January 31, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
George W. Bush to Raise Taxes
President George W. Bush plans to raise taxes this year, at least by his definitions. Or perhaps he is just playing Calvinball, you decide.
In his January 20 State of the Union Address, Mr. Bush said:
We must continue to pursue an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda. Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act … the unfair tax on marriage will go back up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase. What Congress has given, the Congress should not take away. For the sake of job growth, the tax cuts you passed should be permanent.
Thus, for Mr. Bush, the failure to extend tax breaks is raising taxes. Fair enough.
Today’s New York Times reports on Mr. Bush’s efforts to control the deficit. Among his proposals we find the following:
Mr. Bush will oppose extending a temporary tax break that greatly accelerates the rate at which businesses can depreciate new equipment. The tax provision was enacted in 2002 to stimulate the economy and manufacturers want to retain it.
Now, by the logic Mr. Bush used in the State of the Union, the failure to extend the depreciation tax break is a tax increase. So Mr. Bush is really just another tax raiser unless….
Yes, I am so sorry. Before I wrote this post I should have consulted the Offical Calvinball Rule Book more carefully. Right there in paragraph 37(a) (ii) is the relevant provision:
Failure to extend tax breaks constitutes a tax increase only when advocated by Democrats. If Republicans do not extend tax breaks it is not raising taxes. It is making the tough decisions needed to fight the deficit.
Never mind.
Medical Malpractice Reform-- John Edwards’ Proposals
Opinions vary on the cause or causes of whatever level of medical malpractice insurance crisis may exist. Some people think that the root cause is frivolous lawsuits, other think that insurance reform is the solution while still others think that we need to reduce the incidence of injury due to medical negligence.
If you are in any of those camps, Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards has a policy proposal you may like. Edward thinks that all three contribute to the problem and he has reasonably specific proposals to deal with each.
To identify Edward’s proposals, I took information from an op-ed he wrote in the Washington Post as well as from the policy section of his web site.
Edwards identifies the problem as being one of rising premiums for malpractice coverage:
The rising cost of malpractice insurance for doctors is getting in the way of good health care. In rural areas, some specialists can no longer afford to practice, and patients can't get the care they need.
Secondly, he identifies the goals of his proposal:
We need a real solution that frees doctors from crippling insurance costs -- without preventing the most badly injured victims from receiving the compensation they deserve.
Third, he criticizes the President’s proposals:
Unfortunately, President Bush's proposed prescription comes straight off the insurance companies' wish list: a sharp limit on the compensation these companies have to pay children and parents who have been blinded, paralyzed or otherwise severely injured. The victims who make the least money will suffer the most under this plan. The harm to the kinds of families I represented as a lawyer for nearly 20 years will be enormous.What the president's proposal won't do is work. Insurance premiums have spiked recently because of insurance companies' losses on their investments, not their losses to victims. In fact, about half the states already have some limits on victim compensation, yet premiums in states with caps average about the same as premiums in states without caps. California finally controlled rates not by attacking victims -- that didn't work -- but by reforming the insurance industry and rolling back premium increases.
Finally, Edwards proposes some solutions. Do you think that frivolous lawsuits are the cause rising premiums? Edwards wants to reduce the number of frivolous suits by forcing lawyers to consult with experts (presumably doctors) before filing suit:
Most lawyers are responsible advocates for their clients, but the few who aren't hurt the real victims, undercut the credibility of the legal system, and clog our courts. Before a lawyer can bring a medical malpractice case to court, Edwards will require that he or she swear that an expert doctor is ready to testify that real malpractice has occurred. Lawyers who file frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions. Lawyers who file three frivolous cases should be forbidden from bringing another suit for the next 10 years — in other words, three strikes and you're out.
The idea of requiring lawyers, before filing suit, to locate a doctor who believes that medical negligence has caused injury and who is capable and willing to so testify has merit.
Plaintiffs can not win med mal cases without an expert to testify that the defendant’s acts or omissions violated the standard of care and I see nothing wrong with requiring that such an expert to be identified prior to the suit being filed. If the plaintiff can not locate such an expert, there is no reason to put the doctor through the trouble, expense and embarrassment the filing of a suit can cause. Similarly, if the plaintiff has identified such an expert, the chance that the suit is frivolous is small.
I do not think that Edwards’ proposal goes far enough in that regard. Georgia has experimented with a similar reform. In Georgia, a malpractice suit is subject to dismissal if the lawyer does not attach to the complaint a sworn affidavit from a doctor testifying that the defendant committed at least one act of negligence. See OCGA § 9-11-9.1.
It took a while for the Georgia system to get the bugs out. Issues such as the qualifications of the expert submitting the affidavit and the contents of the affidavit had to be determined. What happens if the expert has not reviewed the medical records or has reviewed only portions of the records? Believe it or not, the defense bar in Georgia spent many thousands of dollars litigating whether a faxed copy of the expert affidavit met the requirement. Frivolity exists on both sides of the vs.
Once such issues were decided, the system seems to work pretty well and as a result, very few medical malpractice suits are filed in Georgia without an expert affidavit attached. Those that are so filed are routinely dismissed at a very early stage of the litigation. Requiring expert testimony as a prerequisite for filing may not eliminate all frivolous medical malpractice suits, but it eliminates an entire class of such suits.
In sum, I think Edwards’ general idea is a good one but that Georgia has found a better way to achieve the result Edwards seeks.
To the extent that malpractice insurance premiums are rising because of payouts in meritorious cases, one way to slow that rise is to reduce the number of people injured by medical negligence. Edwards notes:
In medicine, as in law, a few people cause the most problems: Only 5 percent of doctors have paid malpractice claims more than once since 1990. This same 5 percent is responsible for over half of all claims paid.
If the incidence of malpractice could be significantly reduced, not only would patients have better results, but the cost of malpractice coverage would go down. In effect, Edwards is noting that the good doctors are forced to subsidize the bad ones. To reduce the incidence of malpractice, Edwards wants medical licensing boards to become stricter with doctors committing malpractice:
One part of the problem is state medical boards whose discipline is as lax as state bar associations'. We need to provide resources and incentives for boards to adopt real standards on the "three strikes" model. At the same time, we need to encourage doctors to report more medical errors voluntarily, so we can learn more about systemic problems.
While I am not sure about a three strikes and your out policy (what, for instance constitutes a “strike?”), the general idea of having doctors more aggressively police themselves seems like a good idea. Perhaps if the doctors and the medical boards could identify the worst offenders, offer education and training to improve performance and in the most egregious cases suspend or revoke licenses, the total number of injuries due to medical negligence and therefore malpractice premiums could be reduced.
One reason that state medical boards have not more aggressively disciplined doctors who repeatedly injure patients that that, ironically, doctors are some of the most litigious folks around when it comes to their licenses or hospital privileges. Perhaps we need some reform of the system by which doctors sue to retain their licenses and privileges.
Some people think that insurance reform would be useful in reducing the rise in malpractice premiums. Edwards agrees:
The most critical step is reforming the insurance industry. Today insurance companies use slow and burdensome processes to discourage both doctors and patients from filing legitimate claims. Worse still, these companies can fix prices and divvy up the country in order to drive up their profits. Even when companies don't explicitly collude, they set their rates based on a trade-group loss calculation that they know other companies will follow. In any other industry, this kind of conduct would be subject to scrutiny under the antitrust laws. But an obscure 1945 law gives insurance companies a broad antitrust exemption. Because of the insurance lobby's influence, Congress has even blocked the Federal Trade Commission from investigating insurance company rip-offs. These special privileges must go.
I do not know enough about the workings of the insurance industry to evaluate whether or not Edwards’ proposal would work, but I see no reason why the insurance industry should be exempt from antitrust laws or Federal Trade Commission investigations.
Edwards’ proposals seems like a balanced approach. Unlike the president’s proposal, Edwards seeks to address the issue of rising premiums without preventing innocent victims of medical negligence from receiving full compensation for their losses.
If only Nixon can go to China, perhaps only a trial lawyer can effectively reform the medical malpractice tort system.
Don't drink the water...
As a member of Maine's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Task Force and parent of a lead poisoned child, there was no way I could ignore this story on page one of the Washington Post this morning:
Water in D.C. Exceeds EPA Lead Limit
Random Tests Last Summer Found High Levels in 4,000 Homes Throughout CityBy David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 31, 2004; Page A01Tap water in thousands of District houses has recently tested above the federal limit for lead contamination, a new phenomenon that has baffled the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority and forced the agency to begin replacing service pipes.
Two-thirds of the 6,118 residences that WASA tested last summer, or 4,075 homes, had water that exceeded the lead limit of 15 parts per billion set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1991. This is the first time the city's water has shown significant lead contamination since the late 1980s, officials said.
WASA officials said they are not sure what has caused the spike in lead levels. They are investigating whether changes in the way water is treated at the Washington Aqueduct could have a corrosive effect on lead pipes.
According to the Post, of the thousands of homes which exceeded the 15 pp/mil EPA action, over half had levels over 50 pp/mil, and more than a hundred registered over 300 pp/mil. It's important to note that the 15pp/mil is the EPA's action level, i.e., the level "set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) because EPA believes, given present technology and resources, this is the lowest level to which water systems can reasonably be required to control this contaminant should it occur in drinking water at their customers home taps." It is not the level the EPA has declared to be "safe" - that level is 0 pp/mil, as no level of lead has been proven to be safe in pregnant women and young children, again, according to the EPA.
My biggest beef with the DC Water and Sewer Authority is its obvious footdragging in the face of such a public health threat:
Although the extent of the water problem and its public health implications are just coming to light, WASA officials have been aware of the contamination since random tests on a small number of houses revealed a problem in 2002. Although agency officials discovered a more extensive problem last summer, they did not begin to notify homeowners about the results until November. WASA held a public meeting about the issue in December, but its advertisements did not reveal the lead problem. Instead, they simply stated that the purpose of the meeting was "to discuss and solicit public comments on WASA's Safe Drinking Water Act projects."
According to federal regulations passed in the mid-90s, the EPA requires drinking water providers to take action when 10% of the homes tested exceed the 15 pp/mil level. Although the Post doesn't address that specifically, it's highly likely that in light of the high percentage of contaminated residential water samples (over 66%) in last summer's expanded tests, that the tests from the summer of 2002 saw a failure rate higher than ten percent.
Which means that at the very least, homeowners in DC were exposed to excessively contaminated drinking water for at least three months, possibly eighteen months, with the full knowledge of WASA. At the very least, when lead levels exceed the threshold, EPA requires extensive testing every six months. It appears even those basic safety measures were ignored.
It's no surprise neither Mayor Williams or the DC city council were kept in the dark. WASA is an independent agency, overseen by the D.C. Council's Committee on Public Works and the Environment, headed by Republican Carol Schwartz. Schwartz is perhaps best known more recently for her adamant opposition to the DC Council's "Smokefree Workplaces Act".
The irony is that I suspect the vast majority of homes affected are in more well-to-do or "gentrified" areas. Historic single-family homes with lead pipes now vulnerable to corrosion by DC's reformulated water purification system. How many DC lawmakers and lobbyists will now be pounding down Ms. Schwartz' door. And how soon before we see an appropriations bill out of the House for replacement of DC's antiquated lead pipes.
But I'm most interested to see how far the pork will extend. As the Post noted, homeowners are responsible for replacing pipes in their own residences, just as homeowners are responsible for all other lead paint abatement costs. Here in Maine, the average per unit cost for lead abatement is now $20,000. While landlords can tap into various loans and grants, there has been no attempt by the federal government to help with these costs for moderate income homeowners.
Now that it's there own pockets which will feel the pinch, will Washington legislators suddenly discover the benefits of lead abatement?
January 30, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Autism Education and NCLB -- Collision Course
The New York Times has a report on the difficulty parents of autistic kids have in finding appropriate education programs.
The very best educational programs involved very intensive one on one teaching. Those programs are both rare and expensive:
Education — highly structured, virtually one-on-one and thus astronomically expensive — is the one proven treatment for autism, experts say. But it is no guarantee. Examples of exceptional success — and a narrow window of opportunity — have frantic parents trolling the Internet, visiting any school that sounds promising, winding up on waiting lists and often moving or suing their school district to get what they want.
I am worried about the future of education for autistic kids because of the confluence of three factors, anmely, the cost of a quality education, the increase in the number of autistic pupils and the perverse incentives of No Child Left Behind.
First, the programs that actually work are very expensive. As the Time’s notes, the gold standard for educating an autistic child is an intense, one on one learning program. That type of program, according the expert cited by the Times, can run to $60,000 per child per year. That is in line with my experience.
We spend about $7,200 per child per year on k-12 education. Thus, it costs almost nine times more to educate an autistic child than a typical child.
The second factor that causes me concern is the increase in the number of autistic kids in need of a quality education. The Times notes that in the last decade, the number of autistic kids seeking an education has increased from about 20,000 to about 120,000.
The cost of a good education plus the increase in the number of kids seeking services puts autism education on a collision course with political reality. The US Department of Education spends about $53 billion per year on k-12 education. If we provided a top drawer, $60,000 per year, education for each of the 120,000 autistic kids, the cost would be about $7.2 billion dollars per year or about 13.5% of the budget of the Department of Education.
There are about 47 million k-12 students, so the autistic population comprises about 0.2% of the students. Is it possible that the 99.8% of the population will permit 13.5% of the federal money to be spent on 0.2% of the students? I think not.
Of course, we do not now provide a top quality education for anything like all of the autistic kids. The Times’ expert estimates that only one-tenth of the autistic kids are in such programs. That is unlikely to change dramatically. The current situation in which some schools provide quality programs for autistic kids while others do not will continue.
Given that fact, what do POA’s do? They shop for the best programs for their kids, of course and they make almost any sacrifice to get their kids into good programs. The Times reports:
Some private schools that accommodate a mere 25 children have waiting lists with hundreds of names on them. The best public school programs are besieged. There are not enough certified behavioral therapists, so promising aides are trained in the classroom and then fought over, like prized nannies, by parents seeking after-school and weekend help. Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, an autism researcher and diagnostician at Yale University who has a three-year waiting list to see new patients, said even the wealthy are not protected. "I see mega-mega millionaires and movie star folks who can't find anything to tap into," he said.
The Times reports on the experience of the Lombardi family. They were willing to make many sacrifices to have their child in a quality program.
When Phyllis Lombardi lets her 6-year-old son, Joey, play in her yard here, she cannot take her eyes off him because he is autistic, barely speaks and might bolt into traffic.But a fence costs more than the Lombardis can afford since they moved to this Westchester County village last year. Ardsley has state-of-the-art autism programs, but also real estate prices that have forced the family into a rental just a block from the Saw Mill River Parkway.
It was desperation that brought the family here from Rockland County, when Mrs. Lombardi joined an army of parents, their frustration growing as their numbers increased, facing a crisis of supply and demand when their autistic children reach school age…
It took three years for Mrs. Lombardi to find Concord Road Elementary School here. She called hundreds of strangers seeking advice. She sent bouquets to school secretaries who parted with nuggets of information about teaching methods and staffing ratios. She sneaked into back-to-school nights to see if the special education students were hidden in the basement.
Eventually, Mrs. Lombardi decided that Ardsley had the best programs around, so good that districts from New York City to Rye Neck pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to place severely autistic children here. Joey would have his own aide to help him sit still, a classroom partitioned into quiet learning spaces with 10 adults supervising 11 children, private speech therapy four times a week and exposure to ordinary kindergartners at lunch and recess.
But to make it work, Joey's father, Nicholas, is working 15-hour days as a ticket broker and Mrs. Lombardi has had to take a part-time job as a receptionist. In addition to the costs of living here, there is Joey's out-of-school therapy, which sustains his fragile progress and can cost a family $20,000 to $40,000 a year.
My experience with POA’s suggests that the Lombardis are not atypical. POA’s will do almost anything to help their kids.
When limited resources guarantee that only a few schools will have good education programs for autistic kids, the parents of autistic kids will flock to those schools. Into that mix comes No Child Left Behind.
It is my understanding of NCLB (and I am no expert) that special needs students are one the sub-groups that NCLB requires to be tested. If acceptable progress towards academic achievement is not made within that subgroup, the school is labeled a “failure.” Most principals, teachers and parents do not want their school labeled a failure.
So, if a school is considering creating a top notch program for autistic kids, they will consider the NCLB consequences of that program.
If they build it, the POAs will come and bring their kids with them. Any school that decides to provide a quality program for autistic kids will, within a few years, be labeled a “failure” if the autistic kids are unable to make sufficient academic progress on standardized tests. Such progress seems unlikely.
My son, for instance, may be required to take tests next year for proficiency in writing and science. He can not talk, nor can he write, nor does he give a tinker’s damn about the NCLB requirements. He is far more likely to tear up the test and chew the pencil than to even attempt to answer any questions. Bobby will not raise the school’s average.
If they build it, we will come and then they will be called a failure for providing my son with a good education. From the point of view of the school, perhaps it would be better to just have a lousy autism education program. We will then flee and they can be deemed a success.
The better the program for autistic kids, the more likely that the school will be deemed a failure. The worse the program for autistic kids, the more likely the school will be deemed a success.
I do not anticipate a stampede to create really good education programs for autistic kids. That is one perverse way to run an education system
January 29, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
With Apologies To Paul Simon
Flip Floppin’ AwayFlip floppin’ away
Flip floppin’ away
You know the nearer the election
The more he’s flip floppin’ awayI know a man
He came from a Texas town
He wore his passion for his power
Like a royal crown
He said Laura
I live in fear
My love for power is so great
And I'm afraid that it will disappearFlip floppin’ away
Flip floppin’ away
You know the nearer the election
The more he’s flip floppin’ awayHe went to war
To disarm Saddam
They said we had to do it
Cause he was about to get the bomb
But now the CIA must take the blame
And 500 dead soldiers
Are his only claim to fameFlip floppin’ away
Flip floppin’ away
You know the nearer the election
The more he’s flip floppin’ awayWe lost our jobs
They went away
No health insurance
To let us sleep at night
He has no plan, it is not right
Tax cuts at the top will do nothing
To ease our plight
Flip floppin’ away
Flip floppin’ away
You know the nearer the election
The more he’s flip floppin’ awayGod only knows
We didn’t pick this man
His flight suit prancing
Was really just a sham
We love our kids
We kneel and pray
For a better life for them
But the deficit will not just go awayFlip floppin’ away
Flip floppin’ away
You know the nearer the election
The more he’s flip floppin’ awayCome November, let’s have our say
Send him back to Crawford
Put an end to his flip floppin’ away.
January 28, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Looking for the Koufax Awards?
A post linking to a list of finalists for each category of the Koufax Awards may be found here. To see the lists of finalists in each category, please click on the link above and then follow the links to the appropriate category. If you do not need to see the lists of finalists, you are welcome to vote by comment here.
Yet another awards ceremony...
Forget the Koufax Awards, it's time for the Grannies!
AKA, the Granite State Awards, handed out to the New Hampshire presidential primary campaigns.
And the 2004 winners are:
Most difficult to locate Manchester headquarters without a Blackberry and Mapquest:
Wesley Clark (protection against smart muntions perhaps?)
Volunteer operations most likely to ignore newcomers unless they're on fire (literally):
John Kerry (hence the need for all those firefighters)
Campaign volunteers most likely to be characterized as playground bullies:
Howard Dean
Best election day noshies:
Dennis Kucinich
Worst post-election party noshies:
John Edwards
Cleanest Headquarters:
Dennis Kucinich (Runner-up: Howard Dean)
Largest visibility contingent on primary day on Elm Street:
Wesley Clark
Loudest visibility contingent on Elm Street:
Howard Dean...no, now it's John Kerry....wait, now Howard Dean...
Largest number of campaign signs on Nashua Road in Merrimack:
Lyndon Larouche
Most creative campaign mascot:
The Carrot (oops, that was the candidate, not the mascot)
Most white middle-aged guys in a campaign headquarters:
Joe Lieberman
Campaign where the majority of paid staff can't get into a bar without an ID check:
John Edwards (yes, it's not just the candidate)
If I see the real thing in Nashua, should I tell you about it?...
I got a call from Nashua.
I'd examined and discarded the Kucinich campaign in September. The Maine campaign was headed by two people who never really worked a campaign, all the technology was either in Hollywood (and optimized for broadband) or in Cleveland (and a mystery), and the Native American contact was a non-Indian living in a hay-bale house on the Rosebud with weakness for "spirituals". My cost of entry "inside" the campaign, doing my State, doing technology, doing NDN policy and/or outreach, was simply too great. It was too much. I worked hard to make Dennis' entre into the blogosphere memorable, and the result was worth it. Dennis wrote Lights out on Deregulation. That was real, and obviously, Dennis worked harder.
I had another responsibility. The historic opportunity of transforming a modern State's governor's adverse record towards an Indian community with no out-of-state hooks, no Federal protection, into a political issue in the Democratic primaries -- putting the political futures of the "Indian fighters" who've risen through the ranks of the Demcratic Party in Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, New York, ... at risk. On January 11th and January 18th, my work made ABC's The Note. The acknowldegement of the 11th was an endorsement of a competing campaign (Clark's) by the Mississquoi (Vermont Abenaki) Tribal Council. The acknowledgement on the 18th (AfterNote) was even better. Campaigns were doing paid-calls in Iowa on the Vermont Abenaki record. That's issue advocacy success. The one good thing dating the Clark campaign got me was a line of poetry. Paula Gunn Allen wrote me, and I read her poem "Hoopdancer".
... soft stepping feet
praise water from the skies ...
Thats "pray for rain" in Laguna. True thirst. It is foreign now, here in the water-wealthy east.
My call came from someone I trust. Someone who got "inside" and saw and heard what I needed to see and hear . I asked "red-diaper babies, grown up?" The reply was "yes". I asked "in for the whole cycle?" The reply was "yes". So I've work to do.
My caller found her real thing in July in Senator Edwards. There is no one single real thing. Perhaps the most important thing is that members of that set play well with each other, and ourselves.
we want what is real, we want what is real
do not deceive us.
That was a good song. I'm glad my grandfather sang it.
January 27, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
Waiting in Line
Last year I wrote about the difficulties of dining out with an autistic child in Restaurant Rules. That post provided a list of 12 Rules designed to make the experience tolerable for the autistic child, his or her family, the restaurant management and other diners.
Taking an autistic child to an amusement park has its own set of challenges. The noise, the crowds, the unfamiliar surrounding and, above all, the long lines make any such outing problematic.
Autistic kids have a hard time seeing things from the perspective of others. They find it difficult to learn to share. Often, autistic kids are not good at taking turns or waiting. My son finds it impossible to stand still for even 15 seconds in the familiar environment of his own house. Waiting his turn by standing in line for half an hour or more is out of the question.
The inability to wait his turn does not result from a lack of parental discipline or from pure selfishness. The way an autistic brain works just makes certain things difficult. One would not expect a blind child to know and obey rules written on a sign. Similarly, it is often just not realistic to expect an autistic child to wait patiently in a long line.
Until today, had I chosen to write rules for taking an autistic child to an amusement park, instead of the twelve Restaurant Rules, I would have boiled it down to one simple rule. Make it a Disney vacation.
The reason is very simple. Disney has long had a policy of accommodating autistic kids at its theme parks. The parents of an autistic child could just go to “City Hall” at the park, present a letter from a doctor or a copy of a school IEP and receive a Special Needs Pass. The pass allowed the child and the child’s group (up to five members) to bypass the lines at the rides. A Special Needs Pass made it possible for many families with autistic kids to enjoy a vacation in Orlando or Anaheim.
Today I received an email from Nancy Bea Miller of Genre Cookshop. It seems that Disney has revoked its policy of providing Special Needs Passes for autistic kids.
Apparently, Disney will now provide a Special Needs Pass only for those with a physical/mobility disability or with a terminal illness. Autistic kids, perhaps because they “look normal,” no longer qualify for accommodation.
I could understand a policy of not issuing Special Needs Passes at all. Having someone cut in front of a long line can cause some consternation among those who remain waiting. My family deals with many situations in which my son’s disability is not accommodated. We avoid those situations if we don’t think they are manageable. We do not, for instance, go to movies or concerts or other places that require the audience to remain quiet. We just can not yet do “Quiet.”
If Disney chose not to accommodate children with disabilities by issuing Special Needs Passes, I would accept that and we would choose not to attend Disney parks until we thought we could manage the waiting.
What I have a difficult time accepting is that that Disney has chosen to issue Special Needs Passes to some but not all children with disabilities. The basis for issuing a Special Needs Pass does not appear to be related to whether or not the disability prevents the child from waiting in line. The disabilities caused by autism, including the inability to wait in line, are no less real (but very different) than an orthopedic disability. The fact that one can not see the disability when glancing at an autistic child makes autism no less real.
A petition is circulating asking Disney to reconsider its decision. If you are of a mind to do so, you may see and sign the petition here. I did.
The joy of disinformation...
Today's Note points to Adam Nagourney's article in the Times on Dean's ill-fated volunteer effort in Iowa and the purported changes made for the New Hampshire campaign:
Karen Hicks, the New Hampshire state director for Dr. Dean, said Monday that she would prefer to rely on people who actually lived in New Hampshire.I suspect Mr Nagourney could not actually be in New Hampshire, as all one has to do it walk out onto any street and find a few dozen out-of-town Dean volunteers. I myself have spoken with many, none of them driving shuttle busses, however many carrying canvassing bags and waving signs at street corners."The core of our organization is in-state people who have been working in their community to get out the vote," said Ms. Hicks, who has methodically organized more than 1,000 house meetings to build a base of support that Dr. Dean's advisers believe may be their best hope for turning around the election.
Ms. Hicks diplomatically demurred when asked if she thought the use of out-of-state volunteers in Iowa contributed to Dr. Dean's 20-point loss to Mr. Kerry.
But, she said, "it is much more effective for people to talk to people they know about why they are supporting Howard Dean. I believe you need a corps of in-state people, and they are in the best position to deliver the message of this campaign."
Ms. Hicks said she did not want to discourage out-of-state people who turn up at the door, bright orange caps in hand — there were two Monday afternoon. "We welcome their help," she said.
But they should not expect the choice assignments. The out-of-staters, another official said, had been put to work driving the shuttle between a parking lot downtown and the campaign headquarters.
I find this bothersome because it's fits into the pattern of disinformation that seems to have become part and parcel of the Dean campaign's modus operandi over the past 48 hours. I, for one, expect Dean to do very well tonight, probably a well-placed second. And while many can argue that they're merely playing the media's own game, spinning a momentum which may or may not be there, putting out the message that the campaign has headed it's BFA commentors and "changed", for those us on the ground, sadly, much of it's smoke and mirrors. There is a genuine outpouring of grassroots support for Dean, both in New Hampshire, and through the country. As I mentioned previoiusly, effectively nurturing that support is the current and future challenge for Dean. Spinning in this manner the first step in the wrong direction.
A Chain of Logic
The war in Iraq and the toppling of Saddam is supposed to change the behavior of other leaders in the region. While I have little doubt that the war will have some effect, I wonder what that effect will be. Is it possible that someone might reason as follows?
1. The USA accused Saddam of having WMD;2. President Bush offered to allow Saddam to remain in power if he disarmed by destroying WMD;
3. Saddam had no WMD to destroy;
4. The USA then invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam’s regime;
5. If Saddam had had WMD and renounced them, he could have stayed in power;
6. I wish to stay in power;
7. If the USA turns its sights on me, I better have some WMD to destroy.
Just wondering.
Change of Venue...
This morning, I'm posting from Kucinich Headquarters.
While I was posting from the Manchester Library yesterday afternoon, Brian dropped in on the Kucinich campaign, also located on Elm Street, a block down from the Edwards office. He met me in the library, practically glowing from his experience. We headed on down to the local Mexican waterhole, a welcome break prior to the next Edwards event at the Palace Theater in Manchester, where we ran into three of Kucinich's senior staff. An hour and a couple margueritas later, we were all fast friends, invited to freely use the office's wireless connection to post today.
While most of the campaigns, particularly Senator Edwards, have been very hospitable, the Kucinich staff takes this to another level. There is no restriction to our access here - no "secure" areas closed to the media. We've been invited in on a conference call between the Congressman and student activists (the Apollo Alliance). In fact, Congressman Kucinich is now standing two feet behind me as I type, having blown into the office like a whirling dervish of unharnessed energy, shaking hands, bolstering his volunteers, then out again to another event.
It's also been fun here as the majority of the staff are actually adults. Okay, that's not particularly fair to the other campaigns as the energy level of the early-twenty-something staff is contagious, and there are definitely a number of younger staffers running around the office. But the staff here are seasoned, and it shows in both the organization and the level of composure in the midst of D-day activities.
The campaign is also incredibly upbeat. Poll ratings mean nothing here, they are in for the long run. They continuously challenge people to vote from their heart, not to give in to the cynical "electibility" meme. Like the Edwards message, the talk around here in Kucinich HQs is positive, emphasizing the hope inherent in the campaign. When the Congressman appears with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, the staff and volunteers yell and cheer as though they were watching the NCAA finals.
As I've noted in Maine, there is a level of comradery here between many of the different camps; voters with Edwards bumperstickers wave and beep for Kucinich and Kerry and Kucinich supporters speak fondly of Elizabeth Edwards. Unfortunately, not all campaigns get the "plays well with others" stickers. Kucinich volunteers running visibility on Elm Street were apparently harrassed yesterday by Dean supporters, and a staff member described being accosted last evening by Deaniacs demanding to know why Dennis "stabbed Dean in the back" in Iowa.
Brian the Intern is off checking out the GOTV/volunteer efforts of Clark and Kerry, and later we'll post our summary of all the operations.
(Sidenote: The Kucinich Headquarters are the cleanest we've visited so far. The carpet obviously was recently vacuumed.)
Update: Two Kucinich supporters just called into headquarters. Apparently each were polled by the Clark and Kerry campaigns on candidate preference: Dean, Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, or Clark. Kucinich was left off the list, and when the supporters responded their support for the Congressman, the calls were disconnected prematurely.
January 26, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
More on volunteers...
A lot has been made of Dean's massive grassroots volunteer GOTV organization, and I'm the first to admit the numbers are in fact impressive. However, as we saw in Iowa, numbers are not everything. The criticism which emanated from politicos after the disappointment in Iowa ran namely along the lines of "too many, too green, too little organization". Burlington vowed to make changes, and some of those changes are evident here on Elm Street in Manchester, with the opening of the Dean Volunteer Operations Center. Josh Marshall also visited the site a few days back, and I share many of his impressions, although during my visit, there were only about a dozen volunteers, and five or six "facilitators".
The idea behind the volunteer center is certainly justifiable; it addresses the criticism that the Iowa volunteer organization was anything but organized. As my press "facilitator" guide assured me during my tour, volunteers are processed as efficiently and quickly as possible from the time they cross through the double doors. Brian, Wampum's new intern, reported during his visit that the line for volunteers spilled out onto the sidewalk, and yet when we both stopped in a half hour later, the crowds were gone, sent out to canvas or wave signs.
I don't believe, however, that the new center will solve the problem it attempts to address, a better, more effecient, more capable, volunteer GOVT effort.
Case and point is the Edwards volunteer effort, lead as I mentioned yesterday, by Kinsey Casey. Half frozen volunteers climb the two long flights of stairs to the third floor headquarters, and are mostly organized for canvassing, lit-dropping and visibility in the cramped hallway. Phone banking and refreshments are located in the middle of staff offices, and oftentimes it's difficult to tell who is paid and who flew in to volunteer for a few days.
And that's the beauty of it, from my point of view. As I sat in the end of the hallway writing last evening, five college-aged individuals sat down, pulled out stacks of literature, DVDs, stickers and started putting together canvassing packs. I asked them where they were from - North Carolina, Chicago, Albany. Then I asked when they'd arrived, expecting, from the confidence in which they moved about their tasks, to hear they been in NH for weeks. They all had arrived on Friday, a mere two days previously.
While often "messy", the benefits of integrating staff and volunteers is immeasurable. It's follows the same principles of "mainstreaming" special needs kids; there is no substitute for "peer modelling". Separating volunteers from professional staff denies them the opportunities to learn the skills critical to run an effective campaign. As the campaign grows from primary effort to a general election race, those volunteers who have mastered those skills can be called upon to help educate and break in a whole new class of volunteers, and may often graduate to paid staff in smaller campaigns. It's part of the evolution of political "hackery" (in the positive sense of the word.)
While it's great to have a launching ground for GOTV election day activities separate from central campaign offices, it should be a one day affair. While talk of empowerment is heady, instilling volunteers with the nuts and bolts of organizing a campaign is truly empowering, as I saw from the young Edwards volunteers.
Looking for the Koufax Awards?
If you are here to vote for your favorite lefties in the Koufax Awards, you may start here and scroll down. If you are looking for a specific category in which to vote, try one of the following:
Finalists Best Blog
Finalists Best Writing
Finalists for Best Post
Finalists Best Series
Finalists Best Single Issue Blog
Finalists Most Humorous Blog
Finalists Most Humorous Post
Finalists, Most Deserving of Wider Recognition
Finalists Best New Blog
Finalists Best Expert Blog
Finalists Best Non-Liberal Blog
Finalists, Best Design
Finalists Best Special Effects
If you are looking for MB’s on-the-ground coverage of the New Hampshire Primary try here and here.
Chasing a Ghost
What are we to make of the news about David Kay, the chief WMD hunter in Iraq? He has resigned his position. In an interview, Kay expressed the view that no substantial stockpiles of WMD are in Iraq. Mr. Kay has also noted that:
the C.I.A. and other agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after the first Persian Gulf war, in 1991.and that there has been no substantial production of WMD since the first Gulf war in 1991.
These days, it seems difficult to find anyone who based his or her support for the war on the urgency of disarming Saddam. Many folks justify the war on the basis that Saddam was a brutal dictator who oppressed the Iraqi people with rape rooms, mass graves and other techniques.
Others justify the war as a means of showing that we are serious about terrorism and that by striking in the heart of the Arab world we provide a powerful symbol of American strength. Still others hope that Iraq emerges as a democratic nation, marking a different path for the Arab world. Finally, some see the war in Iraq as a first step in a series of confrontations between Islam and the West.
For one person, however, the war was about the WMD. For that person, had it been known that Saddam had no WMD, the war would not have been necessary. That person is George W. Bush.
President Bush made clear in the run up to the invasion that war could be avoided if Saddam disposed of his WMD. George W. Bush would have permitted Saddam to remain in power free to oppress the Iraqi people, sending them in countless numbers to rape rooms and mass graves if it had been known that Saddam possessed no WMD. In the absence of WMD, George Bush did not feel that the establishment of a free and democratic Iraq was worth the price in blood and treasure. It now appears that George W, Bush went to war chasing a ghost.
Those are strong words. The evidence to back up those assertions is contained in the words of George W. Bush and administration officials in the run up to the war.
On October 21, 2002, President Bush made some remarks after meeting with Congressional leaders. He said:
Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq. I've made up my mind we need to disarm the man. .. I'm suggesting that the same old stuff isn't going to work, John. And we won't accept the status quo. There needs to be a strong new resolution in order for us to make it clear to the world -- and to Saddam Hussein, more importantly -- that you must disarm.
The decision to go to war had not been made but the President was determined that Saddam would be disarmed. Does that not imply that it was possible that disarmament could avoid a war? If disarmament would not avoid the war, why was it important that our position on disarmament be made clear to Saddam?
Two weeks later at a campaign speech in South Dakota on November 3, 2002, President Bush said:
And my message to Saddam Hussein is that, for the sake of peace, for the sake of freedom, you must disarm like you said you would do.
It is hard to understand a call for Saddam to disarm “for the sake of peace” as anything other than suggesting that war could be avoided if Saddam disarmed. The President did not say, “for the sake of peace, resign.” He did not say, “for the sake of peace, liberate your people” and he did not say “for the sake of peace, establish a democracy.” The requirement for peace was disarmament. According to David Kay, that requirement was met.
Eleven days later on November 12, 2002 at the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department Operations Center the President said:
It's over, we're through negotiations, there's no more time. The man must disarm. He said he would disarm, he now must disarm. And, you know, this kind of deception and delay -- all that is over with. The country is committed to making the world more peaceful by disarming Saddam Hussein, it's just as simple as that.
Two days later, on November 14, Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan noted what the confrontation was really about:
Saddam Hussein needs to cooperate and he needs to comply. And he needs to move to disarm. We are very serious about this. I think that's very clear. And the international community is speaking with one voice. The United States is speaking with one voice. And this is about disarmament and he better not start playing games.
It was not about Iraqi kids having schools. It was not about rape rooms. It was not about a grand neocon idea of remaking the Middle East. It was about disarmament and, according to David Kay, Saddam was disarmed.
On November 23, 2002, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer squared the circle of disarmament and regime change:
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's position is that Saddam Hussein needs to live up to the resolution and disarm. If he does not, he will be disarmed. So that's the President's position, to be clear about what the President is saying.QUESTION: The President has never said that we want to remove Saddam Hussein from office.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said that he hopes that Saddam Hussein and Iraq will comply with the resolution. If they don't, we will disarm them.
QUESTION: In the press conference with Tony Blair, the President didn't say, "We want to remove Saddam Hussein from office"?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President's position is either he will disarm or we will remove him so Iraq is disarmed.
QUESTION: Did he or did he not say that he wants to remove Saddam Hussein, in that press conference with Tony Blair? I mean, is that his position or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: Look, this is an age-old issue and we've gone through this a month ago about can Saddam Hussein disarm.
QUESTION: No, but do we want to remove him from office or not?
MR. FLEISCHER: If he doesn't disarm, yes.
QUESTION: If he does disarm?
MR. FLEISCHER: If Iraq disarms and you have all the other products of the U.N. resolution obeyed and what President Bush called for in New York obeyed, then the regime will have effectively changed. ..This is not very complicated. The objective is to disarm Saddam Hussein and have Saddam Hussein live up to everything that he committed to, that the President called on him to do in his September 12 speech.
As Fleischer said, it was not really very complicated. If Saddam disposed of his WMD, war could be avoided. Saddam had no WMD and George W. Bush was intent on chasing the ghost.
In his December 7, 2002 radio address the President described disarming Saddam of his WMD as “a central commitment of the war on terror” necessary to “prevent terrorist groups and outlaw regimes from threatening the American people with catastrophic harm.”
We now know that even before the war began, we had achieved a “central commitment of the on terror” and that it was not necessary to go to war with Iraq “to prevent terrorist groups and outlaw regimes from threatening the American people with catastrophic harm.” Of course, the specter of the ghost remained so we went to war.
On January 2, 2003 the President spoke to the press. He said:
First of all, you know, I'm hopeful we won't have to go war, and let's leave it at that…Until Saddam Hussein makes up his mind to disarm -- see, it's his choice to make. See, you need to ask him that question, not me…. He is a man who likes to play games and charades. The question is, will Saddam Hussein disarm. The world has asked him to disarm from weapons of mass destruction. The first indication isn't very positive that he will voluntarily disarm….You know, Saddam Hussein -- hopefully he realizes we're serious, and hopefully he disarms peacefully. He's a danger to the American people, he's a danger to our friends and allies. For 11 long years, the world has dealt with him. And now he's got to understand, his day of reckoning is coming. And therefore, he must disarm voluntarily, I hope he does. All right, let's go get a coffee.
Having no weapons of mass destruction, disarming was not a choice available to Saddam. It is deeply ironic that Saddam could have prevented war and remained in power if he had taken the precaution of acquiring some WMD so that he could disarm. Having acquired no WMD, Saddam could not disarm and therefore could not avoid war and ouster.
On January 14, 2003 at a photo-op with Polish President Kwasniewski, the President told us what he had in mind:
What I have in mind for Saddam Hussein is to disarm. The United Nations spoke with one voice. We said, we expect Saddam Hussein, for the sake of peace, to disarm. That's the question: Is Saddam Hussein disarming? … Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm.
How clear was President’s Bush’s message that Saddam could avoid war by disarming? In Saint Louis on January 22, 2003, the President said:
He's a dangerous, dangerous man with dangerous, dangerous weapons. And that's why the world came together at the United Nations Security Council and said, Mr. Saddam Hussein must disarm. The message was as clear as can possibly be delivered -- Mr. Saddam Hussein must disarm.My hope is that Saddam Hussein will disarm voluntarily; that's my hope. I take seriously the commitment of any troop into combat. I desire peace. But in the name of peace, in the name of securing our future, if Saddam Hussein will not disarm, the United States of America and friends of freedom will disarm Saddam Hussein.
On January 29, 2003 President Bush noted that if Saddam disarmed, the horrors of war could be avoided:
I'm convinced that this still can be done peacefully. I certainly hope so. The idea of committing troops is my last option, not my first. I understand the terrible price of war. I understand what it means to put somebody into combat. I know what it means to hug mothers and wives. But I've got to tell you something. I've thought long and hard about this. The risks of doing nothing, the risks of assuming the best from Saddam Hussein, it's just not a risk worth taking.So I call upon the world to come together and insist that this dangerous man disarm.
The last two statements can only be understood as stating the President’s position that if Saddam disarmed, he could remain in power. If he disarmed, there would be peace. Peace in that context means that Saddam, the brutal and evil dictator, would have remained in power free to oppress the Iraqi people..
Had it been apparent that Iraq possessed no WMD, Mr. Bush’s position on the war would have been no different that of Howard Dean. Mr. Bush did not think that liberating the Iraqi people was sufficient reason to go to war. He did not think that establishing a democracy in the heart of Arabic speaking nations was sufficient cause to go to war. He did not think the opportunity to remake the Middle East in Tom Friedman’s image was sufficient cause to go to war.
Mr. Bush thought that Saddam’s failure to disarm WMD was sufficient cause to go to war. Saddam had no WMD to renounce, so war was inevitable. Many people now believe that the war was justified by reasons other than Iraq’s possession of WMD. I expect that President Bush shares that view today.
Before the invasion, disarmament was Mr. Bush’s reason for the war. We had achieved that goal before a shot was fired. We went to war chasing a ghost.
January 25, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
The Manchester miracle...
Well, perhaps that's overstating it.
However, one of the key things which wins elections is enthusiastic, happy, organized volunteers. And while, as we saw in Iowa, it's not the be-all-and-end-all, without a strong volunteer corps to staff and election day GOTV effort, a potential win can disintegrate into a stunning loss.
Most political types knew that while Senator Edwards was spending considerable time in New Hampshire (just completing his 100th town hall meeting since this summer), his on-the-ground effort lagged behind the other New Englanders, and more recently, Clark. Eight paid staff ran the eight local offices, with the help of sundry committed interns and volunteers.
This is where Kinsey Casey came in.
Ms. Casey, a veteran from Gov. Shaheen's campaign, coordinates the Edwards' statewide volunteer effort. She was gracious enough to take some time out of her ridiculously busy day to provide me with an overview of that effort.
Ensconced in an office out of the main traffic pattern, Ms. Casey's workspace is remarkably quiet and non-hectic. Besides the cheers emanating from the Dean visibility crew on the street below, there are few interruptions to our meeting.
But what is stunning is Ms. Casey's walls; the entire 12 foot vertical space of two adjoining walls are covered with multicolored 3"x5" post-it cards, each with the names and other critical information of Edwards' out of state volunteer force. They're organized by location and dates. There appear to be upwards of two hundred, although I didn't count. Ms. Casey, though, admits that the wall is no longer up to date. She had to abandon the system after Iowa, when hundreds of new volunteers called immediately following Edwards' shocking second-place finish.
But the "miracle" lies in part with Edward's appeal, and in part with the hard work of Kinsey Casey. Ms. Casey confided that the campaign had gotten a late start in securing accommodations for volunteers; by the time she called the traditional places, meeting halls and the like, all the space was reserved by the other campaigns. Surprisingly, Ms. Casey found sufficient Edwards' supporters happy to house a volunteer or two. But that was when the numbers were still modest. The barrage after Iowa offered the real challenge.
Anyone who has run a campaign volunteer effort knows how difficult it can be to convince local families to open up their home to complete strangers. Complete strangers who work long, hard hours, and whom you may never see other than to hand them sheets and towels and point out the guest bathroom. The fact that hundreds of New Hampshire supporters of Senator Edwards took it on good faith that these volunteers were truly upstanding, their only recommendation that they too were Edwards fans, is a testament to the depth of feeling the Senator instills in these people.
I know that other campaigns also put up volunteers with locals. But the fact that every Edwards volunteer who needed a place to stay is in the home of a supporter. None are camped out in church basements or on the floors of the Goodfellows hall. And none are put up in tents in freezing temps, as I heard tell of in Iowa.
So maybe not a real miracle, but a damn good accomplishment. Congrats to both the Senator and Ms. Casey.
Manchester HQ
Posting from Edwards New Hampshire Headquarters on this bitterly cold Sunday afternoon. When I arrived this morning, fifteen frozen but enthusiastic volunteers were waving and cheering on the street below the third floor Elm Street office. Located in a Victorian office building in this former mill town-turned-high-tech-wannabe, the space is cramped but buzzing. Three small rooms house phone banks, computers and volunteer activities. The space, which was probably comfortable for the New Hampshire activities a month ago, is now clearly strained as an influx of volunteers from around the country stream in to participant in what has all the look and feel of a genuine "movement".
Earlier this afternoon, I travelled to Nashua, to see the Senator speak in a local middle school. The crowd in the gym reached capacity a half hour before Edwards arrived, and from what I heard from Eric afterwards, C-Span estimated over 1700 attendees.
I'll be writing a full account of those event later this evening, and while I planned on spending today attending other events of other campaigns, I'm finding much of the interesting story is here.
Now a volunteer needs this computer, so I'm off until later.
January 24, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month
2003 Koufax Awards –Finalists
In a series of posts immediately below, we have narrowed the nominees for each of the fifteen categories of the 2003 Koufax Awards to a list of seven to nine finalists. The competition was fierce in each category and there were many nominees who deserved to make the finals. Narrowing the list down was not an easy task.
Please vote for one finalist in each category by comment or email. The voting will remain open for about a week and we will then announce the winners. [update: email voters please use koufax@abenaki.wabanaki.net, mail to {MB/Dwight/Eric} works also. E.] Typo corrected, either address works. E.
We have long wanted to provide some token of recognition for the finalists. Kevin Hayden was kind enough to prepare and provide an icon for the purpose Each finalist is welcome, if they wish, to copy the icon and post it on your blog. The icon should be modified to identify the category in which you have been honored.
Our thanks go out to each of the finalists for the enjoyment, insight and information you have provided us over the last year. You have been recognized by your readers and peers for the quality of your work. We would also like to thank all those who provided nominations and who helped us to narrow the list of nominees. Please vote for your favorites.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best Blog
The seven finalists for the 2003 Koufax Award for Best Blog are listed below.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best Writing
The nine finalists for the 2003 Koufax Award for Best Writing are listed below.
Body and Soul by Jeanne D’Arc
Calpundit by Kevin Drum
Hullabaloo by Digby
Making Light by Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Orcinus by David Neiwert
The Rittenhouse Review by Jim Capozzola
Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall
Whiskey Bar by Billmon
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists for Best Post
The nine finalists for the 2003 Koufax Award for Best Post are listed below.
Alas, A Blog for Pink Dream Poppies’ post A Comment on Rape and "She Asked For It”
Body and Soul by Jeanne D’Arc for Mr. Byron Goes to Sacramento
Calpundit by Kevin Drum for An Interview with Paul Krugman
Eschaton for Atrios’ Preznit Give Me Turkee
Making Light by Teresa Nielsen Hayden for The Fabric of the City
Open Source Politics for Susie Madrak’s A Matter of Trust
Orcinus by David Neiwert for The Political and the Personal
Prometheus 6 for Where We Stand
Whiskey Bar by Billmon for What a Tangled Web We Weave (The WMD quote post).
Please vote for one finalist by email or comment.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best Series
There are eight finalists for the 2003 Koufax Award for Best Series
Ted Barlow, formerly at his own site and now at Crooked Timber has been nominated for his series of light bulb jokes. The light bulb warehouse is here.
Busy, Busy, Busy by Elton Beard for his Shorter Series. I do not link to any specific post because you can just go to the site and begin reading.
Calpundit by Kevin Drum for his coverage of the Valerie Plame story.
Mark Kleiman is nominated for his series of Valerie Plame posts both on his own site and on Open Source Politics.
Making Light byTeresa Nielsen Hayden for her series on the missing or destroyed Iraqi Antiquities. That series consists of seven posts, Loss, Reading comprehension and other problems, And this is evidence of ..., Why it's a bad idea to burn old libraries,
Excellent good news, Recursive museum updates, and Baghdad museum: corrected corrections re-corrected.
Off the Kuff by Charles Kuffner for his exhaustive coverage of the Texas redistricting saga.
Orcinus by David Neiwert for his series Rush, Newspeak and Facism. That series can also be located at Cursor and in pdf ($5 donation requested) here.
Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall for his coverage of the Valerie Plame matter (search for “Valerie Plame” at the link).
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best Single Issue Blog
The eight finalists for Best single issue blog are listed below.
Confined Space for Workplace Health and Safety Issues
Daily Howler for Media Coverage
Daily Kos for Politics and Elections
Brad DeLong for Economics Issues
Informed Comment by Juan Cole for Middle East Policy
Maxspeak by Max Sawicky for Economics
Orcinus by David Neiwert for Domestic Terrorism Issues
Talk Left by Jeralyn Merritt for Criminal Law Issues.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best Group Blog
The seven finalists for the Best Group Blog Award are listed below. A group is defined as two or more regular contributors.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Most Humorous Blog
The nine finalists for the 2003 Koufax Award for Most Humorous Blog are listed below.
Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Most Humorous Post
The eight finalists for Most Humorous Post are listed below:
Light Bulb Joke Warehouse by Ted Barlow
Preznit give me turkee by Atrios of Eschaton.
MC Dick Cheney by Noho-Missives.
Twenty Most Annoying Conservatives of 2003 by Jesse Taylor of Pandagon
Shorter Right-Wing Punditry’s Reaction to the Valerie Plame Affair: In Internal Dialogue by Andrew Northrup, the The Poor Man.
The Dickification of the Western Female by Sadly, No
The Horror of Blimps by Scylla posted at Teeming Extras
Nicotrol For Right Wing Blog Addicts by The Mighty Reason Man of Very, Very Happy.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email
2003 Koufax Award Finalists, Most Deserving of Wider Recognition
We have narrowed the nominees for the 2003 Koufax Award for Most Deserving of Wider Recognition to nine finalists. Some of the blogs listed below are already widely read. That does not disqualify them from the category as they may be so interesting and so insightful as to deserve even greater visibility.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best New Blog
The nine finalists for the 2003 Koufax Award for Best New Blog are listed below.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best Expert Blog
The seven finalist for the 2003 Koufax Award for Best Expert Blog are below.
Balkinization by Prof. Jack Balkin for expertise in constitutional law
The Bloviator for public health issues
Informed Comment by Professor Juan Cole for expertise in the history of the Middle East and South Asia
Maxspeak by Max Sawicky for expertise in economics
Semi- Daily Journal by Brad DeLong for expertise in economics
Talk Left by Jeralyn Merritt for expertise in criminal law
Trish Wilson’s Blog for expertise in father’s rights and child custody issues.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or by email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists Best Commenter
The eight finalists for Best Commenter are listed below.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Awards Finalists Best Non-Liberal Blog
The nine finalists for the 2003 Koufax Award for the Best Non-Liberal Blog (the “Drysdale”) are listed below.
An Unsealed Room by Allison Kaplan Sommer
Just One Minute by Tom McGuire
The Light of Reason by Arthur Silber
Unqualified Offerings by Jim Henley
The Volokh Conspiracy.
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.
2003 Koufax Award Finalists, Best Design
We have narrowed the nominees for Best Design to a group of eight finalists. Which of the finalists has the design that you find most useful and esthetically pleasing? The finalists are:
Not Geniuses
Open Source Politics
Please vote for one finalist by comment or email.