Politics, Government & Public Policy: July 2003 Archives

The Democrats have long insisted that they will not offer a candidate to replace Governor Davis, and that Davis has the full support of the party. I've written about Davis' lack of honor and the difficult strategic issues that each party as to deal with; despite the DNC's formal line, here's the trial balloon I've long-expected the Democrats to float: "2 Democrats in Congress Urge Feinstein to Enter Recall Race".

Two Democratic members of Congress publicly urged Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday to join the race to replace Gov. Gray Davis, ending what had been a united effort by Democratic elected officials to stand with the governor in the recall election.

The statements came from U.S. Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove) and Cal Dooley (D-Hanford).

Both said that, although they oppose the recall, Democrats need someone to vote for in case Davis loses. ...

"It is no secret that Gov. Davis is in trouble, and I seriously doubt that he can survive the recall effort," Dooley said in a statement. "We, as Democrats, need to get behind a strong candidate.

"It is unfortunate that the recall effort qualified for the ballot," he added, but "it is foolhardy for Democrats to gamble that Gov. Davis can pull this out."

There is no way that Gray Davis is going to survive the recall election as governor. Although the Democrats seem to be in suicide mode all around the country, I will be astounded if the party holds its current line; I expect they're waiting to see how this proposal plays out in their focus groups.

Many people see Democratic Senator Feinstein as a lock to win, if she runs, but I'll go out on a limb and predict that she won't. She has expressed contempt for the recall petition concept itself, and is getting a bit old to start a vigorous campaign. On the other hand, the campain will only be 59 days long, and it's likely to be her last opportunity to run for higher office.

Pathetic Earthlings notes that if the turnout for the recall election is low (if a lot of Democrats stay home, for instance), the next governor of California will be even easier to recall; a recall petition needs a number of signatures equal to 12% of the votes cast in the last election for that office.

Personally, hoever, I think turnout for the recall election will be huge.

PrestoPundit has more, and thinks that Proposition 54 will end up being even bigger than the recall. Prop. 54 would amend the state constitution to prohibit government from collecting racial information except in certain limited areas, such as public health.

According to Rush on the radio this morning (on my 5 minute drive to work), Senator Daschle is furious that Senator Rockefeller was soft pedaling on the controversy they're trying to stir over the mention of Nigerien uranium in President Bush' state of the union address.

Reportedly, Daschle told all the reporters covering Democratic party members that they were not allowed to talk to anyone except himself, Senator Reid, or Senator Graham about the uranium. They should not report any statements by any other Democrats about the topic.

No news online to fact-check this yet, but keep your eyes open.

Update:
Still no more on this particular angle, but here are some more Democrats taking a softer line on the "16 words".

Having proven quite successful at applying my astounding mental abilities to a former president, I will now attempt to read the mind of the current White House resident. (And for you leftists, I can prove I'm telepathic because after reading the first sentence you're sarcastically thinking, What mind?)

Many conservatives, such as George Will in the WaPo are questioning President Bush's conservatism, and Will mentions four specific areas in which Bush has shown himself to be rather liberal: engaging in "nation building"; spending prolifically; shrugging at judicial activism; and ignoring social conservatives. So what's with that?

Perhaps Bush realizes that the war on terror is the nation's top priority, and he's willing to hedge on these other issues to ensure that he is elected to a second term rather than some pacifist Democrat. Although, as SDB points out, it won't be easy for a future president to reverse our course in this war, he might think it's important enough that he's willing to sacrifice some other pieces of his agenda.

If my inkling is true, then watch for a right-ward swing once he begins his second term. Bush has already made it known that he would prefer there not to be any Supreme Court resignations before the 2004 election, and so far it looks likely that his desire will be fulfilled. Once his second term is locked up, and the war on terror is further along, political considerations may fall by the wayside and his true conservatism may shine through.

Just a theory; my psychic powers aren't perfect, you know. Thanks to The Angry Clam for the link.

I've written about some problems with the concept of public education, and I'm very pleased to read on Opinion Journal that the District of Columbia is poised to begin a voucher program. Amazingly, Democrat Diane Feinstein is on board, but some other Senators who had previously voted in favor of couchers have changed their minds.

Back in 1997, both Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Mary Landrieu voted for D.C. vouchers, though the move was later vetoed by Bill Clinton.

But now, at the moment of truth, with a president in the White House who has made clear his eagerness to make such a bill a reality, Sens. Specter and Landrieu upset a critical Appropriations Committee vote by switching from yea to nay. What makes their flip-flop especially nasty is that this move to undercut choice to the overwhelmingly black and Latino students of the district comes from two white senators who each chose private schools for their own children.

Even a child can spot the contradiction. Outside the committee's meeting room last week, nine-year-old Mosiyah Hall, a D.C. public school student himself, politely asked Sen. Landrieu where she sent her own children to school. "Georgetown Day," came the response, a reference to one of Washington's most exclusive private schools. Mosiyah's mother says an obviously agitated Sen. Landrieu then came over to a group of local mothers to explain that a voucher would be no help for them here, because even with the $7,500 voucher this bill offers, they still couldn't afford Georgetown Day.

"It was an ugly moment," says Virginia Walden-Ford, head of D.C. Parents for School Choice and one of the moms demonstrating.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the government has no business being involved with education. Not the federal government, not the state government, not even the local government (although that would be the least objectionable).

Vouchers are a step in the right direction, but ultimately the education system will need to be privatized if it's ever going to produce capable and effective workers and citizens. Government does almost everything poorly and inefficiently. It's not any one person or party's fault, it's just the nature of the beast. Washington DC, spends more per student than the highest-spending state ($15,122 for DC, $12,454 for New Jersey, $8,521 average for America), yet DC students are the worst readers in the country -- even worse than non-native English speakers from Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa! California's school system is all screwed up too, and not for lack of funding.

The government bureaucracy has failed, and demonstrated that it is incapable of handling the essential task of educating the next generation. Won't somebody think of the children?

I never liked Bill Clinton -- aside from being a scummy and lousy president, he's also largely responsible for the build-up of terror through the 90s. But, as they say, he's a brilliant politician. More than anything he's concerned about his legacy, and secondarily he wants to get back in the White House; his comments to Larry King last night reflect his mastery of the political field, and should put the seven dwarves vying for the Democrat nomination to shame.

KING: While I have you both here, let me get in just a couple of quick questions about the day's events, starting with President Clinton. What did you make of the killing today of Saddam Hussein's two sons?

CLINTON: Well, I think it's good news for, you know, trying to get the situation under better control there and I'm really happy. I'm happy that, you know, that the military did their job, as they always did, and, do, and, you know, those guys were pretty foolish not to give up, I think, but that's not the first stupid mistake they've made. And I hope that it will give the Iraqi people some sense of reassurance, and I hope it will reduce the number of attacks on our men and women over there who are still working trying to pacify the situation. I think it's got to be on balance, quite good news for us.

[snip]

KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

[snip]

CLINTON: I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...

DOLE: That's right.

CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there.

Emphasis mine. Ok, so what's Clinton up to?

a) He's protecting his legacy. The A-#1 most important thing to Bill Clinton is ensuring that history remembers him as a great president, not a screw-up. Since, as I asserted above, he bears a lot of the responsibility for not knocking out al Qaeda ten years ago, and is also responsible for most of America's dealings with Iraq after the first Gulf War, he doesn't want Bush being called a liar when it comes to WMD. Why? Because Clinton fired lots of cruise missiles into Iraq over the years, and if Bush is lying now then it must mean that Clinton was lying back then.

b) He wants back into the White House; Bill wants Hillary to be the next President of the United States. It's not likely that Hillary is going to run in 2004 (unless Bush really starts to look politlcally vulnerable), and so Bill is working as subtly as he can to undermine the current crop of Democratic wanna-bes. He much prefers a Bush victory to a Democratic victory, because Hillary can't wait till 2012 to run.

c) He's staking out sensible foreign policy ground, just in case. If Bush starts to look weak over the next six months, Hillary will jump into this election and sweep the seven dwarves aside. As popular as Dean is, he can never win the presidency with his crippling pacifistic views (except with regard to Liberia, I suppose), but if Clinton can let the politlcal midgets do the dirty work of tearing Bush down and then have Hillary jump in at the end....

I'd love to know what Terry McAuliffe and the other folks at the DNC are thinking. I don't think they're quite as resigned to losing in 2004, and Clinton keeps sucking the wind from their sails.

I'm not a big fan of starting new government programs or increasing social spending, but there is one particular need that I believe our society should be willing to invest more money into: care and treatment of the mentally ill. Clayton Cramer has a very touching, personal account of his brother's struggle with schizophrenia, and the many instances in which society failed to properly recognize and treat his condition.

Clayton launches from his brother's case and argues persuasively for a drastic expansion of the public mental health system; not only does compassion demand that we care for those among us who are truly incapable of living on their own, but it is essential for public safety as well.

For almost 20 years now, people calling themselves "homeless advocates" -- meaning that they call themselves advocates for the homeless, not they themselves are homeless -- have tried to use this tragedy as variously, an indictment of capitalism, Ronald Reagan, or the heartlessness of various city governments. It is clear, from surveys of the homeless, and from my own experience with my brother, as well as talking to and helping homeless people for more than 20 years, that this tragedy is mostly the result of a well-intentioned effort that started in the 1970s, to make it difficult to lock up mentally ill people against their will. ...

So far, I've mostly focused on the suffering of the mentally ill. But there's another side as well -- the danger to our society when people with a limited grasp on reality wander the streets. Let's face it -- most people in this county wouldn't spend $50 to save a homeless person from freezing to death. If you want to appeal to the masses, you need to point out to them the public safety side of this tragedy.

The places change, the victims change, but the tragedy keeps repeating. A month or two ago, it was at a church in Fort Worth. A month before that, it was Buford Furrow shooting kids in Los Angeles. Last year, Russell Weston Jr. murdered two police officers at the U.S. Capitol. There's a common element to all these tragedies -- all the killers were clearly mentally ill months to years before they started shooting people. These three recent high-profile cases draw the picture in blood.

Sigh. The LA Times reports that California Democrats are drawing out the state budget crisis to increase their party's power.

SACRAMENTO — In a meeting they thought was private but was actually broadcast around the Capitol on Monday, 11 Assembly Democrats debated prolonging California's budget crisis to further their political goals.

Members of the Democratic Study Group, a caucus that defines itself as progressive, were unaware that a microphone in Committee Room 127 was on as they discussed slowing progress in an attempt to increase pressure on Republicans to accept tax increases as part of a deal to resolve the state's $38-billion budget gap. ...

Assembly Budget Committee Vice Chairman John Campbell (R-Irvine) said he listened to about 20 minutes of the meeting on the squawk box in his office.

"It sounded like they were hoping to create a crisis at some point to further their political gains in other areas," he said. "I thought that was outrageous." ...

"They were worried that if the Legislature appeared to have dealt with the budget crisis, the initiative may not play well," he said. "This is very surprising, considering they are in charge."

After about 90 minutes, a staffer interrupted to alert lawmakers that their meeting was not private at all:

"Excuse me, guys, you can be heard outside," an unidentified staff member said.

"Oh [expletive], [expletive]," Goldberg said.

"The squawk box is on," the staff member said. "You need to turn it off right there."

"How could that happen?" Goldberg said.

Hopefully this gives Californians some insight into why our state is so screwed. I haven't seen much reporting on this yet, but it should get play in California at least.

The Washington Times reports that a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by the NAACP blaming gun manufacturers for gun violence in New York. The lawsuit wasn't dismissed because it's baseless and absurd, but rather due to a "technicality". A "technicality" is when you lose a case because of the "law".

Unfortunately, the case wasn't thrown out for any of the reasons that I would have liked. Rather,

Judge Weinstein wrote in his ruling that the NAACP proved its members suffered "relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendants through illegal availability of guns in New York." But, he added, the civil rights group did not "show that its harm was different in kind from that suffered by other persons in New York."

The suit cost gun makers more than $10 million to defend against, and they won't be recovering that money from the NAACP. I'm not a big fan of tort reform such as many people have proposed (restricting lawsuits, limiting real damage claims, &c.) but I do think that losing plaintiffs should almost always be obligated to pay their opponents' legal costs.

It was only a matter of time. UC eyes surcharge for rich students. Next thing you know, the state will start charging rich people more to ride the bus. Why should rich people get to borrow library books for free? Why should rich people pay the same for trash pickup as poor people? In fact, I think rich people should have to pay a poll tax to vote; why not, they can afford it!

Regent Matt Murray, the lone student on the 25-person governing board, said he supports a surcharge and lashed out at the state's Republican legislators who have resisted tax increases intended to offset the budget deficit.

"Given the ridiculous nature of the budget situation and the limited options the university has, I think it is wise to pursue the idea," he said. "The goal is to make sure the university is accessible to all kinds of students of all kinds of backgrounds."

Hold on, is the goal to raise money to deal with the "ridiculous" budget situation, or to "make sure the university is accessible to all kinds of students of all kinds of backgrounds"? Obviously the only way this plan would affect accessibility is if it makes the UC system too expensive for certain "rich" people to afford. But that undermines the whole "they're rich, they can afford it" "argument" brought up earlier in the article. I can see why this proposal is so attractive to California leftists: they get to raise extra money for the government at no political cost to themselves, and they get to socially engineer the composition of the University's student body.

I'm not terribly surprised that Matt Murray is a Moron (he's the co-founder and president of the Berkeley American Civil Liberties Union).

Sigh, I'm reduced to using Reuters "scare quotes".

I am certainly not an expert on the creation and expansion of American suburbia, and Mark Aveyard sounds like he knows what he's talking about. However, I disagree with some of his implications.

You wouldn't have the suburbs if the federal government hadn't provided guaranteed loans en masse to people who otherwise could not have afforded them.

Very likely, but as I've written before, popular capitalism is an essential building block of democracy; the development of the modern mortgage system and the creation of tax breaks for home owners are two of the major factors contributing to the popular capitalism we Americans take for granted.

The expansion of roads is, of course, part of zoning policy, so it's meaningless to say that smart growth proponents want to "use zoning" for their ends, as if the expansion of roads over the shouts of property owners doesn't constitute a zoning practice or something powerfully analogous to it.

It's similar, but municipalities pay for property when they seize it to build a road, as is required by the 5th Amendment. On the other hand, many courts have ruled mere "re-zoning" of property is not a legal "taking", and any property value lost to the owner does not need to be paid for by society -- as long as the property in question retains some economic use.

Suburbs may be aesthetically unpleasing (although I like them, personally), but they also greatly lower the price of admission for the American dream. In the process, they serve to strengthen democracy and facilitate cooperation and coexistence among an ever-increasing population.

Because the US has been urging him to resign his "presidency", Charles Taylor of Liberia says that our country has "blood on its hands". Then again, he offered to step down two weeks ago and reneged. Seems like that's happened a few times now.

Taylor said he did not know if the U.S. would require his departure before their arrival in Liberia.

"I don't understand why the United States government would insist that I be absent before its soldiers arrive," Taylor told a meeting of Liberian clerics. "It makes a lot of sense for peacekeepers to arrive in this city before I transit."

Maybe it's important because we don't want you to suddenly change your mind again once everything is peaceful?

So what's the deal with Africa? Conventional wisdom ascribes the near-perpetual civil wars to ethnic divisions and tribalism, but I just read a fascinating paper titled "Why Are There So Many Civil Wars in Africa? Understanding and Preventing Violent Conflict" which argues persuasively that such heterogeneity may in fact be beneficial, if proper democratic institutions can be developed.

The authors, Ibrahim Elbadawi and Nicholas Sambanis, suggest that there are three main factors hindering Africa's development: heavy dependence on natural resources, a lack of democratic institutions, and a lack of political freedom. The dependence of Africa's economy on natural resources is important because such resources can be easily looted by rebels, and tend to concentrate geographically in the territory of a handful of ethnic groups. Little can be done to diversify Africa's economies, however, until there is significant economic growth away from agriculture and mining.

That economic growth will come about once the last two problems are solved: the need for political freedom and democratic institutions. The authors claim that based on their statistical analysis, political freedom isn't required for a ethnically homogenetic nation to prosper, but Africa's fractured cultures make it a necessity. (On a side note, America's broadly diverse population also flourishes under a strong democratic system; Europe's weaker democracies are floundering with an influx of immigrants.) Past attempts to introduce political freedoms in Africa have failed because they did not construct institutions that practically allowed Africa's various ethnic groups to bargain politically and reach acceptable compromises.

Such institutions are the critical building block. They must be created with Africa's tribal culture in mind, and the authors suggest giving major ethnicities formal political recognition. In my own mind, a federal-type system would seem ideal; using America's political system as reference, imagine the bicameral Congress of an African nation composed of a Senate wherein each tribe is equally represented, and a House built of representatives from geographically-based districts all of nearly equal population. There are certainly significant details that need to be worked out during the process of creating such a government -- which tribes get representation, for instance -- but such a bicameral system should allow both the large and small tribes to reach a concensus.

As economic development takes hold, the opportunity cost of civil war rises. As employment rises, fewer men are available for fighting, and there are fewer grievances to fight about. What disagreements still exist can be resolved peacefully though the democratic institutions in place. The important thing to realize is that economic developement follows political development, and not the other way around. Siphoning money from rich nations into Africa won't solve anything if there aren't significant political reforms first. And once the political reforms take place, Africans will have no use for our money; they will prosper on their own.

Update:
Clayton Cramer gives an example of how graft and corruption run rampant in Africa.

Update 2:
Via Donald Sensing, here's an excellent two part description by Vessel of Honor of Charles Taylor's ties to Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and al Qaeda. It's almost too incredible to believe.

If anyone cares, the California governor recall situation just got even more complicated.

Everyone assumes that when California voters decide whether to recall Gov. Gray Davis, they'll also be deciding who would succeed him if, in fact, he is ousted.

However, two words in the state constitution -- "if appropriate" -- introduce another bizarre element into the recall saga. It's at least possible, although by no means certain, that when Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante calls the Davis recall election, he could block voters from choosing a successor and thus declare that he, and only he, would become governor should voters dump Davis.

So, there probably will be a recall election based on the number of petitions that have been turned in, but:

a) There may or may not be a simultaneous ballot to choose his successor.
b) Even if there is such a ballot, if a Republican wins then the Democrats have a credible claim that the results should be thrown out and that the current Lt. Governor should take over instead.

I would have more sympathy for Democrat cries of frustration over supposed Republican autocratic behavior in various legislative bodies if the Dems didn't respond like such whiny babies. It's not like any of this is new, they're just mad because they aren't the ones in power at the moment. Don't worry, you'll get your chance again in a few decades.

Via the LA Times and Rough & Tumble, California's first lady seems to understand how all the rest of us feel:

California First Lady Sharon Davis offered a glimpse Wednesday into how she and her husband, Gov. Gray Davis, have reacted to the recall campaign against him, equating it to "finding out you have cancer."

"It's terrible news, and you think, 'My gosh, what am I going to do?' " she said. "Very few people say, 'I'm going to go home and die. What I'm going to do is fight it.' "

On second thought, maybe she doesn't realize that her husband is the cancer we're all fighting against. Pathetic Earthlings uses the same article to question Gray Davis' manhood, and rightfully so.

Update:
In more California news, Official to Sue Over Budget Impasse. Fantastic.

California's superintendent of schools is expected to ask the state Supreme Court today to break the legislative impasse over how best to resolve a $38-billion budget gap because continued gridlock will threaten the education of 6 million schoolchildren.

A spokesman for Supt. Jack O'Connell said Wednesday that officials would use an argument similar to one that recently led the Nevada Supreme Court to grant Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn's request to intervene in that state's budget debate.

The court set aside Nevada's constitutional requirement that a two-thirds legislative majority be achieved before a budget can be passed. California has the same requirement.

"It's very much based on the Nevada ruling," said Rick Miller, spokesman for O'Connell. "He thinks it is his obligation as superintendent to do everything in his power to make sure schools are properly funded."

Mere words cannot express my frustration and my antipathy for the Democrats in California. If the courts can overturn the freaking state Constitution that gives them power then there's absolutely no limit to what the courts can do. If the courts decide that the legislature can ignore the Constitution and pass a budget with a simple majority, you can bet that the Dems are going to hike every tax in sight, and tack on a few more just for fun.

Part of me hopes it happens, because I think the fallout would sweep the Democrats out of power. Meanwhile, however, California gets even more thoroughly screwed. The only responsible and practical solution to our state's budget problem is to cut spending, but that's not even on the table. The "best" we can hope for is to borrow money and finance our debt, thereby punting the problem a few yards downfield and hoping that it just goes away.

I'm considering running for Governor with the slogan "Cut, cut, cut." If the recall goes through it only costs $3,500 to get on the ballot, and I think I'd have a shot!

Update 2:
Eugene Volokh thinks O'Connell's lawsuit is a sure loser.

Best of the Web Today points to a Washington Times article which indicates that the Saudi royal family is starting to fire and ban jihad-loving, al Qaeda-sympathizing Wahhabi clerics in the wake of the al Qaeda suicide bombings in Riyadh two months ago.

I suppose this is good news, but wouldn't it be even better if there was some hint of actual religious freedom, rather than just a switch to state religious tyranny that's more to our liking? After all, American approval of friendly dictators is supposely one of the Arab street's prime grievances against us. Taranto looks at these moves as "halting steps toward joining the civilized world", but in the civilized world the government doesn't tell you what is and is not accepted religious doctrine.

So yes, I'm glad that our staunch allies in Saudi Arabia are firing the most anti-American clerics, but not as glad as I'd be if the Saudi government fired all the clerics and took their mitts out of the religion business entirely. Iraq, even under Saddam Hussein, has had one of the most religiously free governments in the region, and I hope now that a truly free nation is being established there will be some concrete moves away from state-sponsored/-mandated Islam.

Three months ago, Time Magazine ran an excellent interview with Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Although I'm sure that many non-Christians cringe when they read about Christian missionaries lining up by the hundreds to spread the gospel to Arab Muslims, this interview might give you a new perspective.

"No one is going to flip a switch and make Iraq a Christian nation. America is not a Christian nation; it's a mission field. Conversion can't come at the point of a gun. I think this is a true test, in a post-modern, post Cold War age, of how America is going to establish a model for the recovery of freedom. Religious freedom has to be at the center and foundation of that freedom. If Iraq were to be established in a way that religious freedom was honored, it would stand out from its neighbors in the area."

"It would be an appalling tragedy if America were to lead this coalition and send young American men and women into battle, to expend such military effort, to then leave in place a regime that would lack respect for religious liberty. I think one of the major Christian concerns, and one of my personal concerns, is to see religious liberty, religious freedom," take a prominent position in "the vision of freedom that America holds up to the world."

Via CNSNews, Daschle reveals his true colors.

Daschle claimed the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have "abandoned Latino families and our Latino neighbors."

"The progress we've made over the course of the last several years has been set back," Daschle said. "So we're announcing today that we are redoubling our efforts in working in this partnership with our Hispanic leaders to see that every Latino has a chance to make a better life and to contribute to the life of this country." ...

"We believe that every Latino who wants to serve in government at the highest levels ought to have an opportunity to do so," he stated. CNSNews.com asked Daschle later if that opportunity would be extended to Miguel Estrada. The Hispanic attorney's nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has been blocked for months by a minority of senators, composed entirely of Democrats, despite Estrada having the support of a majority of senators. Daschle tried to shift the blame for his party's actions back to Estrada. ...

"He has been unwilling to be forthcoming about his background," Daschle explained, "[and] to release the documents that would give us a better understanding of his position on many issues."

Excellent. The Democrats' real Hispanic Agenda is not to ensure that every Latino who wants to be part of the government has the opportunity, but to ensure that Latinos who hold the right positions (as determined by Daschle) have that opportunity. Thanks for clarifying that.

As I wrote yesterday, it's virtually certain that there is going to be a special election to recall California's governor, Gray Davis. Taking that as a fait accompli, both the Democrats and the Republicans are in panic mode trying to figure out how to play the cards they've been dealt.

Democrats: The Democrats are in a tough position. They have two options: 1) give all the party's support to Gray Davis and try to prevent him from losing the recall vote; 2) ditch Davis and give all their support to a different Democratic candidate. If it were obvious that Davis is going to be recalled, option (1) would probably be the way to go; the Democrats could lay all the blame for the economy squarely on Davis and sacrifice him on the politlcal altar. Since I do think it's inevitable that Davis will be gone, I think this option is the Democrats' best hope for holding the governorship. On the other hand, if they think that Democratic voter turnout will be high enough and strong enough to prevent Davis from being recalled, then they'll probably go with option (2). This would allow the party to avoid accepting any blame for the financial crisis, and would avoid a major split between Davis supporters and the rest of the Democrats. A 3rd option would be a mix of (1) and (2), but I don't see how the Democrats can support both Davis and another candidate; "Vote not to recall Gray Davis! But, if he is recalled, vote for this guy!" Unfortunately for the Democrats, California Code 11381 (c) prevents Davis from running as a candidate to replace himself.

Republicans: The major challenge facing the Republicans is to put their focus on one candidate. There's no primary, there's no straw poll, so the various [potential] Republican candidates will need to agree among themselves on how to winnow the field. In big-ego politics, that won't be an easy thing to do. The Republican party can limit itself to supporting a single person, but there's nothing to prevent Arnold or Bill Simon (sigh) from running with their own money, for example. The recall election gives the governorship to whoever wins a plurality of votes, no matter how small that plurality is, so if the Republicans split the conservative vote 2 or 3 (or 5) different ways it's likely that Davis will be recalled and replaced with some random Democrat.

I expect that the election will hinge on these organizational issues, even more than on the campaigns themselves.

Some people don't seem to understand that the 1st Amendment protects us against censorship by the government. There is no such thing as "corporate censorship". If the owner of a radio station doesn't want to play your music, it's not censorship; rather, it is the epitome of free speech: the radio station owner has the right to choose what speech he or she facilitates. It's astonishing to me that Senator John McCain thinks there is censorship involved because a set of radio stations decided not to play the Dixie Chicks' music.

While Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he disagreed with Maines' sentiment, the fact that giant radio groups could ban a group's music because of a political statement was an ``incredible, incredible act'' that serves as an example of how radio industry consolidation is causing the ``erosion of the First Amendment.''

What troubled McCain and several of the other senators is not that a decision was made to keep the band off the air but rather that the decision was made in a corporate headquarters miles away from the station to stop playing the group's music.

Wait, so, is McCain upset because the Chicks' music wasn't played? He seems to imply that with his fallacious invocation of the 1st Amendment. But then in the next paragraph it sounds like what he is really objecting to are ordinary property rights. It's troubling to him that the owners and/or managers of the radio station don't live close to the station itself? That's like objecting to the color McCain paints his house in Arizona because he spends most of his time in Washington DC. He owns it, he can paint it whatever color he wants, and his geographical location is completely and entirely irrelevant.

Just for clarification: the 1st Amendment gives you the right to speak, but not the right to be heard. No one can stop you from saying whatever you want, but no one is required to listen or facilitate your speech. I haven't watched any of Michael Moore's drivel or read any of his nonsense, but that doesn't mean I'm censoring him. Similarly, Glenn Reynolds hasn't linked to any of my brilliant and insightful essays, but that doesn't mean he's censoring me -- it just means he's a cruel, selfish person.

Wow, the leaders of the Davis recall petition are halting signature-collecting operations two months before the deadline!

David Gilliard, director of the recall group Rescue California, said that at least 1.2 million voter signatures have been gathered, well more than the 897,000 that by law are needed for a special election that would be nearly unprecedented in the country. Only one other recall election against a governor has ever been staged, and that was in North Dakota in 1921.

"We're done," Gilliard said. "I have no doubt we'll have enough valid signatures for an election." ...

Even Davis, who once scoffed at the recall's chance of reaching the ballot, is sounding resigned to an election. "If the people want me to present my credentials one more time, I have no fear of the electorate," he told reporters Monday.

He should be afraid, considering that although many politicians are showing rising poll numbers, Davis is stuck at 38% approval, 51% disapproval. Not coincidentally, polls also show 51% of Californians are in favor of recalling the crooked governor. Of course, Davis' confidence is all bluster -- if he really isn't afraid of the electorate, then why has he spent thousands of dollars hiring signature gatherers away from the recall movement and busied them with nonsense anti-recall petitions that carry no legal weight?

His only real hope of surviving the recall now is to try and delay the vote until March. The Democratic Primary for the 2004 Presidential election will be held in March, and he rightly believes that Democratic turnout will be higher if the recall is on the March 2004 ballot rather than the October 2003 ballot. So, rather than bravely facing the electorate, Davis and his campaign people are exploring their legal options and trying to find a way to derail the recall process via court challenges and bureaucratic manuvering.

Well that's all expected, I suppose. I can certainly imagine a Republican governor doing the same thing... but not an honest, honorable governor of any party. Exploiting legal technicalities to prevent or delay the recall is dishonorable when it's clear that the recall movement is operating in good faith and openly following the spirit of the relevant laws. I imagine that Davis and his cronies will be able to find or invent some legal details that will call the legitimacy of the recall effort into question (in some people's minds), but the fact of the matter is that everything has been above-board from the beginning.

For example, one of Davis' complaints is that many petitions were downloaded off the internet, filled out (properly, one would hope), and then mailed to the petition organizers. What's wrong with that? Petitions are supposed to be marked with the name of the county they are circulated in, and Davis thinks that it's not sufficient to have the downloaders write their county name on the petition once they printed out, since in some sense the petition is being "circulated" via the internet. That's the type of word game that Davis is resorting to for his legal challenges; totally insubstantial and entirely process-related.

Gray Davis is scum. I'm glad that he's getting tarred and feathered now, because he had presidential aspirations and I don't know if our country could have survived such a corrupt and self-serving administration.

I've been reading lots of speculation about the 2004 election, and I want to comment briefly on why the Constitution will never be amended to eliminate the electoral college and allow for the direct popular vote to select the president.

The amendment process requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to make the proposal, and this proposal must then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Since there are currently 50 states in the Union, all it takes is 13 states to bury a proposed amendment.

Under the electoral college system, states with low population have a number of electoral votes disproportionate to their size, and their populations clearly have a significant interest in maintaining this power. Wyoming's 3 electoral votes give the state 0.558% of the total 538, even though its population of 498,703 is only 0.173% of the total population of the country (288,368,698). Wyoming's electoral power (and representation in Congress, incidentally) is more than 3 times higher than it's population should warrent under a purely democratic system. As a result of this math, every state that possesses a number of electoral votes below the median would be harmed by the elimination of the electoral college, and so no such amendment could ever pass. In fact, as more people shift to urban coastal cities, the relative power of the depopulated states increases.

Hey, that's undemocratic! Why yes, it is. But then, a lot of our Constitution is undemocratic, and specifically designed to protect minorities from the tyrannical rule of the majority. In this case, the minority in question isn't racial, but geographic.

In case you didn't see it on the Drudge Report, take a look at the Government Information Awareness project. It's quite entertaining. I haven't been able to find home phone numbers for anyone yet, but I suppose it's only a matter of time.

So is this type of project a good idea? Well, all the information being posted is in the public domain already, it's just a matter of organization. Whether it's a good idea or not is basically moot, since it's already being done. The question really is, should society remove "personal" information from the public domain or somehow secure it?

Most people rely on a form of "security through obscurity" for their personal protection -- as long as no criminal has a specific reason to seek them out, the chance that they'll be a victim is pretty low. Public figures are by definition not obscure, so how are they to protect themselves? One argument is that they shouldn't be able to protect themselves, because they're supposed to be serving the public good and are, in essence, our employees. Maybe, but the fact of the matter is that publishing the home address of a Supreme Court Justice exposes him or her to far more potential danger that I would be exposed to if my home address were published.

It's impossible to please everyone, so no matter what policies a public official implements there are bound to be violently-inclined crazies who will be eager to take a swipe at a fat juicy target if the difficulty of locating crucial information is low enough. It's hard to justify suppression of speech on the grounds of potential danger, though, so I'm not sure what solutions exist. Senator Dianne Feinstein's solution is to carry a concealed weapon, but thanks to some gun-control nuts (such as Senator Dianne Feinstein) that option isn't available to all of us.

I don't understand the concept of "civil unions". Supposedly they're meant as a compromise relationship that would allow gays to get the benefits of marriage without using the same name, right?

Well what's to prevent me from civilly unioning with my roommate to get free health coverage from his work and to save money on taxes? Or, for that matter, what's to keep me from unioning with a family member or a business partner for similar financial reasons? Once the financial transaction in question is completed, we could simply dissolve the union, thereby freeing ourselves to form other unions as it became advantageous.

Would civil unions convey legal spousal privilege? If so, then criminals could simply union to avoid testifying against each other. Likewise, such privilege could be used by parents unioning with their children to cover sexual abuse. The list of potential problems seems endless to me, and I don't see any clear criteria that could be used to draw a line.

It would certainly be absurd to require two people to somehow prove that they're gay before allowing them to enter a "civil union". Most states allow for minors to get married with their parents' permission, and so I see no reason to think that children would not be allowed to enter into civil unions, possibly even without parental consent. If a girl can get an abortion without parental notification, then why can't she get civilly unioned? Similarly, parents are not allowed to marry their children, but does a civil union necessarily require or expect there to be sexual activity between the two partners? If not, then there's no reason not to allow parents to union with their kids.

The complications go on and on, and any inclusions or exclusions will end up being entirely arbitrary. The well-defined structure of marriage has been the building block of civilization for all of known history; creating an institution of "civil union" would necessarily undermine that order. Proponents may or may not admit it, but I think that undermining the current social fabric is one of their main intentions.

Democrats are complaining because Republican state legislatures are redrawing Congressional districts. The WaPo article acts as if this is some new strategy:

"This is a political strategy we haven't seen before," said Tim Storey, redistricting analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "People who study this area can't find any case in the last 100 years of mid-decade redistricting without a court order."

Ah, but the key word here is "mid-decade". It's accepted practice to gerrymander districts after the decennial census, and Democrats are mainly peeved because they're out of power and the Republicans want to redistrict now rather than wait another 7 years.

In an era in which most congressional districts are drawn to guarantee safe seats for one party or the other, Colorado bucked the trend after the 2000 Census. The state's new 7th Congressional District was designed to be a political tossup, with one-third of the voters Republican, one-third Democratic and one-third unaffiliated.

Sure enough, the suburban Denver district produced the closest House race in the nation last fall. After several recounts, Republican Bob Beauprez won the seat by 122 votes out of 162,938 cast.

Yippie, a close House race. And that means what? No one says, but it's taken for granted that it's a good thing.

The whole concept of gerrymandering by state legislatures is fascinating to me. One the one hand, legislatures always draw horribly contorted district borders that are specifically designed to dilute their opponents' voters and yield close races that are nevertheless guaranteed wins. It's a rather delicate balancing act -- if you win but the vote isn't close, then you wasted too many of your own voters, but if you lose then the result is even worse. It seems very undemocratic on the surface, until you remember that the state legislature is itself a democratically elected body. I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Consider that before the 17th Amendment, state legislatures selected Senators for their state; members of the House of Representatives were elected directly by the people, but Senators were not. However, with the 17th Amendment and the current state of gerrymandering, the situation has almost reversed itself. State borders cannot be modified, and so Senators are elected directly by the people they represent, while the state legislature fiddles with the Congressional districts and in effect selects the party of the Representative that holds each seat.

The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Alabama Supreme Court must remove a Ten Commandments monument that sits in front of the courthouse because they think it violates the separation of church and state.

"If we adopted his position, the chief justice would be free to adorn the walls of the Alabama Supreme Court's courtroom with sectarian religious murals and have decidedly religious quotations painted above the bench," the three-judge panel said.

"Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises."

Perhaps the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals is unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments decorations at its superior court, the Supreme Court of the United States.