Funmurphys: the Blog

Alito Confirmed

In the category of unsurprising is the collapse of the fillibuster against Judge Alito and his confirmation. Only ardent leftists living inside the media bubble thought it was going to happen any other way.

The only real question is why Alito was confirmed 58-43 and Ginsberg 96-3. She wasn't the more qualified candidate; Republicans voted on ability, Democrats on politics.

Book Of Daniel Closes

I never watched the show The Book of Daniel. And now I won't get the chance. The reason I didn't watch it is simple - what little TV I watch regularly these days I watch with the family and the ads didn't depict it as a family kind of show. It's not a deliberate choice BTW - it's simply a fact that if the rest of the family doesn't make it a point to watch a TV show regularly with me, then between my schedule and my memory it doesn't get watched regularly. I was able to watch the first three episodes of Lost and then was I missed a few and then I couldn't follow when I did so that was the end of that.

I'm one of those crazy people who actually watch TV ads. My wife gives me the funniest look if she switches the channel and I protest because "I was watching that ad". Not all of them mind you, just those I think have something I want to see. So the information I got about the show was from the ads, which did make it sound like The Book of Daniel was inspired far more by Desperate Housewives than God. Now, that assessment may not have been the correct one, but quite frankly the ads just screemed I was going to see what a left winger thought was a non-stop laugh riot about some wimpy post-modern pastor. I understand that we are all sinners and we are deeply comprimised. The question is, do we resign ourselves or do we try to rise above. The ads looked like a resigned wallow in the mud to me.

I Love To Laugh

I cannot tell a lie - I'm simply filled with glee at thought of the Scooter Libby trial. At this point, I don't care if Scooter is convicted or acquited, if he wrongly is set free or wrong is convicted -- what I want is the press to get what's coming to them. I neither know nor care about the guilt or innocence of Scooter -- but I want to see the press pay for the crimes they've committed against the truth all this time. Yes, I understand that nobody from the fourth estate will be fined, let alone jailed, but just having to go into court and be exposed to the best disinfectant, sunshine to quote the St. Louis Post Dispatch editorialist (not plagiarize, since the Post editorial page no longer recognizes plagiarism).

Libby was indicted because his testimony didn't agree with three reporters. So what else can his defense be but that he was telling the truth or at worse made a simple but unintentional mistake of recall based on what everybody actually knew at the time?

And the benefits are limited to just the people who are called to testify - the disappointment of those who aren't might be palpable, as they too might be exposed like everyones unfavorite, David Gregory:

I'll bet that the Libby defense team will want to chat with more than just Ms. Mitchell. That said, we should note that David Gregory may really be out of the loop - he chimed in with this:

GREGORY: And it is interesting--it's also interesting, I should just point out, that nobody called me at any point, which is unfortunately...
WILLIAMS: Apparently not.
GREGORY: ...not the point.
RUSSERT: Does anybody ever?
GREGORY: But I just wanted to note that.
RUSSERT: I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

Stand tall, Stretch - you may be the last man standing if Russert, Mitchell and Williams have a ghastly experience at the Libby trial.

NSA - This Time, Do Get Technical

Lately I've regaled you with tales of my misspent youth in an attempt to divert attention away from the NSA imbroglio. No, that's not what I've done. I'm not a lawyer, so when people start telling me something is illegal or unconstitutional I don't head for the law library to research, I comb my vast store of memory to see if what they are telling me squares with my experience. And so I've written extensively (for me) on why I think the complaints can't be right - because they don't square with my experience.

But I now turn to some lawyers who have done the legal research and declare that I haven't lost my mind (yet). The men at Powerline tell me that there are controlling legal authorities for the NSA eavesdropping and they say that the president has the legal authority to order them, despite FISA:

"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power." -- direct quote from an 2002 decision by theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.

Some Professionalism

I guess I should be glad I've only dealt with nice people at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (like Carolyn Kincaid, Greg Freeman, and Bill McClellan), and not the jerks Cathy Seipp dealt with at the New York Times. Just so we're clear - don't tell me anything confidentially until after I agree to keep it confidential.

Taum Sauk and 2 Clean Ups

I've been meaning to write about this for a little while, but tempus fugit and all that. First up, the clean up efforts of particulates clouding the water in the Black river and lower resevoir at Taum Sauk have begun. The water in the Black river, once noted for its clarity, has been a murky muck since the disasterous breach of the upper reservoir. From the picture the Post Dispatch ran, you could see that the water had scoured its path right down to the pink granite bedrock underneath, washing away everything - trees and soil included.

Secondly, the investigation heated up when it was discovered that Ameren UE had earlier problems, including a prior overflow, with the upper reservoir. So now Missouri officials (including Gov. Matt Blunt) are talking about criminal charges, and a local judge has appointed the state Attorney General, Jay Nixon, as special prosecutor.

While I think the company should pay for the clean up, I would much prefer, as both a Ameren UE ratepayer and a citizen of Missouri, to see fines and criminal charges targeted at the specific people whose actions, or failures to act, led to this disaster, than a large blanket fine imposed on Ameren UE. My thinking as a ratepayer is obvious - why should I pay the fine for another person's failure, because that's exactly what will happen. And as a citizen, I want to see (1) the guilty punished and (2) similar screwups detered. I think you are more likely to have a deterent effect if people realize that they will personally pay for, not mistakes per se, but clear failures of judgement that hurt other people. I realize that a corporation is a wonderful financial and civil legal abstraction, I'm just not sure it's all that good as a criminal one. The blame is shifted onto an artificial abstraction, and not on the flesh and blood it belongs on.

More I Just Don't Get It

Yesterday I mentioned I have been searched only once by the police. It happened in college when I was back home over the Christmas break (we could actually use that word back then). Three other friends and I went to a Pizza Inn or Hut in Rock Hill late one evening. The place was closed early, and so after pounding on the door and examining the posted hours, we discussed where to go to assuage our hunger. We noticed a police car in the filling station across the street, so when we headed west on Manchester with the police car following, the driver, Dave, made sure to stay below the speed limit.

The police officer turned on his lights just before we entered Warson Woods, so by the time we actually pulled over at the Warson Woods shopping center, we had an officer from Warson Woods, and a Sargeant from Glendale in addition to the officer from Rock Hill. The Rock Hill officer, who wouldn't tell us why we were pulled over, was none too happy when Dave gave him a paper driver's license which was a temporary because his original had been destroyed in an apartment fire in Columbia. So they went off to the Rock Hill car to sort matters out, leaving us with the Warson Woods officer standing alongside the passenger side ignoring my friend Greg in the back seat who kept asking him why we were pulled over. Greg's brother had apparently had a number of run ins with the Rock Hill police and his family didn't have a high opinion of them. Greg wanted to get out and address the officer directly, and since it was a two door car, I got out to let Greg out. The Warson Woods officer was none too happy that either of us got out, so he told us to get back in the car. Greg told him he wouldn't get back until we were informed why we had been pulled over. The officer than said he was giving us a lawful police order to get back in the car. I complied, Greg didn't. So they handcuffed Greg, searched all of us and searched the car.

All they found was four college students looking for pizza.

I have to admit I snickered when I was ordered to take the keys out of my pocket "real slow" while the police officer watched very intently with hand on gun following the discovery during my patdown that I had a large metal object in my pocket. My keys were on a very large brass K.

The Glendale sargeant eventually persuaded the Rock Hill police officer, who about went ballistic when we told him we'd simply follow him to the Rock Hill police department and pay $500 cash to bail Greg out of jail, to let us go since we were "super squeeky clean" and he was glad he wasn't the one who would have to write this one up. So after Greg "apologized" we were on our way.

So why bring this up? Did you notice something? We were searched without a warrant. Some would have you believe that's a violation of the fourth amendment. Apparently not. Anything else? It was Greg, and Greg only who "didn't obey a lawful police order", but we were all searched along with the car. That's right, I, who did obey the order, was searched, along with my two friends who weren't even subject to the order. You mean they could search a persons associates? Just in case there's some question, we were all US citizens on US soil.

One last thing - they finally told us what we were pulled over for while driving 28 MPH down Manchester Road -- loitering.

I Just Don't Get It

Outrage is still flowing strong over the NSA program to eavesdrop (wiretap is so last century people) on international phone conversations and emails -- often wrongly described as domestic. I'd love to see those people who claim this is domestic go to the domestic terminal to fly to Australia (under the theory that they are a US citizen embarking in the United States), or order a domestic French wine in a swanky restaurant (under the theory that they rare a US citizen consuming the wine in the United States). Look it's really quite simple. If somebody sits in the comfort of his home in the US and sends something, including information, outside the US then what is sent is sent internationally. If that same person receives something in the same comfort of his home from abroad, including information, then what he recieves he recieves internationally. Now here is something that's going to really blow some people's minds: If you, a US citizen in the United States, provide anything, including information to a foreign national anywhere, even in the comfort of the United States, or even indirectly through another US citizen if you know it will be provided to a foreign national, even inside the borders of the United States, you have committed an export.

Much has been made over the former NSA director, General Michael Hayden, remarks on the subject. Some claim it demonstrates a shaky grasp of the 4th amendment. I'd say it demonstrates that those complaining have a shaky grasp of the 4th amendment. Tom Maguire demonstrates the error of their ways repeatedly. Jeff Goldstein has also exhaustively covered this topic.

I think it also demonstrates that those who charge it's unconstitutional need to get out more. They seem to argue that a search requires probable cause per the 4th amendment. I've been searched so many times by government agents or by government mandate (only once by law officers though) I can't keep count. I can remember a time (barely) when you could just walk on an airplane like a train or a bus, but for a long time everybody has been searched. Now every piece of luggage, and every person who boards is searched by a government agent. Yep, US citizens, inside the US, travelling domestically (and I do mean domestically) are searched without a warrant, without probable cause, by the US government.

You go to the courthouse here in St. Louis, you get searched. US citizens, inside the US, are searched without a warrant or probable cause everyday by US agents in the very courthouses intended to uphold the law.

A couple of years ago, we took a trip to Washington D.C. We were searched at every location on the mall. Not only did we have to walk through metal detectors, backpacks, purses, etc. were opened and searched. Again, US citizens, inside the US, searched without a warrant, without probable cause, by the US government. The Smithsonian, the Capitol Building, the Library of Congress -- everywhere we went. I'm sure the irony will be lost on the Congresspeople involved that everyday thousands of US citizens are searched without a warrant to gain admission to the very building where the inquiry into warrentless searching of international communications will be held.

I have taken trips outside the US and I've been questioned about my activities abroad upon my return, and usually my effects have been searched, all without a warrant or probably cause by US agents. Even Democrats call for US customs to search every shipping container entering the United States. Needless to say, without a warrant, without probable cause. How can this be? How can this massive violation of the 4th amendment continued on for so many years if probable cause is required for a search of a US citizen, his person, papers, home, or effects?

As I said previously, I don't understand why I'm supposed to be upset that the NSA is eavesdropping on international phone calls -- calls that pass through an international border -- to US citizens when those very same citizens are subject routinely and unremarkedly to questioning and search if they physically made the same trip their call were making. What is the difference?

VDS

I have pondered over why the left in this country favors wars that meet two simple criteria: (1) spill little or preferably no American blood and (2) do not involve anything that anyone would consider a vital national interest. So we intervene in Haiti or the Balkans without the anti-war left causing much stir. I've always found it odd that the anti-republican-war-left which always has such an exaggerated concern for the welfare of American Soldiers hasn't the slightest concern for foriegn civilians if the above criteria are met. And I think the reason is that they really do fear a "Vietnam quagmire" in every war, so it's vitally important to pick wars that don't cause American casualties (apparently the only benchmark of a quagmire) and wars from which we can just run away and not suffer any repurcussions.

Vietnam sure seems to be a turning point because before then the Democratic party had no trouble with warriors as president - men who weren't afraid to pay any price, bear any burden in the cause of Truth, Justice, and the American way, guys like Kennedy, Truman, Roosevelt, Wilson, Polk, and old Andrew Jackson himself. These guys spent blood and treasure in wars they thought vital to the national interest. Scoop Jackson was the last major Democrat politician of that tradition. As the generation that experience Vietnam fades away, I hope the Democratic party can get over the trauma and return to the American mainstream - the best government is the result of the competition between two fundamentally sound parties.

Four In The Morning

I've been vandalized. Who knew laywers were into tagging, but the Listless one tagged me with the “Four in the Morning” meme.

Four Places You’ve Lived:
1. Kirkwood MO
2. Palo Alto CA
3. Huntington Beach CA
4. Kirkwood MO

Four Jobs You’ve Had In Your Life:
1. Stump Remover -- no power tools allowed.
2. Hasher.
3. Rocket Scientist.
4. Authority Figure -- at least to the Fruit of My Loins.

Four Movies You Could Watch Over And Over (and Over and Over):
1. True Grit. The Duke finally wins his Oscar, thus showing what a fat old man can do.
2. The Shawshank Redemption. I get to watch it over and over on cable.
3. Duel at Diablo. The Thinking Man's western.
4. Groundhog Day. Bill Murray's Catholic allegory.

Four TV Shows You Love To Watch:
1. Seinfeld
2. Rockford Files
3. The Amazing Race
4. Monk

Four Places You’ve Been on Vacation:
1. Eureka MO
2. Sheffield IA
3. Walt Disney World FL
4. Interlaken Switzerland

Four Websites You Visit Daily:
1. Google News
2. Instapundit
3. Macsurfer Daily News
4. Ed Driscoll

Four Of Your Favorite Foods:
1. Italian Salad, St. Louis Style (Pasta House, Rich & Charlies, Massas etc.)
2. Chicken Scaloppine.
3. Key Lime Pie (if it is yellow, not green).
4. Peanut Brittle

Four Places You’d Rather Be:
1. Heaven
2. No Place
3. On Vacation
4. There is no 4th place

Four Albums You Can’t Live Without:
While I've fully embraced Mix, Rip, & Burn, Kevin's Favorites 1 to 4 wouldn't mean much. I did the same thing in the heyday of cassette tapes, but Long, Obscure and/or Weird 1 and 2 also wouldn't mean much.
1. Illusions on a Double Dimple
2. The Unforgettable Fire
3. Close to the Edge
4. Reach the Beach

Four People To Tag With This Meme
1. Tom McMahon
2. Jenne
3. Charles Austin
4. Busymom

The Silver Age Of Funmurphys

I used to do the forum thing, but The Fishbowl explains why I don't anymore. Hey, I can scientifically prove it's utter crap now. Entry 549,293,948 in I wish I'd written that list. Via The Listless Laywer.

Another Confederacy of Dunces

I don't think I'm the only one who's licking his chops at the thought of the Scooter Libby trial and the thought of all those top drawer journalists hauled into court and forced to testify. What a gratifying spectacle that will be. It's too bad they don't allow TV cameras into court rooms - they really ought to make an exception in this case. Perhaps it could be on pay-per-view, I know I'd pay good money to watch. It would be Reality TV at it's finest. Instead we will have to content ourselves with comparing the carefully sanitized version from the organizations who have their minions testifying and independent outlets. I'm reminded of the ending of Samson - you know, where the Philistines capture him and make sport of him in their temple, so he pulls the temple down on him and them.

Do I know if Scooter lied or not? No, I wasn't party to the conversations. I do think lying during a criminal investigation is not just a bad thing, but a legally punishable one. My problem is that once Fitzgerald concluded that no law had been broken by the leak of Ms. Plame's connection to the CIA, then his whole investigation should have been over. And that conclusion had nothing to do with his investigation of Libby - in fact, that should have been determination number one. And once the determination was made that there was no crime, then the Fitzgerald should have shut the whole enterprise down and gone back to actual crime fighting. If Fitzgerald got sand in his eye, it was because he took it off the ball. Instead, he went ahead to try and find out who said what to whom when in Washington. Good luck buddy, you'll need it.

Good News

Good News, I guess -- Vicky is out of the hospital. I've only visited one, but I can only imagine you have to feel better in your own, quiet house than in the hospital. I'm praying for a swift and full recovery.

Bill And Me

Bill McClellan is probably the most popular columnist at the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Not the best, that would be Dave Nicklaus. Bill does a mix of local and national stories, more local than national, and is probably best known for his tales of ne'er do wells, and he has quite the soft spot for hard luck stories.

A couple of years ago he wrote a column about Johnny "Taliban" Walker Lindh (which is no longer available) where he had quite a lot of sympathy for Mr. Walker. I have sympathy for Mr. Walker to the extent it appears he went to Afganistan and fought for the Taliban before September 11 2001. Poor judgement and a very bad choice to be sure, but not treason. But in making his case, Mr. McClellan had to go for the icing on the cake, so he claimed that Mr. Walker had every right to be confused because the US was friendly with the Taliban at the time because of the Taliban's anti-drug stance, and as evidence of that friendship was the 43 million dollars the US paid the Taliban:

"At the time he went to Afghanistan, our government liked the Taliban government. At least, we were giving them money because we thought they were allies in our War Against Drugs."

So when I read this lie repeated again, I went into full attack dog mode. Namely, I wrote a letter (Okay, email). It's what I do. When an op-ed contributor to the Post Dispatch had made the exact same claim earlier, I wrote the letter to the editor linked above.

So Mr. McClellan and I had the correspondence included below the fold. In summary, while Bill never exhibited a smug or insulting manner (upon re-reading, if anybody was smug and insulting, it was me) but he dispayed an astonishing vagueness, disregard for facts, and a touching yet misplaced reliance on his feelings and cynicism. In the end he agreed that he was wrong (probably just to stop the emails) but of course there was no correction or mention that an important thesis in his column now rested on empty air.

Now on to the correspondence:

I carefully marshalled my facts, my links to supporting evidence from respected sources, and I even provided in my conclusion why I thought this was important (and still do) -- there seems to be no way to correct bad information once printed.

Dear Mr. McClellan,

In a column a couple of weeks ago, you wrote about John Walker: "At the time he went to Afghanistan, our government liked the Taliban government. At least, we were giving them money because we thought they were allies in our War Against Drugs."

We didn't give money to the Taliban as part of the War on Drugs. That is Scheer (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm) fabrication. What we did do is provide humanitarian assistance, mostly wheat and other food, worth 43 million dollars to Afghanistan. This assistance went to the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, and Secretary Powell at the time made it quite clear that not a penny would be going to the Taliban regime because in his words, they "have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."

This assistance brought the total US humanitarian aid to Afghanistan for the year to 124.2 million dollars, and was a continuation of similar aid provided by the Clinton administration. The US was the largest aid donor to Afghanistan for both 2000 and 2001. You can these facts for yourself at CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/index.html) which provides a contemporaneous account or Dan Kennedy at the Boston Pheonix (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01839506.htm) who debunked Scheer's account.

Jason Blair was a fool; guys like Robert Scheer can drip misinformation into the media over years without ever losing his ability to do so. And the way the media is set up, once the information stream is polluted, there is no way to clean it up. People will be citing this bunk in good faith until no one remembers the Taliban.

Kevin Murphy

I thought I kept it short and factual, thus perfect for the busy columnist. So I was happy to get a reply, just dismayed at the contents.

Kevin: I read the LA Times piece and the CNN story. I could not call up the Boston Phoenix story. But after having read those first two, it seems to me that things may not be as black and white as you indicate. Couldn't both stories be true? That is, we were giving them "humanitarian aid" -- just as the CNN story said -- but perhaps we were their biggest donors precisely because, as the LA Times story said, we saw them as allies in our War on Drugs. I'm not sure about this, but it certainly seems possible, if not likely, to me.

Bill wants to hold on to what he wrote while trying to claim we're both right. How can we gave money to the Taliban like Bill claims be right at the same time we didn't give them a penney as I claimed? I guess if I were a columnist at a major newspaper, I'd understand. Also note the confusion of the motive - allies in the War on Drugs - and the action - providing money to the Taliban. So if you have the motive right, you must have the action right? It was such an unsatisfactory reply that I had to write again.

First, you seem to be unclear as to who the "them" are - of all the organizations we gave money to in Afganistan, none of the them were the Taliban. So you're assertion that we gave the Taliban the money is simply wrong. (See Colin Powell's announcement of the aid: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/2928.htm). From that announcement:

"Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement. "
Hardly the the ringing endorsement of an ally.

Second, the reason we gave the money to the UN agencies and non-governmental agencies is clear - people were on the verge of starvation in Afganistan. (See Anne Applebaum's article in Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/105417/). From that article:

"War and politics have compounded a natural crisis: Afghanistan is now experiencing a second year of drought and may be on the brink of a terrible famine. The World Food Program thinks the drought has severely hit 4 million people in the country: Kenzo Oshima, the U.N. undersecretary-general in charge of humanitarian affairs, has said that 1 million are at risk. The numbers vary widely because no one actually knows what is happening in the interior of the country, where refugees report that they were surviving on boiled grass. "

Giving food to starving people is something that enjoys broad support in this country.

I know what you're thinking - what about that line in Secretary Powell's announcement:
"We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome. "

While an intriguing line, it doesn't contradict that fact that we didn't give money to the Taliban, and that food was the main thing provided (most of the 43 million was food and not money). To me it indicates an awareness that an anti-drug program is not without costs to people outside the US, and that the US is willing to help out - not that the Taliban was an ally in the War On Drugs (a war I'll note in passing that I don't support). If we wanted to reward the Taliban, wouldn't it have made sense to have provided them with something other than insults?

While we are all free to draw our own conclusions from the available facts, you cannot change the facts -- even in an opinion column. We didn't give a penny to the Taliban, and any claim that we did, for whatever reason, is false. To leave out that most of the aid was food and what cash was provided was for food and food related aid while Afganistan was in the midst of a famine is misleading.

Kevin Murphy

Okay, more facts, and I'm clearly rebutting (1) money to the Taliban, and (2) aid was quid pro quo for being part of the War on Drugs. Clear, persuasive, and impossible to misconstrue. Hah, was I ever wrong.

You seem to miss my point, Kevin. We were giving aid to Afghanistan while the Taliban were the government. There is no denying that -- whether the aid was mostly food or all food, and whether the aid was given indirectly -- from our hands to the UN to the Afghans. We were giving the Afghans aid. The secretary of state made explicit mention of the fact that the Taliban was restricting the cultivation of poppys, a decision he said we welcomed. I'm not making any of that up, nor am I changing facts. Is it that far-fetched to think that we give aid based on whether we approve of specific actions a government takes? I think we often give aid based on whether or not we think somebody is playing ball with us. Perhaps I am just too cynical, and you might argue that we would give aid to anybody whether we liked their policies or not. But I can think of several famines in which we did not rush forward with aid. We often use foreign aid as a carrot. I have never thought that was so wrong. Is it your argument that the present administration is less concerned about international politics and more altrusitic than former administrations?

Bill seems to skip right over all my facts and clear statements of what my argument is and when I don't agree with him, feels I'm the one missing the point. And his response is a classic of muddleheaded thinking. It's Dowdism (the elimination of the inconvient and the rearrangment to suit the quotor) applied to thinking. Note the repetition of unfounded assertions. Note the restatement of a clearly made argument into something completely different at the end. It's pretty clear to me who's missing the point (and it ain't me).

I'm not missing your point. Your point was that John Lindh could have been confused about our feelings for the Taliban: "At the time he went to Afghanistan, our government liked the Taliban government. At least, we were giving them money because we thought they were allies in our War Against Drugs."

You have ignored my points and provided no supporting facts.

You said we were giving money to the Taliban. There is no denying that we didn't. Trying to equate providing food and money to the UN and NGOs, and giving cash to the Taliban is wrong. Would it have been the same thing if in the 60's the USSR had given money to the Weather Underground or the Nixon administration? I mean, it's all Americans. According to you it would be the same thing.

Would giving food to the Afgans indicate that we liked the Taliban government? Just the opposite, since we made clear that we were giving the food to NGO's and the UN precisely because we didn't like the Taliban.

We gave food to starving Afgans. This is a payoff to the Taliban how?

The Taliban outlawed poppy cultivation. Powell said we'd work on ways to help out Afgans, including the farmers hurt by that ban. That would mean we were trying to make the farmers allies, not the Taliban. Powell indicated that until the Taliban stopped being the Taliban, not only wouldn't they get anything from us, we would continue to support UN sanctions against them. Maybe you and I have different definitions of "ally".

We provide monetary and military aid directly to governments pretty much completely based upon international political concerns. But that isn't what we are talking about here. We're talking about food aid here - and the only time I know that we've withheld food aid is in North Korea where for several years we asked for better accounting and NGO access and never got it. Doctors without Borders pulled out of North Korea because they said the food aid was only going to supporters of the regime (http://www.msf.org/countries/index.cfm?indexid=22D113E8-BEC7-11D4-852200902789187E). I don't think this administration is much different than any recent ones when it comes to providing famine relief by and large without regard to the current relationship between the two countries. If you're a deeply cynical person, you might consider food aid to a country we dislike in our best interests as it would tend to undermine the recipient.

If you could think of these famines where we haven't rushed forward, could you do me the favor of telling me? As I tell my wife, I'm not a mind reader.

Kevin Murphy

Okay, I got snippy. But at least I'm providing facts and clear reasoning. Could I have been any more clear? I thought the reasoning by analogy would be a big help, but apparently not.

Okay, Kevin. We're not getting anywhere. I'm a little more cyncial than you, that's all. Maybe we don't do things in our own self-interest. As far as famines go, I could go back to the terrible famine in the Soviet Union under Stalin or to the more recent one in Somalia in which we intervened only after it was on television for months. But if you want argue about what constitutes aid, and whether or not our motives are absolutely altrusitic, I know I can't change your mind. Thanks for the notes.

There's our problem, I'm insufficienty cynical. So is being more cynical right? I guess in this case. We aren't arguing about what constitutes aid, but who it's going to. We aren't arguing about the degree of altruism of our motives, but what they were. I suppose some debate teacher taught Bill this technique - divert attention from what's said by restating it incorrectly. Or maybe he's that stupid. But hey, at last I have some verifiable claims from Bill - even if they are pretty much a tangent. I don't know about you, but the impression I get of Bill's fact gathering technique is trying to remember back to what he learned in junior high or what he read somewhere that made an impression on him. The idea of actually trying to do a little research, especially the internet, never seems to have entered his head.

You are right, we aren't getting anywhere. But it isn't because I want to argue about what constitutes aid, or how altruistic our motives are -- I don't. It's about simply getting facts right. It's a sad day when the top columnist at a major newspaper can't see that giving food and money to organizations not connected to the government in a country is not the same thing as giving money to that government. All the other stuff is interesting but not pertinent. You cannot say we gave money to the Taliban for any reason and be accurate for the simple reason we never gave money to the Taliban.

I will comment on your two examples - we did send food to Somalia, and when it was used as a weapon by Somali warlords, we sent in the Marines to insure its proper distribution. Rather than an example of where we withheld food for political reasons, Somalia shows both our willingness to provide famine relief and the limitations thereto.

As far as reaching back to the famine under Stalin in the early thirties, I'm not sure what you want. The soviet regime maintained that there was no famine, and used people like Walter Duranty to reinforce that message (hey, when do you think the NYT will give back the pulitzer for his lies? Just curious). In a sense they were right - there was no famine, there was murder by starvation. When a country's government is deliberately starving certain of its citizens for policy reasons, I'm not sure what you want the US to do. Invade? We did that in Somalia, but I'm not sure we could have been very effective in 1932 invading the USSR. (see http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/eara.html).

Kevin Murphy

OK Mr. smart guy, you want to wander off on a tangent, I'll crush you like the bug you are. I just couldn't resist the Duranty column, because it really undermines the idea that the newsmedia has ever been any good. There was no golden age. OK, what's going to be his response?

Kevin: One reason we're not getting anywhere is from the start I said there might be some truth to what you're saying, but you insist on claiming all the truth and I don't think you can back that up. In fact, you're too much of a "what is the defnition of is is" guy for me. We gave aid to the Afghans while the Taliban ran the government. To me, that's a fact. But you do your "definition of is is" argument that it's not really aid, because it's food, which is like saying we don't give the Egyptians aid because it's really weapons -- and no, I don't want to debate that -- and furthermore, you argue, we didn't really give the aid to the Afghans because we gave it to the UN to give to the Afghans. Very Clintonesque. I still say the fact is we gave aid to the Afghans. At the time we gave the aid to the Afghans -- or in your view, we gave food to the UN which was supposed to give to the Afghans -- the Secretary of State specifically mentioned how helpful the Taliban were in stoppiong the growth of poppys. I'm not sure I understood your denial of that except you said something about how we wanted to help the farmers, and the farmers are not the Taliban. I mean, Kevin, you could argue that the sky is not blue, and I would still insist it seems blue to me. So let's just stop. You're convinced you're completely right about all of htis, and I don't think the facts are on your side -- unless you twist them. And with all respect, I don't have time to keep restating my position.

Clintonesque!?! -- them's fighting words bub.

So now I realize I'm beating my head into a brick wall because I'm insisting on claiming all the truth. He still is hung up on what is aid and can't make the jump of who the aid is going to. When I say we didn't give money to the Taliban, he's stuck on money and I'm talking about the Taliban. And apparently he likes his facts one fact at time, any more than that and he gets confused. And then he decides to go for a little analogy himself, only he make sure he picks on he can win - the sky is blue. Yep, I'm going to argue that one. I bet he doesn't even know why the sky is blue (because sunsets are red). Of course, he can look out any window and see that we gave money to the Taliban in 2000. That's some window. And with all due respect, all you've been doing is simply restating your position and misstating mine.

I'm not trying to claim all the truth. I'm trying to focus on a very specific idea, namely that providing food to starving Afghans is not the same as providing money to the Taliban. Yes, we gave aid to the Afghans while the Taliban ran the government (although we never did recognize the Taliban government as the government of Afghanistan), but the Taliban government did not equal the Afghani people. You cannot substitute Taliban government where ever you see Afghan person(s). They are not the same. Again, let's look at your exact remark that I thought was in error:

"At the time he went to Afghanistan, our government liked the Taliban government. At least, we were giving them money because we thought they were allies in our War Against Drugs."

We were not giving the Taliban money. We were sending food to starving Afghans. We send food to starving people around the world, typically without a concern for their government. We've sent over 500 million dollars worth of food to North Korea in the last ten years, the government of which we clearly dislike, just as we clearly disliked the Taliban. We're sending millions of dollars worth of food to Zimbabwe, even though we clearly dislike the regime of Robert Mugabe, just as we clearly disliked the Taliban. We have sent millions of dollars worth of food to the Sudan under a government we clearly dislike, just as we clearly disliked the Taliban. We did not like the Taliban - we never even recognized them as the government of Afganistan.

We did not send money to the Taliban. Sending food to starving people is not the same as giving money to their government - that is a fact to me.
We did not like the Taliban. Sending food to starving people does not indicate whether or not the United States government likes another country - that too is a fact.

That leaves the idea that we thought the Taliban were our allies in the drug war. I'm not a mind reader, so I'm forced to look at all the facts to arrive at my conclusion.

Secretary Powell's statement:
We will continue to look for ways to provide more assistance for Afghans, including those farmers who have felt the impact of the ban on poppy cultivation, a decision by the Taliban that we welcome.

We distribute our assistance in Afghanistan through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations. We provide our aid to the people of Afghanistan, not to Afghanistan's warring factions. Our aid bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it. We hope the Taliban will act on a number of fundamental issues that separate us: their support for terrorism; their violation of internationally recognized human rights standards, especially their treatment of women and girls; and their refusal to resolve Afghanistan's civil war through a negotiated settlement.

UN sanctions against the Taliban are smart sanctions and do not hurt the Afghan people, nor do these sanctions affect the flow of humanitarian assistance for Afghans. "

Are those the words of one ally to another - the only thing we welcomed by the Taliban was their ban on poppy production. And we didn't think much of that; Asa Hutchinson, head of the DEA thought the ban was a cynical ploy to increase the price so that the Taliban could make more money off the huge existing stockpiles in Afganistan (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/03/inv.drugs.terrorism/?related)

And I'm not arguing that the sky is not blue; I was making a cynical argument that if you follow the money (isn't that what cynics do?) that since we clearly said we weren't going to give the Taliban a dime, but we were looking for ways to put aid in the hands of the actual farmers, we were treating the farmers, not the Taliban as an ally. The ally would be the group we we send aid to, not the one we insult. And yes, the farmers are not the government. If I want to give Bill McClellan money, I don't send it to the US Treasury, nor when I want to give the US government money do I send it to Bill McClellan. Perhaps as your wife handles the finances, you aren't acquainted with such a simple economic idea.

But I think Occam's razor solves this question nicely - is it simpler that we sent food to a country with starving people because we don't like to see people starve given our history of sending food to starving people despite their government; or that we sent food to people living in a country whose government we wanted to consider an ally but whom we didn't recognize, whom we got UN sanctions against, whom we'd attacked once before and whom we would go on to depose, because they had banned poppy production while they continued to sell heroin and other opiates?

If the Taliban government is the same as the Afghan people, is it fair to say that when we wiped out the Taliban, we wiped out the Afgans themselves? No, such a statement is absurd on the face of it, and so to is equating the Taliban government with Afghans in general.

Kevin Murphy

I'ts like hearding cats - you've got to keep coming back to the point. When I was in Pakistan I was told they hit their camels in the head with a brick to get their attention. That was my metaphor for the last email. Would this be the straw that broke the camel's back (yes, I realize that's a mixed metaphor)

Kevin: You are correct that we did not send the Afghans money. I was wrong on that point. The rest I think is a little hair-splitting.

He still can't get it right - we didn't send the Taliban the money - not the Afgans. Even the gods themselves wail in vain.

NOTE: The links provided were good in 2003. Your milage may vary.

Oregon and The Right To Die

There is a lot of happiness in some quarters about the Supreme Courts decision on doctor assisted suicide in Oregon. I wonder how long the rejoicing will last if applied to things like labor laws, environmental laws, and other laws that roll out from Washington with little regard for the individual states.

So do I think the people of Oregon passed a good law about doctor assisted suicide? Nope (although I may change my mind in a few years), but I think that's their mistake to make. I sure do hope the legal reasoning get's extended to other areas besides suicide.

This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome

The Listless Lawyer discovers a case where the court hands the ACLU their head on a "separation of church and state" case and also discovers that he thinks like a appellate judge.

Third, and finally, as much as I support the ACLU on most issues, I admit that it is fun to watch them get slapped around a bit for their ill-considered views on religious “freedom”. And to see them get slapped around using tools honed to perfection (at least in recent history) by the political left? You’ve gotta love schadenfreude.

So if you want to see the ACLU slapped around (and if you're my kind of person, you do), go and read.

Out Of The Mouth From The Heart

What's the difference between Ray Nagin and Pat Robertson?
Pat's incompetence hasn't killed any one yet.

What's the difference between Republicans and Democrats?

Republicans aren't crazy enought to elect either one, while Democrats elected Ray "Tantrum" Nagin, who brings whole new meaning to the phrase "The politics of personal destruction".

My advice on what God's thinking -- James 1:26-27:

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

I Have A Dream

Rev. Martin Luther King's 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech is famous, and with good reason. It's magnificent, and when I tried to just excerpt it, I found I couldn't leave anything out.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.

One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.

So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.

The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

As great as the impact of reading it is, I can only imagine that it was ten times greater hearing it delivered by such an orator. Talk about communicating a vision, this speech delivers on the vision of a nation free of racial divisions while appealing to both the historical vision of the United States and to clear Christian imagery.

So are we there yet? Can all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" Well, not quite, but we are far, far closer now than we were then. I'm crazy enough to think that my children's generation will actually be there with few exceptions.

While a pervasive and oppressive racism was clearly the dominate factor in a black person's life in 1963, that is no longer the case. Other factors are now equally or more significant than racism in negatively affecting black people, although the concentrating effect of population disparity on minorities is hard for a non-minority to judge, as I pointed out in a post I titled the perception of racism but could have been titled the experience of racism.

That's what Bill Cosby's crusade is about. It's said that generals fight the last war; Mr. Cosby is trying to get the troops to fight the current war. The struggle for civil rights is over, the struggle now is what to do with them.

There is still some controversy over the Rev. King's remarks centering on how to reach the vision he so wonderfully provided. What kind of transition will it take and how long should it last? While I think Rev. Kings vision is still as important and worthwile as the day he spoke on the steps of the Lincoln memorial, I don't think we can look back to his every utterance as a roadmap. Yes, he pointed out that black people would need help on the way to full equality, but 45 years later that isn't the question, the question is what form should it take, if any? If we are this close to "Free at last, free at last, free at last" does looking to the past hurt or help getting all the way there? And funny how people use his opposition to Vietnam to oppose any war they don't like but they fail to mention such opposition when we are fighting a war they either support or don't care about.

Rev. King provided us the vision in a clear and compelling form; it's up to us to try every day to live up to that vision.

(Yes, I realize that yesterday is the day set aside to celebrate the good Reverend's accomplishments, but time as always presses and while I started this yesterday, I couldn't finish it until today.)

I Prefer Mongrel

It's official, St. Louis is part southern. We hang out at the grocery story trying to snatch up every loaf of bread, gallon of milk, and egg they have when a forcaster mentions snow. I wonder if Schnuck's and Dierberg's (yes, a couple of locals with odd last names ran the big boys out of town) pay forecasters to mention the word whenever they have too much stock on hand.

Not That There Is Anything Wrong With That

After catching the last quarter of the thrilling Patriots-Bronco game Saturday night by accident (thrilling that is unless you were a Patriot fan, in which case you know now the feeling we Rams fans had after Super Bowl 36 when the clearly superior team lost), I made a point of watching the two games on Sunday. Well, I caught the last quarter of the Colts-Steelers game and it too featured not just an improbable Rockyesque storyline, it had more reversals of fortune than any movie script would ever load up on.

After those two games, the Bears-Panthers game was anti-climactic, but my son and I watched while listening to the Phantom of the Opera which he downloaded from the iTunes store using the gift certificate Santa brought for Christmas. I could only watch that clunker as long as the music was on - closing my eyes and listening to the music of the night was the only way to let my spirit soar with that all too earthbound contest. The women of the family were clearly alarmed at this development, and kept telling us they thought we were not just the only men, but the only people in the world watching that football game while listening to Phantom of the Opera, or any musical score for that matter. I'm all in favor of watching TV while listening to good music; my father and I used to watch The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo while listening to Beethoven.

Isn't It Bliss, Don't You Approve

So how do I dislike the Alito hearings? Let me count the ways.

1. Ted Kennedy Any claim that I need to take Ted Kennedy seriously is an offense. The fact that Massachusetts returns the broken down old drunk to the senate every six years is the best indication that the power of incubency is too strong in American politics. Ted, the man's name is A-li-to, not Al-i-o-to. And for the record , it was Arlen Spector demonstrated who the real the 'lion in winter' is.

2. The Hypocrisy I'll just pick one big example so as not to bore you. The Senate Democrats tell me I need to worry that an organization Judge Alito was a member of 40 years ago, Concerned Alumni of Princeton, was racist and sexist. OK, but how about Robert Byrd? He was not only a member of the Klu Klux Klan, which pretty much set the standard for racist organizations, he was a leader in it. And he still calls people "nigger". And none of those Democratic senators has the slightest problem with Senator Byrd.

3. The Confirmation Process Confirmation hearings mix grotesque grandstanding with mud throwing by one set of partisans and mud removal by the other set of partisans in equal proportions, which leaves no time for an actual exchange of information with the confirmee. But when senators, who control the confirmation process, complain about the process like it's something they have no control over, excuse me if I wretch and wretch again.

4. The Intellectual Dishonesty A significant segment of the left is always going on about how the Constitution is a living document that adapts to the needs of the present. How does it adapt? Well, nine people in Washington, AKA the Supreme Court, get to decide. And by golly if they say that the constitution has spoken to them in a new way, or that the American people have changed, well then, the Constitutionality of an issue has changed. So what's up with this sudden devotion to stare decisis? How can a living document breath if it is put in the straitjacket of stare decisis? But what's worse, it's clear that approval/disapproval for someone holding such a position has nothing to do with traditional measures like judicial temperament, philosophy, or ability, but has everything to do with the person's politics. Because what's clear is you expect, even demand, that Supreme Court justices follow their own feelings and preferences, because that's what this whole living document hooha is about. So the whole point of a confirmation hearing isn't about finding out if a nominee is fit, but flinging so much dirt at a nominee of the other party that enough sticks to derail the confirmation. That and time on TV.

Judge Alito, Your Bench is Calling

I keep hearing about the confirmation hearings for Judge Alito. I'm not paying much attention because I figure (1) he's going to be confirmed, and (2) he can't be any worse than Ruth Ginsberg. I know, I have such high standards for Supreme Court Justices.

My problem with the process is that whoever is nominated is going to say what they think will cause them the least immediate hassle during the confirmation hearings and once on the bench they can and will do whatever they want. And having seen how the august responsibility of having no accountability has turned many a Supreme Court judge into a not so petty tyrant has soured me on the whole process. I'm beginning to think that the best qualification is age - the older the better. Not because of any notion about wisdom coming with age, but just because there is less time for the power to corrupt.

So go ahead, if you have a strong stomach, and read the transcripts and make fun of your least favorite Senator. I've seen less posing for the cameras at a fashion show. To me, it's an acquired taste, like oh, the one for Limberger cheese and through studious indifference I have the good fortune to have not acquired it (or for Limberger either).

I'll stick to my pre-digested info on this matter, like this hilarious yet sad article from Bloomberg about Democrats who simply can't believe that Alito won't endorse the notion that the Constitution confers a right to abortion. I cackle at Dick Durban going "can't you see the emanations, the penumbras, the auras, the effervesences of the Constitution that quite clearly state, well, not state exactly, but slip into the brain of sensitive people and help them understand that personhood is confered by a decision of one's mother right up until, let's be honest, the placenta comes out? Good God man, haven't you drunk the cool aid yet?" The sad part is that an otherwise sane person could read the constitution and conclude that it does indeed confer a right to abortion on demand by mom until birth and includes an exception for her health (whether abortion should be legal is a separate issue).

And let's be clear - Alito is against abortion. While it would be nice for him to ask the good senator if he's ever, you know, actually read the constitution all the way through in one sitting, and then state that of course he's against abortion and thinks Roe was a terrible case of legislating from the bench, it might cause enough senators to confuse insulting a senator with insulting the senate that he wouldn't be confirmed. The only real question is does Alito think that overturning what he thinks is a bad judicial ruling that lies somewhere between a super and a super-duper precedent is inline with his judicial philosophy. In other words, does Judge Alito think that correcting the mistakes of one's predecessors on the bench cause more harm or good? Now if somebody asked that, I'd pay attention.

Your Help Requested

I met Vicky Drachenberg at Midwest Blog Bash IV (see Chris Johnson if you want a T-Shirt). Unfortunately, I didn't have too much time to talk with her as I was trying to eat and leave as she and her husband Matt were arriving. Now she's really sick, and after 8 days in the hospital, they think she has endocarditis -- an infection of the heart. So please pray for her and drop her an email. You can find out all the details at her husband Matt's blog, overtaken by events.

You Go George

I've already explained my thoughts on the whole "domestic spying" controversy - it isn't domestic, and why my phone/email communications can't be searched by a US government agent without a warrant while crossing a border yet I and my property can be is beyond me.

But Tom Maguire does his usual treatment of subjects that fascinate him (he's still even posting on the Plame kerfuffle, bless his heart) which means he's thorough (but gentle, as a blogger should be). So we have not just one post, not just two posts, but three whole posts about it. He gives a hypothetical situation on why even the 72 hour retroactive warrent may not be good enough - and frankly why the whole framework of FISA may simply be OBT (Overtaken By Technology) and rendered obsolete. He takes us through the thoughts of the Democrats who were briefed (including the New York Times - you know, the media wing of the Mediacratic party of which the Democrats are the political wing (kind of like the IRA and Sinn Fein, but different because we don't know which side of the media/democrats is calling the shots and we know the IRA is calling the shots (pun not intended and regretted)) and concludes:

Possible unifying answer - Harman, Rockefeller, and the editors of the Times are all dupes. Uh huh. Another possible answer is, they know enough about this program to know that there might still be some secrets there.

Folks who think that the catalog of Atrios's ignorance and the limits of his imagination define the boundaries of human endeavor will remain bemused by his question. For myself, I am convinced that I don't know enough about this program to have any solid idea what security issues might be involved, so I am relying on the good, if unsteady, judgments of elected representatives such as Harman and Rockefeller.

It's clear from the Brit Hume interview with Rep. Harman that Tom links to that she thinks that there are still secrets there:

HUME: You say it's basically foreign. Were you not made aware individuals within the United States' conversations with the suspected terrorists overseas were part of the program?

HARMAN: It's a classified program, so I can't discuss what I was made aware of. But let me say...

HUME: Well, I know, but the...

HARMAN: No.

HUME: ... toothpaste is out of the tube...

HARMAN: ... it was made clear to me -- no...

HUME: ... when it's known that that's the case.

HARMAN: But it was made clear to me that conversations between Americans in America were not part of the program and require -- and I think they do -- a court warrant in order to eavesdrop on them.

And that's been a point of confusion, because some of the press articles allege that this is a so-called, as you said, domestic surveillance program. That's not what I believe it is.

HUME: Well, all right. So in other words, your belief is that this was indeed a case of Americans being picked up, perhaps within the United States, in discussions with people overseas.

HARMAN: Well, let's just leave your comment there. I really don't want to confirm what...

HUME: All right.

No Brit, the toothpaste isn't all out of the tube, and even if it were, the information hasn't been declassified yet. The New York Times may rule the Mediacrats, but they don't have the power to declassify (something that Joe Wilson forgot when he blew the cover off his wife being a covert operative).

And it's nice to know that Rep. Harman and I agree that this isn't domestic surveillance, but foreign and international if need be.

The same papers that demand we search every cargo container entering the US and fault the administration for moving too slowly here are the very ones who are attacking them for listening in on foreign and international calls without a judge's approval. Again, what gives phone calls such privileges? What makes a judge so special? Is a judge more sober than members of Congress?

Frankly, it's nice to know the Bush administration was on the ball with this one. And I hope they catch the SOB who leaked and comprimised an ongoing and effective covert intellegence operation in wartime - a war that is has been and continues to be fought partly on American soil. Sometimes I think some people forget that.

The Blonde Joke

There's a blonde joke that's been floating around the web, so in case you haven't heard it, it goes like this:

Two men walk into a bar -- the third man ducks

Only 8?

Here's a great post from the Ombudsgod: Top 8 Media Mulligans For 2005. What discipline to keep the field to only eight.

A Mulligan is where you act like what just happened didn't really happen even though everyone really knows what really happened. The following, in my opinion, are the 8 worst Mulligans the collective media took in 2005. They are areas of failure in the media that we are supposed to pretend don't exist.

No Katrina coverage, even though that was an unnatural disaster.

Hiltzik: Stuck on Stupid

I've gone all year without a post criticising the media (I never get tired of that old joke) and I even went so far as to half way defend them yesterday. But for everything that's wrong about the news business today, read the assault with a limp weapon perpetrated on Patterico part 1 & part 2. Mr. Hiltzik commits the classic emotional fallacy of believing that his name calling works. It doesn't. Far better bloggers than I have responded, from Patterico himself, not just once, but twice, Armed Liberal couldn't say it all in just one post, but fine writing stylist and all around classy guyTom Maguire manages it in just one response.

Highlights of the Hiltzik's essays were his informative comparison of right wing critics of the news media (not just Patterico BTW - and yes, I'm disappointed I wasn't mentioned along with Hugh Hewitt and Mickey Kaus - not that I deserve it) to Stalin and their blogs to his show trials, his charming theft of Tailgunner Joe's line about how he had all kinds of evidence in his briefcase but he wasn't going to share, his claim that people who hadn't worked in daily journalism had no basis of criticism of same, and his rousing defense of story placement in the times that "The written language is a linear communications medium" so "something has to come first".

Argumentative, insulting, stupid, unsatisfying, remarkably fact free and misleading, and ultimately headshaking are the blurbs this critic ends with. Sadly, it's the standard response to criticism from those who understand daily journalism from their employment therein.

You're No Johnny Carson

Mr. Ott, as always, has the best story about Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars. I'm writing my response to Mr. Stewarts hosting job already: "I thought he'd be taller." Yeah, I know, low blow.

Ignore Pat Robertson

We keep telling you people, ignore Pat Robertson. He only gets media attention because he fits their caracature of a right wing Christian. Move along.

Lynn Swann For Governor

So Lynn Swann is running for Governor of Pennsylvania. Good for him. As a Republican. Hope he's treated better by the Mediocrats party than JC Watts was.

Nobody Here But An NSA Agent

Back in the day when phone companies ruled (you know, when a hip movie like The President's Analyst could cast "The Phone Company" as the ultimate villain) there was a clear division in phone calls - domestic (between two phones in the same United States), and international (between a phone in the US and a phone in a different country). Yet I keep reading in the news about how the NSA is conducting domestic spying on international calls -- you know, between a phone in the US and a phone in a different country. I wonder if they use a TARDIS to accomplish that trick? While I can't read minds, I'm inclined to think such a mischaracterization is a deliberate attempt to sway your opinion.

Now if you're not a legal expert (just like me) there are a lot of competing claims - generally along partisan lines with the left claiming malfeasence and the right claiming prudence. The legal experts have shown more heat than light on the issue, and it seems to me you can pick your answer by picking your legal beagle.

But I'm a scientist masquarading as an Engineer, so I asked my self, what would Albert do? Why, a thought experiment of course! But in place of a phone call between two countries, I place myself, a US citizen, on a trip between two countries. And since I have indeed traveled internationally (before the War on Terror), between a variety of countries, it's a well grounded thought experiment. On the outbound leg, I leave the United States, and the only check is by the airlines to make sure I have a passport and if required in the destination country a valid visa. They do this because if I arrive without such necessities, they have to send me back at their own expense. When I arrive at my destination, however, I am subject to not just questioning, but search of not just my belongings, but my person. Even local military escort, which was able to take us to the head of the line in Pakistan, was unable to circumvent the searching of our luggage. In Europe, I received the most scrutiny in England (because of my name), and the least in Switzerland. The return, however, is different than the departure, as despite the fact I'm a US citizen on US soil, I am once again subject to questions, and to the search, not only of my property, but of my person, at the discression of a US government employee, and without a warrant. I got the most thorough going over upon my returns from Pakistan and the most perfunctory from Canada.

So I'm supposed to get excited because the NSA is listening into international phone calls without a warrant, but there is no excitement over my warrentless search when I physically travel internationally? So why are my phone calls more priveleged than me? Well, we have a pretty good understanding how helpful such border control can be when it comes to the physical, but some people don't seem to see that when it comes to communications.

Look, I'm not happy about such searches (especially when I'm going through them, and I'll never forget the asshole agent in Hawaii) but I understand they occur simply because it's the only way to enforce the law. It's not because of the badness of government, but the badness of people.

Sago Mine Disaster

A terrible tragedy compounded by a false hope - that's the story out of West Virginia. It's a really sad day, and my heart goes out to the families who are grieving. Yes, the press screwed up, but then it underlines the truism that first reports are wrong, something we've seen over and over and over. And to be fair, the families didn't get their news from the press, if anything, it was the other way around. Yes, we all admire the gimlet eyed hard head who doesn't get carried away with improbably good news after the fact, but we forget how much we hate them at the time for throwing cold water on our celebration.

No Sympathy Here

Excuse me if I can't muster any sympathy for Glenn Reynolds and his return to work. I was back to work yesterday, and I get up at 5:30; and I don't have time to make 100 posts a day. Please don't tell me how hard it is to be a college professor.

Battle of the Network Jerks

I guess it goes to show you just how bad David Letterman is that he's worse than Bill O'Reilly. When O'Reilly makes you look like a fool on your own show, you're a fool.

Non Verbal Communication

What's the best way to declare you're not an Islamofascist? Wafah Doufar, Osama Bin Laden's American niece thinks that showing a lot of skin says it best. Maybe there is something to that whole protest babe thing after all.

Battle of Britain

I had a good Christmas, very relaxing, and I hope you had a good one too - or if you don't celebrate Christmas, then I hope you had a good holiday. One of the gifts I received was The Battle of Britain which is one of the great air combat & historical movies. Some of the special effects are cheesy -- they couldn't do flak worth a darn -- but the aerial combat scenes are first rate. And the movie took great care with historical accuracy - something that seems to have gone completely out of style in Hollywood these days (the movie is British) - right down to hiring German actors to play Germans speaking german with subtitles instead of speaking english with a heavy german accent. It even continued the tradition of the pointless romantic subplot in a war movie with Susanna York and Christopher Plummer as husband and wife torn apart by the war. It has one of the great montage scences from the dawn of the montage era towards the end that captures the nerve racking terror of massive aerial combat. It's interesting that it does a good job of capturing the horror of war, does justice to both the British and the Germans involved, but clearly isn't an anti-war movie.

Punishment Should Fit The Crime

I'm a believer that extraordinary crimes deserve extraordinary punishment, so I've often thought that wealthy people who steal large sums of money tend to get off far too lightly. And so I think Jack Abramoff will get off far too lightly, along with his partners in crime. To be clear, not every politician who got money from Abramoff did anything wrong. Considering that he's done double the damage - he's stolen millions of dollars and created the appearance of corruption in Congress if not actual corruption and despite his cooperation, he should receive what in my mind is the maximum penalty such financial criminals should receive (along with such criminal masterminds as Bernie Ebbers and John Rigas): he should have all his money, down to the very last cent, taken from him, then he should be stripped naked and whipped through the streets. Then he loses all property rights for 5 years.

On a side note, while the charges Ronnie Earl brought against Tom Delay in Texas were a joke, the trail from Abramoff to Delay is very serious indeed.