Wampum

Not funny

Seems Zvi Greismann, attorney for the Montgomery County Public Schools has been taking stand-up comedy lessons from George W. Bush. Or perhaps vice versa. Bush's performance at the Correspondents' Dinner last week, where he jokingly searched under Oval Office furniture for missing WMDs, incited strong criticism from family members of soldiers killed or injured in Iraq. Greismann's own brand of comedy indicated a similar lack of conscience, as he mocked the school systems' purported opponants, families of special needs children seeking the system's compliance with federal disability law.

According to the WaPo, here are a few examples of Greismann's brand of humor, fully funded by state and local tax dollars:

[J]oked that Cuisinart has come up with the Due Processor, which "shreds, dices, cuts, blends, frappes and otherwise destroys" unwanted applications for due process hearings, where schooling disputes are resolved.

Showing a photo of elated children, he said, "In Boulder, Colorado, a group of students took to the streets in celebration of their due process victory, where the judges awarded them new sets of parents."

With a John Madden display of arrows and circles, he gave a play-by-play of how a school system used its skill to deny a family the placement sought for a child.

...

[G]oals for special-ed students derived by the "National Association of Underachieving Smartypants Educators and Administrators," or NAUSEA: "You will complete the entire homework assignment without your parents' help" and "You will sit in your seat with your big fat mouth shut for at least five minutes without attacking anyone."

Parents who later learned of Greismann's satire at the expense of disabled children and their families were understandably angry:

"I was horrified," said Marcie Roth of Rockville. "It made me feel awful that a roomful of people were having a good laugh at something that my family and I have found so difficult."

Seeing a meeting for a student's individualized education plan (IEP) portrayed as a sports play-by-play riled Selene Robinson of Rockville. "It just confirmed my feeling of what we went through in Montgomery County," she said. "You always felt after an IEP meeting they must be laughing their tushes off."

I tend to be the kind of person who tries to approach adversity with at least a semblance of humor, and will often joke about life as a POA. Dwight does as well.

But this crosses the line of laughing "with" to laughing "at"; The glee is derived from denying the most basic of American rights, to a free and appropriate education, to our most vulnerable children. If the parents of special needs kids in Montgomery County have their way, they'll have the last laugh, with the firing of attorney Greismann.

[note: Thanks to Emily for the WaPo head's up]

Reading the tea leaves...

The Commerce Department's "Factory Orders" report was released this morning, showing rather a rather anemic 0.3% increase in February orders. This was good news after January's 0.9% decline in orders (previously reported as -0.5%), but not nearly as robust as the 1.5% the market had predicted.

A closer look at the actual Commerce release (versus the positive AP spin) isn't so rosy. Take out defense orders and commerical aircraft, and factory orders failed to make it into positive territory.

However, what I personally found most interesting was the dramatic drop in non-durable factory orders, such as food and clothing, which fell a whopping 2% in February.

In light of our recent focus on gas prices, it had me wondering: While price hikes at the the pump might not particularly effect consumers purchases of large durable goods, such as cars, washing machines, etc., as people tend to finance those items, might they not impact the purchase of goods such as food and clothing? If you have less in your wallet/checking account/credit card limit due to the money you're pouring into your tank, how will it effect your consumer behavior? And are retail outlets which place these orders now reacting to a decrease in sales, or merely predicting a slow summer as gas prices creep higher?

Just something to thing about as you fill up with $2/gal regular this week.

Smoking out the real culprit behind rising oil prices...

As Dwight mentioned below, OPEC met today, in part to determine whether the previously proposed cuts in production would in fact be instituted. With gas prices soaring to record levels, and consumers grumbling, Washington has purportedly ratcheted up the rhetoric, calling for OPEC nations to forgo the production cuts.

So much for sending an oilman to talk to other oilmen. OPEC members agreed today to decrease production.

As I read the NYTime analysis of the decision, I was struck most by one of the trailing paragraphs, which seemed to be almost an afterthought on the part of reporter Simon Romero:

Few analysts believe, however, that OPEC will actually implement production cuts even if it announces such measures. For instance, it would be almost impossible for OPEC to immediately implement any cuts in April since its members have already committed to shipping oil to customers around the world next month.

So if "those in the know" believe that OPEC is actually just bluffing, that they can't in fact decrease production due to production contracts, then why has the price of oil increased substantially since OPEC first announced the proposed cuts two months ago?

OPEC members argue that it's not even their fault. According to AP's reporting of today's meeting,

Although demand for oil in Asia and the United States has been unexpectedly strong, Naimi of Saudi Arabia blamed investors and speculators for pushing crude prices up to their highest levels since the 1991 Gulf War. Current prices "have absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand" for crude, he told reporters.

Libyan Oil Minister Fahti bin Shatwan sought to deflect criticism of OPEC by claiming that the recent plunge in the value of the U.S. dollar has inflated crude prices by about 30 percent. He claimed that the real value of barrel of oil is around $20.

Taking a gander at the recently released quarterly reports of various oil companies, high OPEC prices don't appear to have put a dent in their profit margins, some of which surpassed previous records.

So if Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don't give a fig whether production cuts might spell the end of Bush's re-election plans, what about Bush's oilman buddies? Are they willing to reduce their own profit in order to throw a sop to the increasingly irate masses, looking to fix blame for the pain they feel every time they fill up at the gas pump? It seems to me that Ted Kennedy and others needs to rethink their own target when urging Bush to "jawbone" OPEC. Americans are more than willing to blame "feriners" for our economic distress, even when the true culprits are much closer to home. Bush and his cronies are plenty happy to play this game of bait and switch; Democrats are foolish if they don't understand that by simply enabling this ploy, and are in fact throwing away an immense opportunity, if they allow OPEC to become the bulls eye for US consumer ire.

Jawbone OPEC?

MB has often written about the recent rise in oil prices. Oil is currently trading at $35.80 per barrel for US light crude. Gas prices are also hitting record highs:

Gas prices crept to another record high Tuesday, a day before OPEC meets to discuss its planned oil production cuts in April.

The AAA's survey of gas prices hit a new record of $1.753 a gallon on Tuesday, up 3/10th of a cent from Monday's average. It marks the sixth straight record for the survey, which is updated every weekday.

John Kerry thinks that the administration should be doing something to reduce gas prices:

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for U.S president, plans to call on President George W. Bush to pressure oil-producing nations to pump more petroleum …

Is jawboning OPEC to increase production a useful suggestion?

Even before the recent spike in oil prices, one presidential candidate thought jawboning OPEC was the right idea:

“What I think the president ought to do,'' he said while campaigning in New Hampshire where heating oil prices were soaring, “is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, `We expect you to open your spigots!'''

Just because we expect OPEC to open the spigots, it seems unlikely that they will do so unless they perceive it to be in their interest. Is it in their interest? One presidential candidate, at a New Hampshire debate, thought so:

Q: What pressures should be brought on OPEC nations to lift oil production?

A: It’s important for the president to explain in clear terms what high energy prices will not only do to our economy, but what high energy prices will do to the world economy. It is in the Saudis’ best interests for the price of oil to mellow out. It’s not only in our country’s best interest; It needs to be explained to them it’s in their best interests. And I will do so.

Do we have any special leverage over the Middle East oil producing countries to induce them to increase production, thereby reducing prices? One presidential candidate thinks so. He suggested that as president:

He would use his “political capital'' with Mideast producers. “These are countries where it wasn't all that long ago that a President Bush helped Kuwait,'' he reminded voters, alluding to … the Gulf War.

”I think Americans ought to be asking where's all the capital we earned overseas after defending some of our OPEC nation friends?''

In each of those cases, the presidential candidate was, of course, George W. Bush.

The OPEC oil ministers are to begin meeting in Vienna on Wednesday where they are expected to discuss a cut as opposed to an increase in production. Perhaps President George W. Bush should listen to advice from candidate George W. Bush.

Shadows Of Moral Confusion

USA Today reports:

Pope John Paul says Sunday should be a day for God, not for secular diversions such as sports and entertainment.

"When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes subordinate to a secular concept of 'weekend' dominated by such things as entertainment and sport, people stay locked within a horizon so narrow that they can no longer see the heavens," the 83-year-old told Australian bishops visiting the Vatican.

He criticized the "culture of the 'here and now,' " urging church leaders to "lead men and women from the shadows of moral confusion and ambiguous thinking."

NASCAR races are held on Sunday. George Bush recently attended a Sunday race. The NFL plays on Sunday. George Bush watched the first half of the Super Bowl on a Sunday until he fell asleep. When George W. Bush was a part owner of the Texas Rangers, they rarely if ever had an off day on Sunday.

Has George W. Bush contributed to the “culture of here and now” while leading Americans, particularly the children, towards the “shadows of moral confusion and ambiguous thinking?”

Nah, instead John Kerry will just be accused of not being a good Catholic.

It Is All Atrios’ Fault

Coming home today, my wife “asked” me to come into the office where my computer is located. The tone of her request made clear that “right now” was the appropriate time. Upon arriving, I saw Bobby playing with my computer (which is not at all unusual) and my wife standing with her hand on her hip, her body language making clear that I had some ‘splaining to do. “Listen to this”, she said. I listened and decided to chose the best option open to me.

“It’s not my fault” I quickly began. “Well, exactly whose fault is it?” she asked. I thought for a moment and said, “It’s Laura Ingraham’s fault.” “We don’t listen to the GOP Fembots” she said. “Well, well, it’s really Atrios’ fault,” I stammered. “Is that your story?” she asked. “And I am sticking to it,” I concluded.

As she left the room, Bobby in tow, I sat down to write this post to prove that it really wasn’t my fault. It really, really was all Atrios’ doing.

Before I tell of Atrios’ dastardly deed, I need to explain a few things about full spectrum autistics and communication. Bobby is almost nine and has very limited speech. He will say a few words with intent to communicate, such as “please” when he wants something. He will occasionally identify numbers or letters by their name. He has a few other things he will say with intent but not many. His verbal communication is really very limited.

Bobby, of course, has other ways to communicate. He uses gestures and pointing a lot. He has a talking device that allows him to turn a knob and press a button to have the machine say any of 160 different words or phrases. He will use the machine to “say” multiple word sentences like “May I have some more juice, please?” He will use the machine when highly motivated but not yet for everyday communication.

Bobby also has a lot of cards that contain both the word for and a picture of an object. He will select the card and hand it to an adult to request the item. He knows what a large number of such cards mean, and will use them when motivated. All in all, we got along pretty well but we very much want Bobby to learn to communicate verbally.

That is not to say that Bobby does not “talk.” He is constantly saying things. We can understand a fair amount of what he says. It is just that such “talk” is not really an effort to communicate.

Bobby loves to play audio tapes, video tapes, and computer games. He does not play the tapes straight through but will select a small portion, and listen to that portion over and over, hundreds of times. Over time, he learns to reproduce the sounds he has heard. His reproductions include the background noises, the sound of the tape player rewinding and any other sounds repeated in the selected portion. The professionals call that “echoalia” and distinguish it from speech.

Bobby’s reproduction of the sounds comforts him and is part of his self stim routines. He also delights in having other people understand what he is saying and repeat it back to him. For instance, currently Bobby likes to say “take your second right past Mars, on the Magic School Bus.” He is also fond of “We’re a crackerjack brigade, on a pachyderm parade” from the Disney movie “The Jungle Book.” Once he learns to reproduce the sound of a tape segment, he likes to say the phrase and repeat the sound over and over, sometimes for hours at a time.

What does any of that have to do with Atrios?

Atrios is always on the alert for hypocrisy. As a result of the Janet Jackson incident, some TV and radio personalities have been feeling some heat from the culture cops. In particular, Clear Channel has dropped Howard Stern in some areas allegedly for using some offensive language on the radio. Others have noted that Stern did not get the boot until he began criticizing the current administration. An example of a right wing radio personality getting by with behavior that resulted in punishment for a Bush critic would lend credibility to the idea that Stern was dropped more for his Bush criticisms than for bad language.

Atrios, of course, found just such an example. That is why he is the Beatles of blogging.

On her radio show, Laura Ingraham was talking about Tucker Carlson interviewing Brittany Spears. Another voice chimes in asking “Did Tucker get to **** her?” If you can’t fill in the blank, and I know you can, you can click through to hear it yourself.

That exchange, apparently, went out over the air. I am not aware of any action taken against Ingraham or her show by the FCC or the culture cops. When Atrios posted the link, I bookmarked it as I was thinking about blogging the issue if no FCC investigation occurred.

When I entered the office, Bobby was playing the Ingraham segment over and over and had been doing so for a couple of hours. Deb knew that he was playing on the computer but had no idea what he was playing, and replaying and replaying as he learned to repeat it. Not the entire segment, of course. He was only interested in the part that rhymed.

We expect a call from his school by mid-day tomorrow after he shows off his new skill.

Now, it seems clear that the bulk of the blame should fall on Atrios for two reasons. First it was at his site where I originally found the link. Sure, I bookmarked it and left the link in an unprotected file on a computer that I knew Bobby used. Nonetheless, my fault is miniscule when one considers the second reason that it must be Atrios’ fault.

He is anonymous and I am not.

Something’s Missing

Fareed Zakaria, writing in Newsweek argues that it is a mistake to conclude that terrorism requires a state sponsor:

Stepping away from the partisan screaming going on these days, the 9/11 commission hearings and—far more revealing—the panel's staff reports paint a fascinating picture of the rise of a new phenomenon in global politics: terrorism that is not state-sponsored but society-sponsored…

I asked an American official closely involved with counterterrorism about state sponsorship. He replied, "Well, all that's left is Iran and to a lesser extent Syria, and it's mostly directed against Israel. States have been getting out of the terror business since the late 1980s. We have kept many governments on the list of state sponsors for political reasons. The reality is that the terror we face is mostly unconnected to states." Today's terrorists are harbored in countries like Spain and Germany—entirely unintentionally. They draw on support not from states but private individuals—Saudi millionaires, Egyptian radicals, Yemenite preachers.

This is the new face of terror: dozens of local groups across the world connected by a global ideology.

That sounds right to me but David Frum, writing in NRO thinks it is all wrong:

Without the indulgence and complaisance of governments worldwide, al Qaeda could never have taken form. If the Saudis had cut off the flow of funds to al Qaeda, if Afghanistan had denied al Qaeda its territory, if Pakistan had not formed a tacit alliance with al Qaeda and the Taliban, if radical governments like Arab had not incited anti-American and anti-Western extremism, and if moderate governments like Egypt had not appeased it – minus all these ifs, al Qaeda would never have become the menace it has become.

Let’s see, Frum argues that Al Qaeda would not have thrived without state support in the form of money from Saudi Arabia, territory from Afghanistan, the alliance with Pakistan and the appeasement of Egypt.

There seems to be one country very conspicuous by its absence from that list. You know the one. It beings with an “I” and ends with a “q”.

Which Country?

If, as we keep being told, the fight against terrorism must not be approached from a law enforcement perspective but rather must be combated militarily, one question remains. Which country should Spain invade?

Update on the Petty Tyrant of Kennebunkport

Last December, I posted on the plight of a teenage boy from southern Maine, incarcerated in federal prison for the crime of incinerating the engine of Poppa Bush's yacht, while attempting to coverup his break-in to a local boatyard. The boy, previously identified only as Patrick (the NYTimes has now published the minor's full name) was sent to a federal facility in Pennsylvania, hundreds of miles from his family. A federal court judge in Portland has now reopened the case, to determine if the original sentencing justice acted illegally in shipping the juvenile arsonist off to the wilds of Penn's Woods.

Locally, the case has stirred some resentment, in a region which has generally given the former President a pass for siring the current miscreant to occupy the Oval Office. Even the conservative Portland Press Herald, which ignored the story when the boatyard fire first occurred, reported on the apparent injustice of Patrick's placement, and the link to Bush Sr.'s beloved boat. Not a good sign for the first family of Kennebunkport.

While I'm very pleased to see a possible light at the end of the tunnel for young Patrick, the press has missed another important aspect of this story. Patrick may have been the only New Englander housed in the federal juvenile facility, now known for its lack of appropriate educational and rehabilitative services, but he wasn't the only teenager kept hundreds of miles from community and family. The majority of Patrick's prison-mates are Indians, having committed their crimes on "federal" property, i.e., reservation lands. They too are lost in what the New York Times deemed a "legal black hole".

But while Patrick has the benefit of being a middle-class white kid from Kennebunkport who torched Bush property, thus conveying some media "sex appeal" to the story, the teenagers from the rez have no such luck. They remain trapped in a system which was never meant to exist, not even registering on the media's radar.

Convergences and Divergences

Would the U-boats bring Britain to its knees before American power could make itself felt on the battlefronts? That was the question to Generals Ludendorff and Hindenburg, in February, 1917, and the production/interdiction/consumption curves came within six weeks of famine for the UK, and then the curves diverged.

By July 1943, the Americans were building ships far faster than the Germans could sink them. The point of closest approach of the production/interdiction/consumption curves was Spring, 1943. "The Battle of the Atlantic was the only thing that really frightened me" - Winston Churchill.

The visual most often cited to convey the sense of strategic blunder is this.

At some point, Napoleon knew. At some point Donitz knew. At some point Hindenburg knew. The other side was winning the race. The other side had solved the logistics problem. The other side was producing lowest cost counter-force, and nothing could change the outcome.

RAC just pointed out on MtP that 90% of the population of Morocco and Algeria, who's governments are allies of the United States ... now hate the US. He mentioned Hosni Mubark's comments to the Egyptian Army at Suez, "Instead of having one (Osama) bin Laden, we will have 100 bin Ladens."

It is left as an exercise to the reader the percentage of the populations of the rest of North Africa, the Middle East, Arabia, Western and South Asia, (India excluded), that share this view.

At an approximate cost of $1,000,000 per unit, whether cruise missle delivered (targeting overhead and supporting forces costs not included), or a SOCOM op with force depletion of one or more, we can't possibly loose, neh?

At some point the light must have gone on in the Kremlin. At some point on the trajectory between K's "we will bury you" speach, which was intended as a production curve remark, not as it was spun by its intended audience, as a would-be gravedigger's hollow promise, and the spent-into-the-ground collapse of the Soviet economy under the last of the Commie Tsars, the intended by-product of which was dimminished command and control over strategic and tactical theater weapons, or at least the parts that make an impression when used as intended, at some point before it all augered in and rotors and parts went random happy directions, Red Players knew they'd lost, that the curves were diverging, not converging.

Set your watches. Slightly before 10am today, and Tweety and the Gang seem to have missed it, today, the Racoon, the only person at this point known to have reasonably clean hands, observed that OBL will be caught or killed soon, and that the curves are diverging, not converging. We are not winning. We're not likely to either.

The Weapon Shops of Isher

Dom-V? No Thanks.

Dear Larry, and the rest of the nice folks at Gun Owners of America and the 2004 Candidate Questionaire Maine team,

Thanks for the questionaire. I was going to blow it off as yet-another-exercise-by-pompous-airheads, except for three questions. They gave me pause. And then of course there was the how-wrong-can-you-be question about domestic violence and access to defensive arms. So, you're right on the clip question (#6), clips are just well-formed cowboy coffee cups with springs on their bottoms. You're right on the cosmetics too (#5), the "military" appearance issue is really just a sumptuary law, can the commons wear crimson and velvet, in hardware drag. You're right on the Sharps question too (#15). Its downright funny that anyone is trying to regulate a tube type that last committed a street crime when Abe Lincoln was still in the White House. Of course, if you've any buffalo on staff I could see your point.

However, you appear to be seriously out to lunch on just about everything else.

Look, Berkeley, Cambridge, Moscow, and the rest of the latte-loving portions of the Republic have passed local laws attempting to keep the Feds from moving nuclear waste, nuclear fuel rods, nuclear weapons components, nuclear weapons, and so forth through their little burgs. You go the preemption route and claim the locals can't force you to check your hardware when in Dodge and you're running with the big dogs, who'd be just as happy dumping glow-in-mid-day-slurry into your backyard pool as they would be dumping it in the water supply of some Gawd-forsaken tribe of Indians out in Upper Nowhere. I can't believe there is a collection of gun nuts stupid enough to want the Feds to tractor-trailor up a double-wide full of leaky 1960s-era 55 gallon drums, go jacks-down, and leave the little darlings to age out in the open under a theory of Federal supremacy and no local preemption. That takes care of questions #2 and #3.

Questions #1 and #8 are at odds with each other, but I expect you knew that when you put them on the same push-poll and seperated them respectably. Look, either American arms are crap, more likely to fail after a month of normal use than the average arms on the Central Asian grey markets, and you busta caps on any buy-side limitation, question #1, and the executive staffs of Colt et al do perp walks on the strict liability issue, question #8, or the executive staffs of Colt et al, and their shareholders all sleep soundly, and you eat some sort of buyer's limit.

You have to pick one row and hoe it. You definitely do not want to claim both busta caps and non-liability on the part of the manufacturers, cause if you do, as compulsive buyers of weapons (you're not replacing worn out guns, neh?), you're looking at the wrong end of an addiction arguement. Putting gun owners on the same level as the miserable, dog food eating, paycheck-squandered-on-Powerball-tickets loosers, that isn't the best line an advocacy organization could take, neh?

Besides, to be realistic about this, campaign contributions from Colt outweigh those from the arms-rich, dollars-poor splinter sect of the armed population. I'll make you a bet. Donald Zakhlis will send my client money just because I'm taking a piss all over you and your margin of wingnuts, because he doesn't want the liability in exchange for the marginal sales the gun-a-month-club make on the low end of the product/price curve. Besides, you guys don't actually buy new, so you're just after-market churn and nobody's bottom-line.

Let's see, that leaves #4, #7, #9-11, #12, #13, and #14. Look, questions #4 (registration), #7 (age), #9 (buyer check), #10 (licensing), and #11 (quickie buyer check) are all the same question, and an utter waste of time for serious people. Question #12 (locks) is a no-brainer. A three year old can point, aim, and fire a standard handgun. You don't want to go into question #7 as a champion of the rights of draft-age teens to win fire-fights with your starting point being the rights of pre-schoolers to pump a round through Barney, or the baby-sitter.

The only serious question left is #13, lucky 13. The domestic violence question. Unfortunately you have this one upside down. The issue isn't taking a firearm, statistically a piece of crap that hasn't seen Hoppe's or brush longer than the lifetime of the relationship-at-risk, and only marginally more likely to kill, maime or simply frighten the snot out of the potential intended toe-taggee than the potential intended toe-tagger. The issue is the prompt delivery of an effective arm to the battered spouse. A call to 9-11 should yeild, not just a peace officer intent on re-establishment of peace, until he hops back in his rig and heads back to the doughtnut shop, but an assortment of ladies arms, and a helpful assistant, who can match shades of makeup appropriate for recent bruising, and a tastefull assortment of sub-9mm accessories.

If "gun rights" mean anything, other than too much beer and testosterone and some socially useful slaughterhouse not visited, and Nam does come to mind, if it has a Constitutional meaning, then it has to mean the protection of the weak from the strong. That, in a nutshell, is where you blow it. You're on the side of the armed batterer, the dom-v perp, piously praying to prevent partial patriarchal pacification. You should get out of the line of fire. The gun goes to the dom-v vic, and self-defense is self-defense.

Basically, the Avon Lady is higher up on the food chain, and she could be working a side-line with Colt products, and that's where public policy and the public purse should be. Loaner weapons for as long as the risk exists, like white bicycles in Amsterdam. Good weapons at reasonable prices, with reasonable rates of fire and reasonable return terms. With good engineering and mass production, the cost point on a single-use defensive weapon can be less than a pair of off-brand shoes, with the interesting side-effect that advanced materials construction could make women's defensive arms invisible to the existing metal detection regime that screens out men's offensive arms in some social circumstances. Lipstick with attitude, available in several shades of dissuasion. That takes care of your #14 (Vermont-style concealment) as well.

That leaves rate-of-fire, question #6, and cosmetics, question #5.

The whole semi-auto and mag question really is just auto-sear in disguise. Look, I've friends who import IMI (Uzi) for ... European governmentally licensed buyers. There are few legit uses for high-rate-of-fire or sustained-fire weapons, and to be blunt, most users of auto- or near-auto- projectile weapons would be better served by rethinking their problem, or using shaped- or omni-directional charges. On average, a kilo of Semtex or C4 has fewer unintended killed and wounded than an excited first-time gunner with a MAC-10 and a couple of back-to-back bannana clips in similar target environments. The whole semi- thing is simply non-hunter, non-marksman, and non-sense.

I suppose I should point out that shooting cement-filled Coor cans a mile down range and dusting pre-killed automobiles is pretty fun, and I hear that recreational machinegunning, like recreational artillery, is a lot of fun, but the safty requiremnts, not to mention the cost of the ammo, make both about as exotic as polo. It is sort of daft to hang an every-man-must-have-a-polo-pony arguement out in a transportation policy foodfight, and fixating on the near-fully-auto when working the arms and domestic tranquility policy areas is, well, as wierd as fixating on polo ponies.

Cosmetics. You don't actually contest the right of goverment to require that military-style weapons, the AR-15 say, be finnished in happy colors rather than gun-metal gray or camo? You agree that funtion, not style, is the issue to retain, and if government chooses to make civilian market weapons conform more to the frilly girl's bike model of engendered tools than the BMX boy's bike model, that is not an infringement on gun rights, neh? A bike is a bike after all. Pedals, wheels, seat, frame. Brakes optional.

Well, responding to your push-poll has been a lot more fun than I thought it would be, and I'm damn sure that a lot more Mainiacs are happy with the three-round limit on smooth bore weapons, and wouldn't notice if held to five for rifled weapons, and don't have much use for pistols, and could live comfortably with the laws of Quebec or New Brunswick, than not. Your guys are probably the same ones that do bear over doughnut and whiskied-apple baits. I guess there's no real harm in firehosing small dead bears, its just something I can't imagine doing. There are cultural differences between Indians and Euro-Americans, and that's one of them.

I enjoy shooting. Cutting paper at distance with a nicely balanced .22 target pistol is relaxing, and the smell of cordite, well, it is one of those things. Put my client down for a grade of "F", and if you ever manage to write a non-push-poll, send it, the price of a decent dinner for two, and we'll look at it. I want to see a concealed weapons question, a DU question, with a lead question on the side, to flush out those anti-waterfowlers, a projectile coating question, and a prior act or state of mind question.

It is probably too much to hope that my client's primary, or general election opponants are going to debate the set of social uses of firearms issues. We probably won't run into a Second Amendment Simpleton until we get to Augusta, so doing standup comedy with of one of your folk heros will have to wait until then. As a shooter, it simply amazes me that sport shooting has been taken over by political droolers, but then again, the Republicans got run out of their party by religious droolers, so I guess it is just one of those things.

You know y'all can still emigrate to Idaho and Paraguay, right?

Sincerely, etc.

This is where the GOA 2004 Candidate Questionaire Maine will go. It is far too long, and poorly written, to type out for them.

Let Me At ‘Em

I know that this dates me, but I was a big fan of the Portland Trailblazers in the Bill Walton era.

One Portland player, Maurice Lucas, was an enforcer. He was about 6’9” and 250 pounds of muscle. He also had a mean streak developed growing up in a very tough section of Pittsburgh. He could and did intimidate players, referees, reporters and even his own coaches. Whenever the game got overly physical, particularly if other teams were trying to muscle Bill Walton, Lucas would quickly put an end to it, with an elbow if possible and with his fists if necessary.

In one playoff game, an opposing player drove to the basket only to be leveled by Lucas. The opposing player, not knowing that it was Lucas who had fouled him, jumped up, cursing, looking for a fight. Lucas puffed out his chest and took one step forward. The opposing player saw, for the first time, that it was big, mean Maurice Lucas who had fouled him. He quickly began having second thoughts about the wisdom of fisticuffs. He clearly was scared.

At about the same time, referees and other players had surrounded and restrained both players. Once Lucas was firmly held by two or three other players and the danger had passed, the opposing player’s attitude changed again. He began pointing at Lucas and yelling “I want a piece of you.” Once he was in no danger, it was easy to pretend to be brave to try to save face. No one watching the game was fooled in the least.

Who was the opposing player? I do not wish to say but for the purpose of this post, let’s think of him as Condi Rice.

Dr. Rice says she would be “delighted” to testify before the 9/11 commission.

The Times reports:

Ms. Rice has said repeatedly that if she had her way, she would testify, and late on Thursday she offered to be interviewed in private, as she was for four hours on Feb. 7. But President Bush, her close confidante, has been adamant, White House officials say, that any public appearance would violate longstanding precedent against incumbent national security advisers testifying before a legislative body.

Ms. Rice is described by administration officials as being frustrated at having to remain publicly silent before the commission and as being eager to make her arguments against the case that Richard A. Clarke, her former subordinate, has marshaled against her.

Dr. Rice says she really, really wants to testify but Mr. Bush just won't let her. The president is “adamant” in refusing to allow her to testify publicly and under oath.

What the basis for the refusal? The White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a letter to the 9/11 commission Chair and Vice Chair setting forth the reasons for the refusal to turn Condi loose. He wrote:

More important than the legal precedents are the principles underlying the Constitutional separation of powers at stake here. In order for President Bush and future Presidents to continue to receive the best and most candid possible advice from their White House staff on counterterrorism and other national security issues, it is important that these advisers not be compelled to testify publicly before congressional bodies such as the Commission.

That argument has a degree of plausibility but is, in fact, unmitigated garbage. The key word is “compelled.”

The 9/11 Commission has not issued a subpoena to to compel Rice to testify. It is perfectly clear that Dr. Rice could voluntarily (with White House consent) agree to appear before the committee and testify in public and under oath.

The protections for the National Security Advisor can not be greater than those of the President at whose pleasure she serves. If the President could voluntarily testify before the commission there is no reason why Dr. Rice could not.

The precedent of a sitting President testifying voluntarily before a congressional body is clear and indisputable.

A month after becoming President as a result of the resignation of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford issued a pardon to the former president. A firestorm of criticism erupted over allegations that a deal of resignation for a pardon had been made.

PBS describes how Gerald Ford handled the controversy:

The pardon, coming only one month after Nixon's resignation and Ford's inaugural, also provoked a new suspicion to imperil Ford's fledgling presidency:

Was there a deal between Nixon and Ford?

Responsible voices in Congress raised the question... To make a truthful response, Ford knew that he would have to disclose that Al Haig, Nixon's chief of staff, had proposed a pardon as a condition for Nixon to resign. With his usual directness, Ford decided the best way to handle the problem was for him to go up to the House, testify, and spell it out...

Ford did testify before Congress, as no president had ever done before. Before the House Judiciary Committee, Ford gave his account of what happened in his meeting with Haig. Was there a deal? one representative asked.

Ford's reply was blunt: "There was no deal. Period. Under no circumstances." .....

If a sitting President can voluntarily testify before a Congressional Committee without the Republic falling, there is no constitutional reason that the National Security Advisor can not voluntarily testify in public and under oath.

What stopped the basketball player from instigating a fight was his abject fear of Maurice Lucas. Once that fear passed, he tried to save face with a show of bravado.

The only thing stopping Dr. Rice from testifying, publicly and under oath, is her and the President's abject fear of the facts becoming known to the American people.

The rest is just a show of bravado to save face.

Despicable Tactic

One of the more despicable tactics of the right is to accuse liberals of wanting bad things to happen to the country so as to reap political gain. I have often heard conservatives claim that liberals are hoping that the economy will tank so that Bush can be defeated. I have rarely heard Republicans criticized for making such claims.

One example will suffice. In 2002 when the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals were in the news, then House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt reportedly commented that:

The party could pick up as many as 40 House seats if the continuously unfolding corporate scandals can be kept on the political radar screen until November.

SpinSanity described the comment as “basic political strategizing.” Nonetheless, the Republicans were quick to allege that Gephardt wanted to harm the American people. Spinsanity quotes Rush Limbaugh as saying:

They're talking down the economy, which is up, and they're making a big deal out of these corporate scandals, and they're gonna keep doing it until November. They want you to get hurt, folks, so that you'll vote for them to fix it ... These guys are praying for mass economic failure.

It was not just radio blowhards making that argument. Tom Delay, appearing on CNN said:

The Democrats are working to extend America's misery for their own political gain, and we just think that's just outrageous.

What makes the GOP’s tactic so despicable is that it presumes that Democrats do not simply have policy disputes with Republicans but rather that Democrats are evil. It is part and parcel of the GOP charge that Democrats lack patriotism.
Where was the firestorm of criticism of Republicans for making those outrageous charges?

One rarely hears the flip side of the argument. For instance, Ron Brownstein in the Los Angles Times notes that:

The president's strongest asset in the 2004 campaign has been the unwavering sense among most Americans that he is providing resolute leadership against terrorism.

Dick Morris argues that anything that increases the saliency of the terrorism issue helps Bush. Morris then goes on to say:

The Madrid bombing, by indicating that al Qaeda is alive and well and still capable of striking, would seem to help Kerry. But it actually benefits Bush because it demonstrates the importance of terrorism as an issue.

Can you imagine the firestorm that would be created if Democrats charged that Bush wanted additional terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda so as to improve his reelection prospects? When Republicans argue that Democrats want us to fail in Iraq or want the economy to tank so as to increase the chances of defeating President Bush in November, no firestorm of criticism erupts.

Why is that?

Robert Novak And the Race Card

Conservatives often accuse others of “playing the race card.” Those accusations are, in essence, that others assert that racial animus is the motivation for actions when no proof of such motivation exists.

One person who is fond of suggesting that others are playing the “race card” is Robert Novak. When Al Gore and Jesse Jackson called for Trent Lott to step down as Senate Majority Leader after his comments regarding Strom Thurmond and segregation, Robert Novak was quick to accuse Jackson and Gore of “demagoguing and playing the race card.”

When then Vice president Gore chastised Republicans for their treatment of Judge Ronnie White, Novak called it “Gore’s Race Card.”

When Jesse Helms was criticized by Democrats, Novak came to his defense claiming that Helms' critics had been “reduced to ad hominem assaults and playing the race card.”

Via Elton Beard, by way of Julia, it appears that conservative columnist Robert Novak is now doing exactly what he professes to abhor.

From a Crossfire transcript:

NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: Say that again?

NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.

If Novak has evidence to suggest that the race or gender of Dr. Rice animates Richard Clarke’s position, he needs to produce it. If he has no such evidence, he needs to apologize to Clarke. He also needs to keep his mouth shut about others playing the race card.

And speaking of bullets...

I received my first "candidate survey" in the mail. This one, from the Gun Owners of America. Even as a supporter of the rights of local turkey and deer hunters, I knew I was in trouble.

Question 1:

Do you oppose "one-gun-a-month" laws that limit purchases by law abiding citizens?

While I can't see any reason for needing to buy more than one gun a year, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. But it got worse.

Do you oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic firearms?

Do you oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of large-capacity magazines?

Do you oppose laws that would ban the sale of a privately owned firearm at a gun show unless the buyer submits to a background check?

Do you oppose computerized "instant" background check systems?

Do you oppose government mandated use of trigger locks or other locked storage requirements?

Of course, what's missing from this list I posted was the "push" comments added by the surveyors. This one gained considerable meaning when I misread it slightly,

Recently, there has been proposed legislation to ban firearms possession for mere misdemeanors that may be no more serious than spanking your child or shooting at your spouse. This legislation specifically targets gun owners, as it does not restrict other rights."

Would you oppose legislation that bans firearms ownership due to simple misdemeanors?"

Now, the truth of the matter is I misread "shouting at" for "shooting at", but let's be realistic. If anyone has been arrested, charged and convicted of "shouting at" their spouse, there obviously was something a little more serious going on.

The survey goes back to the GOA via post on Monday. Fifteen questions, and I failed them all miserably, at least I imagine the Gun Owners of America will determine such. Oh well.

Will tomorrow's mail bring a survey from the Right To Lifers, asking whether I support the use of contraceptives which may conceivably (pun intended) prevent a fertilized human egg from implanting? Or from the Christian Civic League, inquiring on my support for the "preservation" of marriage? (Preserve marriage? Allow everyone to marry, and ban divorce.)

The lesser known joys of running for public office. It's scary to think that individuals who answered "Yes" to all fifteen GOA survey questions may be elected this November. Or perhaps already were, in elections past.

Reality sinks in....

I thought with the purchase of the new laptop, blogging would pick up considerably. What I realized, however, was that I now had to deal with all the campaign-related tasks which I had put off due to the lack of dependable hardware. And it's amazing just how many things there are to do when beginning even a relatively small campaign, such as my run for the Maine House.

The "Message":

If my pursuit of this office should somehow fall short (i.e., I lose), I now know a sure-fire way of making my first million. Develop software which allows a candidate to throw in some sundry information about her personal strengths, her opponent's weaknesses, district demographic, pressing local hot-buttons, etc., etc. and, viola, out pops the campaign "message". Candidates will line up for miles, willing to pay exorbitant fees for those few precious sentences which "define" the candidate, and the race, up until the election.

For, to be honest, unless you're Machiavelli, establishing the campaign message is not particularly fun; in fact, it ranks slightly above having a root canal. But only slightly.

It sounds like it should be a cakewalk; Highlight your strengths, which, in a perfect world, are hopefully mirror-opposites of your opponent's Achilles' heel. Of course, unless you're Martin Luther King running against Tom Delay, it never is that easy.

And then there are the hidden strengths, the ones you're not supposed to mention, except perhaps in a sideways manner. For example, in my district, women comprise 62% of the Democratic electorate. And seeing that I'm the only Democratic woman running in the entire city (let's not mention Portland is the only major New England city without female representation in the state legislature), this should be one of those "mirror opposite" strengths, as my opponent is obviously male. But according to members of the local "Old Boy Network", it would be inappropriate for me to publicly focus attention on this detail. Affirmative action is "officially" a plank in the Democratic platform, but somehow, grassroots Democrats have subconsciously rejected it as inherently "unfair". Go figure.

So instead, I'm left with less tangibles to flesh out. But I did it. Took me over a week of ripping out my own, and my deputy campaign manager's, hair, and practically led to a dissolution of my marriage, but it's done.

Which then led to the first piece of...

Campaign Literature

I honestly convinced myself that I'd put this off due to the lack of adequate publishing software (which I refused to install on the previous machine-in-meltdown.) So once I had the laptop humming, I had no excuse.

Except, I hadn't a clue as to where to start.

See, like campaign messages, there is no "Campaign Literature for Dummies" manual out there. Not only that, there are very few websites which even give examples of good, or bad for that matter, literature. And how many of us pay attention to, let alone hold onto, the reams of paper which make their way into our mailboxes come June and November? My beloved printer could only come up with a few examples (turns out that every other candidate is also looking for a clue, and scooped up the goods before my appointment.)

So novice candidates are on their own. For the past few days, I've sat at the laptop, message in hand, pages of notes, attempting to get my past, present and future hopes and dreams onto the back and front of an 8.5" by 14" piece of 100lb glossy paper. It's truly amazing how the seminal turning points of one's life are deemed irrelevant when it comes to campaign lit. Terms like "white space" take on new meaning, and the shape of bullets can make one lose sleep.

The good news is, the first lit piece is done. With the bulk mail permit I picked up yesterday, we go live with our first mailing within the next few weeks (I'd tell you when, but then my campaign manager would have to kill you...or me...?)

So for all you budding entrepreneurs wondering how to survive in the new economy? Message software and compilations of past campaign literature. Sure to top the list at Amazon...though probably not until 2006, if you can starve that long.

They Should Be Doing Stand Up

The New York Daily News has an article about how the Clarke testimony and book have knocked the President’s reelection campaign off stride:

President Bush's best campaign week of 2004 came to an abrupt end when explosive charges that he was snoozing at the wheel before 9/11 knocked the White House back on the defensive.

"This guy popped up at the wrong time for us," one Bush counselor complained. "We had [John] Kerry on the run, and now we have to deal with this distraction."

The Bushies didn't see it coming because the frosty-haired terror czar's testimony to the 9/11 commission was relatively benign.

There was one other reason that the Bush campaign was caught off guard:

One aide said the White House was further blindsided because they never expected 9/11 to be politicized.

Hahahaha. Robin Williams has nothing on those guys.

Elsewhere in Blog-i-stan

Over on Atrios, Tena has a piece on the latest alleged al-Zawahri tape. In it, the speaker is calling on the citizens of Pakistan to rise up and overthrow their pro-American government link.

Owing to my Return of the ... One True King series, I now get press releases from Naveed Butt, spokesman (in Pakistan) for the Hizb ut-Tahrir, see also link. See Alisher Khamidov's piece from last Fall in Eurasianet for slightly dated background on this particular central asian underground radical Islamic organization.

The press release is entitled "Musharraf is transforming Pak Army into Colonial American Army", and in two longish, but not unstylishly so, paragraphs, argues that case, and inter alia, for the replacement of Americans-by-proxy (Generals) by Mullahs.

Folks needing to see the original drop me a note.

Pledge Problems

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow , the Pledge of Allegiance case yesterday. I, for one, hope that the Court will resolve all issues surrounding the Pledge as it has caused me nothing but confusion for more than forty years.

Like many of my generation, I encountered the Pledge as an elementary school student. Unlike some, as we recited the Pledge each morning at the start of the school day, I thought about what we were saying and became hopelessly confused.

My first problem was with the last phrase, “with liberty and justice for all.” Now growing up is a small southern city in the early 1960s, it was as obvious to all that we did not provide “liberty and justice for all.” A large group of residents of our town, mostly on the east side, were not free to do many things and could not expect anything resembling justice. I was confused as to why we would keep claiming “liberty and justice for all” each morning and then forget all about it for the rest of the day.

I asked my mom about it. She patiently explained that “liberty and justice for all” was an aspiration and not a description. We hoped to provide liberty and justice for all and, when we fell short, as we did every day, we could always hope to improve in the future.

That made sense and even though only a very few people seemed to be trying hard to live up to the ideal, I thought I understood the Pledge. The more I thought about it, though, the less sense it made. Do we really aspire to provide liberty and justice for all? It seemed obvious that we did not. The whole purpose of the criminal courts was to provide justice by denying someone his liberty. If we provided liberty to people who broke the law, how could be we providing justice? It seemed to me that our goal was to provide “liberty or justice for all”. If you obeyed the law, you got liberty. If you did not, you got justice.

I started saying the Pledge the way that made sense until Ms. Keys, my third grade teacher, made me stop.

Pledging our allegiance to the flag also struck me as very dangerous. If Hitler had captured our flag and, brandishing it, ordered our soldiers to put down their arms, would they have to do it? If Lex Luthor stole the flag and ordered me to help with one of his nefarious plots, would it be my patriotic duty to help lure Superman into the room with the kryptonite? I actually worried about such things. Such is life when you are ten.

Now, with the appearance of Newdow before the Court I am again confused. When the 9th Circuit ruled the inclusion of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge unconstitutional, a firestorm broke out among conservatives.

According to some, removing the phrase would “would produce a public outrage … greater than any we’ve ever seen.” Why is that?

Alternet notes the reason for the firestorm:

Fundamentalist Protestants and conservative Catholics oppose Newdow because they want this godly Pledge affirmed as constitutional, but the truth is that they also believe it favors religion – and should. They are confident that America functions "under God," that the Founders believed this and that we should say so out loud.

In other words, removing the phrase from the Pledge would be dissing God and religion. Alternet continues:

Take the Roman Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia... he claims "that government – however you want to limit that concept – derives its moral authority from God," that this was "the consensus of Western thought until very recent times… That consensus has been upset, I think, by the emergence of democracy." His bizarre argument appeals to "people of faith" not to resign themselves to this deplorable "tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government" but "to combat it as effectively as possible."

Americans have already done this, he claims, "by preserving in our public life many visible reminders that – in the words of a Supreme Court opinion from the 1940s – 'we are a religious people, whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'"

Religious people want “under God” in the Pledge because it affirms religion. I can understand that even if it poses some constitutional problems. Where I get confused is when the proponents of keeping the phrase in the Pledge deny that it has anything to do with religion.

As one report puts it:

Lawyers for the Elk Grove school district and the Bush administration countered that the pledge is a ceremonial, patriotic exercise and not religious, so it doesn't violate the Constitution's prohibition against state-sponsored religious activity.

In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick writes:

One of the thorns in this case is that supporters of the pledge say the words "under God" are political, historical, ceremonial—anything but religious.

Indeed, Solicitor Olson argues in his brief that:

The government, arguing to uphold the present language, argued in its brief that the pledge is a patriotic expression, not a religious testimonial. Theodore Olson, the administration's top attorney, said that the pledge's reference to God simply acknowledges the role that religion had played in the founding of the country.

"The purpose of reciting the Pledge is to promote patriotism and national unity, not a religious belief," he wrote.

If that is true then it is hard to see how removing the phrase disses God or religion. Perhaps it disses our history (all the way back to 1954 when the phrase was added to the Pledge) but if the Pledge is not a religious statement, then removing the phrase can have no effect on religion.

If removing the phrase is not harmful to religion, then it is hard to see what all the controversy is about.

No matter how old I get, I just can not seem to understand the Pledge.

Optional Reading

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Facts of the Case:

As part of instituting a required curriculum teaching American values, the state of West Virginia forced students and teachers to participate in saluting the flag. Failure to comply with this resulted in expulsion and the student was considered illegally absent until readmitted. A group of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to salute the flag because it represented a graven image that was not to be recognized.

Decision:

In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that the school district violated the rights of students by forcing them to salute the American flag.

There are some gems in this. I'm rather fond of this one.

Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction. If it is to impose any ideological discipline, however, each party or denomination must seek to control, or failing that, to weaken the influence of the educational system.

Trivial Pursuits

The ICANN social event was a buffet in the hospital of S. Spirito in Sassia. The Ospedale di S.Spirito in Sassia was presented as the oldest hospital in Europe, constructed at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th century, a long hall with an incomprehensibly high ceiling. Jeff Neuman (NeuStar) and I (ex-NeuStar) sat together and kibbitzed, along with Javier Sáenez and Marwen Radwan, responsible for the the Spanish and Palestinian ccTLD registries, respectively. A few days later I returned to S.Spirito to find the hall being used for the regional congress of the Forza Italia, the party founded by Berlusconi, which reminded me of our caucus in Portland. I'll write more on ICANN later.

Then succeeded Ina to the kingdom of the West-Saxons, whose kin goeth to Cerdic, and reigned thirty-seven winters.

Offa Sighering ... Seaxa Sledding ðonan forð is a near miss.

Ina succeeded Ceadwalla in 688 to become King of the West Saxons. In 728 he went on pilgrimage to Rome and founded the Saxon school. The school was endowed by a tax of a penny from each householder, the romescot (later "Peterspence") by Offa, King of Mercia. Ina's laws, Offa's laws, and Aethelbert's laws were incorporated into the laws of Alfred, and that brings us into the current term of the Supreme Court of the United States in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. Sorry about the nosebleeds.

I've written about the problem Oliphant presents, the sudden, absurd fiction that a pushing match between two men in 1977 was sui generis, utterly without precident, because it took place within tribal jurisdiction, and one of the men was not an Indian, and one was, and therefore this Constitutional Question required an inquisition by the Rehnquist Court -- a work of simply staggering fiction and non-scholarship that lives on in series of mindnumbingly stupid cases. What if the two men were both Indians, but not members of the same tribe? What it if wasn't a pushing match, but a dispute over a dog? What if ... How fine can the territorial jurisdiction of an occupied territory be shaved with mere pieces of paper?

The Rehnquist Court will hear arguement, assuming it does not first decide that a parent's standing in case or controversy arising from the First Ammendment is conditional and completely determined by "custody", on the general question: Is Christianity part of English Common Law?

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the doctrine [that Christianity was part of the Common Law] was a sort of judicial "forgery", that judges had "stole this law upon us," He described the doctrine as "the most remarkable instance of Judicial legislation, that has ever occurred in English jurisprudence, or perhaps in any other." In this letter he cited the long road back ... to Ina, and the room an Indian, a Jew, a Spaniard, and a Palastinian politely dined and discussed technology over wine and bottled water.

The laws of England, in their progress from the earliest to the present times, may be likened to the road of a traveller, divided into distinct stages or resting places, at each of which a review. is taken of the road passed over so far. The first of these was Bracton's De legibus Angliae; the second, Coke's Institutes; the third, the Abridgment of the law by Matthew Bacon; and the fourth, Blackstone's Commentaries. Doubtless there were others before Bracton which have not reached us. Alfred, in the preface to his laws, says they were compiled from those of Ina, Offa, and Aethelbert ...

We do not simply live in the present. Rob Williams (no relation) wrote on the origins of Federal Indian Law. He traced the roots of current law to the correspondence between Innocent IV and Guyak Khan in the middle of the 13th century, to the origins of the doctrine of "Natural Law", and of necessity, of Objectivism, necessary to observer correctly the workings of that Natural Law in human affairs. It is from this thin slice of lemon, the untested claim of Innocent IV that Guyak Khan and the Golden Horde would be destroyed by a Diety intent upon the preservation of "Natural Law" if they continued towards Rome, that we know that Christian Europeans are the better interpreters of the natural order of things.

This session the Bill and his Gang will decide if Ina was a Christian, or a King, and supply their own supporting evidence, carelessly overthowing the change-of-life of pilgrimage to Rome and establishment of the Schola Saxonum, and the great chain of reason from Ina to Offa to Aethelbert to Alfred to Bracton to Coke to Bacon and finally to Blackstone. The history of the Kings of England will be sacrificed to a vision of Christian Integralism as fierce and bloodyminded as any, Reform or Counter-Reform, that framed the Wars of Religion in Europe. We do not live simply in the present.

The Logic of the Defense

The logic of the White House’s defense of its pre 9/11 counterterrorism policy escapes me.

Critics have charged that the administration’s pre 9/11 policy was slipshod. The White House contends that its pre 9/11 policy was excellent. To prove its point, the White House (see here, here and here) discusses Richard Clarke, the man the White House put in charge of counterterrorism policy.

According to the administration, the person they charged with keeping America safe from terrorism is a grandstanding liar who is concerned only with which meetings he was permitted to attend. The person in charge of the administration’s pre 9/11 counterterrorism policy was out of the loop, just makes things up and is an irresponsible partisan who would “suck around” for a job.

The person the administration turned to lead the fight against terrorism did not want to eliminate Al Qaeda and just presented a bunch of tired old policy ideas. Of course, the administration also argues that it adopted most of those tired, inadequate policies.

Apparently, the administration believes that if it proves that the person in charge of its counterterrorism policy was incompetent, somehow that will show that the policy was good.

I find that argument completely convincing. After all, the White House has similar views of Paul O’Neill, the man it chose to run economic policy as the Secretary of the Treasury and we see the results of the administration’ economic policy.

Perhaps the White House can write a book about management entitled “The Key to Good Decision Making: Hire Bad People.”

The penny drops on Wall Street...

I was relatively surprised to hear of the market's slide as I half-listened to Marketplace while preparing lamb curry for dinner. There, analysts asserted "terrorism fears" were the dominant reason for the slide, a conclusion the NYTimes supported as well. My interest, however, increased exponentially when I read the second half of the Times brief para on the subject in today's report:

The turbulence in the Middle East discouraged equity investors already uneasy about a slow economic recovery and tepid job growth. Wall Street was also worried about decreased consumer spending due to rising oil prices. [emphasis mine]

So I've only been blathering on about this very possibility for nigh over a year now, about every time we've seen a serious spike in prices. $40/barrel has generally been what more analysts regard as the potential tipping point back into recession, and prices have bounded above $38/barrel in recent weeks.

But that it took this long for Wall Street to put 2 and 2 together is remarkably surprising...or maybe just plain worrisome. If consumers are pouring $30 bucks or more into their gas tanks every time they fill up, it's likely they won't be spenting that money elsewhere, like at the Gap or Home Depot.

It's not rocket science. But then, how long before Bush cancels the space program due to high fuel prices?

Anti-Terrorism Strategies

Vice President Cheney recently gave a speech in which he described the administration’s multi-faceted approach to fighting terror. According to Mr. Cheney, anti-terror strategies include efforts to:

1) protect the homeland;

2) dismantle financial networks of the terrorists;

3) go after terrorists wherever they are located;

4) work with intelligence agencies from around the world;

5) enhance our intelligence capabilities;

6) halt proliferation of WMD and WMD technologies;

7) apply the Bush doctrine (any person or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account).

After laying out the strategies for fighting the war on terror, Cheney segues to a discussion of the Iraq war:

In Iraq, we took another essential step in the war on terror. Before using force, we tried every possible option to address the threat from Saddam Hussein. Despite 12 years of diplomacy, more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions, hundreds of U.N. weapons inspectors, thousands of flights to enforce the no-fly zones, and even strikes against military targets in Iraq--Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. All of these measures failed. In October of 2002, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The next month, the U.N. Security Council passed a unanimous resolution finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein did not fully and immediately comply. When Saddam failed even then to comply, President Bush gave an ultimatum to the dictator--to leave Iraq or be forcibly removed from power.

That ultimatum came one year ago today--twelve months in which Saddam went from palace, to bunker, to spider hole, to jail. A year ago, he was the all-powerful dictator of Iraq, controlling the lives and the future of almost 25 million people. Today, the people of Iraq know that the dictator and his sons will never torment them again. And we can be certain that they will never again threaten Iraq's neighbors or the United States of America.

What is interesting about that segment of Cheney’s speech is that although he describes the Iraq war as “another essential step in the war on terror,” he does not identify a single one of the seven “War on Terror” strategies as underpinning the war in Iraq.

There is a disconnect between what Cheney says are the strategies for winning the war on terror and his description of the war in Iraq. Let’s look at each of the strategies and try to determine whether or not the Iraq war has moved the ball down the field in the war on terror.

It seems clear that the war in Iraq has done nothing to help protect the US homeland. Not only did Iraq pose no threat to our shores but the $150+ billion spent in Iraq could have been used to upgrade our homeland defense systems.

The war in Iraq has had only a peripheral effect on dismantling the financial networks of the terrorists. It is true that Saddam paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers but there is no evidence that Iraq was providing significant funding to Al Qaeda or other terrorists networks. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been far more generous in funding international terrorism than Iraq.

With regard to going after terrorists wherever they may be, the war in Iraq has been an abject failure. First, resources were diverted from the hunt for Al Qaeda in order to pursue the Iraq war. Secondly, when the administration had the option to go after one particularly bad terrorist group at the expense of possibly undercutting its rationale for the war, it chose to support the war over the destruction of a terrorist group. Third, having cried wolf about terrorists in Iraq, our credibility is damaged when we seek to locate and destroy other terrorists assets.

It is difficult to see how the war in Iraq has helped us work with intelligence gathering groups from other countries given the way the run up to the war was handled.

The fifth strategy is to upgrade our intelligence capabilities. We may have done so but the Iraq war did not help. Indeed, regardless of the quality of the intelligence we now gather, the administration’s deceit in using intelligence to promote the war in Iraq has harmed the credibility of our intelligence.

The sixth strategy is to contain the proliferation of WMD and WMD technologies. The war in Iraq may have helped push Libya to a decision to renounce WMD and if so, that is a good thing. The war does not seem to have prevented WMD development programs in North Korea or Iran. In addition, the credibility of our intelligence agencies has been seriously eroded as a result of the WMD claims in the run up to the Iraq war. The next time we call for action against a country and cite its WMD programs as the reason, the response may be less than overwhelming.

The seventh strategy is implementation of the Bush doctrine of holding those who harbor or aide terrorists accountable. Afghanistan is a good example of the Bush Doctrine at work and it won near unanimous support. The Iraq war is not a good example as Iraq had few significant ties to Al Qaeda or other groups of global terror.

The war in Iraq may end up having a number of benefits (permanent links having trouble) including those mentioned by Cheney. Prosecution of the war on terror just is not one of them.

A Firing Offense

I am generally very supportive of public school teachers. For the most part, I have found such teachers to be smart, hard working people of integrity. There are exceptions to every rule as this Atlanta Journal Constitution article shows:

A state investigation found Friday that 10 Georgia educators — six from Gwinnett and four from other counties — have bought bogus advanced degrees from an online university based in Liberia.

Officials with the Professional Standards Commission said the educators obtained doctorates and master's degrees from St. Regis University, a school that state investigators have learned sells degrees without requiring any course work…

Postgraduate degrees can boost pay for teachers by thousands of dollars a year. A Georgia teacher with 10 years of experience, a bachelor's degree and a salary of $36,864 would earn $42,393 after earning a master's and $53,173 after earning a doctorate, Toth said.

Georgia recognized degrees from St. Regis, because it was affiliated with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers, a nonprofit voluntary organization that includes a foreign education credential service.

But officials with the American Association of College Registrars and Admission Officers, said they offer membership to anyone who pays…

I think the teachers using the fake “degrees” to increase their pay should be fired for two reasons. First, by requesting and then accepting increased pay based on having a fake "advanced degree" the teachers have committed fraud. Any teacher found defrauding the public school system should be fired.

Secondly, academic integrity is a core value for teachers to instill in students. The teachers who purchased meaningless advanced “degrees” from diploma mills so as to cheat the school system out of money have demonstrated the absence of the very integrity they are supposed to teach.

Fire them.

Mail failure

Turns out that on top of my computer freezing and crashing, I seem to have a problem with my ISP losing my mail. Two campaign staff have inquired about emails they sent to me, neither of which I seemed to have received. Arg.

So, if you've sent me mail in the past few weeks, and I haven't responded, please send a test email to see if it's getting through. In the meantime, I'll put in a call to Time Warner to see what's up.

A reason for my pseudo-absence...

While many may have concluded that with campaign, kids, work, Portland Dems, et al., I've just been too busy to post much, the truth of it is that I've been limping along for months now with a 1998 Vaio which has been slowly dying. Between it freezing up 4-5 times a day and/or running at a snail's pace, I spent more time cursing it than I do Faux News. So with our ISP finally taking off (more on that in days to come, including our agreement with dotCoop to begin a bloggers cooperative, blog.coop), I could feel comfy enough to put down the cash for some new hardware.

Voila - here I am typing my first post from my brand-spanking-new HP 7020 laptop, with its amazing 17" screen. Didn't know Wampum was so poorly colorized, as I've been working off a very dark medium, having been "adjusted" way too many times by little inquisitive fingers. Guess I'll have to darken it up, and center a few things as well.

I still can't get my wireless to work, and I have no clue as to how to get my old files over to this computer, but at least I can compose without losing 7/8ths of my posts (I'm serious, that's how bad it got - actually "disabled" one keyboard after losing a particularly long piece to a "freeze event".) My mailboxes were constantly getting corrupted, and files lost. So glad to have that all in the past.

While I have events in the near future (tomorrow is selling Girl Scout cookies in the afternoon, and staffing the Maine Lesbian/Gay Political Alliance gala in the evening, and work on Sunday,) I should be much more prolific in the not-to-distant future. Yay.

Media Primer

Okay, we have some journalists in class today, so will take this nice and slow so that everyone can understand. This will be on the test so please pay attention.

To find out what a political debate is all about, look to see where the various parties disagree. The debate is about the disagreement, not the part on which everyone agrees.

When Congressional Democrats wanted to create a Homeland Security Department but the White House did not, the debate wass over whether or not we should have a Homeland Security Department.

When the White House flip flopped and agreed that we needed a Homeland Security Department, everyone was in agreement on that issue and it was no longer one of the terms of the debate. If Congressional Democrats wanted Civil Service protection for Homeland Security employees but the President did not, then the debate wass over whether or not Civil Service protections were appropriate.

Does everyone understand? Okay, let’s try a different example.

President Bush wanted $87 billion appropriated for Iraq and Afghanistan. He wanted to pay for it by borrowing the money and paying the loan off later. John Kerry was for appropriating the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan but wanted to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for it.

What was the debate about?

The debate was not over whether or not it was a good idea to appropriate the money. Everyone agreed that it was a good idea. The debate was over whether we should pay for it now or borrow the money and pay for it later.

Is that clear? Okay, class dismissed.

The Turing Test, Senate Version

Brad Delong recently gave House Speaker Dennis Hastert the Turing test.

The Turing test checks for signs of intelligence:

How can we tell if something is intelligent? Alan Turing's answer was that something is intelligent if it can pass the Turing Test--if it can carry out an appropriate conversation with a human being, responding appropriately, maintaining the thread of meaning, et cetera.

DeLong finds that Hastert flunks the test.

Perhaps, then we should check for signs of intelligence on the other side of the Capital, in the Senate. I propose that we give a Turing test to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist with the subject of the test being the budget deficit.

Dr. Frist has an interesting set of ideas about budget deficits. He, of course, is against deficits. In fact, Dr. Frist is so set against budget deficits that he thinks that a balanced budget should be enshrined into the Constitution.

Dr. Frist is also a strong supporter of tax cuts. Not only has he supported all of President Bush’s proposed tax cuts, he favors making those cuts permanent.

Max recently posted a chart showing that if Mr. Bush’s tax cuts are made permanent, five programs will consume all of the revenue of the federal government. The chart shows:

projected spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest against the revenue we could expect if the Bush tax cuts were made permanent. The adjustments to spending and revenues result in lines that cross in 2012. This means that under a balanced budget, there is no room left in the budget for anything but the five items listed above. N