Earlier this month I blogged on The New Republic's allegation of a Bush administration plan to announce the capture of a high value terrorist during the DNC. After initial, I started reading some more skeptical voices in, for example The Corner at The National Review Online, and I calmed down abit.
But lo and behold: Andrew Sullivan reports that a scenario very similar to the one the TNR predicted has just unfolded today, on the final day of the DNC.
While keeping a skeptical eye, this is somewhat suspicious.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
11th Circuit Says No to Dildos
(thanks to How Appealing for the link)
In a 2-1 decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld an Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys. I thought this did a good job analyzing the ruling.
Personally, I liked this quote from the Alabama statute in question, exempting from the prohibition the sale of sexual devices
What could judges and law enforces possibly need a dildo for? Perhaps Oklahoma Judge Donald Thompson could give us a clue?
You can reach the full decision of the 11th Circuit here.
In a 2-1 decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld an Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys. I thought this did a good job analyzing the ruling.
Personally, I liked this quote from the Alabama statute in question, exempting from the prohibition the sale of sexual devices
for a bona fide medical, scientific,(emphasis added)
educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose.
What could judges and law enforces possibly need a dildo for? Perhaps Oklahoma Judge Donald Thompson could give us a clue?
You can reach the full decision of the 11th Circuit here.
Non-Conventional
Yes, I know, I haven't been posting on the Democratic National Convention. But I have good excuses!
1) I have mono.
2) I don't care what any of the speakers have to say.
3) For the only exception to #2, Barack Obama, I was at the rained-out Orioles/Red Sox game with my buddy, probably catching pneumonia to complement my mono. Second hand at least, Obama was phenomonal (The New Republic raves here and in variously lesser degrees here and here.
After tonight, when John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry officially accepts the nomination, we can put this entire thing behind us.
And for true election fun, try this from Addicting Games.
1) I have mono.
2) I don't care what any of the speakers have to say.
3) For the only exception to #2, Barack Obama, I was at the rained-out Orioles/Red Sox game with my buddy, probably catching pneumonia to complement my mono. Second hand at least, Obama was phenomonal (The New Republic raves here and in variously lesser degrees here and here.
After tonight, when John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry officially accepts the nomination, we can put this entire thing behind us.
And for true election fun, try this from Addicting Games.
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Slow News
Its been rather slow on the news front recently. So, I'll just post some funny links that people of the intellectual persuasion might find amusing.
Sartre Cookbook
Nietzsche Tech Support
A Post-Modern Essay Generator (just click refresh to make a new one!)
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky commentating on The Lord of the Rings
And for all those who think that Kerry is a flipflopper: Bush vs. Bush
Sartre Cookbook
Nietzsche Tech Support
A Post-Modern Essay Generator (just click refresh to make a new one!)
Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky commentating on The Lord of the Rings
And for all those who think that Kerry is a flipflopper: Bush vs. Bush
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Gay Adoption
On a tied 6-6 vote, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an en banc rehearing of Lofton v. Department of Children and Family Services. The case concerned the constitutionality of a Florida Statute which catagorically prohibited practicing homosexuals (but no one else, including drug abusers and criminals) from adopting children. The text of the denial ruling (along with its dissent) can be found here.
1) I think this ruling is just wrong. The court seemed to rest its decision on the idea that in order to challenge a statute under "rational basis" standards, one is obligated to disprove any possible rational basis for enacting the statute. From the Supreme Court case of Heller v. Doe a challenged statute under the rational basis test "must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there
is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification...It could be that the assumptions underlying these rationales are erroneous, but the very fact that they are arguable is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to immunize the legislative choice from constitutional challenge." The dissent makes a compelling argument that this controversy shouldn't be decided by a rational basis standard. However, even within that framework, I think the law fails. Certainly, one can argue anything, so the courts must make some sort of reasoned judgment about whether the argument is plausible or not. Simply asserted the legislature's professed rationale without any analysis as to its validity or internal consistency is no way to make a decision, even under such a deferential standard. Such a standard would have caused virtually all the cases cited by the court to have been decided in the opposite of their eventual rulings. For example, in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (cited by the court), the "rational basis" for the denial of a zoning permit to an assisted living center for the mentally retarded was a) that people generally feared said group and b) a plethora of disingenious statements ranging from "the site is on a flood plain," to "local schoolchildren will harass the residents." For the latter rationale, the court dismissed the analysis on the grounds that the zoning board didn't have any similar requirements for any other type of similarly situated building (a flood plain is a danger to any building, and all sorts of people, from minorities to the elderly to hippies might be mocked by schoolchildren). The court then concluded that in abscence of any other reasonable rationale, the first justification amounted to nothing but an expression of animus on the part of the local community and could not stand. The parrallels to this decision are quite easy to see. The vast majority of the state's claims of rationale falter because it makes no effort to apply the same standards to similarily situated people (for example, its claim that it wants children in houses with a mother and a father is undercut by the fact that it allows single people to adopt). The only analysis it gives that arguably only applies to Homosexual couples is that the state might want its children to be "normalized" and that it would be weird and possibly harmful for predominately heterosexual children to be raised by homosexual parents who are implied to be outside the mainstream. Even beyond the substantial psychological evidence which shows that any harm to children raised by homosexual parents is fictive (which in itself is proven by the situation of the petitioning family), the flaws in this argument are transparant. First, as the dissent aptly notes, it gives no guidance on how to deal with homosexual children who presumably need a "similar" parent figure as much as heterosexual parent does. Second, it doesn't apply the same standard to other groups that could be termed "outside the mainstream" (like inter-racial couples). Ultimately, the statute legally places an actively homosexual person beneath a herion addict in the states perception of how apt they are to raise a child. That is patently absurd and profoundly irrational.
2) The 6th vote to deny rehearing was cast by Justice William Pryor, who was appointed by President Bush in a recess appointment. Had he not been present, the vote would have been 6-5 in favor of a rehearing, and the ruling might have been overturned. So for all those who view the appealate court nomination fights as a waste of time, this should be a wakeup call.
3) Am I the only one who has noticed that in cases such as these, even the conservative judges are loathe to defend the laws themselves, instead resting their arguments on judicial restraint? Justice Birch wrote in the majority opinion for the denial of rehearing:
Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas
This of course quoting Justice Potter Stewart in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut where he and Justice Black also talk about the stupidity of a law they believed they were obligated to uphold. Shouldn't conseratives do a bit of soulsearching if their own champions on the court are so vociferous in their denounciations of these laws even as they vote to sustain them?
1) I think this ruling is just wrong. The court seemed to rest its decision on the idea that in order to challenge a statute under "rational basis" standards, one is obligated to disprove any possible rational basis for enacting the statute. From the Supreme Court case of Heller v. Doe a challenged statute under the rational basis test "must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there
is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification...It could be that the assumptions underlying these rationales are erroneous, but the very fact that they are arguable is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to immunize the legislative choice from constitutional challenge." The dissent makes a compelling argument that this controversy shouldn't be decided by a rational basis standard. However, even within that framework, I think the law fails. Certainly, one can argue anything, so the courts must make some sort of reasoned judgment about whether the argument is plausible or not. Simply asserted the legislature's professed rationale without any analysis as to its validity or internal consistency is no way to make a decision, even under such a deferential standard. Such a standard would have caused virtually all the cases cited by the court to have been decided in the opposite of their eventual rulings. For example, in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (cited by the court), the "rational basis" for the denial of a zoning permit to an assisted living center for the mentally retarded was a) that people generally feared said group and b) a plethora of disingenious statements ranging from "the site is on a flood plain," to "local schoolchildren will harass the residents." For the latter rationale, the court dismissed the analysis on the grounds that the zoning board didn't have any similar requirements for any other type of similarly situated building (a flood plain is a danger to any building, and all sorts of people, from minorities to the elderly to hippies might be mocked by schoolchildren). The court then concluded that in abscence of any other reasonable rationale, the first justification amounted to nothing but an expression of animus on the part of the local community and could not stand. The parrallels to this decision are quite easy to see. The vast majority of the state's claims of rationale falter because it makes no effort to apply the same standards to similarily situated people (for example, its claim that it wants children in houses with a mother and a father is undercut by the fact that it allows single people to adopt). The only analysis it gives that arguably only applies to Homosexual couples is that the state might want its children to be "normalized" and that it would be weird and possibly harmful for predominately heterosexual children to be raised by homosexual parents who are implied to be outside the mainstream. Even beyond the substantial psychological evidence which shows that any harm to children raised by homosexual parents is fictive (which in itself is proven by the situation of the petitioning family), the flaws in this argument are transparant. First, as the dissent aptly notes, it gives no guidance on how to deal with homosexual children who presumably need a "similar" parent figure as much as heterosexual parent does. Second, it doesn't apply the same standard to other groups that could be termed "outside the mainstream" (like inter-racial couples). Ultimately, the statute legally places an actively homosexual person beneath a herion addict in the states perception of how apt they are to raise a child. That is patently absurd and profoundly irrational.
2) The 6th vote to deny rehearing was cast by Justice William Pryor, who was appointed by President Bush in a recess appointment. Had he not been present, the vote would have been 6-5 in favor of a rehearing, and the ruling might have been overturned. So for all those who view the appealate court nomination fights as a waste of time, this should be a wakeup call.
3) Am I the only one who has noticed that in cases such as these, even the conservative judges are loathe to defend the laws themselves, instead resting their arguments on judicial restraint? Justice Birch wrote in the majority opinion for the denial of rehearing:
I will conclude on a purely personal note. If I were a legislator, rather than a judge, I would vote in favor of considering otherwise eligible homosexuals for adoptive parenthood. In reviewing the record in this case one can only be impressed by the courage, tenacity and devotion of Messrs. Lofton and Houghton for the children placed in their care. For these children, these men are the only parents they have ever known. Thus, I consider the policy decision of the Florida legislature to be misguided and trust that over time attitudes will change and it will see the best interest of these children in a different light.
Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas
I write separately to note that the law before the Court today 'is ... uncommonly silly.' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources
This of course quoting Justice Potter Stewart in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut where he and Justice Black also talk about the stupidity of a law they believed they were obligated to uphold. Shouldn't conseratives do a bit of soulsearching if their own champions on the court are so vociferous in their denounciations of these laws even as they vote to sustain them?
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Sandy Berger
Its been revealed that Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former National Security Advisor, took some classified Homeland Security documents while he was reviewing them for the 9/11 commission, and now claims he inadvertantly discarded a few.
Being 100% charitable to Mr. Berger, this was remarkably boneheaded. Being less charitable, it was possibly criminal, and one has to ask what his motives possibly could have been. Daniel Drezner is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (IE, that Mr. Berger was just plain stupid). The folks at Powerline and The National Review are far more suspicious.
Powerline posted a statement from House Speaker Dennis Hastert on the matter. The quote I found notable:
Begging your pardon Mr. Speaker, but you led the charge against full accountability for 9/11 and against the 9/11 commission. So let's not get too self-righteous about the need for full disclosure.
Being 100% charitable to Mr. Berger, this was remarkably boneheaded. Being less charitable, it was possibly criminal, and one has to ask what his motives possibly could have been. Daniel Drezner is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (IE, that Mr. Berger was just plain stupid). The folks at Powerline and The National Review are far more suspicious.
Powerline posted a statement from House Speaker Dennis Hastert on the matter. The quote I found notable:
Mr. Berger has a lot of explaining to do. He was given access to these documents to assist the 9/11 Commission, not hide information from them. The American people and the 9/11 families don't want cover-ups when it comes to the War on Terror. They want the truth. And so does the U.S. House of Representatives.
Begging your pardon Mr. Speaker, but you led the charge against full accountability for 9/11 and against the 9/11 commission. So let's not get too self-righteous about the need for full disclosure.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Markets and Masses
CNN had an interesting article on the relative intelligence of crowds compared to the individuals that are contained within them. Indirectly, this is a powerful argument for capitalism that contrasts with the prevelant "dumb herd" mentality. If this seems interesting to you, also check out Tom Friedman's comments on "The Electronic Herd" in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree
Also hidden in the article was this gem of a card for those arguing on the impacts of the recent financial scandels.
James Surowiecki, author of "The Wisdom of Crowds" (as quoted by CNN.com on July 14 2004)
Also hidden in the article was this gem of a card for those arguing on the impacts of the recent financial scandels.
James Surowiecki, author of "The Wisdom of Crowds" (as quoted by CNN.com on July 14 2004)
If anything can hurt markets, says Surowiecki, it's lack of trust. Capitalism has succeeded, he says, because people are willing to trust their money with strangers. The misstatements and financial chicanery of the late-'90s bubble have wounded that confidence.
"The challenge for capitalism is that the things that breed trust also breed the environment for fraud," he says. People can make money by working together -- but when the sums of money are as huge as they've been of late, it can be very tempting for people to subvert the system for their own gains.
And yet Surowiecki has hope that trust can be maintained and, indeed, markets can keep improving. Economists and psychologists have found indications that our first impulse -- as people and consumers -- "is to do the socially beneficial thing," he says.
Potter Politics
UPDATE: 7/19 @ 3:00 PM
From the "You Are Really Reading Too Much Into It" catagory, the New York Times gives us this wonderful diatribe on how Harry Potter reinforces the myths of neo-liberalism and the capitalist model.
Daniel Drezner should be credited with the link, and his "responses" to the article are also worth the read.
MORE ON POLITICAL POTTER THEMES
This also talks about neoconservative leanings of the HP world, though in far less post-modern langauge.
Fun stuff.
From the "You Are Really Reading Too Much Into It" catagory, the New York Times gives us this wonderful diatribe on how Harry Potter reinforces the myths of neo-liberalism and the capitalist model.
Daniel Drezner should be credited with the link, and his "responses" to the article are also worth the read.
MORE ON POLITICAL POTTER THEMES
This also talks about neoconservative leanings of the HP world, though in far less post-modern langauge.
Fun stuff.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Full Disclosure
In response to the Bush administration's request for the footage from Sen. Kerry's controversial star-studded fundraiser, the Kerry campaign sent the Bush administration this letter. Highlights:
we will not consider your request until the Bush campaign and White House make public the documents/materials listed below:
-- Military records: Any copies of the President's military records that would actually prove he fulfilled the terms of his military service. For that matter, it would be comforting to the American people if the campaign or the White House could produce more than just a single person to verify that the President was in Alabama when said he was there. Many Americans find it odd that only one person out of an entire squadron can recall seeing Mr. Bush.
-- Halliburton: All correspondence between the Defense Department and the White House regarding the no-bid contracts that have gone to the Vice-President's former company. Some material has already been made public. Why not take a campaign issue off the table by making all of these materials public so the voters can see how Halliburton has benefited from Mr. Cheney serving as Vice-President?
-- The Cheney Energy Task Force: For an Administration that claims to hate lawsuits, it's ironic that the Bush White House is taking up the Courts' time to keep the fact that Ken Lay and Enron wrote its energy policy in secret behind closed doors. Please release the documents so that the country can learn what lobbyists and special interests wrote the White House energy policy.
-- Medicare Bill: Please release all White House correspondence between the pharmaceutical industry and the Administration regarding the Medicare Bill, which gave billions to some of the President's biggest donors. In addition, please provide all written materials that directed the Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress about the actual cost of the bill.
-- Prison Abuse Documents: A few weeks ago, the White House released a selected number of documents regarding the White House's involvement in laying the legal foundation for the interrogation methods that were used in Iraq. Please release the remaining documents.
Florida 2000
John Edwards is mentioning the Florida 2000 debacle in stump speeches according to CNN.com .
Good move? I'm think so, though its risky. The upside is motivating black and latino voters who might otherwise stay home at the polls. The downside is that Kerry/Edwards are opened up to charges of political pandering and dwelling on the past. But Republicans make that charge every day anyway. So I'm inclined to think this is smart campaigning.
Good move? I'm think so, though its risky. The upside is motivating black and latino voters who might otherwise stay home at the polls. The downside is that Kerry/Edwards are opened up to charges of political pandering and dwelling on the past. But Republicans make that charge every day anyway. So I'm inclined to think this is smart campaigning.
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Rebel Yell?
I think the Conservative wing of American politics is on the verge of a severe identity crisis, very similar to what the Liberals went through about 15 years ago. At the moment, far from being a coherent whole, the Republican party is split into at least four different factions:
1) The Rockefellers: As I blogged before, this group is close to being an endangered species. They lost the original GOP civil war to Ronald Reagan and the more fundamentalist right in the 1980s. The Rockefellers are fiscally conservative, but socially moderate. Their numbers are steadily decreasing as they are the polar opposite of the current predominant GOP group, the Fundamentalists.
2) The Fundamentalists: This group is currently in control of the GOP leadership. It is very socially conservative, but unlike traditional Republicans it is far less concerned with fiscal moderation. The Fundamentalists sprang out of the populists in the south and west that used to vote predominantly Democratic. This group was economically akin to the Democrats in terms of spending, but far to its right on social issues. While the type of spending the Fundamentalists prefer is very different than that of the populists (being more focused on the rich and corporations), the character of the populism movement is still present in their support for giant farm subsidies and pork projects.
3) The Traditionalists: This group is economically and socially quite conservative. Personified by Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel, it is the most recent group to display friction with the GOP leadership. Unlike the Rockefellers and Libertarians, it still has a reasonably strong following, and has gained the advantage recently by being seen as "straight-talkers." If a viable challenge does break out to the Fundamentalists, it will probably come from this group, with support from the remaining Rockefellers.
4) The Libertarians: Traditionally, this group has been the most isolated from GOP power circles, representing "extreme Rockefellers" in a sense. Many Libertarians are faced with an identity crisis at the moment, as the Democratic party (with its new found love-affair with fiscal discpline) is closer to their views on both social and economic policy. Unless the Republican party changes course soon, they could bolt en masse.
And if that wasn't enough, three of these four groups are internally divided on the merits of Neo-Conservatism vs. Isolationism (the Libertarians are pretty solidly isolationist, with the exception of a strong support of free trade)!
At the moment, the Republican party is still united behind President Bush (though we've seen chinks in that armor, McCain and the Rockefellers have started to find their voice again to protest certain Bush policies). If President Bush wins this election, the Fundamentalists will have enough of a mandate to maintain control of the Republican party. If he loses though, then a vicious internal party spate could develop.
The New York Times had an interesting article on the growing fissures within the Conservative movement.
1) The Rockefellers: As I blogged before, this group is close to being an endangered species. They lost the original GOP civil war to Ronald Reagan and the more fundamentalist right in the 1980s. The Rockefellers are fiscally conservative, but socially moderate. Their numbers are steadily decreasing as they are the polar opposite of the current predominant GOP group, the Fundamentalists.
2) The Fundamentalists: This group is currently in control of the GOP leadership. It is very socially conservative, but unlike traditional Republicans it is far less concerned with fiscal moderation. The Fundamentalists sprang out of the populists in the south and west that used to vote predominantly Democratic. This group was economically akin to the Democrats in terms of spending, but far to its right on social issues. While the type of spending the Fundamentalists prefer is very different than that of the populists (being more focused on the rich and corporations), the character of the populism movement is still present in their support for giant farm subsidies and pork projects.
3) The Traditionalists: This group is economically and socially quite conservative. Personified by Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel, it is the most recent group to display friction with the GOP leadership. Unlike the Rockefellers and Libertarians, it still has a reasonably strong following, and has gained the advantage recently by being seen as "straight-talkers." If a viable challenge does break out to the Fundamentalists, it will probably come from this group, with support from the remaining Rockefellers.
4) The Libertarians: Traditionally, this group has been the most isolated from GOP power circles, representing "extreme Rockefellers" in a sense. Many Libertarians are faced with an identity crisis at the moment, as the Democratic party (with its new found love-affair with fiscal discpline) is closer to their views on both social and economic policy. Unless the Republican party changes course soon, they could bolt en masse.
And if that wasn't enough, three of these four groups are internally divided on the merits of Neo-Conservatism vs. Isolationism (the Libertarians are pretty solidly isolationist, with the exception of a strong support of free trade)!
At the moment, the Republican party is still united behind President Bush (though we've seen chinks in that armor, McCain and the Rockefellers have started to find their voice again to protest certain Bush policies). If President Bush wins this election, the Fundamentalists will have enough of a mandate to maintain control of the Republican party. If he loses though, then a vicious internal party spate could develop.
The New York Times had an interesting article on the growing fissures within the Conservative movement.
Friday, July 16, 2004
What is Non-Partisanship?
Some Republican groups seem to have a trouble figuring out that one can be an honest conservative without engaging in vicious partisanship. From GOP USA (on the merits of various pro-Bush KETCHUP brands of all things!):
Paradoxical? It makes perfect sense to me, especially considering how many baseline conservative principles (Federalism, Small Government, Fiscal Discpline, etc) the Bush administration has ignored or demolished.
Now, you may think its a bit silly to be drawing conclusions about GOP mentalities from a debate on ketchup. But I ask you, which party is making Ketchup a valid point of partisan contention? Who's silly now?
Attempting to address the specific charge by Bush Country Ketchup that it did not support Bush or Republicans, Oliver offered the paradoxical answer that he wanted W Ketchup to "be Republican but not partisan, having a positive message all Americans could agree on."
Paradoxical? It makes perfect sense to me, especially considering how many baseline conservative principles (Federalism, Small Government, Fiscal Discpline, etc) the Bush administration has ignored or demolished.
Now, you may think its a bit silly to be drawing conclusions about GOP mentalities from a debate on ketchup. But I ask you, which party is making Ketchup a valid point of partisan contention? Who's silly now?
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
FMA Fails in Senate
The US Senate just voted 48-50 on a procedural motion to bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to a vote. Though virtually all Republicans and Democrats agreed the bill had no chance of achieving the super-majority needed for passage, the symbolic denial of a majority to those who wish to encode discrimination into our constitution is significant.
Though I support gay marriage in general and thus would oppose any law or statute designed to bar it, the FMA should be abhorrent even to conservatives. At the very least, the amendment should restrict itself to federal definition and federal courts, leaving the ultimate decision on what marriage is to the individual states. That would be consistent with Conservative notions of federalism and states rights, as well as allowing the people to decide how their community wants to view this sacred contract. But the FMA, by imposing its dogma on both the federal government AND the states, violates these tenets and showcases the hypocrisy of the modern Republican party.
Republicans who voted against the cloture motion:
John McCain (AZ), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO), John Sunnunu (NH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Lincoln Chaffee (RI). Independent Jim Jeffords (VT) also voted against the motion.
Democrats who voted for the cloture motion:
Ben Nelson (NE), Zell Miller (GA), Robert Byrd (WV)
Though I support gay marriage in general and thus would oppose any law or statute designed to bar it, the FMA should be abhorrent even to conservatives. At the very least, the amendment should restrict itself to federal definition and federal courts, leaving the ultimate decision on what marriage is to the individual states. That would be consistent with Conservative notions of federalism and states rights, as well as allowing the people to decide how their community wants to view this sacred contract. But the FMA, by imposing its dogma on both the federal government AND the states, violates these tenets and showcases the hypocrisy of the modern Republican party.
Republicans who voted against the cloture motion:
John McCain (AZ), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO), John Sunnunu (NH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Lincoln Chaffee (RI). Independent Jim Jeffords (VT) also voted against the motion.
Democrats who voted for the cloture motion:
Ben Nelson (NE), Zell Miller (GA), Robert Byrd (WV)
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
PA hit with $116 Million Dollar Judgment
The US District Court for the state of Rhode Island just came down with a ruling in Estate of Ungar ex rel. Strachman v. Palestinean Authority. Finding the PA and PLO default, they ordered a $116 million dollar judgment to the estate and heirs of Mr. Ungar, an American citizen who was killed in a suicide bombing in Israel. A nice counterpoint to the ICJ ruling, I think.
Relevant Case Code is Title 18 USC Part I Chapter 113b Sec. 2333(a):
The full opinion can be found here, though its virtually all about jurisdiction.
Relevant Case Code is Title 18 USC Part I Chapter 113b Sec. 2333(a):
Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney's fees.
The full opinion can be found here, though its virtually all about jurisdiction.
Division of Labor
Its amazing, and somewhat frustrating, that all the best arguments on the European/American division of labor have come AFTER I graduated. Anyway, from The New Republic, 7/13/04, Economist writer Robert Lane Greene writes:
Happy hunting everyone!
...Britain intervened recently in Sierra Leone, and France sent troops to the Ivory Coast. Both were missions in former colonies with little strategic importance, but in which ugly humanitarian crises called out for intervention. With U.S. forces stretched thin in the rest of the world--and a domestic population leery of using the army for "social work"--these are not the type of interventions America would be inclined to take on.
A division of labor makes sense for both America and Europe. America will certainly continue to do the heavy war-fighting. After all, it's inconceivable that Europe would have to fight against a serious military power without any American help, a fact that Chirac does not seem to appreciate. Meanwhile, Europe can lead in small regional crises in the Balkans and in their ex-colonies (which, after all, take up most of the world). Europe can also do most of the "softer"--but far from easy--tasks like peacekeeping. Even Europe's smaller countries can make themselves helpful by developing divisions with special skills, such as Norway's mine-clearing and mountain experts, or the Czech Republic's mobile biological and chemical weapons detection units. With Europe and America both needing each other and both able to help, no one has to feel taken advantage of, or ignored.
Happy hunting everyone!
Monday, July 12, 2004
ICJ Ruling on the Israeli Fence
After much searching, I finally found the ICJ ruling on the Israeli fence. The National Review gives a brief synopsis about why the ruling is simply absurd. However, this quote particularly struck me:
What exactly would convince them of the "absolute necessity" of Israel's military situation? Maybe a couple 100 more suicide bombings will have them come to their senses.
(A link to the whole opinion can be found here
A side note: Am I the only one amused to hear that the opinion in the case was written by a Chinese Justice? Because its not like the Chinese have ever experimented with putting up a big wall to keep out invaders and barbarians.
The Court considers that the military exigencies contemplated by these texts [the 4th Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations] may be invoked in occupied territories even after the general close of the military operations that led to their occupation. However, on the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the destructions carried out contrary to the prohibition in Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
What exactly would convince them of the "absolute necessity" of Israel's military situation? Maybe a couple 100 more suicide bombings will have them come to their senses.
(A link to the whole opinion can be found here
A side note: Am I the only one amused to hear that the opinion in the case was written by a Chinese Justice? Because its not like the Chinese have ever experimented with putting up a big wall to keep out invaders and barbarians.
Tom DeLay is Corrupt...Nobody Surprised
Breaking News! The Washington Post reports that Tom DeLay is corrupt! Tommorow: Bill Clinton Revealed to Be Attracted to Women!
Sunday, July 11, 2004
GOP Moderates
The American Prospect's latest article on the centrist wing of the Republican party has given me the opportunity to reflect on the state of GOP moderates.
The steady decline in so-called Rockefeller Republicans, dedicated to fiscal discipline but openminded on social issues has been one of the defining characteristics of recent political history. The Republican base has shifted away from upscale, northeastern suburbia and into the deep south and west, a region whose bread and butter is social issues, not economic ones. What economic desires they do have tend to come in the form of pork barrel spending and military bases, all which the GOP has adopted whole-heartedly at the expense of budgetary restraint. Virtually all of the GOPs moderates come from Northeastern states that are considered Democratic locks for the presidency (Sens. Snowe and Collins from Maine, Chaffee from Rhode Island, Rep. Shays from Connecticut, Gov. Pataki from New York). I won't go so far to say this is BAD for the Republican party; I mean, the fact remains that the majority of their voters are red-meat conservatives now rather than the Rockefeller tribe, and that should determine where the party goes. At the same time, one has to wonder how long the beleaguered moderates can last in a party beholden to its fundamentalists.
My home congressional district, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, was represented for 16 years by Connie Morella, probably the most liberal republican in the house, until she was ousted by Chris Van Hollen in 2002. I knew she was in trouble when the primary argument given by her supporters in favor of keeping her ran along of the lines of "Who do you think will have more influence: A first term backbencher in the minority party, or a 8 term veteran?" The sad thing was, I think that it was honestly a push, because I knew that the GOP leadership in the house couldn't care less about its moderate wing. To Tom Delay, there isn't a difference between Morella and Van Hollen, despite the nominal party affiliations.
The GOP is teetering on the edge of disaster. If it loses this election, there will be a bitter civil war between the party leadership and the "new moderates" (such as John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska) dissatisfied with the fundamentalist social and reckless economic policies that have come to represent the Republican party (tellingly, none of these "new moderates" would be considered anything close to moderate under the old standard). My dream scenario is that disaffected Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats all follow Jim Jeffords footsteps and bolt to create a new party in the center. Can anyone imagine the havoc a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have on this election?
The steady decline in so-called Rockefeller Republicans, dedicated to fiscal discipline but openminded on social issues has been one of the defining characteristics of recent political history. The Republican base has shifted away from upscale, northeastern suburbia and into the deep south and west, a region whose bread and butter is social issues, not economic ones. What economic desires they do have tend to come in the form of pork barrel spending and military bases, all which the GOP has adopted whole-heartedly at the expense of budgetary restraint. Virtually all of the GOPs moderates come from Northeastern states that are considered Democratic locks for the presidency (Sens. Snowe and Collins from Maine, Chaffee from Rhode Island, Rep. Shays from Connecticut, Gov. Pataki from New York). I won't go so far to say this is BAD for the Republican party; I mean, the fact remains that the majority of their voters are red-meat conservatives now rather than the Rockefeller tribe, and that should determine where the party goes. At the same time, one has to wonder how long the beleaguered moderates can last in a party beholden to its fundamentalists.
My home congressional district, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, was represented for 16 years by Connie Morella, probably the most liberal republican in the house, until she was ousted by Chris Van Hollen in 2002. I knew she was in trouble when the primary argument given by her supporters in favor of keeping her ran along of the lines of "Who do you think will have more influence: A first term backbencher in the minority party, or a 8 term veteran?" The sad thing was, I think that it was honestly a push, because I knew that the GOP leadership in the house couldn't care less about its moderate wing. To Tom Delay, there isn't a difference between Morella and Van Hollen, despite the nominal party affiliations.
The GOP is teetering on the edge of disaster. If it loses this election, there will be a bitter civil war between the party leadership and the "new moderates" (such as John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska) dissatisfied with the fundamentalist social and reckless economic policies that have come to represent the Republican party (tellingly, none of these "new moderates" would be considered anything close to moderate under the old standard). My dream scenario is that disaffected Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats all follow Jim Jeffords footsteps and bolt to create a new party in the center. Can anyone imagine the havoc a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have on this election?
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Values Debate
UPDATE: 7/11 @ 3:40 PM
The Washington Post reported today that the values rhetoric is heating up on the presidential campaign trail. Of course, after reading the article it became quite clear that "values" has been mysteriously transformed into "partisan nitpicking of every errant quote or association ever made by the opposing party." But moving beyond the Post's faulty coverage, am I the only one who thinks that if Kerry wins the values debate, the election will be a snap? Kerry's main flaw (aside from being percieved as a distant and aristocratic) is that he is seen as a Massachusetts hyper-liberal. However, the liberal economic message has proven popular in the past, especially in the "conservative" south. Democratic strategists have long been confounded that poor southerners constantly are willing to outweigh their own economic interests in favor of making a statement on the culture war. But if Kerry can convince a chunk of southern voters that his "values" aren't out in left field somewhere (and he's been trying with his "life begins at conception" schtick), that will let his economic message shine through and put the Bush campaign in some serious trouble. Its an uphill fight though.
NEW:
The Washington Post wrote another article on Kerry's new values push. And like the old one, it focuses on the more extreme part of Kerry's allegations (Bush is a liar) rather than the values-debate that Kerry actually has a chance of winning (that is, Edwards' brilliant critique of Bush's policies helping wealth and harming work). Hooray for objective, non-partisan analysis!
The Washington Post reported today that the values rhetoric is heating up on the presidential campaign trail. Of course, after reading the article it became quite clear that "values" has been mysteriously transformed into "partisan nitpicking of every errant quote or association ever made by the opposing party." But moving beyond the Post's faulty coverage, am I the only one who thinks that if Kerry wins the values debate, the election will be a snap? Kerry's main flaw (aside from being percieved as a distant and aristocratic) is that he is seen as a Massachusetts hyper-liberal. However, the liberal economic message has proven popular in the past, especially in the "conservative" south. Democratic strategists have long been confounded that poor southerners constantly are willing to outweigh their own economic interests in favor of making a statement on the culture war. But if Kerry can convince a chunk of southern voters that his "values" aren't out in left field somewhere (and he's been trying with his "life begins at conception" schtick), that will let his economic message shine through and put the Bush campaign in some serious trouble. Its an uphill fight though.
NEW:
The Washington Post wrote another article on Kerry's new values push. And like the old one, it focuses on the more extreme part of Kerry's allegations (Bush is a liar) rather than the values-debate that Kerry actually has a chance of winning (that is, Edwards' brilliant critique of Bush's policies helping wealth and harming work). Hooray for objective, non-partisan analysis!
Thursday, July 08, 2004
The Politics of Osama-hunting
Anyone who observes the Bush administration has noticed the subordination of policy to politics. I've always been of the persuasion that the incessant politicking of both political parties is disgusting and harmful to the overall good of the nation. But even the most avid partisanship should be outraged by this.
Disgusting.
Disgusting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
