It came out a couple of week late, March 29th instead of March 15th, but after nine years the new Webb Wilder is in my greedy hands. It actually showed up in my mail box this Friday, so I've had the chance for multiple plays all weekend. It was pre-ordained that I was going to like the thing, but I'll take the time to review it anyway.
About Time, is not exactly a typical Webb album. That isn't to say that any individual song doesn't sound like something he would do. They all fall into the Webb-like genre alright. It is the preponderance of the 1950's rock and roll feel that makes the album a little unusual. On previous albums you would find a couple tracks that hearkened back to that early rock era, but it was never the overarching theme before. Even the covers album Town & Country was more eclectic than deliberately a throwback the way this one is. The overall effect certainly is a good one.
That being said, it is interesting that two of the first three tracks do not fall into the 50's style really. "Down On The Farm" and "You Might Be Lonely For A Reason" are great examples of what made Webb's previous albums so much fun. "Down On The Farm" has the horns that marked such earlier songs as "Big Time" off of Doo Dad, and "..Lonely For A Reason" evokes the days of Webb's first album It Came From Nashville and a track like "Is This All There Is?"
The 50's rock and roll feel comes over most strongly with tracks such as "I Just Had To Laugh" and "Miss Missy From Ol' Hong Kong," the latter of which has a real Jerry Lee Lewis feel about it. "Scattergun" sounds like a cross between "Streets Of Laredo" and "The Ballad Of The Green Berets," if you can imagine that sounding Johnny Cash cool. Webb and the Nashvegans also offer a nice laid back old time bluesy version of the song "Jimmy Reed Is The King Of Rock And Roll." The lyrics of the "Battle Of The Bands" with its invocation of Eddie Cochrane's classic "Summertime Blues" only adds to the nostalgia factor.
When they break into "Old Copper Penny" they have a tendency to make it sound like a Jimmy Buffet song (for better or for worse-that's up to you); think of a mix of "Slow Boat To China" and "Pencil Thin Moustache." The boys then punch things back up by offering a medley of the covers "Mary Lou" and "Move It," which offer high energy even if they aren't the most memorable of songs. More memorable is another rocking cover "Little Boy Sad."
The last of the originals "The Only One" is simply fantastic. It just has a wonderful vibe, and a terrific vocal performance from Webb, a vastly underrated singer. I can't think why they buried the thing as the 13th track. It should prove a staple of the live shows. I know I'll be yelling for it.
If you enjoy the genre of Roots Rock at all you simply have to pick up on Webb Wilder. About Time would even make a good starting point if you haven't heard him before. Enjoy! And here is hoping it isn't nine more years until the next album.
Monday, April 11, 2005
The Intellectual Acumen Of Judges...
...Or the lack thereof. From Reuters: Badges Worn at a Murder Trial May Lead to a Convict's Release
A convicted murderer could be released from prison after 11 years because of a ruling on Friday that found it was wrong for family members of his victim to wear badges with an image of the victim during his trial.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the ruling following a review of the case of Mathew Musladin, who was sentenced to life without parole in the 1994 murder of Tom Studer, his estranged wife's fiance.
...
During Mr. Musladin's trial, three of Mr. Studer's family members wore buttons bearing his image within clear sight of the jury. The appellate court ruled that the images had a prejudicial impact.
"Here, the direct link between the buttons, the spectators wearing the buttons, the defendant, and the crime that the defendant allegedly committed was clear and unmistakable," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the three-judge appellate court panel. "A reasonable jurist would be compelled to conclude that the buttons worn by Studer's family members conveyed the message that the defendant was guilty."
One of the three judges dissented.
I'm sorry but this is simply nuts. The whole point of a trial is that there is a group of people who think the defendant is guilty, and they are trying to convince another group of people (i.e. the jury) to believe it also. The idea that the jury would be unable to do their job because they learn the family of the victim think the defendant guilty is absurd. The idea that displaying the image of the victim, the entire reason you are having a trial in the first place , would materially alter anything is simple nonsense.
The next thing you know the 9th Circuit is going to outlaw the prosecustion because, after all, they are so prejudicial to the defendant.
A convicted murderer could be released from prison after 11 years because of a ruling on Friday that found it was wrong for family members of his victim to wear badges with an image of the victim during his trial.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the ruling following a review of the case of Mathew Musladin, who was sentenced to life without parole in the 1994 murder of Tom Studer, his estranged wife's fiance.
...
During Mr. Musladin's trial, three of Mr. Studer's family members wore buttons bearing his image within clear sight of the jury. The appellate court ruled that the images had a prejudicial impact.
"Here, the direct link between the buttons, the spectators wearing the buttons, the defendant, and the crime that the defendant allegedly committed was clear and unmistakable," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the three-judge appellate court panel. "A reasonable jurist would be compelled to conclude that the buttons worn by Studer's family members conveyed the message that the defendant was guilty."
One of the three judges dissented.
I'm sorry but this is simply nuts. The whole point of a trial is that there is a group of people who think the defendant is guilty, and they are trying to convince another group of people (i.e. the jury) to believe it also. The idea that the jury would be unable to do their job because they learn the family of the victim think the defendant guilty is absurd. The idea that displaying the image of the victim, the entire reason you are having a trial in the first place , would materially alter anything is simple nonsense.
The next thing you know the 9th Circuit is going to outlaw the prosecustion because, after all, they are so prejudicial to the defendant.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
My Proto-Blogger Days
Before I started this blog I had periodic fits of energy just lookng for some sort of outlet. It led to a multitude of abandoned projects including some that held some real interest for me. Here is an example of something I was working on in the summer of 2004 as the presidential campaign was leaving me someting less than satisfied. Maybe it doesn't deserve a second life, but I'm the boss here.
There are dozens of political parties scattered across the landscape of American political life, encompassing a staggeringly large territory of diverse idelogical and issue positions. In view of this the most fundamental questions for any new political party are, Why do we need you? What can you offer that isn't already provided by another? These are fair and emminently important questions that no new party can ignore with impunity. In order to answer these question I will take a look at the relationship between citizens and the existing political parties.
Why does one become a member of a political party? James Madison, in his brilliant Federalist Paper #10, contends that the impulse to adhere to factions, of one sort or another, is a part of human nature. We naturally attach ourselves with likeminded others to espouse a cause, issue or religious viewpoint, to support a particular person for public office, and for many other reasons both profound and trivial. However, to become a true adherent of an organized political party you need more than this natural inclination to faction. Most modern political parties do not represent a simple faction. Most cover such a vast array of issues, causes, motivations and personalities that they offer no defining characteristic that can act as the "essence" of their party. The Republican and Democratic parties offer nothing which can be said to represent the "core" or "bedrock" of their beliefs. Every issue position which these parties trumpet loudly today is liable to be tomorrow's old news, swept under the carpet and largely forgotten. The effect of this lack of centeredness in the established parties can be seen in the slow deterioration of party identification and affiliation among the citizenry. A growing number of people support the Democrats or Republicans less than half-heartedly if at all.
And who can blame them. It is difficult to see in either of the established parties a coherent structure of political belief. For the average citizen this results in a situation where supporting any given political party means supporting issue positions the citizen disagrees with vehemently. In and of itself this state of affairs might not be intolerable, if the citizen could feel that their dissenting voice was able to be heard within the party. Increasingly such dissent is not allowed. In the name of "party unity" and in the mistaken belief that being democratic means being weak, both the Republicans and the Democrats stifle debate and the voicing of dissenting opinion within their parties. If change ever does occur within the issue positions of the parties, it is increasingly of a "top down" variety, such as presidential candidate Bill Clinton's injection of "welfare reform" into the mainstream of Democratic party life. In the name of political expediency both major parties will allow their top officials to alter party beliefs at the drop of a hat, and keep any possible complaints about such actions off the agenda. You can say whatever you like about the effectiveness of this arrangement for gaining desiered election results, but it cannot be called democratic. The average citizen knows that they can have no appreciable affect on the positions adopted by either of the established parties. When they support a given Democratic or Republican candidate at the ballot box, it is less about the ideals or issues involved, and more about voicing approval or disapporval of the specific candidates' personal character (real or percieved.) This is a sorry state of affairs and reduces every election to a paltry choice at best.
Why is this? It isn't that the natural inclination to faction outlined by James Madison has lessened over time, but that many Americans are dis-spirited by their lack of input in the options that exist. Americans, by and large, understand that in a democratic political system, you win some and you lose some. The pain of losing a fight is lessened in the knowledge that you had your chance and gave it your best shot. But when put into a situation where the end is preordained, we feel cheated. No citizen that cherishes his or her democratic rights will long stay in a situation that denies them. The Democratic and Republican parties lose members because they themselves do not function in a democratic fashion. They are elite driven oligarchies that attempt to derive mass support through the tools of propaganda, and not through democratic means. The informed citizen has become increasingly aware of these facts, and has, as a result, turned its back on active affiliation with the major parties.
Why then hasn't one or more of the older small parties taken off? There is no single reason why a given smaller party has not been able to capitalize on the growing disaffection between the citizenry and the larger parties. In general, however, two trends can be delineated that have hampered the smaller parties. The first is the tendency for smaller parties to fashion themselves in the likeness of the Democratic or Republican parties. In their issue positions they act, in effect, as "sterner" or "friendlier" versions of the established parties, depending on their particular inclinations. They often wind up adopting the "top down" model of party governence, wether by accident of having few adherents or in an effort to remain ideologicaly pure. The second tendency of the smaller parties is to adopt a policy of strict adherence to a specific set of issues or an ideology. This tendency keeps these parties from developing a wide enough platform for pursuing politics nationally. One issue parties (an oxymoronic term if ever there was) cannot translate to the wide scope of real American political life, they are hothouse creations that will wither and die when removed from their artificial environment. The tendency to strict ideological adherence can also lead to various forms of utopianism. Libertarians may have many good and interesting ideas about how the United States might be governed, but the moment you advocate a federal government that can be run from a double wide trailer is the moment you have left the real world for a utopian fantasy. Most citizens want their political parties to remain decidedly THIS-worldly.
Maybe in another life I was an 18th century pamphleteer.
There are dozens of political parties scattered across the landscape of American political life, encompassing a staggeringly large territory of diverse idelogical and issue positions. In view of this the most fundamental questions for any new political party are, Why do we need you? What can you offer that isn't already provided by another? These are fair and emminently important questions that no new party can ignore with impunity. In order to answer these question I will take a look at the relationship between citizens and the existing political parties.
Why does one become a member of a political party? James Madison, in his brilliant Federalist Paper #10, contends that the impulse to adhere to factions, of one sort or another, is a part of human nature. We naturally attach ourselves with likeminded others to espouse a cause, issue or religious viewpoint, to support a particular person for public office, and for many other reasons both profound and trivial. However, to become a true adherent of an organized political party you need more than this natural inclination to faction. Most modern political parties do not represent a simple faction. Most cover such a vast array of issues, causes, motivations and personalities that they offer no defining characteristic that can act as the "essence" of their party. The Republican and Democratic parties offer nothing which can be said to represent the "core" or "bedrock" of their beliefs. Every issue position which these parties trumpet loudly today is liable to be tomorrow's old news, swept under the carpet and largely forgotten. The effect of this lack of centeredness in the established parties can be seen in the slow deterioration of party identification and affiliation among the citizenry. A growing number of people support the Democrats or Republicans less than half-heartedly if at all.
And who can blame them. It is difficult to see in either of the established parties a coherent structure of political belief. For the average citizen this results in a situation where supporting any given political party means supporting issue positions the citizen disagrees with vehemently. In and of itself this state of affairs might not be intolerable, if the citizen could feel that their dissenting voice was able to be heard within the party. Increasingly such dissent is not allowed. In the name of "party unity" and in the mistaken belief that being democratic means being weak, both the Republicans and the Democrats stifle debate and the voicing of dissenting opinion within their parties. If change ever does occur within the issue positions of the parties, it is increasingly of a "top down" variety, such as presidential candidate Bill Clinton's injection of "welfare reform" into the mainstream of Democratic party life. In the name of political expediency both major parties will allow their top officials to alter party beliefs at the drop of a hat, and keep any possible complaints about such actions off the agenda. You can say whatever you like about the effectiveness of this arrangement for gaining desiered election results, but it cannot be called democratic. The average citizen knows that they can have no appreciable affect on the positions adopted by either of the established parties. When they support a given Democratic or Republican candidate at the ballot box, it is less about the ideals or issues involved, and more about voicing approval or disapporval of the specific candidates' personal character (real or percieved.) This is a sorry state of affairs and reduces every election to a paltry choice at best.
Why is this? It isn't that the natural inclination to faction outlined by James Madison has lessened over time, but that many Americans are dis-spirited by their lack of input in the options that exist. Americans, by and large, understand that in a democratic political system, you win some and you lose some. The pain of losing a fight is lessened in the knowledge that you had your chance and gave it your best shot. But when put into a situation where the end is preordained, we feel cheated. No citizen that cherishes his or her democratic rights will long stay in a situation that denies them. The Democratic and Republican parties lose members because they themselves do not function in a democratic fashion. They are elite driven oligarchies that attempt to derive mass support through the tools of propaganda, and not through democratic means. The informed citizen has become increasingly aware of these facts, and has, as a result, turned its back on active affiliation with the major parties.
Why then hasn't one or more of the older small parties taken off? There is no single reason why a given smaller party has not been able to capitalize on the growing disaffection between the citizenry and the larger parties. In general, however, two trends can be delineated that have hampered the smaller parties. The first is the tendency for smaller parties to fashion themselves in the likeness of the Democratic or Republican parties. In their issue positions they act, in effect, as "sterner" or "friendlier" versions of the established parties, depending on their particular inclinations. They often wind up adopting the "top down" model of party governence, wether by accident of having few adherents or in an effort to remain ideologicaly pure. The second tendency of the smaller parties is to adopt a policy of strict adherence to a specific set of issues or an ideology. This tendency keeps these parties from developing a wide enough platform for pursuing politics nationally. One issue parties (an oxymoronic term if ever there was) cannot translate to the wide scope of real American political life, they are hothouse creations that will wither and die when removed from their artificial environment. The tendency to strict ideological adherence can also lead to various forms of utopianism. Libertarians may have many good and interesting ideas about how the United States might be governed, but the moment you advocate a federal government that can be run from a double wide trailer is the moment you have left the real world for a utopian fantasy. Most citizens want their political parties to remain decidedly THIS-worldly.
Maybe in another life I was an 18th century pamphleteer.
Where Do People Get Off?
I'm getting to the point where I'm real sick and tired of hearing political pundits tell me what the tenets of the Catholic Church should be. Does any other religion or denomination have to put up with this kind of crap? I don't see Op-Ed's in the New York Times telling Baptists what they should believe. I don't see articles in the New Republic telling Jews what is and isn't acceptable Jewish doctrine. But bring up the Catholic Church and all you hear is "Let me tell you something." What special dispensation exists for these non-experts (and largely non-Catholics) to stick their nose into the internal workings of someone else's faith?
Forget the seperation of Church and State. I'd settle for the seperation of Church and journalistic blow hards.
Forget the seperation of Church and State. I'd settle for the seperation of Church and journalistic blow hards.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Modern Times
Everything old is new again in France. Read this fascinating post from American Future: Troubles in France
"The Weekly Standard reports that ethnic and religious tensions reached the boiling point in Paris last month:
As usual, the Left blames the victims, who, because they are they are white, are assumed to be "rich." Can you really blame the "poor" for violence against the rich?"
Rising ethnic and religious tensions? Bad behavior being excused in the name of ideological necessity? A blind eye being turned to rising anti-semitism? One could be excused for not being sure if this is the 21st century or the 1930's in Europe.
"The Weekly Standard reports that ethnic and religious tensions reached the boiling point in Paris last month:
On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism....
[Journalist Jaques] Julliard, writing in the Nouvel Observateur, expressed dismay at the lack of public outcry over this display of racial hatred. He added that the left had already made the mistake of not denouncing violence in schools or soaring crime rates. And he sharply rejected the view endorsed by most left-wing organizations and individuals that the violence was an expression of class struggle, a clash between rich and poor. "Anyone should be ashamed," Julliard wrote, "after all we went through in the 20th century, to offer such a coarse explanation. . . . There is no good and bad racism." [emphasis added]
As usual, the Left blames the victims, who, because they are they are white, are assumed to be "rich." Can you really blame the "poor" for violence against the rich?"
Rising ethnic and religious tensions? Bad behavior being excused in the name of ideological necessity? A blind eye being turned to rising anti-semitism? One could be excused for not being sure if this is the 21st century or the 1930's in Europe.
Globalization, The New El Nino
Do you remember when there couldn't be an untoward weather event that was not blamed on El Nino? Warm water in the Pacific was the cause of everything it seemed; forest fires in California, mud slides in California, flooding in Bangladesh, hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, the lack of hurricanes in the Atlantic basin, etc... In fact El Nino was blamed for everything but nice weather. The good weather must have been some freak of nature.
The beautiful thing about El Nino, from the commentator's point of view, is that it expresses a causal relationship without needing to show any specific causality. That makes it extremely handy. Freed from the need to show causality, El Nino became the perfect ready made answer to any question concerning extreme weather. And if extreme weather took place at a time when El Nino was not around it was no problem. The weather could be explained as being caused by the lack of El Nino, and we can even give that a name too, La Nina. See how neatly it all fits together?
Comentators on world politics now have their own version of El Nino called Globalization. It is perfect. The very word sounds important, maybe even scientific. At its very core is the notion of complexity. "An interconnected world in a complicated place!" we are told. Well, who could argue with that? For that reason alone Globalization can be the "cause of" just about everything.
Take this Jim Hoagland piece, The Backlash Paradox, as an example:
"Religion has long played a major role in politics in most societies, even if unacknowledged. But that role is changing today in many places -- and especially in the Middle East -- where religion has become politics to a great extent. To be more precise, religion is filling a vacuum left by the failure of state politics to explain, moderate or accommodate the forces of change unleashed in the superconnected and superstimulated world of globalization."
Boy, that Globalization sure is tricky stuff! And potent too. It is, evidently, the cause of the entire political situation of the Middle East. Wow, what explanatory power! Any change that occurs in the region can be chalked up to the pressure of Globalization, and, at the same time, any backsliding can be explained as a reaction against Globalization. It can be used to explain a society's climb to democracy, or its descent into barbarism. It's the cause of everything.
Or course, has anyone considered the possibility that the political situation in Lebanon today has been caused by warmish water in the Pacific? I could be on to something here. After all the world is an interconnected place. Who could argue with that?
The beautiful thing about El Nino, from the commentator's point of view, is that it expresses a causal relationship without needing to show any specific causality. That makes it extremely handy. Freed from the need to show causality, El Nino became the perfect ready made answer to any question concerning extreme weather. And if extreme weather took place at a time when El Nino was not around it was no problem. The weather could be explained as being caused by the lack of El Nino, and we can even give that a name too, La Nina. See how neatly it all fits together?
Comentators on world politics now have their own version of El Nino called Globalization. It is perfect. The very word sounds important, maybe even scientific. At its very core is the notion of complexity. "An interconnected world in a complicated place!" we are told. Well, who could argue with that? For that reason alone Globalization can be the "cause of" just about everything.
Take this Jim Hoagland piece, The Backlash Paradox, as an example:
"Religion has long played a major role in politics in most societies, even if unacknowledged. But that role is changing today in many places -- and especially in the Middle East -- where religion has become politics to a great extent. To be more precise, religion is filling a vacuum left by the failure of state politics to explain, moderate or accommodate the forces of change unleashed in the superconnected and superstimulated world of globalization."
Boy, that Globalization sure is tricky stuff! And potent too. It is, evidently, the cause of the entire political situation of the Middle East. Wow, what explanatory power! Any change that occurs in the region can be chalked up to the pressure of Globalization, and, at the same time, any backsliding can be explained as a reaction against Globalization. It can be used to explain a society's climb to democracy, or its descent into barbarism. It's the cause of everything.
Or course, has anyone considered the possibility that the political situation in Lebanon today has been caused by warmish water in the Pacific? I could be on to something here. After all the world is an interconnected place. Who could argue with that?
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
The Boring Truth
I was reading James D. Miller's response to Paul Krugman's take on the dearth of conservative academics (basically all Republicans are anti-science know-nothings in Krugman's view) when I came upon the following paragraph by Miller:
Krugman correctly points out that self-selection is part of the reason there are so few Republicans in academia. But much of this self-selection is because of leftist bias. For example, consider the academic field of Women's Studies. True, few Republicans will self-select to become Women Studies professors, but only because this field is totally defined in left-wing terms. Similarly, the fields of African-American Studies, History, English and Sociology are increasingly devoted to left-wing topics. A smart undergraduate who tells her academic advisor that she wants to get a Ph.D. focusing on military history will likely be told to go to law school instead because few colleges will consider hiring a military historian. In contrast, if this same undergraduate announced her desire to study how capitalism has promoted environmental racism she would be told of the rich academic job market that will await her after she completes her Ph.D.
I'm not sure I can think of anyone I know who has even the slightest connection with academia that would dispute the veracity of any part of the above. In some ways it is so ordinary an obervation at best it might produce a yawn. I've made the argument before that in academia like begets like. Left leaning profs in Ph.D. granting institutions have a tendency to attract left leaning students, who finish their left leaning Ph.D.'s and become the new batch of left leaning Profs. And the cycle of academic life continues. I stopped short of calling it out and out discrimination, at least as a system wide phenomenon. But I may have to reconsider.
Here is the question: Does the systematic removal of areas of study from university curriculum that may be more amenable to people of more conservative viewpoints (such as military history), and their replacement by areas that could only be represented by people with more liberal viewpoints (such as the great swath of gender, ethnicity, and sexual preference studies,) constitute in itself an act of discrimination? Go to the Chronicle of Higher Education add read through the academic job ads in History and Political Science, and see how many could clearly only be filled by a liberal minded individual. Then count the ads that could only be filled by a conservative. Should this discrepancy matter to us? If not, why not?
Krugman correctly points out that self-selection is part of the reason there are so few Republicans in academia. But much of this self-selection is because of leftist bias. For example, consider the academic field of Women's Studies. True, few Republicans will self-select to become Women Studies professors, but only because this field is totally defined in left-wing terms. Similarly, the fields of African-American Studies, History, English and Sociology are increasingly devoted to left-wing topics. A smart undergraduate who tells her academic advisor that she wants to get a Ph.D. focusing on military history will likely be told to go to law school instead because few colleges will consider hiring a military historian. In contrast, if this same undergraduate announced her desire to study how capitalism has promoted environmental racism she would be told of the rich academic job market that will await her after she completes her Ph.D.
I'm not sure I can think of anyone I know who has even the slightest connection with academia that would dispute the veracity of any part of the above. In some ways it is so ordinary an obervation at best it might produce a yawn. I've made the argument before that in academia like begets like. Left leaning profs in Ph.D. granting institutions have a tendency to attract left leaning students, who finish their left leaning Ph.D.'s and become the new batch of left leaning Profs. And the cycle of academic life continues. I stopped short of calling it out and out discrimination, at least as a system wide phenomenon. But I may have to reconsider.
Here is the question: Does the systematic removal of areas of study from university curriculum that may be more amenable to people of more conservative viewpoints (such as military history), and their replacement by areas that could only be represented by people with more liberal viewpoints (such as the great swath of gender, ethnicity, and sexual preference studies,) constitute in itself an act of discrimination? Go to the Chronicle of Higher Education add read through the academic job ads in History and Political Science, and see how many could clearly only be filled by a liberal minded individual. Then count the ads that could only be filled by a conservative. Should this discrepancy matter to us? If not, why not?
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Democracy Comes In From The Cold
It is (kind of) heartening to see ideas one long advocates gaining a increased hearing (kind of) after being long ignored. I'm speaking of Joe Klein's latest in Time, A New Idea For Democrats: Democracy
The Schiavo case has provoked a passionate American conversation, which is taking place on a more profound level than the simple yes and no answers of the polls. Yes, the vast majority disdain the politicians who chose to exploit the case. And yes, a solid majority would not want their own lives prolonged in a similar situation. But the questions that cut closest to home are the family issues. What would you do if Terri Schiavo were your daughter? Why couldn't Michael Schiavo just give custody over to the parents? What do we do about custody in a society where the parent-child bond is more durable than many marriages? The President's solution, to "err on the side of life," seems the only humane answer—if there is a dispute between parents and spouse, and the disabled person has left no clear instruction.
The Democrats' relative silence on all this has been prudent, but telling. Their implicit position has been to err toward law. "The notion that Florida failed to do its job in the Schiavo case is wrong," said Congressman Barney Frank, one of the few Democrats willing to speak about the case. "Procedurally, there was a great deal of due process." Frank was right, but it was a curiously sterile pronouncement, bereft of the Congressman's usual raucous humanity. It exemplified the Democratic Party's recent overdependence on legal process, a culture of law that has supplanted legislative consideration of vexing social issues. This is democracy once removed.
The Democrats come to their dilemma honorably. It dates back to the civil rights movement, when federal courts had to enforce federal law in states that refused racial integration. But the courts soon wandered into unlegislated gray areas. They imposed forced busing to achieve school integration, allowed racial preferences in hiring and school admissions, extrapolated a constitutional right to privacy and declared abortion legal in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case (and more recently, on the state court level, allowed gay marriage). Many of these were worthy decisions, but they were never voted on. Over time, as the Democrats became the minority party, their efforts to hold on to this last area of solace became more desperate.
I've always found it difficult to comprehend something about my staunch Democratic friends. They could launch into impassioned defenses of this or that matter of public policy, but when it came time for a decision to be made by a part of the government on the issue they never wanted a democratic vote. Instead they would say, "Let's let this hand-picked group of oligarchs make the decision for us! Hooray!! My side wins!" It made the idea of "democratic discourse" farcical. Why engage in these sorts of discussions if you are never going to be allowed to have an input on pulic policy, either directly or indirectly? For too long the Democrats have been in the position of arguing to justify what the courts have done in their name, instead of arguing to change people's hearts and minds. There is a very large difference between the two.
I think of capital punishment as the prime example of this situation in action. The liberal position against capital punishment (which I agree with whole-heartedly) has been decimated by the reliance on the courts to impose our will. Every time the issue of capital punishment comes into the news these days it is because this or that court has attempted to throw a road-block in its way, but there is no attempt to engage with and change the majority opinion. Indeed the ideas you hear on television against the death penalty are usually awful. Of course they are awful. They are never being made to appeal to people with doubts on the subject, they are made to justify an oligarchical decision making process against a democratic decision making process. No wonder 70% (or more) of Americans support the death penalty.
Back to Klein:
Oddly, a solution to the Dems' dilemma may be on offer from liberal academia. "The hot new idea in liberal law journals is called popular constitutionalism," says Paul Gewirtz of Yale Law School. "It argues that legislatures and voters should have more control over government, and the judiciary should take a more subsidiary position." [Is there anything in this world that makes you doubt the intellectual utility of an idea more than hearing it is "the hot new idea in liberal law journals"? I didn't think so.] In other words, issues like abortion should be put to a vote. This is an idea unthinkable to most Democratic politicians, who believe the right to an abortion is tucked somewhere in the Constitution—and also to the more extreme religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder. That leaves the rest of us. And I imagine most of us would prefer some good, messy legislative compromises, hammered out at the state level, with the unimpeachable imprimatur of public approval. Perhaps it is time, finally, for Democrats to embrace democracy.
It is strange to see such ideas getting such prominent exposure. Ten (plus) years ago when I was making the same sorts of arguments they never would have shown up in a publication like Time. I'm not really sure they will resonate with the majority of mainline Democrats (or Republicans for that matter.) Politics seems to be becoming an "all or nothing" sort of game these days. Hell, you have Democrats that want to expel Joe Lieberman from their party for even talking about compromise with the other side. And Lord knows if the Republicans attempt to moderate from the positions that the evangelical right has staked out, the right wing will go all screwy (screwier.) It remains to be seen who will be left to move to the center to engage in the debates and form a public policy that doesn't involve imposing it with judicial edicts.
Maybe if we can get folks on the left and the right to agree that the democratic process is worthwhile in and of itself, whether in the short run you win or lose, then maybe we will have something.
The Schiavo case has provoked a passionate American conversation, which is taking place on a more profound level than the simple yes and no answers of the polls. Yes, the vast majority disdain the politicians who chose to exploit the case. And yes, a solid majority would not want their own lives prolonged in a similar situation. But the questions that cut closest to home are the family issues. What would you do if Terri Schiavo were your daughter? Why couldn't Michael Schiavo just give custody over to the parents? What do we do about custody in a society where the parent-child bond is more durable than many marriages? The President's solution, to "err on the side of life," seems the only humane answer—if there is a dispute between parents and spouse, and the disabled person has left no clear instruction.
The Democrats' relative silence on all this has been prudent, but telling. Their implicit position has been to err toward law. "The notion that Florida failed to do its job in the Schiavo case is wrong," said Congressman Barney Frank, one of the few Democrats willing to speak about the case. "Procedurally, there was a great deal of due process." Frank was right, but it was a curiously sterile pronouncement, bereft of the Congressman's usual raucous humanity. It exemplified the Democratic Party's recent overdependence on legal process, a culture of law that has supplanted legislative consideration of vexing social issues. This is democracy once removed.
The Democrats come to their dilemma honorably. It dates back to the civil rights movement, when federal courts had to enforce federal law in states that refused racial integration. But the courts soon wandered into unlegislated gray areas. They imposed forced busing to achieve school integration, allowed racial preferences in hiring and school admissions, extrapolated a constitutional right to privacy and declared abortion legal in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case (and more recently, on the state court level, allowed gay marriage). Many of these were worthy decisions, but they were never voted on. Over time, as the Democrats became the minority party, their efforts to hold on to this last area of solace became more desperate.
I've always found it difficult to comprehend something about my staunch Democratic friends. They could launch into impassioned defenses of this or that matter of public policy, but when it came time for a decision to be made by a part of the government on the issue they never wanted a democratic vote. Instead they would say, "Let's let this hand-picked group of oligarchs make the decision for us! Hooray!! My side wins!" It made the idea of "democratic discourse" farcical. Why engage in these sorts of discussions if you are never going to be allowed to have an input on pulic policy, either directly or indirectly? For too long the Democrats have been in the position of arguing to justify what the courts have done in their name, instead of arguing to change people's hearts and minds. There is a very large difference between the two.
I think of capital punishment as the prime example of this situation in action. The liberal position against capital punishment (which I agree with whole-heartedly) has been decimated by the reliance on the courts to impose our will. Every time the issue of capital punishment comes into the news these days it is because this or that court has attempted to throw a road-block in its way, but there is no attempt to engage with and change the majority opinion. Indeed the ideas you hear on television against the death penalty are usually awful. Of course they are awful. They are never being made to appeal to people with doubts on the subject, they are made to justify an oligarchical decision making process against a democratic decision making process. No wonder 70% (or more) of Americans support the death penalty.
Back to Klein:
Oddly, a solution to the Dems' dilemma may be on offer from liberal academia. "The hot new idea in liberal law journals is called popular constitutionalism," says Paul Gewirtz of Yale Law School. "It argues that legislatures and voters should have more control over government, and the judiciary should take a more subsidiary position." [Is there anything in this world that makes you doubt the intellectual utility of an idea more than hearing it is "the hot new idea in liberal law journals"? I didn't think so.] In other words, issues like abortion should be put to a vote. This is an idea unthinkable to most Democratic politicians, who believe the right to an abortion is tucked somewhere in the Constitution—and also to the more extreme religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder. That leaves the rest of us. And I imagine most of us would prefer some good, messy legislative compromises, hammered out at the state level, with the unimpeachable imprimatur of public approval. Perhaps it is time, finally, for Democrats to embrace democracy.
It is strange to see such ideas getting such prominent exposure. Ten (plus) years ago when I was making the same sorts of arguments they never would have shown up in a publication like Time. I'm not really sure they will resonate with the majority of mainline Democrats (or Republicans for that matter.) Politics seems to be becoming an "all or nothing" sort of game these days. Hell, you have Democrats that want to expel Joe Lieberman from their party for even talking about compromise with the other side. And Lord knows if the Republicans attempt to moderate from the positions that the evangelical right has staked out, the right wing will go all screwy (screwier.) It remains to be seen who will be left to move to the center to engage in the debates and form a public policy that doesn't involve imposing it with judicial edicts.
Maybe if we can get folks on the left and the right to agree that the democratic process is worthwhile in and of itself, whether in the short run you win or lose, then maybe we will have something.
Power Pop
If you have ever wondered, "What on God's green earth is Power Pop?" there is finally an answer for you. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Power Pop Lives Anew In Yellow Pills
Has anyone outside of Kennett, Mo., ever heard of the Trend, a quartet of white-shirt-and-skinny-tie-wearing dweebs from the Missouri Bootheel who, a quarter-century ago, released one lone album of obscure power-pop classics like "She's Hi-Fi" and "(I Feel Like A) Dictionary" before getting on with the rest of their lives?
Who besides the band members' parents bought "Pop 'n' Roll," a 10-inch vinyl EP that was the sole release by Texas group the Kids?
And who has in their collection records made by Jack Stack a Track, the Treble Boys or the Speedies?
Jordan Oakes is the answer to all those questions, and even at this late date, he wants to share his power-pop obscurities with you.
...
So, what exactly is power pop and why is Oakes so drawn to it?
"That's a good question," he says. "To a certain extent, I don't think it really exists anymore, at least not in its pure form. There was a certain climate for it back in the '70s. It was kind of a safer version of new wave at one point. But even before that, you had bands that were influenced by the Beatles, like Badfinger, the Raspberries and Big Star.
"It's hard to define, but some of the common elements are that it's high energy, with a good melody and good vocals, a lot of harmonies. There's an element of danger to it, too. It's really kick-ass: It shouldn't be wimpy."
Cheap Trick is perhaps the best-known power-pop practitioner, but Oakes' all-time favorite is the less well-known (but equally Illinois-centric) Shoes.
"The main thing," he says, "is I think power pop is a valid art form. I don't think it's just disposable stuff. The best power pop is great art."
What might strike some as strange, though, is that despite the notion that "pop" is short for "popular," power pop tends to exist more in the margins.
"That's because people don't buy into it more than one song at a time," Oakes says. " 'My Sharona' is not a good example because the Knack is not my favorite band, but that was a huge song, and it wasn't because people said, 'Hey, it's power pop, let's buy it.' They just liked the song. The people who are more into it than that are the ones that seek it out."
In case you couldn't tell I am one of those power pop freaks. I was heartbroken when Cotton Mather broke up. ("Cotton who?" you say.) I know what Rick Rock and Parthenon Huxley have in common. I really wish Brad Jones would stop producing Shazam records and write and record his own stuff. I have a favorite Spongetones record. I got really excited when the Off Broadway album "On!" got released on CD. I'd rather listen to "Jessie's Girl" than "Smells Like Teen Spirit." In other words, there is really something wrong with me.
But I get happy when I read:
Oakes has compiled and annotated "Yellow Pills: Prefill," a two-CD set of little-heard power pop that was recently released on the Chicago-based (but St. Louis-connected) Numero label.
Anybody who has heard, and enjoyed, the Yellow Pills CD's that came out on the Big Deal label in the 1990's should immediately jump on the new collection. There is no way it isn't fantastic. I'll let you know exactly how fantastic it is after I get the thing. (I know, I know...you can hardly wait.)
Has anyone outside of Kennett, Mo., ever heard of the Trend, a quartet of white-shirt-and-skinny-tie-wearing dweebs from the Missouri Bootheel who, a quarter-century ago, released one lone album of obscure power-pop classics like "She's Hi-Fi" and "(I Feel Like A) Dictionary" before getting on with the rest of their lives?
Who besides the band members' parents bought "Pop 'n' Roll," a 10-inch vinyl EP that was the sole release by Texas group the Kids?
And who has in their collection records made by Jack Stack a Track, the Treble Boys or the Speedies?
Jordan Oakes is the answer to all those questions, and even at this late date, he wants to share his power-pop obscurities with you.
...
So, what exactly is power pop and why is Oakes so drawn to it?
"That's a good question," he says. "To a certain extent, I don't think it really exists anymore, at least not in its pure form. There was a certain climate for it back in the '70s. It was kind of a safer version of new wave at one point. But even before that, you had bands that were influenced by the Beatles, like Badfinger, the Raspberries and Big Star.
"It's hard to define, but some of the common elements are that it's high energy, with a good melody and good vocals, a lot of harmonies. There's an element of danger to it, too. It's really kick-ass: It shouldn't be wimpy."
Cheap Trick is perhaps the best-known power-pop practitioner, but Oakes' all-time favorite is the less well-known (but equally Illinois-centric) Shoes.
"The main thing," he says, "is I think power pop is a valid art form. I don't think it's just disposable stuff. The best power pop is great art."
What might strike some as strange, though, is that despite the notion that "pop" is short for "popular," power pop tends to exist more in the margins.
"That's because people don't buy into it more than one song at a time," Oakes says. " 'My Sharona' is not a good example because the Knack is not my favorite band, but that was a huge song, and it wasn't because people said, 'Hey, it's power pop, let's buy it.' They just liked the song. The people who are more into it than that are the ones that seek it out."
In case you couldn't tell I am one of those power pop freaks. I was heartbroken when Cotton Mather broke up. ("Cotton who?" you say.) I know what Rick Rock and Parthenon Huxley have in common. I really wish Brad Jones would stop producing Shazam records and write and record his own stuff. I have a favorite Spongetones record. I got really excited when the Off Broadway album "On!" got released on CD. I'd rather listen to "Jessie's Girl" than "Smells Like Teen Spirit." In other words, there is really something wrong with me.
But I get happy when I read:
Oakes has compiled and annotated "Yellow Pills: Prefill," a two-CD set of little-heard power pop that was recently released on the Chicago-based (but St. Louis-connected) Numero label.
Anybody who has heard, and enjoyed, the Yellow Pills CD's that came out on the Big Deal label in the 1990's should immediately jump on the new collection. There is no way it isn't fantastic. I'll let you know exactly how fantastic it is after I get the thing. (I know, I know...you can hardly wait.)
Monday, April 04, 2005
Duelling Polls
We all remember the polls that we saw on television concerning the Terri Schiavo case that basically showed that the only people in the country that wanted Schiavo to live were congressional Republicans, right?
Well, now we have this poll (conducted by Zogby) that found the following:
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It does make me wonder how those other polls were worded.
Well, now we have this poll (conducted by Zogby) that found the following:
"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.
A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It does make me wonder how those other polls were worded.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Where Not To Get Your Theology
Let it never be said that Christopher Hitchens will not speak ill of the dead. In fact it seems clear that he takes a perverse pride in doing so. To each his own I suppose. But in his zeal to attack the late Pope Hitchens is guilty of a gross stupidity, as opposed to being merely gross. (Although he is that too.)
Since I have more than once criticized Maureen Dowd in this space, I should say now that I think she put it best of all. A church that has allowed no latitude in its teachings on masturbation, premarital sex, birth control, and divorce suddenly asks for understanding and "wiggle room" for the most revolting crime on the books.
Hitchens should have kept to his original impluse and dismissed the Dowd statement out of hand. That he didn't says more about Hitchens blind prejudices than it does about his intellect. (Either that or he is that dumb.)
Maybe Hitchens (or Dowd) can point me to the provision of Catholic dogma that makes child rape a less grave sin than the others mentioned. I'll be waiting until hell freezes over because it doesn't exist. To claim otherwise is simply an exercise in ignorance or biogtry.
Maybe Hitchens (or Dowd) can show me an example of the Church not offering the sacrament of Reconciliation for those that have committed any of the other sins mentioned. Yes, the sticky situation that can develop when someone divorces and then gets remarried does provides an ongoing difficulty, but considering the numbers of annulments given out in this day and age it is hard to argue that there is no "wiggle" room on the issue.
Yes, I do wish that the Pope had recognized that American bishops were too concerned with avoiding scandals and protecting gay priests (including those that would never harm anyone in a million years), to do what they were supposed to do. And yes, the American bishops showed an apalling lack of understanding of the predatory nature of these crimes. But to suggest that the Church was running a "child-rape racket" with the Pope's blessing is simple hatred on Hitchens part. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since I have more than once criticized Maureen Dowd in this space, I should say now that I think she put it best of all. A church that has allowed no latitude in its teachings on masturbation, premarital sex, birth control, and divorce suddenly asks for understanding and "wiggle room" for the most revolting crime on the books.
Hitchens should have kept to his original impluse and dismissed the Dowd statement out of hand. That he didn't says more about Hitchens blind prejudices than it does about his intellect. (Either that or he is that dumb.)
Maybe Hitchens (or Dowd) can point me to the provision of Catholic dogma that makes child rape a less grave sin than the others mentioned. I'll be waiting until hell freezes over because it doesn't exist. To claim otherwise is simply an exercise in ignorance or biogtry.
Maybe Hitchens (or Dowd) can show me an example of the Church not offering the sacrament of Reconciliation for those that have committed any of the other sins mentioned. Yes, the sticky situation that can develop when someone divorces and then gets remarried does provides an ongoing difficulty, but considering the numbers of annulments given out in this day and age it is hard to argue that there is no "wiggle" room on the issue.
Yes, I do wish that the Pope had recognized that American bishops were too concerned with avoiding scandals and protecting gay priests (including those that would never harm anyone in a million years), to do what they were supposed to do. And yes, the American bishops showed an apalling lack of understanding of the predatory nature of these crimes. But to suggest that the Church was running a "child-rape racket" with the Pope's blessing is simple hatred on Hitchens part. Nothing more, nothing less.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
When Logic Is Optional
I know I shouldn't be wasting my time reading stuff intended for the kool-aid krusaders of the world, but I can't help myself. I read the stuff hoping to learn some new tidbit of information. All I ever learn is that these people are living in their own bizarro world where the rules of logic and common sense do not apply. Yet I still read the stuff. I must be an idiot to keep banging my head against the same brick wall.
The piece that inspired my latest intellectual concussion is from David Corn, WMD Commission Stonewalls
On Thursday, President Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction intelligence released a 692-page report that harshly criticizes the US intelligence establishment. It notes that "the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of it pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure." That's no news flash. The Senate intelligence committee issued a report last July that said the same. But like the Senate committee, Bush's commission--cochaired by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican, and former Senator Chuck Robb, a Democrat--ignored a key issue: whether Bush and his aides overstated and misrepresented the flawed intelligence they received from the intelligence agencies.
Alright, fabulous! Corn is about to show us exactly where Bush lied! Finally! Corn has to know where Bush lied, right? Hell, Corn wrote a whole book called The Lies Of George W. Bush (as the web page states over and over - we get it, you want us to buy your book!), so he is about to deliver the goods, right?
The commission, which claimed it found no evidence that Bush officials pressured intelligence analysts to rig their reports, notes in a footnote,
Our review has been limited by our charter to the question of alleged policymaker pressure on the Intelligence Community to shape its conclusions to conform to the policy preferences of the Administration. There is a separate issue of how policymakers used the intelligence they were given and how they reflected it in their presentations to Congress and the public. That issue is not within our charter and we therefore did not consider it nor do we express a view on it.
So two years after Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, there still has been no official inquiry into how he and his lieutenants handled the prewar intelligence. The question is whether Bush and other administration officials exaggerated the intelligence community's overstatements.
Is it? Since when? We have been told repeatedly that Bush invented claims about Iraq's WMD programs without a shred of evidence. When the evidentiary committees return with findings proving conclusively that the Bush administration neither invented intelligence reports nor coerced intelligence agencies to alter their estimates we are then told that wasn't the issue.
In fact the claim is now made that Bush's lies consist not in the coercing of intelligence agencies but in leaving them alone.
When the intelligence report states:
The Intelligence Community needs to be pushed. It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policymakers-sometimes to the point of discomfort. Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics. While policymakers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true.
Corn responds with:
It's obvious that Bush did not push the intelligence services in this fashion.
It's funny. Last year the Bush administration were supposedly all in the face of the intelligence agencies telling them to respond with what the Bushies wanted to hear or else, and that was what proved that they were liars. This year the Bush administration is supposedly guilty of not being all in the face of the intelligence community and now that is what proves that they are liars.
I wish they would pick a story and stick to it. Otherwise one is forced to think that they are merely wanting to get Bush either coming or going.
The piece that inspired my latest intellectual concussion is from David Corn, WMD Commission Stonewalls
On Thursday, President Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction intelligence released a 692-page report that harshly criticizes the US intelligence establishment. It notes that "the Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of it pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure." That's no news flash. The Senate intelligence committee issued a report last July that said the same. But like the Senate committee, Bush's commission--cochaired by Judge Laurence Silberman, a Republican, and former Senator Chuck Robb, a Democrat--ignored a key issue: whether Bush and his aides overstated and misrepresented the flawed intelligence they received from the intelligence agencies.
Alright, fabulous! Corn is about to show us exactly where Bush lied! Finally! Corn has to know where Bush lied, right? Hell, Corn wrote a whole book called The Lies Of George W. Bush (as the web page states over and over - we get it, you want us to buy your book!), so he is about to deliver the goods, right?
The commission, which claimed it found no evidence that Bush officials pressured intelligence analysts to rig their reports, notes in a footnote,
Our review has been limited by our charter to the question of alleged policymaker pressure on the Intelligence Community to shape its conclusions to conform to the policy preferences of the Administration. There is a separate issue of how policymakers used the intelligence they were given and how they reflected it in their presentations to Congress and the public. That issue is not within our charter and we therefore did not consider it nor do we express a view on it.
So two years after Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, there still has been no official inquiry into how he and his lieutenants handled the prewar intelligence. The question is whether Bush and other administration officials exaggerated the intelligence community's overstatements.
Is it? Since when? We have been told repeatedly that Bush invented claims about Iraq's WMD programs without a shred of evidence. When the evidentiary committees return with findings proving conclusively that the Bush administration neither invented intelligence reports nor coerced intelligence agencies to alter their estimates we are then told that wasn't the issue.
In fact the claim is now made that Bush's lies consist not in the coercing of intelligence agencies but in leaving them alone.
When the intelligence report states:
The Intelligence Community needs to be pushed. It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policymakers-sometimes to the point of discomfort. Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics. While policymakers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true.
Corn responds with:
It's obvious that Bush did not push the intelligence services in this fashion.
It's funny. Last year the Bush administration were supposedly all in the face of the intelligence agencies telling them to respond with what the Bushies wanted to hear or else, and that was what proved that they were liars. This year the Bush administration is supposedly guilty of not being all in the face of the intelligence community and now that is what proves that they are liars.
I wish they would pick a story and stick to it. Otherwise one is forced to think that they are merely wanting to get Bush either coming or going.
Friday, April 01, 2005
But Who Is Going To Edit The Editors?
Funny stuff from Patterico: Those Experienced Times Editors
As I noted the other day, the L.A. Times's David Shaw recently had a silly article about bloggers. In that piece, he said:
Remember that quote. I'll probably be alluding to it several times throughout the course of this year.
In an unrelated point, I was perusing the corrections today when I noticed this gem:
See, I'm just a blogger, but I could give you a million examples of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley - and I'd get them all right. Watch, as I list just five of them: San Francisco. Modesto. Sacramento. Eureka. San Diego.
I just did that without the benefit of four experienced Times editors. Impressed?
Very.
As I noted the other day, the L.A. Times's David Shaw recently had a silly article about bloggers. In that piece, he said:
When I or virtually any other mainstream journalist writes something, it goes through several filters before the reader sees it. At least four experienced Times editors will have examined this column, for example. They will have checked it for accuracy, fairness, grammar, taste and libel, among other things.
Remember that quote. I'll probably be alluding to it several times throughout the course of this year.
In an unrelated point, I was perusing the corrections today when I noticed this gem:
Restaurant review - In last week's Food section, the restaurant review listed Covina as an example of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley. Covina is in the San Gabriel Valley.
See, I'm just a blogger, but I could give you a million examples of towns that are not in the San Gabriel Valley - and I'd get them all right. Watch, as I list just five of them: San Francisco. Modesto. Sacramento. Eureka. San Diego.
I just did that without the benefit of four experienced Times editors. Impressed?
Very.
The Ol' College Witch Hunt
From Campus Magazine Online: 2005 Campus Outrage Awards
At the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Economics Professor Hans Hoppe received disciplinary sanctions for making an economically verifiable argument that homosexuals engage less in long-term financial planning than heterosexuals because they typically do not have children. One of Hoppe's students, Michael Knight, filed a complaint leading to a yearlong battle between Hoppe and the University (which Hoppe eventually won). Knight accused Hoppe of "stereotyping homosexuals...When the door closes and the lecture began [sic], he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible." In an interview with Professor Hoppe by the Collegiate Network, Professor Hoppe believes he lost a year of his life to the entire affair. The University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Officer affirmed the complaint by Knight and recommended that Hoppe receive a reprimand and be suspended without pay for one week. A grievance committee made up of one student and Hoppe's faculty peers was held on November 18, 2004. The committee upheld the original grievance and recommended that Hoppe be reprimanded and forfeit any merit pay for the current academic year. On February 9, 2005, Hoppe received "a non-disciplinary letter of instruction" from Raymond W. Alden, III, the university's Executive Vice President and Provost, affirming the decision of the grievance committee, stating that Hoppe had created "a hostile learning environment" in his classroom, and instructing Hoppe "to cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact in the educational environment." However, nine days later, the university's president, Dr. Carol Harter, released a statement in which she acknowledged that professors "are entitled the freedom to teach theories and to espouse opinions that are out of the mainstream or are controversial..." nowhere in the statement did Harter apologize to Hoppe for what university officials put him through, nor were any individual university officials singled out for criticism.
I don't have any commentary really. I just didn't want to shake my head alone.
(Gleaned from The Torch)
At the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Economics Professor Hans Hoppe received disciplinary sanctions for making an economically verifiable argument that homosexuals engage less in long-term financial planning than heterosexuals because they typically do not have children. One of Hoppe's students, Michael Knight, filed a complaint leading to a yearlong battle between Hoppe and the University (which Hoppe eventually won). Knight accused Hoppe of "stereotyping homosexuals...When the door closes and the lecture began [sic], he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible." In an interview with Professor Hoppe by the Collegiate Network, Professor Hoppe believes he lost a year of his life to the entire affair. The University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity Officer affirmed the complaint by Knight and recommended that Hoppe receive a reprimand and be suspended without pay for one week. A grievance committee made up of one student and Hoppe's faculty peers was held on November 18, 2004. The committee upheld the original grievance and recommended that Hoppe be reprimanded and forfeit any merit pay for the current academic year. On February 9, 2005, Hoppe received "a non-disciplinary letter of instruction" from Raymond W. Alden, III, the university's Executive Vice President and Provost, affirming the decision of the grievance committee, stating that Hoppe had created "a hostile learning environment" in his classroom, and instructing Hoppe "to cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact in the educational environment." However, nine days later, the university's president, Dr. Carol Harter, released a statement in which she acknowledged that professors "are entitled the freedom to teach theories and to espouse opinions that are out of the mainstream or are controversial..." nowhere in the statement did Harter apologize to Hoppe for what university officials put him through, nor were any individual university officials singled out for criticism.
I don't have any commentary really. I just didn't want to shake my head alone.
(Gleaned from The Torch)
One Berger, Hold The Honesty
Lots of reaction today to the not-so-surprising guilty plea of Sandy Berger to charges of intentionally removing and destroying documents from the National Archive. I say "not-so-surprising" because there never was a rational explanation given for his actions that didn't involve criminal intent. Oh, there were plenty of irrational (and illogical) explanations out there, mostly by friends of Berger or those partisans who believe that all Democrats are saintly creations that would never put a foot wrong, but they always seemed half-hearted to me.
From the Washington Post:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."
It is hard to be more unequivocal than that.
From around the blogs:
The Moderate Voice-
1. Berger needs to be condemned by Democrats and independents who must demand the same Zero Tolerance towards him that they are insisting be applied towards DeLay (who is not accused of a crime as serious as Berger's at this point, by the way). And GOPers who are dumping on Berger must demand laws should be applied to DeLay (we already know DeLay's answer: see below) just as they are to Berger.
2. Berger should never EVER be allowed to be a part in any way, shape or form of ANY future administration.
3. Historians should and will most assuredly take note of this. What more confirmation is necessary that Berger & Co did not quite do all that in retrospect they should have done on terrorism?
TMV is being a bit more sanguine than I can be. I don't think the excuse making for Berger will stop even now. Democrats can always just say "Well, Republicans are worse and evil and stuff!" And all the little kool-aid drinkers will smile and nod their heads in unison.
Power Line-
It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day. The idea that this was "an honest mistake," as Berger now claims, is ridiculous. Obviously, he was trying to destroy documents that showed the negligence of the Clinton administration--of which he was a key member--in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Key documents relating to our government's inadequate reaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism prior to Sept. 11 are now gone forever, successfully purged from the historical record by one of Bill Clinton's most loyal servants. This plea bargain appears, on its face, to be a disgrace. If anyone can think of a reason why this is not correct, please let us know.
The usual braying for blood from Power Line. I'm not saying they don't have a point (after all, Berger was stealing from all of us), but this gives the Republicans all the political capital they were ever going to get from the matter. Do you really need the man's carcass?
Outside The Beltway-
Rather clearly, this was an attempt to cover something up. What, exactly, I haven't the foggiest. Previous to this incident, Berger had, so far as I was aware (and I follow national security policy rather closely) an impeccable reputation for integrity. The loss of that will surely hurt more than the $10,000 fine.
American Future-
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
If Berger had returned the documents after doing his homework, perhaps a slap on the wrist would suffice. But he destroyed them instead. Something very embarassing to the Clinton Administration must have been in them. It's a cover-up -- a sloppy one, but a cover-up nonetheless. At a minimum, Richard Clarke should be called upon to testify under oath to the appropriate Congressional Committee.
Will the MSM get up-in-arms about this? Don't bet on it. We can only hope that Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review decide to dig, and dig deep. Among the questions that need to be answered is whether Berger acted on his own intiative or was encouraged by others.
I understand the outrage, but I just don't think this can lead to anywhere but semi-founded speculation at best. The only way it could be otherwise is if there exists duplicates of the items Berger destroyed. Otherwise we shall have to wait until Berger's on his deathbed. Sad. True.
The Daily Kos-
[The sound of crickets]
Actually the DK is taking (to this point, 11:30 AM central time) the famous Ravenous Bug Blatter Beast of Traal approach to this issue, pretending that if they can't see it than it can't see them. Well, why not? It has worked for them so well in the past.
From the Washington Post:
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism.
Berger's plea agreement, which was described yesterday by his advisers and was confirmed by Justice Department officials, will have one of former president Bill Clinton's most influential advisers and one of the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy advisers in a federal court this afternoon.
The deal's terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.
He described the episode last summer as "an honest mistake." Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger's permission said: "He recognizes what he did was wrong. . . . It was not inadvertent."
It is hard to be more unequivocal than that.
From around the blogs:
The Moderate Voice-
1. Berger needs to be condemned by Democrats and independents who must demand the same Zero Tolerance towards him that they are insisting be applied towards DeLay (who is not accused of a crime as serious as Berger's at this point, by the way). And GOPers who are dumping on Berger must demand laws should be applied to DeLay (we already know DeLay's answer: see below) just as they are to Berger.
2. Berger should never EVER be allowed to be a part in any way, shape or form of ANY future administration.
3. Historians should and will most assuredly take note of this. What more confirmation is necessary that Berger & Co did not quite do all that in retrospect they should have done on terrorism?
TMV is being a bit more sanguine than I can be. I don't think the excuse making for Berger will stop even now. Democrats can always just say "Well, Republicans are worse and evil and stuff!" And all the little kool-aid drinkers will smile and nod their heads in unison.
Power Line-
It is undisputed that Berger illegally stuffed original documents relating to America's response to the threat of Islamic terrorism into his coat, pants and briefcase. Berger then destroyed a number of these top-secret documents, so that they will never see the light of day. The idea that this was "an honest mistake," as Berger now claims, is ridiculous. Obviously, he was trying to destroy documents that showed the negligence of the Clinton administration--of which he was a key member--in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Key documents relating to our government's inadequate reaction to the threat of Islamic terrorism prior to Sept. 11 are now gone forever, successfully purged from the historical record by one of Bill Clinton's most loyal servants. This plea bargain appears, on its face, to be a disgrace. If anyone can think of a reason why this is not correct, please let us know.
The usual braying for blood from Power Line. I'm not saying they don't have a point (after all, Berger was stealing from all of us), but this gives the Republicans all the political capital they were ever going to get from the matter. Do you really need the man's carcass?
Outside The Beltway-
Rather clearly, this was an attempt to cover something up. What, exactly, I haven't the foggiest. Previous to this incident, Berger had, so far as I was aware (and I follow national security policy rather closely) an impeccable reputation for integrity. The loss of that will surely hurt more than the $10,000 fine.
American Future-
Berger's archives visit occurred as he was reviewing materials as a designated representative of the Clinton administration to the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The question of what Clinton knew and did about the emerging al Qaeda threat before leaving office in January 2001 was acutely sensitive, as suggested by Berger's determination to spend hours poring over the Clarke report before his testimony.
If Berger had returned the documents after doing his homework, perhaps a slap on the wrist would suffice. But he destroyed them instead. Something very embarassing to the Clinton Administration must have been in them. It's a cover-up -- a sloppy one, but a cover-up nonetheless. At a minimum, Richard Clarke should be called upon to testify under oath to the appropriate Congressional Committee.
Will the MSM get up-in-arms about this? Don't bet on it. We can only hope that Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review decide to dig, and dig deep. Among the questions that need to be answered is whether Berger acted on his own intiative or was encouraged by others.
I understand the outrage, but I just don't think this can lead to anywhere but semi-founded speculation at best. The only way it could be otherwise is if there exists duplicates of the items Berger destroyed. Otherwise we shall have to wait until Berger's on his deathbed. Sad. True.
The Daily Kos-
[The sound of crickets]
Actually the DK is taking (to this point, 11:30 AM central time) the famous Ravenous Bug Blatter Beast of Traal approach to this issue, pretending that if they can't see it than it can't see them. Well, why not? It has worked for them so well in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)