May 31, 2005
Brooklyn Graf
Check out the Atlantic Avenue Art Walk this weekend (4 - 5 June) to see some good, local art. And while you are at it, check out this legal wall graf at the corner of Court and Atlantic Avenues.
Improv Everywhere played a fake U2 concert across Madison Square Garden last week
A few were arrested for the Rooftop Concert - Video Here
More excellent Nuclear Compromise analysis from
KargoKagro X-
Specter has lung cancer, and all Brownback wants to do is, "pray for him."
DIY Rocket Launcher (from a Video Game)
taking bits and making them physical with HijackGL, CAD, and CnC machines
Just when you thought Arnold couldn't get any more shameless
Product placement in Political Ads
Legal Wall Painting
Court Street Graf, originally uploaded by plemeljr
As the above photo shows, there is a legal wall painting in progress at the corner of Court & Atlantic going up for the Atlantic Avenue Art Walk this weekend, 4 - 5 June. The walls are being painted by thirteen or so artists, and they will be working from 4 pm to dark every night this week to finish the work. The gentleman, whose name I instantly forgot (sorry!), working on his section said that tomorrow and Thursday would be the best nights to check out the work in progress.
For more photos of this wall at the Court & Atlantic Legal Wall set, the graffiti or streetart tags, and Jake Dobkin's Streetart Archive.
May 30, 2005
Remembering the Fallen
Old Glory, originally uploaded by Godverbs
Today as we grill out and enjoy the nice weather, we need to remember the fallen, who have given their lives protecting this country from forces both foreign and domestic. Memorial Day has changed through the years, but the history of remembering is deeply rooted in our Union:
Memorial Day, originally called Decoration Day, is a day of remembrance for those who have died in our nation's service. There are many stories as to its actual beginnings, with over two dozen cities and towns laying claim to being the birthplace of Memorial Day. There is also evidence that organized women's groups in the South were decorating graves before the end of the Civil War: a hymn published in 1867, "Kneel Where Our Loves are Sleeping" by Nella L. Sweet carried the dedication "To The Ladies of the South who are Decorating the Graves of the Confederate Dead" (Source: Duke University's Historic American Sheet Music, 1850-1920). While Waterloo N.Y. was officially declared the birthplace of Memorial Day by President Lyndon Johnson in May 1966, it's difficult to prove conclusively the origins of the day. It is more likely that it had many separate beginnings; each of those towns and every planned or spontaneous gathering of people to honor the war dead in the 1860's tapped into the general human need to honor our dead, each contributed honorably to the growing movement that culminated in Gen Logan giving his official proclamation in 1868. It is not important who was the very first, what is important is that Memorial Day was established. Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.
This week is Fleet Week here in New York City, and all over the city are thousands of Sailors and Marines. It is heartening that so many New Yorkers are going out of their way to thank them for their service. As I went about my week, I made it a point to thank the Servicemen for their sacrifices - it was amazing how much they appreciated it.
Have a good Memorial Day.
See what other people are up to on Flickr by checking out these two tags: Memorial Day & Memorial Day Weekend.
May 29, 2005
May 28, 2005
May 27, 2005
Coney Island Parachute Pavilion Competition Winners Announced
The culture of life pledge: "I will not use any medical advancement based upon Stem Cell Research"
Great compromise: we can begin good science, and fundies cannot take medicine derived from such research, thus not breaking their "morals." Sounds Fair to me.
VGMix - New original arrangements of video game music
some really good reinterpretations of video game soundtracks
Russian Doctors claim Chernobyl-damaged kids supposedly smarter, healthier
Exxon believes we are apporaching Peak Oil Capacity, and OPEC has to save us
There are oh so many reasons this isn't going to happen
Where's the Foreign Law Beef?
Orin Kerr has an interesting short blurb about citing foreign law in the course of interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Orin's main concern is this paragraph from law professor Michael J. Kelly critique of Justices Scalia and Thomas:
Perhaps this intellectual curiosity is exactly what Scalia and Thomas rail against [when they object to citing foreign law]. Scalia because he is afraid of the weaknesses it could reveal in his Originalist philosophy; Thomas because he has no intellectual curiosity.
I agree that attacking Justice Thomas' intellectual curiosity might not be right, but if you look at Kelly's arguments as a critique of a small portion of conservative strategy, Orin misses the larger point; namely, the continual attack on the judiciary by Evangelical Christians and conservatives. The trope of "citing foreign law" seems to be a conservative talking point du jour on this front - especially the call to impeach Justice Steven Breyer from the bench for, in their view, citing foreign law. In a word, nonsense.
This is a classic Bushism wedge issue which is blown out of proportion far larger than which exists in reality - just like last year's liberals are killing Christmas foolishness. This is the classic conservative tactic of attacking the gaps - which just so happens to be exact same method Evangelical Christians and conservatives attack evolution and science. Just like the Activist Judges non-issue.
Yet, this just so happens to be an issue where I can tentatively agree with some points from Scalia and Thomas; namely, that formally citing foreign judicial law and precedents undermines our sovereignty. If the Constitution allowed the use of foreign law, it would explicitly allow this. Similarly, the Congress would pass laws to this effect. Yet we incorporated English Common law, and continue to use it to this day in judicial matters.
But that's the point, right? Congress or the Constitution has to give the judiciary powers to use foreign law. Yet, people forget the simple fact that Congress has authorized the Federal Judiciary to use foreign case laws. The US is bound by Treaties (over 500 them) which forces the US to deal with International law and sometimes foreign law. In fact, the article which Orin takes great umbrage to elaborates extensively on this point.
But step back now: conservatives - especially of the free-market fetish flavor - have to "Dance With the One What Brung Ya." If you consistently push for an integrated global network of free trade, interdependence of both political institutions and judicial decisions are an unavoidable effect. While we thankfully haven't reached a point where the World Trade Organization can unilaterally declare important judicial rulings void, this scenario is a logical conclusion of unfettered global free market economy. Ironic that free market Republicans are sowing the field of which they complain so loudly about.
In the end, where exactly is the beef here? Besides a carefully concocted wedge issue, this critique of judges using foreign law just doesn't hunt. But it is an interesting question nonetheless, which will continue to keep laity (as myself) and lawyers busy.
Bolton Confirmation Delayed for more Information
Just a quick note on the John Bolton Cloture Vote for the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (background here). The cloture vote was held last night at 6pm. The Senate voted to continue debate - cloture failed by a vote of 56-42. This vote was due to the Executive Branch which has obstructed the Senate's constitutional duty to investigate the nominee by ignoring evidence requests about John Bolton's record.
It is important to note, that this is not a filibuster, but that the Executive Branch has gone out of its' way to not release requested information dealing with why John Bolton requested NSA intercepts which contained unredacted names of Americans.
Regardless of what the Cornerites think, delaying a vote in order to receive information which is constitutionally required of them, is important. If the administration would have won this cloture vote, then this would have set a precedent that the Executive Branch can effectively dictate what the Senate can or cannot request. This precedent would have altered the balance of power, tilting it again toward the Executive Branch.
This was a good day for Balance of Powers.
May 26, 2005
On Universal Healthcare in America
shorter: it ain't gonna happen because the AMA, big Pharma, insurance companies, and GOP ideology
Just the Gaps, Please
Richard Dawkins responds to the Creationist foolishness in, Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant.
Best paragraph:
The creationists' fondness for "gaps" in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don't go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don't work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
It is a bit rough, but accurate: Creationists like to look for any chink in the armor to try to "disprove" evolution while missing the larger point of evolution.
He said what?
I have to agree with Sam Rosenfeld, that my favorite President Bush moments is when the bullshit drops, and he speaks the unvarnished, if inadvertent, truth.
Dan Froomkin spotted this gem from the President yesterday:
Can the strategy of denial work? Perhaps. Bush has done well in the past by defining his own reality and setting his own agenda, rather than letting others do so.
Or, as he put it in a revealing ad-lib yesterday while talking about Social Security:
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
Mr. President, I think we are in agreement on this issue.
Trees grow on Trees
Heard recently at an architecture firm:
"Wood framing is dead, right?"
"Well, in New York, yes. But not in the Midwest."
"Ahh... the Midwest. Where trees grow like... trees."
"I thought it was, 'Where trees grow on Trees?'"
Revenge of the Bolton
Today, Senate Majority Leader Frist will call for a cloture vote on the nomination of John Bolton to the post of Ambassador of the United Nations. For background on Bolton, check out what we wrote during the Bolton Nomination Hearing and all posts Bolton. But if you want the real scoop, check out Steven Clemon's excellent coverage, especially why the vote might be delayed due to Bolton's abuse of NSA transcripts.
You can listen to the Senate testimony on C-SPAN 2 (wma).
Why John Bolton should not be confirmed to the United Nations, can be summed up by Senator Biden's floor testimony:
1. The first reason is that Mr. Bolton repeatedly sought to remove intelligence analysts who disagreed with him. Mr. Bolton was not content to fight the normal policy battles. He had to crush people -- even if they were just doing their jobs.
2. The second reason to oppose Mr. Bolton is that he frequently sought to stretch the available intelligence -- to say things in speeches and testimony that the intelligence would not support.
3. The third reason to oppose Mr. Bolton is his abusive treatment of colleagues in the State Department, and his frequent lack of judgment in dealing with them.
4. The fourth reason to vote against Mr. Bolton is that he gave testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that was misleading.
May 25, 2005
Bridge
I needed something different, something brighter to display here. So I went back through my Europe photos, and picked out some long ago. Not all are the best, but the color they contain is something I need to work back to. TOo much black and white makes the baby cry.
Another Way to Think About Secular Humanism and the American Revolution
-
vetoed a bill that would have given gay couples the right to be treated as a relative in medical situations
-
You do remember Bolton? The tide continues to turn against him.
Awesome video of a face-off between SMS'rs and Morse coders
guess who won: The Morse Coders kicked ass
Lost Thoughts
Let me take a break from politics, and talk about something superflouus. Did anyone see Lost tonight? It was a good one, only because the "what the crap?" factor was so high. If you live on the West Coast, or if you have TiVo, you should watch it. If you haven't seen any episodes, you really should. I'm sure they will be on reruns all summer; it is somewhat important to watch in sequential order. I missed some episodes, and then caught back up to the current episode on a weekend rerun.
I have to admit that when the first previews and commercials for Lost came on air, I dismissed it as a crap show with a tired, wrought-out premise. But to my surprise, the show is gripping and quite well done; the storytelling device of meshing the multiple points of view using flashbacks really help knit the story together. Only one other show has done a good of a job maintaining a consistent story line, where clues and actions from previous episodes affect the future episodes, and that was the X-Files. Who knew the director of Felicity, which was enjoyable in its' own right, could pull off this show.
Frankly, I haven't been on the edge of my seat like this for awhile - probably since X-FIles. I wonder how all the threads will be woven together in the end. I also wonder how long this show can go on, where the characters essentially make little or no headway each episode. I wonder how long I (and other viewers) will keep tuning in, before the story spins out of control.
Using J.J. Abrams' other show, Alias as a guide, I predict that the storyline will careen out of control around the end of the third season. Right now Alias has completely spun off course, where bad guys now work for the good guys, because the good guys really destroyed the bad guys, who weren't really all that bad to begin with. It's complicated - and that is the problem with shows like Lost where revelations in previous episodes build on each other. Writers have to walk a fine line so that complex storylines, multiple characters, and "twists" don't get out of hand.
That being said, I'm willing to give Lost another season of viewing.
For more information (and spoilers) check out these sites: Lost Numbers, Unofficial Forum, and Lost Media. But I have some questions and comments about tonight's episode. Highlight the redacted area for spoilers (warning: spoilers (I warned you)):
- OK, so that "security system" is a machine with tentacles which come out of holes in the earth? But somehow puffs black smoke? What's up with that?
- Comment: When that Red Shirt got blown up in the beginning, all I could think about was, "Holy shit!"
- Comment: Big surprise that Charlie brings back a bunch of dope from drug-running plane.
- Who the hell were those people in the boat, and why did they want Walt?
- What the hell is up with those numbers: 4 8 15 16 23 42?
- OK, so they got the hatch open, and it is a giant shaft, but with only the top seven rungs (or so) left, now what?
Moderate Social Security
Fresh off of a nuclear compromise, the Senate Wishy-Washy faction (the super-duper-moderate-compromise rs) have set their sights on Social Security. I don't have anything of substance to add to Chris Bower's response to Senator Graham's call to "fix" Social Security by cutting promised benefits
, except to preach caution.
Chris rightfully blasts the Senator for primarily looking at cutting benefits only:
Two-thirds of the American public supports a very simple plan for Social Security: end the wage cap. This a pretty good plan, since it would make Social Security run a surplus for centuries. In Washington, two-thirds support would mean it could over-ride a veto.
We have united opposition to carve-out private accounts. That, however, is only half of the battle.
My caution is that raising the wage cap, the cap on how much personal income is taxed for Social Security currently set at $90,000, actually politically weakens the program without adding too much progressively (in terms of tax rates) to the program. Yes the cap should be raised, but as you raise the cap, less and less Americans will psychologically "buy into" the program because they will rightfully get less and less out of it.
Well, what can we do about the wealthy in order to maintain their end of the bargain called "America?" First off, Social Security isn't going anywhere, there are tiny tweaks so that in 2041, we aren't dipping into the trust fund.
But, as a reader to TPM illustrates, the problem is not with Social Security, rather it is with the huge deficit caused by the repeal of the Estate Tax, the upper class tax cuts (which have oh so fixed our economy), and the cost of invading two and running two Middle East countries.
First, raise the cap slightly so that wealthy earners pay their way. This seems fair to me. Second, reinstate the Estate Tax, in order to bring more income into the General Fund to cover the cost of the War Against Terror and the War in Iraq. Call it the Liberation Tax. Third, repeal the upper class tax cuts - you want to spread freedom buddy? Well that costs money.
All three of these ideas have a chance in hell of occurring under the "Taxes = Slavery" madness which the Republican Party operates. What could happen to increase personal saving is some mixture of government matched 401K savings and greater tax relief linked to those 401K plans to earners less than $90,000 a year.
But this wouldn't work either, because this Congress would twist (and are currently twisting) bills aimed at Middle Class 401k plans into giant tax shelters for the rich. The bills I've been reading (sorry no link - will be added) would increase the tax break gained from investing into 401k plans, but are all targeted to earners above $90,000 a year. This of course, does nothing to "help" Social Security or the true Middle Class, but appears to yet another break for the wealthy.
If the President's aim of destroying Social Security is to increase a valorous goal of personal savings, then why are the plans his administration and surrogates supporting aimed squarely at those already reaping the benefits of tax breaks and shelters?
The obvious answer is that the President is not serious about increasing personal savings, but rather this is just another stop on the Good Ship "Let's Destroy Everything Good."
That's what I'm concerned about.
May 24, 2005
Some background on why the EU constitution is slated to fail in Holland and France this week
-
I love you, Interweb! (it's like hot or not, but with kittens)
Nuclear (insert pun here)
Oh, this is just great. I was all set to write about how violated I felt after watching Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith tonight, but looks like there are more pressing matters. According to Congress Daily PM via Think Progress, Senate Majority Leader Frist is busy breaking the Senate Filibuster Compromise before the ink has dried 24 hours, setting us up for another round of nuclear punnery:
Senate Majority Leader Frist will file for cloture on President Bush’s nomination of William Myers to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, wasting no time in testing the resolve of 14 Republican and Democratic senators who forced at least a temporary halt to the battle over Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial picks.
First off the bat, I'm not sure this move is really attempting to press the seven Republicans into voting for cloture or the Nuclear Option in general. It could very well be purely procedural in order to save face, and not designed to pressure the compromisers. But it sure looks that way. Second, the compromise allows the fourteen to decide for themselves to vote for or against cloture for Myers and Saad but says nothing about the Nuclear Option. Lastly, I'm not even sure if Senate Minority Leader Reid is still filibustering Myers and Saad - I think the Democrats still are.
Alright, so let's assume that Frist filing for cloture is designed to jump start the debate again, and to bring the nuclear option into play (again). Here are some thoughts.
That being said, I'm not so sure that this is actually "breaking his promise" or the compromise, since Frist was not a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations. When Frist announced the compromise, it is important to remember his words, I have had the opportunity to review the agreement... an agreement that I’ve reviewed but to which I am not a party.
So, the Senator has not broken the compromise - he never signed the contract. And there is much debate (especially at The Corner) on if this is a legally binding document or political theatre. However, he is surely trying to bend it in order to see if those seven Republican Senators will vote in favor of Cloture. This move is very much a test on the compromise and his attempt to regain some level of control over his wayward caucus.
For review, the gist of the compromise reached yesterday (full text here) is divided into two parts: pending nominations and future nominations. Here is the what was pledged for pending nominations, summarized by the Washington Post:
Their agreement calls for Democrats to drop filibusters of three appellate court nominees they have long opposed: Owen, of Texas; Brown, of California; and Pryor, of Alabama. It does not protect two other contested nominees -- William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry Saad of Michigan -- who will be filibustered or withdrawn, negotiators said.
The Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations covers Saad and Myers under the pending nominations section - Part I (a):
Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Meyers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
emphasis added
But - and this is a big but - there seemed to be a "Gentleman's Agreement" that Myers' and Saad's nomination would not be voted upon; for all intents and purposes, their nominations were dead in the water. How firm this agreement is, no one knows; it is a definite "bend point" in the compromise. However, Senate Minority Leader Reid was asked specifically about Saad yesterday during the news conference and said (paraphrasing) Michigan judges are going to be approved — except for Saad, of course
. The conclusion that the nomination of Myers and Saad were DOA was fairly widespread when the compromise was announced - even The Corner agreed on this issue.
Where the compromise specifically states that the seven Republican Senators will vote against the Crybaby Nuclear Option is in Part II (b) - the section dealing with future nominations. Here is the text of Part II (b):
Rules Changes: In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
So, it looks like Republican Senators can vote for the Nuclear Option - breaking the Senate Rules by fiat - on the matter of Myers and Saad, without breaking the letter of the compromise. But the spirit (and political agreement) of the compromise would very well be broken, and this is where the compromise could very well fall. This is where Senator First is walking a thin line.
Again, this all matters if the Democrats are still filibustering Myers and Saad - all data points to "yes, the Democrats are filibustering."
If Senator Frist is calling for a cloture vote to end the filibuster for Myers and Saad, it does not bode well for the seven Republicans who agreed to the compromise. It is up to the seven to resist the institutional pressure to vote for the Nuclear Option; especially, by my reading, the compromise clearly says nothing about the Nuclear Option concerning present nominations, but only to future nominations. The spirit of the compromise is clear that the seven would not vote for the Nuclear Option at all, unless the Democrats were not filibustering under extraordinary circumstances
.
I hope my reading is wrong (anyone is free to comment on this), but it seems that if Senator Frist aims to change Senate Rules, the compromise does not force the seven Republicans to vote against the Nuclear Option.
Later - The more I think about this, the more I think it is merely a way to save face, let the cloture vote fail, rail on about "up and down votes" and be done with the issue. But who knows - if I were Senator Frist, I would try to get this episode of Senate history over with as soon as possible. But the scenarios and game theory of the last two months are quite tiring, so I'm going to sleep.
Nuclear Pun
Alright, now that there has been a Senate Filibuster compromise, and each side is busy spinning and assessing damage, let's turn to important matters - let's see where I was wrong.
If you really want to read more about the compromise, here are some well written articles:
- Publis: More Thoughts on "The Deal"
- Yglesias: Dealmaking
- Josh Marshall: A Good Deal?
- Next Hurrah: More Musings on the Nuclear Option Agreement
This has been a long two months which Senator Frist has squandered the Senate's time in trying to break Senate traditions and rules. I tend to agree that this actually pushes off the matter of the Nuclear Crybaby Option until the President nominates a successor to Chief Justice Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. But when this nomination rolls around, the stakes will be much higher.
I also want to take the time to rehash what I said about Why Compromise won't Occur:
For a compromise to work Republicans must promise to set aside the Nuclear Option, especially for Supreme Court nominations. Democrats must promise not to filibuster current judicial nominations. Finally some sort of compromise on the Supreme Court between Republicans and Democrats must occur - because this current impasse is just Spring Training for the Supreme Court nominations. All of this must occur for Republicans (read: Senator Frist) to claim victory. Democrats must retain the Cloture Rule, and the larger rule of law, to claim victory - these judges are pretty bad, but losing the fulcrum the Filibuster gives the Minority party is much greater than a few judges. This is what is in play: the Supreme Court and the future nomination of Chief Justice and perhaps as many as two Associate Justices.
As we have seen, this is essentially what the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations was agreed to by seven Republican Senators and seven Democratic Senators. So yeah, my not so insightful crystal ball worked.
However, I also predicted that there would be no compromise:
Compromise like along the lines above won't happen: there is too much at stake, and frankly Senator Frist is the one who has painted the Senate into the corner with his constant bleating and promises to use the Nuclear Option. You add in the toxic nature of Dobson and Pat Robertson calling for changing the Senate Rules by any means necessary, and Frist can't step back without losing his meal-ticket to nomination in 2008. Furthermore, Frist can't step back; anything less than a change of Senate Rules via the Nuclear Option is a loss.
So I was wrong about there being no chance for a compromise; I really had no faith in the non-Dobson aligned Republican Senators to strike a deal with the Democratic party. Obviously compromise had to come outside the Republican leadership, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gary Bauer and James Dobson, due to Senator Frist's Presidential aspirations.
As for any other insightful commentary, how the next few days play out will either temper or dull the compromise. Especially important is how the Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Prisiclla Owen (5th Circuit) votes shake out in the following weeks.
Today the Senate will vote on Prisiclla Owen (5th Circuit), which she will probably be confirmed; which isn't a complete loss, because as a reader to TPM states, the 5th Circuit is already a "lost cause". Hopefully enough Senators will come to their senses and defeat Janice Rogers Brown nominated to the closely divided (and quite powerful) D.C. Circuit who thinks government is slavery. It has been reported that at least one judge will fail to be confirmed. Hopefully it will be her. As for William Pryor to the 11th Circuit, I have not researched his bona fides enough to comment.
May 23, 2005
Through Street
Domino Apartment Buildings and Nervi's Bus Station live on a busy, dirty street.
Big Surprise: Grover Norquist isn't graft-free
Oh, and his connection to Jack Abramoff appears to not to have anything to do with defrauding Indian Tribe's. Yup, none at all. Let's play a game: Big Government Conservatism is to Graft...
Cheney's Betrayal: the Vice President’s unconstitutional decision not to follow Senate rules
as I've been saying for awhile, this is the real issue
Filibuster Compromise
This just in, the AP is reporting of a Compromise on Senate Filibusters:
These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.
Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."
For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.
Under the agreement, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, would advance to a final confirmation vote.
Here is a Copy of the Compromise. (pdf) (Update: the full text of the MoU is available after the fold.)
Ramesh Ponnuru on The Corner says:
So: Democrats can filibuster nominees in "extraordinary circumstances," to be determined according to the "discretion and judgment" of Ralph Neas--I mean, of each individual senator. Republicans, on the other hand, are not getting any wiggle room to vote for a rules change in "extraordinary circumstances"--such as the Democrats' abuse of their wiggle room. It looks as though the majority party got taken in this deal.
Well, your party was set to break the Senate Rules, of course you have to give up more.
At first glance, this is truly a compromise because both sides are already pissed off. Personally, I think that having judges on the Federal Circuit with the following resume (care of Jeffrey Dubner) is bad:
...a 4th Circuit judge who took campaign contributions from litigants before her in the Texas Supreme Court; a former attorney general who refused to prosecute corporations he was raising money from; and a D.C. Circuit Court nominee who thinks the entire regulatory apparatus of our federal government is a form of slavery.
Now, everyone will talk about who won and lost, well... the Senate Rules won because they weren't broken. The students filibustering won. And a party with a 10 vote deficit halted the majority from breaking the rules. The big loser is of course, Senate Majority Leader Frist, who couldn't control his caucus, and had an agreement made either because he didn't have the votes, or because his lack of control on his caucus.
Spin this either way, some bad judges got through, Democrats can still filibuster (see Court, Supreme), and Republicans have pledged to not change the Cloture rules (ie the Nuclear Option of the Senate for this legislative session. What happens during the next legislative session, is up in the air. Also of note: legislative sessions don't necessarily need to be a year in length. Watch out for that.
What is not clear however, is how the nomination of John Bolton to the UN fits into this compromise. I doubt that Frist would want to deploy the Nuclear Option for a filibuster on an executive nomination. Even though both Judicial and Executive nominations both follow under the same legislative heading. Both are Executive appointments, and this compromise doesn't necessarily cover both.
Without the Bolton matter, all of this will come down to what the definition of is, is. Senator Lindsey Graham has remarked on CNN that he retains the right to change the rules - specifically Rule XXII - the rule concerning cloture. Specifically, Senator DeWine has reportedly said during tonight's press conference:
Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is – and we don’t think this will happen – but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.
But in the end, Frist's gambit has been neutered, as has his power. Also neutered was the Executive's meddling, via the Nuclear Option, in the business of the Senate. What is certain is that partisans of both sides will be mightily mad as they go to sleep tonight. But the GOP partisans are all reacting with dismay and disgust to the compromise - because they know they lost more.
After the fold, is the full text of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Continue reading "Filibuster Compromise"May 21, 2005
May 20, 2005
-
They should just use liquid detergent and a blacklight - no one would find out. But I'm sure that defeats their purpose.
Architecture for Humanity has announced the winner for the Siyathemba youth football pitch
A Democratic "No" to bad policy is better than rolling over and taking it
A Contrarian view (that makes sense) on the NYTimes charging for its' online version
About Time Someone Called Judith Miller Out
Franken at Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press:
There were some humorous moments in the presentations, but the evening's least successful joke was delivered by Al Franken, who made the final award presentation, to Ivins. He opened with a funny bit claiming that Dan Rather had told him a great story about Ivins during the cocktail hour that would make a perfect anecdote for his introduction. "Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance to confirm it, and there's just one source, so I can't use it," he said to laughter. "Too bad; it's a good story."
Then he turned toward The New York Times table in the front of the room, where sat Judith Miller, best known these days for two things: her articles on weapons of mass destruction that didn't quite pan out and the possibility she will go to jail for not revealing sources in the Valerie Plame case. "Judy,"" Franken said, "maybe you can find some WMD in your cell." Silence. "OK, I shouldn't have told that joke."
About damn time someone called out Judith "Queen of Iraq" Miller out on her stenography of Bush Administration talking points which lead us to war in Iraq.
This made my day.
Chewie
Chewie, originally uploaded by mrcobra
Nerdity at its' highest: A full Chewie outfit. Check out his other Star Wars photos, and the Flickr tags Star Wars and Revenge of the Sith.
Happy Friday.
Newsweek & Truth
I want to quickly revisit the Newsweek article about flushing the Qur'an. I want to make this point, I am sure others have come to the same conclusion, but: has anyone noticed that with all of the chest thumping by the Bush administration, none of them have denied the content of the original Newsweek report?
Here are some quotes that I was able to find from the Bush administration.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
"It's appalling that this story got out there," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on her way back from Iraq.
Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:
"People lost their lives. People are dead."
"People need to be very careful about what they say."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan:
"All we're saying is that we would encourage them to help undo the damage that has been done," he said. "Some of it's not going to be able to be undone, some of it is lasting."
Sounds more like shooting the messenger, than a denial. But Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita did have this to say:
"We certainly have found nothing that would give any substance to the Newsweek story in this regard."
I still stand by my previous statements that there is more shooting the messenger for political gain going on than genuine outrage for an established pattern of torture at US bases by some US Soldiers. I wish this wasn't the case, but this sort of thing does not happen in a vacuum, or without superior officer's giving the orders. Doesn't anyone remember Jack Nicholson's character A Few Good Men? If people don't follow orders, soldiers die?
Sounds about right to me.
Just today, the New York Times is reporting that US Soldiers Brutally killed 2 Afghan Inmates. Abused and tortured. Facts.
Wheres that outrage?
Nuclear Landscape: Why Compromise won't Occur
In the last post, I discussed the current Nuclear Option schedule, and the chance for a compromise. I doubted that a compromise could occur, but not because of outside interest groups, which has become the meme the Beltway Press is now pushing. And not without hard work by the grown-ups in the GOP, namely, Senator John Warner, among a host of others. Compromise won't occur because there is too much at stake, and Senator Frist has painted the Senate into the corner not only on the Nuclear Option, but by how he runs the Senate.
For a compromise to work Republicans must promise to set aside the Nuclear Option, especially for Supreme Court nominations. Democrats must promise not to filibuster current judicial nominations. Finally some sort of compromise on the Supreme Court between Republicans and Democrats must occur - because this current impasse is just Spring Training for the Supreme Court nominations. All of this must occur for Republicans (read: Senator Frist) to claim victory. Democrats must retain the Cloture Rule, and the larger rule of law, to claim victory - these judges are pretty bad, but losing the fulcrum the Filibuster gives the Minority party is much greater than a few judges. This is what is in play: the Supreme Court and the future nomination of Chief Justice and perhaps as many as two Associate Justices.
But again: this isn't directly about filibusters or judges. This fight is about the Rule of Law, and whether we allow a "Might makes Right" precedent to rule the Senate. This is about the Republicans willingly breaking Senate Rules with the use of the Nuclear Nuclear Option.
Compromise like along the lines above won't happen: there is too much at stake, and frankly Senator Frist is the one who has painted the Senate into the corner with his constant bleating and promises to use the Nuclear Option. You add in the toxic nature of Dobson and Pat Robertson calling for changing the Senate Rules by any means necessary, and Frist can't step back without losing his meal-ticket to nomination in 2008. Furthermore, Frist can't step back; anything less than a change of Senate Rules via the Nuclear Option is a loss.
That isn't to say that some GOP Senators who have equal aspirations for the Presidency in 2008 won't try to derail Senator Frist; a no vote by Senator McCain, Allen (R-VA), or Hagel would set them apart from the current crop of Dobson-lead Senators, much like Senator Voinovich did during the John Bolton nomination hearings. Recently Hagel has had his faintheart broken by the GOP machine, and looks to be voting in favor of the Nuclear Option.
All of this doesn't explain why rank-and-file GOP Senators are going along with breaking Senate Rules. One theory is that there is a large age gap in the Senate GOP caucus between the Freshmen and Junior Senators, such as Frist (R-TN), All Democrats are Nazi's Santorum (R-PA) and Coburn (R-OK) and the elder Senators such as Senator McCain (R-AZ), Hegel (R-NE), and Specter (R-PA). The divide comes because the younger set haven't served though long stretches of the Senate where they have been in the minority. They haven't served under a system where the weight of institutional power is brought down upon them, forcing compromise.
These younger Senators also owe their power in part to the "Gingrich Revolution," but recently to Bushism in general: a winner-take-all mentality which has recently pervaded the GOP caucus. Frankly, it seems like they just don't care about the rules, tend to lie about what the Constitution says, and lie about blocking Judicial Nominees while in the minority, when winning is more important. This is Bushism, and I am writing a longer article about this, which should be finished shortly.
Lastly, Freshmen and Junior Senators lack the institutional and long standing financial donors which the elder statesmen on both sides of the aisle enjoy. Therefore, they are more susceptible to leveraging by outfits like Dobson and Robertson. They are also great beneficiaries of the Santorum-Delay built K-Street Project of powerful, Republican dominated, lobbying groups.
In the end my prediction is that the Republicans will use the Nuclear Option, breaking Senate Rules by the slimmest of margins. The best political outcome for Democrats - besides winning the Nuclear Option vote - is the vote ending in a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Cheney as Senate Pro Tempores casting the tie-breaker. How great would that be!? Explicitly showing the nation that this fight is not over judges, but over power - especially Executive power. Cheney acting in a way which was antithetical to the second Vice President, Thomas Jefferson would be a great political gift to the Democrats.
I honestly hope that some sort of compromise can occur, but if that does not happen, I hope that the grown-ups in the GOP come to their senses.
Nuclear Option, Schedule Update
So here is how the schedule will shake out so far, per Senate Majority Leader Frist: Today (20 May) there will be extended floor discussion in the Senate, following the format of the last two days: Republicans will have a set amount of time - probably two hours - and Democrats will have the same time. At some point today, reportedly at 3:00 pm, there will be a cloture call - (Update Cloture Call has been filed by John Cornyn, Tapped has the details of the 18 Senators signed onto the Cloture Bill).
Monday (23 May) will follow the same format as Friday.
Tuesday (24 May) is when the fireworks should happen. Senator Frist wants a final cloture vote on Tuesday. I'm guessing it will be early enough in the day so that the Networks and Newspapers can get stories out that night and the next day. So that would mean before 3pm on Tuesday.
This schedule can be affected if some sort of compromise will occur. Why this won't occur, is for a future post.
Later, here is my thinking about the Nuclear Landscape: Why Compromise won't Occur.
May 19, 2005
Light
This photo was taken in an old German Lutheran Church in Bed-Stuy. I really like the different shades of gray and creme which occur in this photo.
The Letters of Gary Benchley, Rock Star is coming to an end
one of my favorite authors on The Morning News has a book deal, and is leaving TMN to write. GOod luck, and I can't wait for the book!
-
not all that exciting, but interesting by itself
Screenshots of Apple's Home Page through the years
I love magnificent obsessions like these
Star Wars EP3 Workprint Leaked Online
curiously, that isn't that bad; I've seen some movies (primarily from screeners) online weeks before the opening
Interesting Article about Marriage, Tradition, Property, and Gay Marriage
to all the guys out there: would you change your last name to your wife's?
Santorum: Democrats = Hitler
Oh. My. God. I knew listening to the Senate deliberations all day would be worth it.
Man-on-Dog Santorum just had this to say on the Floor of the Senate:
I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine." This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused. In a sense, what we see here on the floor of the United States.
rough transcription
Later: Why this smacks of hypocrisy, is that the Junior Senator recently had something to say about HItler:
"Senator Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable," Santorum said in a statement yesterday. "These comments lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate. He should retract his statement and ask for pardon."
I'm with Atrios, I wonder if our so-called "Liberal Media" will hold the Junior Senator from Pennsylvania to the same standard as they did Move On.
Later Update
Knight Riddler has picked up the Hitler Quote, but it is 18 paragraphs down, and added more as a "color commentary" than anything else. At least someone is talking about it. I still wonder how much the vanity press will flog Santorum.
At one point Santorum said Democrats had the "audacity" to say Republicans were attempting to break the filibuster rule.
"It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, `I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.'"
The reference to Hitler recalled a Byrd speech in March comparing Frist's "nuclear option" to Hitler muscling his program through the Reichstag, Germany's parliament, in 1933. Byrd's comparison spurred an outcry from conservatives as below the belt.
The influential Byrd joined an expanding group of centrist Democrats and Republicans negotiating over a compromise Thursday in the office of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He later spent a few minutes privately with Sen. John Warner, R-Va.
20 May 2005 Update
No Santorum says the statement was a "mistake". Well, no shit.
But on Thursday, Santorum said that Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator seizing Paris and then saying: "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."
Santorum later said in a release that his remark "was a mistake and I meant no offense."
I doubt it was a real mistake; it is only a mistake because people got upset - with good reason - at his asinine and demonstrably false statement. The Junior Senator knew exactly what he was saying - in fact it appears he was reading from prepared notes.
Some mistake.
It's the Rules, Stupid
Again, enough with this silliness and lies!
Remember this when you hear someone going on and on about Filibuster this, Filibuster that, the real issue with the Nucelar Crybaby Option is that it breaks the rules.
Again: The Nuclear Option is wrong not because it will end Judicial Filibusters, but because it does so by breaking Senate rules.
Let me say that again for good measure: Republicans who claim to value tradition are going to eliminate the Judicial Filibuster by fiat, outside Senate Rules, outside Senate procedure, outside Senate precedent, and all the while overruling the Senate Parliamentarian. And then they lie to themselves and to the people of America about it.
The way to change Senate Rules to eliminate the Judicial Filibuster, is by amending Senate Rules with 67 Senators voting "Aye." Of course Senator Frist does not have the votes to do this, so he along with the Republican Party, are set to break the rules. No veneer of reason or logic can hide this fact. Also, ancillary arguments such as Democrats Hate Black Woman, or this is the "restoration of some precedent," or some sort of misread of the Constitution claiming that all nominees must be voted upon, or the number of hours of debate, or some other crap reason. This is about abuse of power, and breaking the rules.
Anything else is just lipstick on the pig.
If you really wanted to change the rules to eliminate the Judicial Filibuster, the Constitutional Option is not by breaking the Senate Rules, but by actually following the rules - which the Republican Party is set to break.
The Republican Party can now never claim the title of the party of law.
Fox, Fair & Balanced
Image capture from Hannity & Colmes
This says it all (via Crooks & Liars): from Hannity & Colmes, Why do Democrats Hate this Woman? And while you are at it Democrats, Why do all of you beat your wife?
How do you respond to a grade school taunt and bullying like this? I am starting to seriously achieve outrage fatigue.
May 18, 2005
Frist begins to Trigger the Nuclear Option
Listen, right now to the CSPAN 2 feed (wma) to hear the Nuclear Option unfold. Frist wants days of debate, which is fine with me because the longer this draws out, just like the Bolton Nomination, will hurt the GOP more than it will hurt Democrats. It seems that the Nuclear Option will occur tomorrow.
For those following at home, I wrote an overview of how the Nuclear Crybaby Option will work.
Below is some liveblogging.
Continue reading "Frist begins to Trigger the Nuclear Option"May 17, 2005
Sparks
I just got back into town, so here is a photo which I'm not 100% happy about, but I like it anyway.
The Secret Way to War: How the Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq before July 23, 2002
Remembering Flash Mobs. Interview with "Bill," creator of the Flash Mob
you do remember flash mobs, right?
Changing the Senate Rules: How the Nuclear Option will erase 200 years of precedent and rule making
Bay To Breakers
IMG_4530, originally uploaded by davelu37
I totally forgot that it was Bay to Breakers season - the San Francisco "fun run" from the Embarcadero to the Ocean. Of course, I live on the opposite side of America, but it is fun to go through people's photos of the race (NSFW) anyway. If you haven't seen a B2B, then you just haven't experienced a level of drunkenness and extreme male nudity found nowhere else in the States. Which might be fine with you - personally, I could do without the gratuitous male nudity, but I don't make the rules.
Anywho, my favorite parts of the "race" are the continual in-jokes, like groups dressing up in salmon costumes, and starting at the finish line and walking "upstream." Or the ripped Elvis dude on the rooftop. It all makes for very good people watching. It is always interesting what kind of costumes people come up with. The only comparable event here is the Mermaid Parade and the Village Halloween Parade. Except San Francisco's debauchery during Halloween is slightly greater than New York's. But only slightly more.
they bake cookies, originally uploaded by dennis
Check out the Bay to Breakers tag on Flickr for photos, but beware that it is all pretty much not safe for work.
A Weekend Away Brings Changes
Man, I'm away from the computer and unable to keep up with the outrage du jour, and look what's happened: Newsweek retracts story about flushing the Koran down the toilet:
After a drumbeat of criticism from the Bush administration and others, Newsweek magazine yesterday went beyond an apology it issued Sunday and retracted an article published May 1 that stated that American interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had tried to rattle Muslim detainees by flushing a Koran down a toilet.
The original article was blamed for inciting widespread protests and riots in the Muslim world, where desecration of the Koran is viewed as an incendiary act, and where at least 17 people were killed in the ensuing violence.
...
Mr. McClellan and other administration officials blamed the Newsweek article for setting off the anti-American violence that swept Afghanistan and Pakistan. "The report had real consequences," Mr. McClellan said. "People have lost their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged."But only a few days earlier, in a briefing on Thursday, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said that the senior commander in Afghanistan believed the protests had stemmed from that country's reconciliation process.
"He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," General Myers said.
But that isn't enough, the Bush administration is actively neutering an independent news organization, read this MSNBC story, Newsweek retracts disputed Quran story, and pick out where the administration should butt out:
The White House says Newsweek took a "good first step" by retracting its story that U.S. investigators found evidence interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran, but it wants the magazine to do more to repair damage caused by the article.
I'm with Josh on this one, what does the Whitehouse have anything to do with this besides using this as a political sword to neuter another news organization? What is this "first step," and what does Newsweek owe the Bush administration since Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said explicitly that He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine
? Also someone who should know, Pentagon Spokesman Larry Di Rita, agreed with General Myers:
"The nature of where these things occurred, how quickly they occurred, the nature of individuals who were involved in it, suggest that they may be organized events that are using this alleged allegation as a pretext for activity that was already planned," said DiRita.
That is, until the Bush administration took to this cause in order to try to neuter another news organization. This is what Di Rita said later to NBC in full spin mode:
"People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"
So who's right? The Bush administration claiming that Newsweek has blood on their hands, or a distinguished General? I'll take career military over political appointees, thank you very much. Just for fun, here is a list of journalists writing about flushing the Quran. No riots were blamed on these reports, so again, who do really believe?
Another thing I missed was Keith Olbermann calling for the resignation of Scott McClellan. Oh how I miss former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who elevated bullshit to levels that McClellan can only dream of.
Oh, and joy of joy: President's approval rating is at 43%. I wonder when the kid-gloves will come off of the vanity media and the talking heads?
As usual, Matthew Yglesias' Monday Weekend Editorial Update, where he reads and summarizes the weekend's editorials so you don't have to, is invaluable.
On the plane ride back from the Midwest, I read Robert D. Kaplan's Atlantic article, How We Would Fight China, and frankly, I was just baffled by the tone of the article. From asserting that Pacific Command is outside the sphere of D.C. control and politics, to blatant disdain for everyone inside the Beltway, to asserting that the American people would fold if the Chinese would just sink a single aircraft carrier, I just didn't get the article. Somehow Kaplan took every lesson learned during the Cold War and then applied them to China, when the two situations are not congruent. I need to think more about this article, but on first pass, I think that spending billions of dollars to create another Cold War with China is a fundamentally bad idea. And I say this knowing that I have no alternative right now.
May 16, 2005
May 15, 2005
May 14, 2005
May 13, 2005
Outfoxed, Firefox extension to socially annotate the web
yet another reason this is the "Year of Firefox"
Brown v Board of Education versus Originalism
Interesting post about Brown and Originalism, good quote:
It is originalism's stubborn and cocksure inflexibility that makes Brown a problem. If you really take it seriously, the theory becomes so formally rigid that, taken to its logical extreme, all consequences become irrelevant. In fact, everything becomes irrelevant.
White House is Worried About Several More Weeks of Bolton News
May 12, 2005
-
In other words, ABC thinks that bus-riding runaway bridges, stray airplanes, and Laura Bush horse masturbation stories are more interesting than the War in Iraq
The Bolton Nomination Hearing
Here are some thoughts listening today to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is again taking up the nomination of John Bolton to the post as Ambassador to the United Nations. All of the quotes are approximate, taken from listening to the CSPAN feed, and this is liveblogging, so things will change.
Late Update
Mr. Bolton was voted out of committee without recommendation by a vote of 10-8 long party lines.
Bolton Nomination
Today, the Foreign Relations Committee is again taking up the nomination of John Bolton to the post as Ambassador to the United Nations. You can listen to the hearing on CSPAN. Senator Luger wants a cloture vote at around 11:30am, but there will be five hours of continuous discussion, with 2.5 hours for each side. Expect the Republicans to say that no new issues have arisen, and Democrats will bring up a laundry list of issues which will they claim should deny Bolton the nomination.
Rest assured, Bolton can be stopped here at Committee, but I have learned that the GOP will bypass the Committee, and bring a whole Senate floor vote regardless of the outcome today. But Steve Clemens has a good point:
This is NOT the final battle over John Bolton today. If he squeaks out of Committee today -- there is ample opportunity to continue to squeeze the White House on this wrong-headed decision. There will be holds, procedural delays, demands for more investigation by individual senators -- and ALL of it will play out in the leading media (and blogs) of the country.
This battle is about the profile America cuts in its foreign policy and engagement in the world. If the White House wants to persist beyond rationality in its support of such a disagreeable character as John Bolton for the U.N. -- then the price will be very, very high.
Abstracting the issue away from the personality of John Bolton, I see three issues which this nomination battle is about:
- Senate's Constitutional charge to advise and consent
- Role of Ambassador to the United Nations
- This isn't about Bolton being "gruff," "mean," or "blunt" to his subordinates, but rather about a person who is fundamentally a loose canon
On the first issue, my position is that the Senate should give great deference to the Executive in choosing who to staff their branch. Cabinet Secretaries, Under Secretaries, etc who work day-in day-out should be approved by the Senate unless there are grievous issues with the nominee. The nomination of Alberto Gonzales to Attorney General fit this "grievous issue" test, primarily due to his drafting of memos which approved of torture.
But Ambassador to the United Nations is distinctly different than any other Cabinet position, because the Ambassador represents not the Administration in power, but all American people. There is a higher standard for Cabinet heads, and the Ambassador the the UN so this clap-trap about Bolton already being previously approved by the Senate for lesser positions in government is foolish and demeaning to Cabinet heads in the administration.
Third, opposition to Bolton's nomination is not centered around his being "gruff," "mean," or "blunt," but rather to his reckless behaviour as an Under Secretary. Larry David notwithstanding, the real problem with Bolton is his spying on Americans through the NSA, absent without leave, wanted to to be his own Intel Czar, and gave speeches which were not cleared by the proper authorities - which at times, his speeches set policy which was fundamentally different from US policy. Especially on North Korea. Check out Steve Clemens Washington Note for more information.
In the end, the Foreign Relations Committee did not receive information on the NSA dispatched Bolton wanted American names from. This is a deal-breaker. If no vote happens today, or if a tied or "no" vote is sustained, watch for the Republicans to bypass the Committee and bring a full Senate floor vote.
May 11, 2005
BBC Backstage launches in beta
tre cool: "Build what you want using BBC content"
Temporary Space for 191 Countries? For U.N., Maybe It's in Brooklyn
The Disney Muppets: why that just isn't funny
Disney is restarting The Muppet Show, I'm not expecting much
Washington DC ADIZ
So, the chatter around "the District" is that Two in Custody After Capitol Plane Scare:
The U.S. Capitol and White House were evacuated Wednesday after a small plane entered restricted airspace and came within three miles of the executive mansion. Military jets scrambled to intercept the aircraft and fired warning flares.
Two men in the aircraft, which relatives and friends said was on its way to a North Carolina air show, were taken into custody and interviewed by authorities at a Maryland airport where the plane landed after a military escort.
Well, luckily for you, my two readers, we already have talked about Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) surrounding Washington, D.C., and below, I reprinted what I found out about the DC ADIZ.
Another interesting tidbit is that there is an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) which envelops Washington DC which pilots have to gain clearance in order to breach the zone. Here is a cool aviation map of the ADIZ and here is another Washington D.C. ADIZ Map. This was done (as far as I can tell) as a response to September 11th and the Iraq War. Here is some useful information:
Effective at 6 AM EST on 10 February 2003 and until further notice, all pilots conducting flight operations within the DC ADIZ will file a flight plan with FSS and receive a discrete transponder code prior to flight.
Each pilot will establish two-way radio communications with ATC prior to entering DC ADIZ airspace and will maintain this capability while within DC ADIZ airspace. Failure to do so has dire consequences.
In addition, each pilot will obtain a briefing by FSS just prior to every flight in the DC ADIZ, including obtaining all applicable airspace restriction NOTAMs.
If pilots breach the zone without proper clearance, "Huntress" a plane from Griffis AFB, NY is called out to investigate. Here is an FAA Guide to Plane Interception Procedures, so that you will know what to do next time your plane is intercepted by America's Bravest.
Additionally, there is an ADIZ surrounding the US on the Atlantic, Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and Mexican border. Curiously, there is no ADIZ bordering Canada. I always suspected there was some sort of holding-pen or area where incoming planes had to declare themselves before entering US airspace. It also seems that there is a full time AWACS fleet patrolling above the Capital in order to help detect any incoming aircraft. What surprises me, is that this sort of airspace monitoring was not done before the September 11th attacks, or if it did, there wasn't an existing ADIZ around Washington. Again, I am a lay person, so I am assuming there was, and I don't know about it.
It seems that these two pilots, while aware of the restricted airspace, failed to gain clearance either by ignorance or stupidity. Either way, it is oddly comforting that the early warning system that has been put into place since September 11th worked.
Update 2007-06-23
From reader JC:
One thing I noticed that wasn't accurate was in the Washington DC ADIZ entry. The callsign "HUNTRESS" is not a plane. It is the Northeast Air Defense Sector, part of NORAD that watches over the US skies. It also controls the fighters over the US and identifies all aircraft entering the country. It is located at the old Griffiss Air Force Base.
Read History Much? Bush & Yalta
You might have heard our President recently took to historical revisionism, stating, U.S. Had Hand in European Divisions:
"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."
Bush singled out the 1945 Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow of the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat.
Bush said the Yalta agreement, also signed by Britain's Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin, followed in the "unjust tradition" of other infamous war pacts that carved up the continent and left millions in oppression. The Yalta accord gave Stalin control of the whole of Eastern Europe, leading to criticism that Roosevelt had delivered millions of people to communist domination.
It is insane and dishonest to ignore large swaths of history and context to blame Churchill and FDR for "selling out Eastern Europe" to Stalin. The President's speech writers are very smart people, who are well versed at included code words in his speeches - just see the Dred Scott references during the 2004 Presidential election debates. So this is a signal to something, Kevin Drum posits (and I see no reason to disagree) that this hearkens back to McCarthy references and 1940's-1950's conservative language.
But I want to take the time to review the situation on the ground at January 1945, and the context of Yalta, in order to illustrate how wrong the President is, and how dangerous this line of reasoning is. Here is a timeline of the European Theatre for you to follow. It is also ignoring the situation on the ground, namely that the Soviet Union already controlled much of Eastern Europe on their charge to Berlin. By the middle of January 1945, the USSR had liberated Warsaw, Poland. By the end of January 1945 the Soviets had reached Auschwitz.
The Yalta Conference was 4 February - 11 February 1945. The Allies had not breached the Rhine yet, there was heavy fighting all along the western front, and the Pacific Campaign was deadly. It wouldn't be for another month, 16 April 1945, until the Soviets began their assault on Berlin. Germany was rapidly crumbling due to the two-front war, which Yalta solidified, but at the time, the war was hardly winnable.
Although it's true that FDR and Churchill essentially divvied up Europe with Stalin at the Yalta conference, they did it because they didn't have a choice: the Red Army already controlled most of Eastern Europe, and full scale war was the only thing that would have dislodged them. FDR and Churchill knew this and decided to acknowledge the obvious rather than start up yet another all-out war on an exhausted continent — a decision that probably would have been unpopular but acceptable if they had only fessed up to it instead of pretending no deal had been made. David Greenberg provides a more detailed history if you're interested.
But that was only in the European Theatre. Part of the negotiations at Yalta concerned having the Soviets declare war on Japan, which was desperately needed. Here's a timeline of Pacific Theatre events, a giant map, and an overview of battles for you to follow along with. By far, the best resource is from the documentary, Victory in the Pacific. What is also in play at Yalta, besides the reality on ground of the Soviet Union already owning everything east of Berlin, the war in the Pacific was shaping up to be magnitudes more costly than the European Campaign.
The US had invaded and taken Guam by the Yalta Conference; the "Island Hopping Campaign" was working, but at high cost to men and material. The US was planning and then invaded Iwo Jima on 19 February 1945, which would be one of the most bloody battles of the Pacific Campaign. LeMay's B-29s had not yet incinerated Tokyo - destroying 16 square miles of Tokyo, killing more than 83,000, along with a large portion of Tokyo's industrial capacity. Already, plans for the invasion of mainland Japan were being drawn up, and the estimated casualties for invading Japan at 280,000.
The Japanese ignored the Potsdam Conference (26 July 1945), calling for Japan's surrender, until 9 August - after the Soviet Union invaded Japanese-held Manchuria. This was two days after the US dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. Only after the second atomic bomb on 9 August on Nagasaki, and after the Soviets had invaded, did Japan begin to seriously consider unconditional surrender. World War Two would not have ended if the Soviets did not enter the war, partly due to the Japanese fear of the Soviets. Japan and the then Russia had been antagonists for quite some time prior to World War Two, with Japan defeating Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905).
But this history lesson only adds to the level of outrage we should be heaping on anyone who claims that we should have just invaded the Soviet Union and "freed Eastern Europe" in 1945. Ignoring that Japan (due to their Russia-fixation) would not have surrenedered without Soviet invervention, like the editors of NRO do, is just ignoring history. Because this faulty historical ignorance gives way to this, from Jonah Goldberg:
In Leftism (an organizationally chaotic but excellent book) [Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn] speculated in a fairly throw-away fashion that the clamor to "bring the boys home" after the war was so widespread and well orchestrated that it might have been directed from Moscow so that the fait of the Soviet occupation could remain accompli as it were.
Has anyone ever addressed this question head on?
Which, as Yglesias points out, is utter crap. If you are going to accuse people of treason, why don't you have the intellectual honesty to do that?
May 10, 2005
Now this is getting interesting: Platypus for Firefox
Modify a Web page from your browser & save those changes as a Greasemonkey script so that everytime you visit the page the edit is persistent
