals? Even on a big day, we don't quite compete with him. That's an understatement, I know. Revise: Even in a big day, we don't quite compete with a given hour for Instapundit. That's also an understatement (he averages about 4,000 hits an hour). I think it's a fair goal for this site to one day have more hits in a year than Instapundit had last hour. That is one influential fella (for example, check out here how one mention of some obscure CD by Instapundit raised it's Amazon sales rank to 430).
The real story for me is how on top of this some bloggers were from the beginning. If you check out this post and this post from Instapundit, you can see commentary from some of them on today's events. And if you want an example of the spot-on work by bloggers before this story broke, check out this post by CMC'er Jeff Jarvis back in July, 2003.
And by the way, have you ever checked out Instapundit's hit totals? Even on a big day, we don't quite compete with him. That's an understatement, I know. Revise: Even in a big day, we don't quite compete with a given hour for Instapundit. That's also an understatement (he averages about 4,000 hits an hour). I think it's a fair goal for this site to one day have more hits in a year than Instapundit had last hour. That is one influential fella (for example, check out here how one mention of some obscure CD by Instapundit raised it's Amazon sales rank to 430).
In Shake-Up, Dean Names Gore Ally to Run Campaign
New York Times
The effect of losing Joe Trippi is huge for the Dean campaign - much bigger than, say, Kerry's changes a few months ago. As far as I could tell, Trippi was the voice, the mind, and the spirit behind the Dean campaign. I remember reading this USA Today profile of Trippi and understanding the Dean campaign a lot better, so check that out if you want a feel for his power over the campaign. I don't know how they're going to adjust to such a big change so late in the game, and the exchange of power won't be smooth. Quote:
". . . after a year of building the Dean juggernaut, from a staff of seven to what he has often called 'the greatest grass-roots movement in the history of American politics,' Mr. Trippi refused to be sidelined, and walked out after what aides described as an emotional staff meeting here.
. . .
Mr. Trippi, described by friends as furious with Dr. Dean, spent the evening dining with staff members, before the 14-hour drive back to his Maryland farm on Thursday.
. . .
. . . losing Mr. Trippi — who may be followed by several top loyal aides — is risky, since he has become a sort of cult hero to the legions of Deaniacs at the core of the movement."
And his replacement makes Dean's whole "I'm an outsider" thing laughable:
"The selection of Mr. Neel, a former telecommunications lobbyist who was an aide to Mr. Gore for nearly 20 years, on Capitol Hill and in the Clinton White House, is a stark shift for an insurgent campaign powered largely by political neophytes whose main message is overthrowing the establishment. He is the ultimate Washington insider, not unlike like those Dr. Dean derides daily."
Whenever I hear "I'm a Washington outsider so I won't bow to special interests" (remember Bush did it too), all I hear is "I'm inexperienced, but that means I haven't sold out. Yet."
Also, check out this Washington Post piece about Dean and the media. It's interesting.
One more thing: The Dean-O-Phobe blog over at the New Republic is calling it quits. He thinks Dean's campaign is over - even if Dean keeps the delegate lead, other candidates will pool their delegates and give them to Kerry. Moreover, he feels Deanism, or "the belief that some combination of technology and Dean's charisma can somehow suspend all the known laws of politics, that liberals can wish away unpleasant facts about the American electorate, and that the failure to do so represents cowardice, betrayal, and the absence of principle," is a failed theory. I'll miss posts like this one:
"CAVEAT EMPTOR: Howard Dean, describing his credentials to be president to Diane Sawyer last night:
I am not a perfect person, believe me, I have all kinds of warts. I wear ... cheap suits sometimes, I say things that I probably ought not to say ... [minutes later:] Now look, I ... I mean, was it over the top? Sure it was over the top. Do I do things that are a little nutty? Sure I do things that are a little nutty.
Homer Simpson, describing his credentials to be Lurleen Lumpkin's manager:
Lurleen: Homer, I want you to be my manager.
Homer: Really?! Well, I should warn you, I'm not great with figures.
Lurleen: That's okay.
Homer: I make a lot of stupid decisions.
Lurleen: Nobody's perfect.
Homer: I did bad in school.
Lurleen: I didn't even go.
Homer: My personal hygeine has been described as..."
The effect of losing Joe Trippi is huge for the Dean campaign - much bigger than, say, Kerry's changes a few months ago. As far as I could tell, Trippi was the voice, the mind, and the spirit behind the Dean campaign. I remember reading this USA Today profile of Trippi and understanding the Dean campaign a lot better, so check that out if you want a feel for his power over the campaign. I don't know how they're going to adjust to such a big change so late in the game, and the exchange of power won't be smooth. Quote:
". . . after a year of building the Dean juggernaut, from a staff of seven to what he has often called 'the greatest grass-roots movement in the history of American politics,' Mr. Trippi refused to be sidelined, and walked out after what aides described as an emotional staff meeting here.
. . .
Mr. Trippi, described by friends as furious with Dr. Dean, spent the evening dining with staff members, before the 14-hour drive back to his Maryland farm on Thursday.
. . .
. . . losing Mr. Trippi — who may be followed by several top loyal aides — is risky, since he has become a sort of cult hero to the legions of Deaniacs at the core of the movement."
And his replacement makes Dean's whole "I'm an outsider" thing laughable:
"The selection of Mr. Neel, a former telecommunications lobbyist who was an aide to Mr. Gore for nearly 20 years, on Capitol Hill and in the Clinton White House, is a stark shift for an insurgent campaign powered largely by political neophytes whose main message is overthrowing the establishment. He is the ultimate Washington insider, not unlike like those Dr. Dean derides daily."
Whenever I hear "I'm a Washington outsider so I won't bow to special interests" (remember Bush did it too), all I hear is "I'm inexperienced, but that means I haven't sold out. Yet."
Also, check out this Washington Post piece about Dean and the media. It's interesting.
One more thing: The Dean-O-Phobe blog over at the New Republic is calling it quits. He thinks Dean's campaign is over - even if Dean keeps the delegate lead, other candidates will pool their delegates and give them to Kerry. Moreover, he feels Deanism, or "the belief that some combination of technology and Dean's charisma can somehow suspend all the known laws of politics, that liberals can wish away unpleasant facts about the American electorate, and that the failure to do so represents cowardice, betrayal, and the absence of principle," is a failed theory. I'll miss posts like this one:
"CAVEAT EMPTOR: Howard Dean, describing his credentials to be president to Diane Sawyer last night:
I am not a perfect person, believe me, I have all kinds of warts. I wear ... cheap suits sometimes, I say things that I probably ought not to say ... [minutes later:] Now look, I ... I mean, was it over the top? Sure it was over the top. Do I do things that are a little nutty? Sure I do things that are a little nutty.
Homer Simpson, describing his credentials to be Lurleen Lumpkin's manager:
Lurleen: Homer, I want you to be my manager.
Homer: Really?! Well, I should warn you, I'm not great with figures.
Lurleen: That's okay.
Homer: I make a lot of stupid decisions.
Lurleen: Nobody's perfect.
Homer: I did bad in school.
Lurleen: I didn't even go.
Homer: My personal hygeine has been described as..."
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Chevron's Station
Let me begin by saying that Ben is kind to characterize Scalia's position in his speech last year as "no matter what Stevens said Chevron meant, he (Justice Scalia) knew better." What Scalia actually said was more like: "Justice Stevens doesn't have the slightest clue what Chevron means. He still hasn't figured out what he did, the old geezer." Let's try and figure out why Scalia said this.
The Chevron story continues with cases like INS v Cardoza Fonseca (the Fonz to his friends), 480 US 421 (1987). The facts are unimportant for our purposes, except to say that the INS and the lower courts disagreed on which standard was the best in asylum decisions under the Refugee Act of 1980. The text gets us nowhere.
Ok, so let's make our call right here: the agency and the courts disagree. Who wins? Remember, Justice Stevens said in Chevron that "a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency." Easy, right? It's a clear rule, and it means that the agency wins. No problem.
Wrong. Justice Stevens felt in this case that there is a distinction between how a standard is applied and what the standard is. He says Chevron stands for deference to agencies for the former, not the latter - Courts are still free to use statutory tools to construe statutes regardless of what the agency thinks.
Scalia picks up on all this weirdness and notes that "[t]he Court first implies that courts may substitute their interpretation of a statute for that of an agency whenever, '[e]mploying traditional tools of statutory construction,' they are able to reach a conclusion as to the proper interpretation of the statute. . . .This is not an interpretation, but an evisceration of Chevron."
You see, for Scalia, Chevron means the courts won't play the he said/we said game with agencies - the agencies just plain win, so long as they don't interpret an HHS statute to mean that Tommy Thompson gets a lifetime supply of bon bons. Stevens would rather apply Chevron deference only when he can't figure out the statute himself. Like when you want to take a stab at putting that Ikea entertainment center (you know, "Kradk" or "Bjork" or whatever they call it) together, but you also want the right to give it up and have your much smarter little sister do it for you.
One more. In Young v Community Nutrition Institute, 476 US 974 (1986), there were two potential readings of the operative statute - either the bon bon guzzling HHS Secretary "shall, as he finds necessary, promulgate regulations" to do blah blah blah or "shall promulgate regulations" on blah blah blah, but can do so "as he finds necessary." The latter requires the Secretary to regulate, but he can do so with some discretion (as Zack from Rage put it: You say "jump," I say "how high"), while the former gives the Secretary discretion over whether to regulate at all (you say "jump," I say, "not right now, thank you, I just ate"). The agency wants discretion over whether to regulate at all, and says this is how it's interpreted the statute for a long time; Congress never complained. The majority rules, under Chevron, that HHS is entitled to make this choice.
Justice Stevens disagrees. He says both that the "intent of Congress" is clear, and that "to say that the statute is susceptible of two meanings, . . . is not to say that either is acceptable." Thus, the statute has no acceptable meaning, and yet the intent of Congress is clear. Don't ask. Building on this piercing logic, Stevens notes Chevron does not herald that "the singularly judicial role of marking the boundaries of agency choice is at an end . . . [t]he Court, correctly self-conscious of the limits of the judicial role, employs a reasoning so formulaic that it trivializes the art of judging."
I will bet you $100 dollars that when Scalia read the "formulaic" line, he laughed out loud. "That's the whole point!" he must have yelled - you know, from his leather chair in the smoke-filled room where he sits by a bustling fireplace with brandy and a pen, planting seeds of the conservative conspiracy dicta by dicta. But I digress. Scalia thinks Chevron took the mish-mashed inconsistency of previous cases and replaced it with a clear rule of deference. That Stevens fails to see this means that he fails to see what he did in Chevron - it's not the most cited case in the history of law because it codified old rules, added a small twist to recent cases, or did some other boring thing the Court usually does. This is why Scalia felt confident saying to 500 students and professors at Stevens' alma mater that ol' John Paul just doesn't get it.
The Chevron story continues with cases like INS v Cardoza Fonseca (the Fonz to his friends), 480 US 421 (1987). The facts are unimportant for our purposes, except to say that the INS and the lower courts disagreed on which standard was the best in asylum decisions under the Refugee Act of 1980. The text gets us nowhere.
Ok, so let's make our call right here: the agency and the courts disagree. Who wins? Remember, Justice Stevens said in Chevron that "a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency." Easy, right? It's a clear rule, and it means that the agency wins. No problem.
Wrong. Justice Stevens felt in this case that there is a distinction between how a standard is applied and what the standard is. He says Chevron stands for deference to agencies for the former, not the latter - Courts are still free to use statutory tools to construe statutes regardless of what the agency thinks.
Scalia picks up on all this weirdness and notes that "[t]he Court first implies that courts may substitute their interpretation of a statute for that of an agency whenever, '[e]mploying traditional tools of statutory construction,' they are able to reach a conclusion as to the proper interpretation of the statute. . . .This is not an interpretation, but an evisceration of Chevron."
You see, for Scalia, Chevron means the courts won't play the he said/we said game with agencies - the agencies just plain win, so long as they don't interpret an HHS statute to mean that Tommy Thompson gets a lifetime supply of bon bons. Stevens would rather apply Chevron deference only when he can't figure out the statute himself. Like when you want to take a stab at putting that Ikea entertainment center (you know, "Kradk" or "Bjork" or whatever they call it) together, but you also want the right to give it up and have your much smarter little sister do it for you.
One more. In Young v Community Nutrition Institute, 476 US 974 (1986), there were two potential readings of the operative statute - either the bon bon guzzling HHS Secretary "shall, as he finds necessary, promulgate regulations" to do blah blah blah or "shall promulgate regulations" on blah blah blah, but can do so "as he finds necessary." The latter requires the Secretary to regulate, but he can do so with some discretion (as Zack from Rage put it: You say "jump," I say "how high"), while the former gives the Secretary discretion over whether to regulate at all (you say "jump," I say, "not right now, thank you, I just ate"). The agency wants discretion over whether to regulate at all, and says this is how it's interpreted the statute for a long time; Congress never complained. The majority rules, under Chevron, that HHS is entitled to make this choice.
Justice Stevens disagrees. He says both that the "intent of Congress" is clear, and that "to say that the statute is susceptible of two meanings, . . . is not to say that either is acceptable." Thus, the statute has no acceptable meaning, and yet the intent of Congress is clear. Don't ask. Building on this piercing logic, Stevens notes Chevron does not herald that "the singularly judicial role of marking the boundaries of agency choice is at an end . . . [t]he Court, correctly self-conscious of the limits of the judicial role, employs a reasoning so formulaic that it trivializes the art of judging."
I will bet you $100 dollars that when Scalia read the "formulaic" line, he laughed out loud. "That's the whole point!" he must have yelled - you know, from his leather chair in the smoke-filled room where he sits by a bustling fireplace with brandy and a pen, planting seeds of the conservative conspiracy dicta by dicta. But I digress. Scalia thinks Chevron took the mish-mashed inconsistency of previous cases and replaced it with a clear rule of deference. That Stevens fails to see this means that he fails to see what he did in Chevron - it's not the most cited case in the history of law because it codified old rules, added a small twist to recent cases, or did some other boring thing the Court usually does. This is why Scalia felt confident saying to 500 students and professors at Stevens' alma mater that ol' John Paul just doesn't get it.
Judge Says R. Kelly Must Avoid Jackson
E Online
"The judge's order in the Kelly case baffled both the defense and prosecution, which didn't request the stay-away-from-Michael move."
Yeah, aren't they way too old for this kind of thing?
Too old for each other, not injunctions, I mean.
"The judge's order in the Kelly case baffled both the defense and prosecution, which didn't request the stay-away-from-Michael move."
Yeah, aren't they way too old for this kind of thing?
Too old for each other, not injunctions, I mean.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Clark Contrasts Humble Roots with Yale-Educated Rivals
Associated Press
I just realized that Bush, Kerry, Dean, and Lieberman all went to Yale for undergrad. Here are their years of attendance (I'm guessing based upon their graduation year):
Lieberman 1960-1964
Kerry 1962-1966
Bush 1964-1968
Dean 1967-1971
You know what this means, right? If you were at Yale in 1964, you had at least three future presidential candidates (and one future president) going to school with you. This also means that Bush and Dean were both there from 1967-68. I wonder if any of these guys ever took a class together. I know that both Kerry and Bush were members of Skull and Bones (see inevitable Dawson's Creek guy conspiracy movie here), but Bush didn't become a member until his senior year (1968), so their paths may not have crossed there.
Anyway, I'm certain either Claremont or Chicago will yield me some presidential classmates. Or at least one: co-blogger Ben. Some day in the future, the Jane Austin loving, hockey hating, Food Network watching, yet not homosexual men (otherwise known as "independents") of the world will unite, and they'll be looking for leadership. Or at least someone to talk to.
I just realized that Bush, Kerry, Dean, and Lieberman all went to Yale for undergrad. Here are their years of attendance (I'm guessing based upon their graduation year):
Lieberman 1960-1964
Kerry 1962-1966
Bush 1964-1968
Dean 1967-1971
You know what this means, right? If you were at Yale in 1964, you had at least three future presidential candidates (and one future president) going to school with you. This also means that Bush and Dean were both there from 1967-68. I wonder if any of these guys ever took a class together. I know that both Kerry and Bush were members of Skull and Bones (see inevitable Dawson's Creek guy conspiracy movie here), but Bush didn't become a member until his senior year (1968), so their paths may not have crossed there.
Anyway, I'm certain either Claremont or Chicago will yield me some presidential classmates. Or at least one: co-blogger Ben. Some day in the future, the Jane Austin loving, hockey hating, Food Network watching, yet not homosexual men (otherwise known as "independents") of the world will unite, and they'll be looking for leadership. Or at least someone to talk to.
Sunday, January 25, 2004
With Fanfare and a Grand Parade, Paris Celebrates France's Ties to China
New York Times
Only France wouldn't be ashamed to color the Eiffel Tower bright red for the event. But they do share a common love of stifling differences for the sake of order and conformity. So why not celebrate it! Going to have to stifle a little more dissent to pull it off though:
"As part of the country's 'Year of China' promotion, officials closed Paris' grand avenue, the Champs-Élysées, on Saturday afternoon for a huge parade dominated by a dancing dragon — the first time the avenue has been taken over by an intrinsically non-French event since German troops marched down it during World War II.
The parade, sponsored in part by China, included hundreds of Chinese citizens and thousands of Chinese émigrés living in and around Paris. The only things missing, though, were firecrackers, banned for security reasons, and adherents of Falun Gong, the spiritual movement that the Chinese government has banned. The group's request to join the festivities was denied."
Do you think the irony of the closing of the Champs-Élysées is lost on them? Oui.
Only France wouldn't be ashamed to color the Eiffel Tower bright red for the event. But they do share a common love of stifling differences for the sake of order and conformity. So why not celebrate it! Going to have to stifle a little more dissent to pull it off though:
"As part of the country's 'Year of China' promotion, officials closed Paris' grand avenue, the Champs-Élysées, on Saturday afternoon for a huge parade dominated by a dancing dragon — the first time the avenue has been taken over by an intrinsically non-French event since German troops marched down it during World War II.
The parade, sponsored in part by China, included hundreds of Chinese citizens and thousands of Chinese émigrés living in and around Paris. The only things missing, though, were firecrackers, banned for security reasons, and adherents of Falun Gong, the spiritual movement that the Chinese government has banned. The group's request to join the festivities was denied."
Do you think the irony of the closing of the Champs-Élysées is lost on them? Oui.
Friday, January 23, 2004
Hey, Nobody Noticed!
German paper Die Welt says Osama bin Laden has been captured, according to this United Press International report. This is what happens when the New Hampshire primary comes around, Powell officially recognizes that the French are annoying, and Captain Kangaroo dies - things get lost in the shuffle. Oh well. (from Opinionjournal)
Mars rover sending data again
CNN
Good news. NASA has everyone excited with this Mars stuff, so losing the rover would have been a big setback, and goodness knows NASA doesn't need more of those. Apparently they have another rover landing soon, but half the rovers = half the info by my count, and half the rovers = half the fun.
Good news. NASA has everyone excited with this Mars stuff, so losing the rover would have been a big setback, and goodness knows NASA doesn't need more of those. Apparently they have another rover landing soon, but half the rovers = half the info by my count, and half the rovers = half the fun.
Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old South Justice
New York Times
Since I'm in Georgia at the moment, I thought I should mention this local controversy - an excellent black student and high school football star in a mostly-white community is convicted of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. His sentence is 10 years (the statutory minimum). The victim was a white classmate, and 15 years old; Marcus Dixon, the defendant, was 18.
The controversy surrounds whether Dixon's treatment was fair, or racially motivated. Quote:
"Mr. Dixon's lawyers argued an appeal on Wednesday before the Georgia Supreme Court, in which they presented Mr. Dixon's prosecution as faulty and his punishment as unusually cruel. Under state law, they argued, Mr. Dixon should have been sentenced under the lesser charge of statutory rape, which carries a maximum one-year sentence.
'This man should be pursuing his education instead of sitting in jail,' said his lawyer, David Balser.
. . .
On the eve of Wednesday's hearing, nearly 100 people gathered outside the state Supreme Court here, holding candles and singing, "We Shall Overcome." Speaking to the crowd, Dr. Joseph Lowery, a founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, did not mince words.
'If the young lady was black and Marcus Dixon was white, I don't think we would be here,' he said, his voice breaking with emotion."
Not so fast. If the prosecution was faulty, then I'm in agreement that Dixon deserves a new trial, and if the conviction was racially motivated, all the more reason to try and get things right. There are some signs this might be the case.
But if one's compassion comes from the fact that he's young, smart, and now will spend 10 years in jail, you must also believe he's innocent. Because if he really did rape that girl, he doesn't deserve any compassion. He received exactly what he deserved.
I just hope the people singing "We Shall Overcome" are doing so because they believe him to be innocent, and not because they believe that, if he's guilty, he's going to jail for 10 years because he's black. If he's guilty, he would be going to jail for 10 years because he raped a 15 year-old girl. In that case, the only person that we need to "overcome" anything is his victim.
Since I'm in Georgia at the moment, I thought I should mention this local controversy - an excellent black student and high school football star in a mostly-white community is convicted of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. His sentence is 10 years (the statutory minimum). The victim was a white classmate, and 15 years old; Marcus Dixon, the defendant, was 18.
The controversy surrounds whether Dixon's treatment was fair, or racially motivated. Quote:
"Mr. Dixon's lawyers argued an appeal on Wednesday before the Georgia Supreme Court, in which they presented Mr. Dixon's prosecution as faulty and his punishment as unusually cruel. Under state law, they argued, Mr. Dixon should have been sentenced under the lesser charge of statutory rape, which carries a maximum one-year sentence.
'This man should be pursuing his education instead of sitting in jail,' said his lawyer, David Balser.
. . .
On the eve of Wednesday's hearing, nearly 100 people gathered outside the state Supreme Court here, holding candles and singing, "We Shall Overcome." Speaking to the crowd, Dr. Joseph Lowery, a founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Council, did not mince words.
'If the young lady was black and Marcus Dixon was white, I don't think we would be here,' he said, his voice breaking with emotion."
Not so fast. If the prosecution was faulty, then I'm in agreement that Dixon deserves a new trial, and if the conviction was racially motivated, all the more reason to try and get things right. There are some signs this might be the case.
But if one's compassion comes from the fact that he's young, smart, and now will spend 10 years in jail, you must also believe he's innocent. Because if he really did rape that girl, he doesn't deserve any compassion. He received exactly what he deserved.
I just hope the people singing "We Shall Overcome" are doing so because they believe him to be innocent, and not because they believe that, if he's guilty, he's going to jail for 10 years because he's black. If he's guilty, he would be going to jail for 10 years because he raped a 15 year-old girl. In that case, the only person that we need to "overcome" anything is his victim.
California Democrats Face Grim Post-Mortem
New York Times
My old government professor, Jack Pitney, is beloved by journalists in need of a little color. Never more true than in this article:
"John J. Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif., who previously worked for the Republican National Committee, said Mr. Schwarzenegger had delivered 'a very strong punch to the face' of the state Democratic Party, which 'is still trying to find its legs.'"
'This is the new model of the Terminator, and they are not quite sure how to fight it,' Professor Pitney said."
Gotta love it.
My old government professor, Jack Pitney, is beloved by journalists in need of a little color. Never more true than in this article:
"John J. Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif., who previously worked for the Republican National Committee, said Mr. Schwarzenegger had delivered 'a very strong punch to the face' of the state Democratic Party, which 'is still trying to find its legs.'"
'This is the new model of the Terminator, and they are not quite sure how to fight it,' Professor Pitney said."
Gotta love it.
2 Jewish Leaders Upset After Viewing 'Passion'
New York Times
I'm a little skeptical about these critiques. I don't think you're going to find an portrayal of Jesus' last hours in which the Jews come out looking too good. Except for Jesus and his disciples, that is. And I think that says a lot, actually - if someone where to truly come out of the movie thinking Jews were horrible people, they'd have to forget that Jesus is one. That's not an easy thing to do in a movie about him.
I think the message for any mildly-intelligent viewer would be that some Jews were bad people, and some Jews were good. Just like some Catholics are bad, some are good, some Americans are bad, some are good, etc. The fact that some people won't swallow this doesn't say anything about The Passion, but about how idiotic some people are. If we had to make movies around what idiots would think, Rollerball would be the norm.
I'm not arguing that these critics don't have a valid point about Gibson picking and choosing from the very worst interpretations of certain Jews' behavior - I'm not qualified to judge that debate. But whether Gibson did or didn't, some Jews from two millennia ago are going to look bad. But the movie might still be worth a watch.
I'm a little skeptical about these critiques. I don't think you're going to find an portrayal of Jesus' last hours in which the Jews come out looking too good. Except for Jesus and his disciples, that is. And I think that says a lot, actually - if someone where to truly come out of the movie thinking Jews were horrible people, they'd have to forget that Jesus is one. That's not an easy thing to do in a movie about him.
I think the message for any mildly-intelligent viewer would be that some Jews were bad people, and some Jews were good. Just like some Catholics are bad, some are good, some Americans are bad, some are good, etc. The fact that some people won't swallow this doesn't say anything about The Passion, but about how idiotic some people are. If we had to make movies around what idiots would think, Rollerball would be the norm.
I'm not arguing that these critics don't have a valid point about Gibson picking and choosing from the very worst interpretations of certain Jews' behavior - I'm not qualified to judge that debate. But whether Gibson did or didn't, some Jews from two millennia ago are going to look bad. But the movie might still be worth a watch.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Blogging from Atlanta
So I'm in Atlanta this weekend. I've heard about southern hospitality, but I never thought I'd experience it first-hand right off the plane (this is my first time in the south). The people at Enterprise car rental were over-the-top nice. They had a person standing there with one of those boards with your name on it. I thought it was some kind of mistake. The guy on the shuttle to the cars was abnormally nice too. Maybe I've been in Chicago too long. Or Seattle. Or LA. Or D.C. Man, I've lived in a lot of places lately!
Another impressive part of Atlanta is Hartsfield-Jackson, the airport. It's arguably the busiest airport in the world (O'Hare in Chicago is usually considered the busiest, but apparently there's some dispute about this). It certainly seems bigger than O'Hare - there are 181 gates, beating O'Hare by about 15, and 6 big terminals shooting out from one side of the main terminal, rather than wrapping around it. The main terminal is really something - it has a big atrium shopping area, and was rather pleasant looking for an airport.
Also cool was Delta's "Compass" flight feature. It's this dynamic display on the plane's TV's during the last hour of the flight. It showed continually-updated gate information, information about Atlanta, trivia questions, and 3d views of the plane, telling us where it was compared to the airport while giving us data like how many miles away we were and how fast we were going. I know international flights commonly do this stuff, but it was fun to see it on a relative puddle-jump.
Anyway, anyone know what the must-do places are? Or, better yet, the cool stuff people don't know about? Utilize our new-fangled Haloscan commenting system and let me know.
Another impressive part of Atlanta is Hartsfield-Jackson, the airport. It's arguably the busiest airport in the world (O'Hare in Chicago is usually considered the busiest, but apparently there's some dispute about this). It certainly seems bigger than O'Hare - there are 181 gates, beating O'Hare by about 15, and 6 big terminals shooting out from one side of the main terminal, rather than wrapping around it. The main terminal is really something - it has a big atrium shopping area, and was rather pleasant looking for an airport.
Also cool was Delta's "Compass" flight feature. It's this dynamic display on the plane's TV's during the last hour of the flight. It showed continually-updated gate information, information about Atlanta, trivia questions, and 3d views of the plane, telling us where it was compared to the airport while giving us data like how many miles away we were and how fast we were going. I know international flights commonly do this stuff, but it was fun to see it on a relative puddle-jump.
Anyway, anyone know what the must-do places are? Or, better yet, the cool stuff people don't know about? Utilize our new-fangled Haloscan commenting system and let me know.
Bargaining for Freedom, by Nicholas D. Kristof
New York Times
Kristof bought two Cambodian girls out of sex slavery. Sounds great, right? I thought so. Well, I hadn't thought of it this way (but Tyler Cowen did):
"As an economist of course I wondered whether buying slaves will lower net enslavement. I can think of at least two general mechanisms suggesting that Kristof's purchase will increase the number of slaves in the longer run, or at least not lower the number of slaves:
1. Slaveholders and brothel owners presumably hold profit-maximizing inventories. Depletion of inventory will lead to replacement under a variety of assumptions.
2. I suspect that Kristof, a Westerner, overpaid for the two slaves. Slave owners expect such higher prices in the future, which may lead to more slaveholding. Furthermore the cash flow may stimulate investment in more slaves. Even for firms in advanced economies, current cash flow predicts investment better than does real interest rates.
. . .
I would not advocate that Kristof resell his two women back into slavery, just to lower future prices. Nonetheless such economic considerations once again illustrate the gap between doing something to feel good about oneself, and actually achieving useful results."
I'd better check in with an economist before I do nice things anymore. I could really mess things up! Or I could just stop being nice. Tough call.
And in related news, CNN reports: Gephardt frees delegates.
Kristof bought two Cambodian girls out of sex slavery. Sounds great, right? I thought so. Well, I hadn't thought of it this way (but Tyler Cowen did):
"As an economist of course I wondered whether buying slaves will lower net enslavement. I can think of at least two general mechanisms suggesting that Kristof's purchase will increase the number of slaves in the longer run, or at least not lower the number of slaves:
1. Slaveholders and brothel owners presumably hold profit-maximizing inventories. Depletion of inventory will lead to replacement under a variety of assumptions.
2. I suspect that Kristof, a Westerner, overpaid for the two slaves. Slave owners expect such higher prices in the future, which may lead to more slaveholding. Furthermore the cash flow may stimulate investment in more slaves. Even for firms in advanced economies, current cash flow predicts investment better than does real interest rates.
. . .
I would not advocate that Kristof resell his two women back into slavery, just to lower future prices. Nonetheless such economic considerations once again illustrate the gap between doing something to feel good about oneself, and actually achieving useful results."
I'd better check in with an economist before I do nice things anymore. I could really mess things up! Or I could just stop being nice. Tough call.
And in related news, CNN reports: Gephardt frees delegates.
Rehnquist Questioned on Cheney-Scalia Trip
CNN
Leahy and Lieberman asked "what 'canons, procedures and rules' are in place to determine when justices should recuse themselves from cases." The answer: nothing, beyond the federal statutes, because the ABA Codes of Judicial Conduct are just unenforcible guidelines (I discussed the Scalia situation and the federal statute, 28 USC 455 here) .
I've advocated a system in which the justices are allowed to recuse a collegue upon a party's request, perhaps on a majority or supermajority vote. This type of practice isn't unheard of in the federal system - I worked for a judge in the Central District of California this summer, and their policy is to have all recusal motions decided by a fellow judge.
Of course, the Supreme Court would probably balk at such a radical change in their practices - the justices are used to a great deal of autonomy, even compared to other federal judges. But as Constitutional officers in a nation in which no one is above the law, I think it's fair to ask the Court how they make decisions like this. If they don't have a system, I think it's also fair for Congress to request that they create one. Congress has the power to make a recusal rule for the Court, but I hope it doesn't come to that.
Leahy and Lieberman asked "what 'canons, procedures and rules' are in place to determine when justices should recuse themselves from cases." The answer: nothing, beyond the federal statutes, because the ABA Codes of Judicial Conduct are just unenforcible guidelines (I discussed the Scalia situation and the federal statute, 28 USC 455 here) .
I've advocated a system in which the justices are allowed to recuse a collegue upon a party's request, perhaps on a majority or supermajority vote. This type of practice isn't unheard of in the federal system - I worked for a judge in the Central District of California this summer, and their policy is to have all recusal motions decided by a fellow judge.
Of course, the Supreme Court would probably balk at such a radical change in their practices - the justices are used to a great deal of autonomy, even compared to other federal judges. But as Constitutional officers in a nation in which no one is above the law, I think it's fair to ask the Court how they make decisions like this. If they don't have a system, I think it's also fair for Congress to request that they create one. Congress has the power to make a recusal rule for the Court, but I hope it doesn't come to that.
Dean Plans Return To 'Who I Really Am'
USA Today
Who were you before? Was that an act? I love how some of these candidates can just become a new person when the old person doesn't work. But hey, I guess it worked for Kerry. Not sure if it's a good quality for a president, however.
Who were you before? Was that an act? I love how some of these candidates can just become a new person when the old person doesn't work. But hey, I guess it worked for Kerry. Not sure if it's a good quality for a president, however.
Chinese Move to Relax Severe Judicial Penalties
Washington Post
Speaking of the death penalty, now the benevolent Chinese government will give appellate review of death penalty convictions, and the police can't unilaterally place you in a "re-education through labor" camp (yep, that's what they actually call it) for 4 years. Hu Jintao obviously reads blogs.
Speaking of the death penalty, now the benevolent Chinese government will give appellate review of death penalty convictions, and the police can't unilaterally place you in a "re-education through labor" camp (yep, that's what they actually call it) for 4 years. Hu Jintao obviously reads blogs.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
The Bush Conspiracy Theory Generator
Check it out here. My conspiracy is that "George W. Bush caused the Cubs to lose to the Marlins in Game 7 of the National League Championship Series so that SUV owners could conquer Muslims." Thanks to Son of the Revolution for linking to this site, as well as clueing us in to where Dean gets his theories from.
Nintendo's Big, Bad Gamble
Official word came today of Nintendo's new portable system, the Nintendo DS. I should say upfront that I'm a Nintendo loyalist - if I'm going to buy a game system, I always buy Nintendo. They release the highest quality product, have the best proprietary games (good games from the other systems usually come out on PC), and are the most innovative company out there.
That being said, they've seriously lost touch with the general gaming public over the last 10 years or so. The Virtual Boy was a gigantic failure. The Nintendo 64 was a huge miscalculation - by not using a CD format, they lost out on tons of 3rd party games, all of which went to Playstation. This put them in such a poor position that they've struggled to bring 3rd party interest back for the Gamecube, which is a superb system. But even with Gamecube, they've failed to capitalize on both modern hard drive capabilities (unlike X-Box, which allows players to save enormous amounts of information for later playing) and the online market (another area X-Box was well-prepared for). Thus, it took an enormous price-cut just to stay in the running with X-Box and Playstation 2, but the consequence is that Nintendo is starting to lose money for the first time in its existence.
Meanwhile, the portable gaming end of things keeps Nintendo afloat. The Game Boy and the Game Boy Advance are an unqualified success - a bigger success than even the Playstation 1 and 2. Nintendo completely controls the market, as they have for 15 years, and continues to swat away competitors with little effort. The Nokia N-Gage is the most recent example. But Sony is readying the PSP, a portable system as powerful as a Playstation 2, with additional music and video support (the Game Boy Advance is comparable in power to a 1991 console system, namely the Super Nintendo).
This is the state of play as we enter 2004. Nintendo, though they won't admit it, are in a do-or-die situation here. They have a new console system (as yet unseen) and a new portable system (the Nintendo DS, we now know) coming out within the next 18 months. They can probably survive one failure, but they can't survive the failure of both. Better place your bets on the console, if you ask me.
This new system reeks of Virtual Boy-like overproduction with little payoff. Here's a description:
"There will be twin 3 inch TFT LCD screens of Game Boy Advance SP standard. The screens will be back-lit; the processors are confirmed as an ARM9 main unit, with an ARM7 sub-processor; the DS will be cartridge-based, with semi-conductor memory maxing out at 1 gigabit.
Games will be split into two fields of view, with one screen hosting the main game action and the other managing data and information. Nintendo of Europe confirmed this morning that the screens will be vertically aligned and flush fitting, this layout combining to make one larger screen. No control system was revealed."
The two screen idea is certainly innovative, but I don't feel it adds that much to the experience, and will make the system a bit unwieldy to hold. Sure, you won't have to hit pause to see information and such, and they'll probably come up with some interesting uses for the screens, but the power of the system just doesn't compare to the coming PSP - the Nintendo DS is at a 1996 console-level in terms of graphics, and it's competing against the 2001 console-level of the PSP. Perhaps even more important is the price will be fairly similar to the PSP: about $150 (PSP is looking to be $200 or so). I just don't feel the two screens will be such a advantageous feature that gamers won't mind playing less-advanced games graphically. As one market analyst put it:
"If Nintendo had released a portable GameCube, it would have rejuvenated GameCube development in the wider context. This way, the firm is a generation behind Sony, and is split across supporting three separate platforms, and will incur the R&D costs of developing an entirely new machine. It seems like a mistake."
I have to agree.
That being said, they've seriously lost touch with the general gaming public over the last 10 years or so. The Virtual Boy was a gigantic failure. The Nintendo 64 was a huge miscalculation - by not using a CD format, they lost out on tons of 3rd party games, all of which went to Playstation. This put them in such a poor position that they've struggled to bring 3rd party interest back for the Gamecube, which is a superb system. But even with Gamecube, they've failed to capitalize on both modern hard drive capabilities (unlike X-Box, which allows players to save enormous amounts of information for later playing) and the online market (another area X-Box was well-prepared for). Thus, it took an enormous price-cut just to stay in the running with X-Box and Playstation 2, but the consequence is that Nintendo is starting to lose money for the first time in its existence.
Meanwhile, the portable gaming end of things keeps Nintendo afloat. The Game Boy and the Game Boy Advance are an unqualified success - a bigger success than even the Playstation 1 and 2. Nintendo completely controls the market, as they have for 15 years, and continues to swat away competitors with little effort. The Nokia N-Gage is the most recent example. But Sony is readying the PSP, a portable system as powerful as a Playstation 2, with additional music and video support (the Game Boy Advance is comparable in power to a 1991 console system, namely the Super Nintendo).
This is the state of play as we enter 2004. Nintendo, though they won't admit it, are in a do-or-die situation here. They have a new console system (as yet unseen) and a new portable system (the Nintendo DS, we now know) coming out within the next 18 months. They can probably survive one failure, but they can't survive the failure of both. Better place your bets on the console, if you ask me.
This new system reeks of Virtual Boy-like overproduction with little payoff. Here's a description:
"There will be twin 3 inch TFT LCD screens of Game Boy Advance SP standard. The screens will be back-lit; the processors are confirmed as an ARM9 main unit, with an ARM7 sub-processor; the DS will be cartridge-based, with semi-conductor memory maxing out at 1 gigabit.
Games will be split into two fields of view, with one screen hosting the main game action and the other managing data and information. Nintendo of Europe confirmed this morning that the screens will be vertically aligned and flush fitting, this layout combining to make one larger screen. No control system was revealed."
The two screen idea is certainly innovative, but I don't feel it adds that much to the experience, and will make the system a bit unwieldy to hold. Sure, you won't have to hit pause to see information and such, and they'll probably come up with some interesting uses for the screens, but the power of the system just doesn't compare to the coming PSP - the Nintendo DS is at a 1996 console-level in terms of graphics, and it's competing against the 2001 console-level of the PSP. Perhaps even more important is the price will be fairly similar to the PSP: about $150 (PSP is looking to be $200 or so). I just don't feel the two screens will be such a advantageous feature that gamers won't mind playing less-advanced games graphically. As one market analyst put it:
"If Nintendo had released a portable GameCube, it would have rejuvenated GameCube development in the wider context. This way, the firm is a generation behind Sony, and is split across supporting three separate platforms, and will incur the R&D costs of developing an entirely new machine. It seems like a mistake."
I have to agree.
Commenting Feature Changed
We're now using Haloscan like the rest of the civilized world. That is, unless somebody recommends something better. As long as Haloscan works when the site is busy and doesn't periodically delete all of our comments, I won't complain.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Kozinski Quotables
From his dissent in Jahed v INS:
"The question in this case is, in the immortal words of Humpty Dumpty, which is to be the master—that’s all. When it comes to the granting of asylum, Congress has said the BIA is the master. The statute provides it, the other courts of appeals recognize it and the Supreme Court keeps reminding us of it. But to no avail. Maybe there’s something in the water out here, but our court seems bent on denying the BIA the deference a reviewing court owes an administrative agency. Instead, my colleagues prefer to tinker—to do the job of the Immigration Judge and the BIA, rather than their own.
. . . We know such things much better than the IJ and the BIA, so we’re going to find the facts ourselves. But, isn’t this what we got slammed for just last Term? Well, never mind. The government can’t bother the Supremes every time we go over the top, so it’s a fair bet that if we keep marching to our own drummer we’ll mostly get away with it."
Judge Cassandra, I mean, Kozinski, has been making these arguments for a long time, but few in the Ninth Circuit listen. He's a little more direct here, though - accusing Judge Trott (a Reagan nominee) of defying the Supreme Court because he thinks he can get away with it is no small thing.
I'm not sure if Judge Trott deserves Kozinski's charge, but it's certainly true of other judges on the circuit. When you have an ends-based judicial philosophy, you're going to have to stretch sometimes to get what you want. Republican judges are guilty of this too - Judge Kozinski in takings cases, for example. But the Supreme Court hasn't given the same signals on takings as they have on agency deference, and at some point "distinguishing" around Supreme Court cases will just become nihilistic. Perhaps Ninth Circuit judges should ask themselves "what would the Supreme Court do?" along with "what didn't the Supreme Court say?" and take the former into account at least as much as the latter when coming to a result. (from How Appealing)
"The question in this case is, in the immortal words of Humpty Dumpty, which is to be the master—that’s all. When it comes to the granting of asylum, Congress has said the BIA is the master. The statute provides it, the other courts of appeals recognize it and the Supreme Court keeps reminding us of it. But to no avail. Maybe there’s something in the water out here, but our court seems bent on denying the BIA the deference a reviewing court owes an administrative agency. Instead, my colleagues prefer to tinker—to do the job of the Immigration Judge and the BIA, rather than their own.
. . . We know such things much better than the IJ and the BIA, so we’re going to find the facts ourselves. But, isn’t this what we got slammed for just last Term? Well, never mind. The government can’t bother the Supremes every time we go over the top, so it’s a fair bet that if we keep marching to our own drummer we’ll mostly get away with it."
Judge Cassandra, I mean, Kozinski, has been making these arguments for a long time, but few in the Ninth Circuit listen. He's a little more direct here, though - accusing Judge Trott (a Reagan nominee) of defying the Supreme Court because he thinks he can get away with it is no small thing.
I'm not sure if Judge Trott deserves Kozinski's charge, but it's certainly true of other judges on the circuit. When you have an ends-based judicial philosophy, you're going to have to stretch sometimes to get what you want. Republican judges are guilty of this too - Judge Kozinski in takings cases, for example. But the Supreme Court hasn't given the same signals on takings as they have on agency deference, and at some point "distinguishing" around Supreme Court cases will just become nihilistic. Perhaps Ninth Circuit judges should ask themselves "what would the Supreme Court do?" along with "what didn't the Supreme Court say?" and take the former into account at least as much as the latter when coming to a result. (from How Appealing)
Monday, January 19, 2004
Iowa Caucus Roundup
Yeah yeah, so Kerry got the surge he requested. But the way he requested it was so creepy:
"'Do you like the surge?' Kerry hollered at the Sanford Community Center. 'Are you ready to make more and more surge and a surprise on Monday?'"
The mostly-incontinent crowd obliged him immediately. As for the "surprise," don't even ask.
Gephardt's gone, as was expected if he didn't win or come close to it. Quote:
"'Life will go on because this campaign was never about me,' a somber Gephardt told supporters . . ."
Probably wouldn't have hurt to make the campaign about you, Dick. Perhaps Iowans wouldn't be saying things like this:
"'I thought he had died, so when he ran again I was surprised,' said Nancy Trotter, 53, a Des Moines attorney who was one of 20 likely caucus-goers gathered last week by pollster Frank Luntz to assess the race."
And she's an attorney!
Speaking of people long thought dead, Clark received the endorsement of George McGovern. This makes Clark a viable contender in the race for the most endorsements by has-been Democratic presidential nominees. Be sure to listen to McGovern closely, Wesley.
Edwards, who is my favorite nominee (after Kucinich of course), did well. Perhaps the endorsement by the Des Moines Register made the difference. We all saw how stunning and insightful the Register's crew was during those last two debates, so it's easy to see how informed readers like attorney Nancy Trotter, 53, were swayed.
I'm sure Dean now maintains that Iowa doesn't matter, and that he never said otherwise. If you're not a doctor, you wouldn't understand. Surprisingly, the Mosely Braun endorsement, his valiant defeat of Sharpton in the D.C. protest primary, and his wife's sudden interest in his campaign didn't make a lick of difference.
Who's left? Lieberman only captured Iowa's New Republic readers, but then again, he wasn't trying. Sadly, Kucinich was. Kind of. And Sharpton, clearly a front-runner coming off of his aforementioned second place finish in D.C., must be disappointed. Better blame it on Steven Pagones.
"'Do you like the surge?' Kerry hollered at the Sanford Community Center. 'Are you ready to make more and more surge and a surprise on Monday?'"
The mostly-incontinent crowd obliged him immediately. As for the "surprise," don't even ask.
Gephardt's gone, as was expected if he didn't win or come close to it. Quote:
"'Life will go on because this campaign was never about me,' a somber Gephardt told supporters . . ."
Probably wouldn't have hurt to make the campaign about you, Dick. Perhaps Iowans wouldn't be saying things like this:
"'I thought he had died, so when he ran again I was surprised,' said Nancy Trotter, 53, a Des Moines attorney who was one of 20 likely caucus-goers gathered last week by pollster Frank Luntz to assess the race."
And she's an attorney!
Speaking of people long thought dead, Clark received the endorsement of George McGovern. This makes Clark a viable contender in the race for the most endorsements by has-been Democratic presidential nominees. Be sure to listen to McGovern closely, Wesley.
Edwards, who is my favorite nominee (after Kucinich of course), did well. Perhaps the endorsement by the Des Moines Register made the difference. We all saw how stunning and insightful the Register's crew was during those last two debates, so it's easy to see how informed readers like attorney Nancy Trotter, 53, were swayed.
I'm sure Dean now maintains that Iowa doesn't matter, and that he never said otherwise. If you're not a doctor, you wouldn't understand. Surprisingly, the Mosely Braun endorsement, his valiant defeat of Sharpton in the D.C. protest primary, and his wife's sudden interest in his campaign didn't make a lick of difference.
Who's left? Lieberman only captured Iowa's New Republic readers, but then again, he wasn't trying. Sadly, Kucinich was. Kind of. And Sharpton, clearly a front-runner coming off of his aforementioned second place finish in D.C., must be disappointed. Better blame it on Steven Pagones.
1000 Hits and a Few More Links
Today we reached 1000 hits, which is very cool. Not cool if you're, say, Howard Bashman, because he gets that many on a bathroom break. That is, if Howard's actually human, though he seems to be in this video. Anyway, thanks for reading.
Oh, and extra thanks to Larry Solum for his kind greeting, and to Greg Goelzhauser for linking to us.
Oh, and extra thanks to Larry Solum for his kind greeting, and to Greg Goelzhauser for linking to us.
Kucinich's New Strategy
Since I'm the leading (only?) online source for news on Kucinich, I feel it's my duty to report on him in Iowa. From his personal life to his common sense political ideas, I've been with Kucinich from the beginning.
But now things might be coming to an end. Kucinich wants his people to vote for Edwards in the unlikely event he can't garner 15 percent (the threshold number to maintain a viable voting group) of the vote in a given caucus. As National Review's Stanley Kurtz puts it:
"I find this incredible. But that’s because I find the Kucinich candidacy incredible to begin with. I suppose Kucinich is telling his supporters to go to Edwards in hopes of preventing them from going to Dean, their natural second choice. This does make sense if Kucinich is trying to prevent Dean from winning, thus taking command of the left and effectively ending Kucinich’s candidacy. But the Kucinich candidacy doesn’t make sense in the first place."
Well, it doesn't make sense to The Establishment, Stanley. I'm sure this would make perfect sense if you were high, like all of Kucinich's supporters. Next thing you know, Kurtz will claim The Rocky Horror Picture Show doesn't make any sense either.
But now things might be coming to an end. Kucinich wants his people to vote for Edwards in the unlikely event he can't garner 15 percent (the threshold number to maintain a viable voting group) of the vote in a given caucus. As National Review's Stanley Kurtz puts it:
"I find this incredible. But that’s because I find the Kucinich candidacy incredible to begin with. I suppose Kucinich is telling his supporters to go to Edwards in hopes of preventing them from going to Dean, their natural second choice. This does make sense if Kucinich is trying to prevent Dean from winning, thus taking command of the left and effectively ending Kucinich’s candidacy. But the Kucinich candidacy doesn’t make sense in the first place."
Well, it doesn't make sense to The Establishment, Stanley. I'm sure this would make perfect sense if you were high, like all of Kucinich's supporters. Next thing you know, Kurtz will claim The Rocky Horror Picture Show doesn't make any sense either.
Sunday, January 18, 2004
U Chicago Law Clinic Victory
The Mandel Legal Aid Clinic reached a $500,000 settlement with the City of Chicago this week. I guess the Chicago police raided a basketball tournament and searched everyone there. There's probably a lot more to this story, but whatever the merits of the case, congratulations to my 20 classmates who surely worked very hard on this project. (from Paper Chase)
Michael Moore: 'We're going to have the best chance with Clark'
CNN
Wolf Blitzer interview with Michael Moore. Check out this part:
"BLITZER: What do you have against Joe Lieberman?
MOORE: Well, he's running in the wrong party. Lieberman is kind of like a liberal to moderate Republican. You know, he's Bush-light. And God bless him, but he just doesn't really belong in this party."
As I said before, the Democratic party needs to figure out what it is. Is it the party of the Michael Moores or of the New Republic? It doesn't seem good at being both.
I mean, when was the last time a Republican said, "our so-and-so presidential candidate should really be a Democrat." Even John McCain wasn't susceptible to that critique - the conventional wisdom was that he would go independent, if anything, because he was too fiscally conservative to be a Democrat. In fact, the other two Republicans who did leave the party within the last 40 years (Bob Smith and James Jeffords) both became independents, not Democrats (Smith rejoined the Republicans a few months later). Meanwhile, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, Richard Shelby, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell all switched from Democrat to Republican (and Campbell shows it's not just a southern thing). Only Harry Byrd Jr. went Democrat to independent.
All of this brings me to a tentative conclusion: the Democrats may have a bigger tent for the public, but the Republicans offer a bigger tent for politicians. Moderate Republicans just wouldn't feel comfortable in the Democratic party, because they wouldn't be sure what they're joining. With the Republicans, you basically know what you're getting (the ol' less taxes, strong defense, pro-business routine), and, as Tom mentioned in a comment to my previous post, the Republicans seem adept at coopting politicians who believe in some, but not all, of the party's principles. Thus, Republicans are better at embracing politicians at the margins. Certainly Jeffords is a counterargument to this point (he felt the party ignored moderates). But the fact that Jeffords only felt comfortable caucusing with the Democrats, not joining them, supports my larger point that the Democratic party has serious identity problems. They need to see a psychiatrist. What's Jim McDermott doing these days?
Wolf Blitzer interview with Michael Moore. Check out this part:
"BLITZER: What do you have against Joe Lieberman?
MOORE: Well, he's running in the wrong party. Lieberman is kind of like a liberal to moderate Republican. You know, he's Bush-light. And God bless him, but he just doesn't really belong in this party."
As I said before, the Democratic party needs to figure out what it is. Is it the party of the Michael Moores or of the New Republic? It doesn't seem good at being both.
I mean, when was the last time a Republican said, "our so-and-so presidential candidate should really be a Democrat." Even John McCain wasn't susceptible to that critique - the conventional wisdom was that he would go independent, if anything, because he was too fiscally conservative to be a Democrat. In fact, the other two Republicans who did leave the party within the last 40 years (Bob Smith and James Jeffords) both became independents, not Democrats (Smith rejoined the Republicans a few months later). Meanwhile, Strom Thurmond, Phil Gramm, Richard Shelby, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell all switched from Democrat to Republican (and Campbell shows it's not just a southern thing). Only Harry Byrd Jr. went Democrat to independent.
All of this brings me to a tentative conclusion: the Democrats may have a bigger tent for the public, but the Republicans offer a bigger tent for politicians. Moderate Republicans just wouldn't feel comfortable in the Democratic party, because they wouldn't be sure what they're joining. With the Republicans, you basically know what you're getting (the ol' less taxes, strong defense, pro-business routine), and, as Tom mentioned in a comment to my previous post, the Republicans seem adept at coopting politicians who believe in some, but not all, of the party's principles. Thus, Republicans are better at embracing politicians at the margins. Certainly Jeffords is a counterargument to this point (he felt the party ignored moderates). But the fact that Jeffords only felt comfortable caucusing with the Democrats, not joining them, supports my larger point that the Democratic party has serious identity problems. They need to see a psychiatrist. What's Jim McDermott doing these days?
Saturday, January 17, 2004
Cass-piracy Theories
So Ben has now outed us - we work on the top-secret Chicago Judges Project. It's so secret, it has a website without our names mentioned anywhere.
So anyway, I'm sure all of you are wondering, how does Cass Sunstein do it? He's the most cited legal scholar in the nation, he writes a book a week, he runs this project, and he's a nice, funny guy. Well, everyone has a theory on how he pulls it off (yes, even you, even if you've never heard of him). Here's mine:
Elves. Or as Cass likes to call it, "outsourcing." They work behind the ceiling-high piles of stuff in his office. With few other opportunities for gainful employment in life, they're perfectly content to write on the nondelegation doctrine, moral heuristics, and the legal rights of gorillas. I know, I know, you should've guessed. Why would a famous professor follow up a book on behavioral economics with an unauthorized biography of Verne Troyer? It all makes sense now, doesn it. So go to sleep. I should've a long time ago, clearly.
So anyway, I'm sure all of you are wondering, how does Cass Sunstein do it? He's the most cited legal scholar in the nation, he writes a book a week, he runs this project, and he's a nice, funny guy. Well, everyone has a theory on how he pulls it off (yes, even you, even if you've never heard of him). Here's mine:
Elves. Or as Cass likes to call it, "outsourcing." They work behind the ceiling-high piles of stuff in his office. With few other opportunities for gainful employment in life, they're perfectly content to write on the nondelegation doctrine, moral heuristics, and the legal rights of gorillas. I know, I know, you should've guessed. Why would a famous professor follow up a book on behavioral economics with an unauthorized biography of Verne Troyer? It all makes sense now, doesn it. So go to sleep. I should've a long time ago, clearly.
Airline Gave Government Information on Passengers
New York Times
I smell a class action. I see class actions everywhere now that I'm taking a class action class. Prepare for false contrition and coupons galore.*
* Note that this post is in no way a comment on the litigious nature of our society, the non-litigious nature of our society, the state of lawyers, the law, equity, the common law, or the uncommon law (admiralty). The article does not say anyone is pursuing a class action, plans on pursuing a class action, or has any class whatsoever.
Fhew! Staved off the Curmudgeonly Clerk for now.
I smell a class action. I see class actions everywhere now that I'm taking a class action class. Prepare for false contrition and coupons galore.*
* Note that this post is in no way a comment on the litigious nature of our society, the non-litigious nature of our society, the state of lawyers, the law, equity, the common law, or the uncommon law (admiralty). The article does not say anyone is pursuing a class action, plans on pursuing a class action, or has any class whatsoever.
Fhew! Staved off the Curmudgeonly Clerk for now.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Cheney Hunting Trip With Scalia Raises Impartiality Questions
Los Angeles Times
Another juicy Scalia recusal issue. Since I opine on recusal issues from time to time (it was the topic of my senior thesis, which you can read a rough version of here), why stop now?
The article mentions that the "code of conduct for federal judges sets guidelines for members of the judiciary, but it does not set clear-cut rules." That's partially true, but judicial "code of conduct" is distinct from 28 USC 455, subsection (b) of which sets down some pretty clear rules.
Unfortunately, Scalia doesn't fit into any of these, so were left with section (a), which states that "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Interestingly, Justice Scalia himself wrote the majority opinion in the last case examining subsection (a): Liteky v United States, 510 US 540 (1994). (Yes, note the Maroonbooking, how exotic). He strengthened the rule that impartiality under section 455 generally must come from an extrajudicial source, not from, say, prior judicial experiences with a party.
However, an unwritten rule also dominates this area: it doesn't really matter that your "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," if it's questioned because of personal wisdom gained from past experiences. For example, in Laird v Tatum, 409 US 824 (1972), Justice Rehnquist's potential bias came from work experience in the Nixon administration. Since we want judges with experience in the issues they adjudicate (or so the argument goes), the section 455 standard is often sidestepped if the Justice's situation is similar to Rehnquist's in Laird, where he worked on military issues in the Nixon administration closely related to the case before him. As Rehnquist put it, if section 455 demanded recusal from those with personal experience in certain areas, the perfect judge would be a "tabula rasa": unbiased, unopinionated, uncontroversial, and uninspiring. You know, like the opposing party's "perfect" judicial nominee.
With that caveat, however, the subjective "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" standard is in play, and the Scalia/Cheney situation is a good candidate for its application. Scalia's potential bias comes from his personal and on-going friendship with Cheney. It reminds me a bit of the Burger - Nixon relationship, only less egregious (Scalia presumably isn't advising Cheney on policy matters). Many scholars argue that these friendships are traditionally ok so long as they are put on hiatus while a court proceeding is pending. I disagree - the nature of their relationship hasn't changed just because one is now a party to a pending case and they won't see each other for a few months. After all, the bias at issue isn't that Cheney will talk to Scalia about the case (that's a cut and dry recusal situation), but that Scalia's bonds with Cheney will subconsciously influence him. That's why the standard is so subjective, and takes the view of a third person examining the situation. If this outsider might "reasonably question" the Justice's impartiality, it's time to pack your bags. I think we have a chorus of people viewing this situation with reasonable skepticism (as opposed to partisan motives), so the answer is obvious to me. Justice Scalia, time to exit stage left. Or right, if you prefer.
Another juicy Scalia recusal issue. Since I opine on recusal issues from time to time (it was the topic of my senior thesis, which you can read a rough version of here), why stop now?
The article mentions that the "code of conduct for federal judges sets guidelines for members of the judiciary, but it does not set clear-cut rules." That's partially true, but judicial "code of conduct" is distinct from 28 USC 455, subsection (b) of which sets down some pretty clear rules.
Unfortunately, Scalia doesn't fit into any of these, so were left with section (a), which states that "[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Interestingly, Justice Scalia himself wrote the majority opinion in the last case examining subsection (a): Liteky v United States, 510 US 540 (1994). (Yes, note the Maroonbooking, how exotic). He strengthened the rule that impartiality under section 455 generally must come from an extrajudicial source, not from, say, prior judicial experiences with a party.
However, an unwritten rule also dominates this area: it doesn't really matter that your "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," if it's questioned because of personal wisdom gained from past experiences. For example, in Laird v Tatum, 409 US 824 (1972), Justice Rehnquist's potential bias came from work experience in the Nixon administration. Since we want judges with experience in the issues they adjudicate (or so the argument goes), the section 455 standard is often sidestepped if the Justice's situation is similar to Rehnquist's in Laird, where he worked on military issues in the Nixon administration closely related to the case before him. As Rehnquist put it, if section 455 demanded recusal from those with personal experience in certain areas, the perfect judge would be a "tabula rasa": unbiased, unopinionated, uncontroversial, and uninspiring. You know, like the opposing party's "perfect" judicial nominee.
With that caveat, however, the subjective "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" standard is in play, and the Scalia/Cheney situation is a good candidate for its application. Scalia's potential bias comes from his personal and on-going friendship with Cheney. It reminds me a bit of the Burger - Nixon relationship, only less egregious (Scalia presumably isn't advising Cheney on policy matters). Many scholars argue that these friendships are traditionally ok so long as they are put on hiatus while a court proceeding is pending. I disagree - the nature of their relationship hasn't changed just because one is now a party to a pending case and they won't see each other for a few months. After all, the bias at issue isn't that Cheney will talk to Scalia about the case (that's a cut and dry recusal situation), but that Scalia's bonds with Cheney will subconsciously influence him. That's why the standard is so subjective, and takes the view of a third person examining the situation. If this outsider might "reasonably question" the Justice's impartiality, it's time to pack your bags. I think we have a chorus of people viewing this situation with reasonable skepticism (as opposed to partisan motives), so the answer is obvious to me. Justice Scalia, time to exit stage left. Or right, if you prefer.
Rumors of Castro's Death Sweep Miami-Dade -- Again
Miami Herald
Folks from southern Florida aren't particularly adept at distinguishing between dictators, presidential candidates, neighbors, and the like, so you can't really trust this one yet (Exhibit A: Pat Buchanan, who was both a presidential candidate and a potential dictator). Plus, you know how eager old people are to tell stories about who died. (from The Corner)
Folks from southern Florida aren't particularly adept at distinguishing between dictators, presidential candidates, neighbors, and the like, so you can't really trust this one yet (Exhibit A: Pat Buchanan, who was both a presidential candidate and a potential dictator). Plus, you know how eager old people are to tell stories about who died. (from The Corner)
What A Day!
Today we had no less than two links from sites people actually read. Crescat Sententia linked to us here, and Howard Bashman linked to us here concerning our work for the Chicago Judges Project.
Thanks guys!
Thanks guys!
President Bush Uses Recess Appointment for Pickering
Oh no he didn't! Wow! I never thought he'd actually do it. This is going to seriously piss some Democrats off. Chuck Schumer is going to throw a fit. I'm pretty sure Randy Barnett predicted this, along with a few other people, so score one for them. (from How Appealing)
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Release Saddam Say Jordan Lawyers
Al Jazeera
"The Jordan Bar Association (JBA) is demanding former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein be released from detention and that US and UK occupiers face war crimes charges."
Finally, we know what the Jordan Bar Association thinks of the Saddam situation. Better set him free and give yourself up, folks. Once the JBA's had its say, it's time to walk away. (from Paper Chase)
"The Jordan Bar Association (JBA) is demanding former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein be released from detention and that US and UK occupiers face war crimes charges."
Finally, we know what the Jordan Bar Association thinks of the Saddam situation. Better set him free and give yourself up, folks. Once the JBA's had its say, it's time to walk away. (from Paper Chase)
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
Carol Moseley Braun Reportedly Dropping Out of Race for Democratic Nomination
National Press Club
Ben, what did you do to her? Now there's no Chicago Law alums left in the presidential race. Is that what you really wanted? Huh? Huh?
Actually I think Moseley Braun may have had this in mind for a while. At the last debate, she was given an opportunity to ask a question to another candidate. Instead of making a point or challenging anybody, she asked, "who here will support the democratic nominee, no matter who they are?" (I'm paraphrasing), mirroring Dean's earlier move. Now looks like she's going to make good on her promise and support him.
Still, I think it's equally plausible Ben sabatoged her. (from The Corner)
Ben, what did you do to her? Now there's no Chicago Law alums left in the presidential race. Is that what you really wanted? Huh? Huh?
Actually I think Moseley Braun may have had this in mind for a while. At the last debate, she was given an opportunity to ask a question to another candidate. Instead of making a point or challenging anybody, she asked, "who here will support the democratic nominee, no matter who they are?" (I'm paraphrasing), mirroring Dean's earlier move. Now looks like she's going to make good on her promise and support him.
Still, I think it's equally plausible Ben sabatoged her. (from The Corner)
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
The Bush Democrats, by David Brooks
New York Times
Brooks discusses "Republican unity and Democratic fissures," concepts I discussed here. Except Brooks has numbers and evidence and stuff. I just talk out of my ass. But, and many will tell you this, my ass has great intuition.
Brooks discusses "Republican unity and Democratic fissures," concepts I discussed here. Except Brooks has numbers and evidence and stuff. I just talk out of my ass. But, and many will tell you this, my ass has great intuition.
Jeff Jarvis - Claremont Man
I just found out that Jeff Jarvis, popular blogger and creator of Entertainment Weekly (among other accomplishments) is a fellow CMC alum, class of 1975 (the same class as David Dreier, incidentally). Now you've found out, too.
Tournament of Federal Appellate Judges
Who wins? Posner and Easterbrook, baby. Though Judge Wood did well too. Check it out here. (from How Appealing)
Saturday, January 10, 2004
Wednesday, January 07, 2004
The New Republic Endorses Lieberman
CNN
"'The Democratic Party is racing back to the '80s, with interest groups enforcing litmus tests on everything from partial-birth abortion to steel tariffs, and party activists dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld,' The New Republic said.
Dean has helped create this mood of self-righteous delusion, and his competitors have, to varying degrees, accommodated themselves to it. Only Lieberman -- the supposed candidate of appeasement -- is challenging his party, enduring boos at event after event, to articulate a different, better vision of what it means to be a Democrat."
I think the Democrats have to decide who they are before they start running for presidential elections. Clearly, The New Republic's vision of the party is wildly different from that of the Dean supporters. The Republicans don't have these identity crises to nearly the same degree (though there are significant disagreements, no question about it).
I think that's because Republicans are anchored by certain ideas, such as supporting business, lowering taxes, and limiting government (pay no attention to the Medicare reform in the corner). The Democrats are united by particular rights issues like abortion, but little else. There are other Democratic ideas, and Dean represents many of them, but I think the party is worried that they're too unpopular. I think the other side of the party wants "popularity" or "the middle" to be the party's animating idea. Although being in the middle sounds attractive, I think it takes a great politician to pull it off without seeming wishy-washy. Clinton was a great politician. Gore was not. I don't think Lieberman is either.
The New Republic might be right that "the middle" concept is a better vision of the Democrats than one dominated by the views of its interest groups (aka the "idea" groups), but this group of moderate candidates isn't up to it. Real ideas can be compelling (even bad ones), so I think Dean is the Democrats' best shot this time.
"'The Democratic Party is racing back to the '80s, with interest groups enforcing litmus tests on everything from partial-birth abortion to steel tariffs, and party activists dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld,' The New Republic said.
Dean has helped create this mood of self-righteous delusion, and his competitors have, to varying degrees, accommodated themselves to it. Only Lieberman -- the supposed candidate of appeasement -- is challenging his party, enduring boos at event after event, to articulate a different, better vision of what it means to be a Democrat."
I think the Democrats have to decide who they are before they start running for presidential elections. Clearly, The New Republic's vision of the party is wildly different from that of the Dean supporters. The Republicans don't have these identity crises to nearly the same degree (though there are significant disagreements, no question about it).
I think that's because Republicans are anchored by certain ideas, such as supporting business, lowering taxes, and limiting government (pay no attention to the Medicare reform in the corner). The Democrats are united by particular rights issues like abortion, but little else. There are other Democratic ideas, and Dean represents many of them, but I think the party is worried that they're too unpopular. I think the other side of the party wants "popularity" or "the middle" to be the party's animating idea. Although being in the middle sounds attractive, I think it takes a great politician to pull it off without seeming wishy-washy. Clinton was a great politician. Gore was not. I don't think Lieberman is either.
The New Republic might be right that "the middle" concept is a better vision of the Democrats than one dominated by the views of its interest groups (aka the "idea" groups), but this group of moderate candidates isn't up to it. Real ideas can be compelling (even bad ones), so I think Dean is the Democrats' best shot this time.
Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper
Washington Post
You gotta check out the picture in the article. It looks like grade school doodling. It's even on lined paper. I had more advanced weapons plans in 3rd grade - my rockets had wings and a cap and stuff, and I could always turn the paper into a sharp airplane. They can poke people's eyes out, you know.
You gotta check out the picture in the article. It looks like grade school doodling. It's even on lined paper. I had more advanced weapons plans in 3rd grade - my rockets had wings and a cap and stuff, and I could always turn the paper into a sharp airplane. They can poke people's eyes out, you know.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
Woman Says She Lost Ticket Worth $162 Million
Associated Press
This just sucks. But hey, after taxes she wouldn't see any of it. Ok, so she'd see about 100 million, but who wants 100 million dollars when the government keeps 60?
Oh sure, I would still want it, but I expect more from you.
UPDATE: So she made it up. My point still stands, though I'm not sure how or why. If there was a point.
This just sucks. But hey, after taxes she wouldn't see any of it. Ok, so she'd see about 100 million, but who wants 100 million dollars when the government keeps 60?
Oh sure, I would still want it, but I expect more from you.
UPDATE: So she made it up. My point still stands, though I'm not sure how or why. If there was a point.
Hillary Clinton 'truly regrets' Gandhi Joke: Remarks called stereotypical, racially insensitive
Associated Press
Clinton said Gandhi was actually Apu. This is the price you pay when you finally start speaking your mind, Hillary.
Clinton said Gandhi was actually Apu. This is the price you pay when you finally start speaking your mind, Hillary.
Arkansas Executes Mentally Ill Inmate
CNN
The headline is misleading: the defendant was ruled sane when he stabbed a woman to death during a robbery in 1979. His schizophrenia worsened to a "mentally ill" point during his time in jail. I don't think you should win immunity from the death penalty by becoming insane. After all, murdering someone will do that to anyone with a conscience.
The headline is misleading: the defendant was ruled sane when he stabbed a woman to death during a robbery in 1979. His schizophrenia worsened to a "mentally ill" point during his time in jail. I don't think you should win immunity from the death penalty by becoming insane. After all, murdering someone will do that to anyone with a conscience.
Monday, January 05, 2004
Bill Bradley to Back Dean
New York Times
No question about it - Dean leads everyone in endorsements from failed Democratic presidential candidates. Woo hoo!
No question about it - Dean leads everyone in endorsements from failed Democratic presidential candidates. Woo hoo!
Sunday, January 04, 2004
The 100-Megabit Guitar: Gibson's maverick CEO wants to shove Ethernet up your ax and rock the music world
Wired
Ethernet cords will replace guitar cords on some Gibson guitars. I know purists will hate this, but it's actually a great idea. I hope it catches on.
Ethernet cords will replace guitar cords on some Gibson guitars. I know purists will hate this, but it's actually a great idea. I hope it catches on.
Rose Admits Baseball Bets in Book
Chicago Sun-Times
Pete Rose proves to be a liar of epic proportions. He shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame even if he does admit it. He's probably only doing it to get in anyway. He's never shown any remorse, only lies. Keep him out.
Pete Rose proves to be a liar of epic proportions. He shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame even if he does admit it. He's probably only doing it to get in anyway. He's never shown any remorse, only lies. Keep him out.
Ukraine President Wins Right to Seek New Term
International Herald Tribune
"The supreme court of Ukraine ruled Tuesday that President Leonid Kuchma could run for a third five-year term this year, angering opposition politicians who called the ruling a dodge around the constitution’s two-term limit.
The court ruled that because Kuchma was first elected in 1994, two years before the constitution was enacted, his first term did not count against him if he wants to hold on to office."
I know transitioning between constitutions can be tricky (take us, for example), but this seems like a pretty terrible decision. I think the Ukrainian constitution, in the absencee of an exemption for current presidents (ex. the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment), must apply the law as written - two terms and out, no matter what. Ex post facto laws specifically protect criminal defendants from this type of behavior, but that is the exception to the rule. The Ukrainian president falls within the law, and shouldn't be allowed to run again.
And, in more international constitutional news, the Afghans now have one.
As you can see, Ukrainian and Afghan constitutional issues are a specialty of mine. It's all I follow, really. (from Paper Chase)
"The supreme court of Ukraine ruled Tuesday that President Leonid Kuchma could run for a third five-year term this year, angering opposition politicians who called the ruling a dodge around the constitution’s two-term limit.
The court ruled that because Kuchma was first elected in 1994, two years before the constitution was enacted, his first term did not count against him if he wants to hold on to office."
I know transitioning between constitutions can be tricky (take us, for example), but this seems like a pretty terrible decision. I think the Ukrainian constitution, in the absencee of an exemption for current presidents (ex. the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment), must apply the law as written - two terms and out, no matter what. Ex post facto laws specifically protect criminal defendants from this type of behavior, but that is the exception to the rule. The Ukrainian president falls within the law, and shouldn't be allowed to run again.
And, in more international constitutional news, the Afghans now have one.
As you can see, Ukrainian and Afghan constitutional issues are a specialty of mine. It's all I follow, really. (from Paper Chase)
The O'Connor Project: Can we end racial discrimination without affirmative action? Here's what it will take
American Prospect
Since affirmative action is racial discrimination, ending it couldn't hurt. (from How Appealing)
Since affirmative action is racial discrimination, ending it couldn't hurt. (from How Appealing)
Outfoxed, by Michelle Cottle
New Republic
Cottle argues that the O'Reilly and Coulters of the world should be viewed in the same light as their critics (Franken, Garafalo, etc): they're all ranting entertainers, not journalists. I agree. I think you must view people like O'Reilly in this light if you're going to watch Fox News. You can't take many of the personalities on the channel very seriously. If you're willing to admit this to yourself, it can be fun to watch. But it's the OC fun to watch, not MacNeil Lehrer fun to watch, if that was possible.
Cottle argues that the O'Reilly and Coulters of the world should be viewed in the same light as their critics (Franken, Garafalo, etc): they're all ranting entertainers, not journalists. I agree. I think you must view people like O'Reilly in this light if you're going to watch Fox News. You can't take many of the personalities on the channel very seriously. If you're willing to admit this to yourself, it can be fun to watch. But it's the OC fun to watch, not MacNeil Lehrer fun to watch, if that was possible.
Dean Now Willing to Discuss His Faith: Campaign and Trips to Bible Belt States Changed Him, Candidate Says
Washington Post
"He cited the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - as a strong influence."
I'd imagine his cite went something like this: "My main influences are New Testament works like Electoral Votes, Matthew, . . . I mean Matthew, Luke, John, and Electoral Votes . . . I mean Matthew, Luke, and Job. If they're electoral delegates."
UPDATE: "Dean Blames Bush for Job-less New Testament," according to this Scrappleface column.
"He cited the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - as a strong influence."
I'd imagine his cite went something like this: "My main influences are New Testament works like Electoral Votes, Matthew, . . . I mean Matthew, Luke, John, and Electoral Votes . . . I mean Matthew, Luke, and Job. If they're electoral delegates."
UPDATE: "Dean Blames Bush for Job-less New Testament," according to this Scrappleface column.
From Gang Leader to Strong Mayor
Associated Press
About Eddie Perez, mayor of Hartford, Connecticut. I assumed the article was about this mayor.
About Eddie Perez, mayor of Hartford, Connecticut. I assumed the article was about this mayor.
Britney Spears Weds - But Will Annul Marriage
Associated Press
"Maloof [Spears' friend] denied rumors that Spears was drunk and had to be carried out of the Rain nightclub inside the Palms on New Year's Eve.
'I was with her the whole night,' he said. 'None of those reports were accurate. She was just having a good time.'"
Better to stick with the drunk story at this point. If she got married to this guy [Jason Alexander, but not this one] while sober, she just looks stupid. Or stupider, as least.
"Maloof [Spears' friend] denied rumors that Spears was drunk and had to be carried out of the Rain nightclub inside the Palms on New Year's Eve.
'I was with her the whole night,' he said. 'None of those reports were accurate. She was just having a good time.'"
Better to stick with the drunk story at this point. If she got married to this guy [Jason Alexander, but not this one] while sober, she just looks stupid. Or stupider, as least.
Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs
New York Times
Hopefully this will happen. Budget cuts are in right now, and being a second-term president can be liberating. Almost as liberating as being a former president.
Hopefully this will happen. Budget cuts are in right now, and being a second-term president can be liberating. Almost as liberating as being a former president.
Death With Dignity, Or Door to Abuse?: Popular Dutch Euthanasia Law Continues to Draw Condemnation
Washington Post
"For euthanasia to be legally conducted, the doctor must determine that the patient's suffering is what the law describes as 'unbearable' and 'lasting,' with no prospect of improvement. The doctor must give all 'due care' beforehand, and determine, in consultation with the patient, that 'there is no reasonable alternative.'
Children aged 12 to 16 need their parents' consent, and youths aged 16 to 18 must involve their parents in the decision but do not need parental approval. There is no requirement that the patient's condition be terminal, or that the suffering be physical."
Always good to know there's an safe, legal recourse for 16-year-olds having a really bad week.
"For euthanasia to be legally conducted, the doctor must determine that the patient's suffering is what the law describes as 'unbearable' and 'lasting,' with no prospect of improvement. The doctor must give all 'due care' beforehand, and determine, in consultation with the patient, that 'there is no reasonable alternative.'
Children aged 12 to 16 need their parents' consent, and youths aged 16 to 18 must involve their parents in the decision but do not need parental approval. There is no requirement that the patient's condition be terminal, or that the suffering be physical."
Always good to know there's an safe, legal recourse for 16-year-olds having a really bad week.
Documents: Dean was warned about nuclear plant lapses
Associated Press
"Presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who accuses President Bush of being weak on homeland security, was warned repeatedly as Vermont governor about security lapses at his state's nuclear power plant and was told the state was ill-prepared for a disaster at its most attractive terrorist target.
. . .
Security was so lax at Vermont Yankee that in August 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staged a drill in which three mock terrorists gained access to the plant. The agency gave Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 reactors."
There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time that the reactor might blow. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact, or at least repeated by presidential candidates.
Chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.
"Presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who accuses President Bush of being weak on homeland security, was warned repeatedly as Vermont governor about security lapses at his state's nuclear power plant and was told the state was ill-prepared for a disaster at its most attractive terrorist target.
. . .
Security was so lax at Vermont Yankee that in August 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staged a drill in which three mock terrorists gained access to the plant. The agency gave Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 reactors."
There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't—think it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time that the reactor might blow. Now, who knows what the real situation is, but the trouble is that by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and then eventually they get repeated as fact, or at least repeated by presidential candidates.
Chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.
Thursday, January 01, 2004
Blocks: Capturing the Spirit of 1776, With a Different Number
New York Times
The article discusses the trickiness of achieving the 1,776 foot height of the Freedom Tower. Quote:
"And all of the effort presumes that 1776 is synonymous with freedom to begin with, when it could be argued that it marks the creation of a slaveholding nation."
Ugh. It's like a Columbia freshman wrote it. Maybe we should move the Declaration of Independence from its place of reverence at the National Archives, and turn it into napkins. After all, under the idea the Times gives a nod to, it's an infamous document, due little more respect than a KKK charter.
I'm glad the NY Times thinks this view is worthy of note. I just wish they would have been more exhaustive and talked about how, for Al Qaeda, the tower wouldn't symbolize freedom, but modern American oppression. They could then note that some groups feel the tower shouldn't stand at all. Neither should our nation.
The article discusses the trickiness of achieving the 1,776 foot height of the Freedom Tower. Quote:
"And all of the effort presumes that 1776 is synonymous with freedom to begin with, when it could be argued that it marks the creation of a slaveholding nation."
Ugh. It's like a Columbia freshman wrote it. Maybe we should move the Declaration of Independence from its place of reverence at the National Archives, and turn it into napkins. After all, under the idea the Times gives a nod to, it's an infamous document, due little more respect than a KKK charter.
I'm glad the NY Times thinks this view is worthy of note. I just wish they would have been more exhaustive and talked about how, for Al Qaeda, the tower wouldn't symbolize freedom, but modern American oppression. They could then note that some groups feel the tower shouldn't stand at all. Neither should our nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)