Skip to content

Joe can’t eat with the Dems anymore

Harry Reid may or may not have kicked Joe Lieberman out of the Democrat’s dining room. It’s a small step, but hardly gratifying enough, especially considering the fact that Reid’s spokesman is now denying it. If a similar situation occurred on the Republican side we wouldn’t be talking about dining rooms, we’d be hearing about tar and feathers.

I have a dream. Well, it’s a dream within a nightmare. Lieberman is counting on a cabinet post should we face the nightmare of a McCain presidency. Cabinet posts, as well as most truly important government positions must be confirmed by the Senate. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Democrats stood together and said “No” to Joe? We fervently pray the situation never arises, but should it happen it would be only justice to turn Joe down for any post he seeks.

Update: I just noticed this. Joe’s legislative director, Joe Goffman, resigned to protest Lieberman’s apostasy.

Palin on the environment

A Groton Democrat passed this article, aptly titled Sarah Palin’s record on environment is abysmal) along to me, so I’m going to break my self imposed no-Palin policy to pass it along. There are no surprises here, but there are lots of details. The lady’s environmental policies are dreadful, but what else is new. Some excerpts:

Climate change. Although Alaska is ground zero in the crisis of global warming, Palin has done virtually nothing to address the problem except hold meetings and appoint a “climate sub-cabinet” that likewise has done little. ….

Polar bears. This summer, Palin filed suit against the Bush administration over the federal listing of polar bears as threatened, saying that her opposition was based on a “comprehensive scientific review.” But when asked to release the scientific review, she refused. The document, later obtained by the public (from the federal government), clearly shows that, contrary to Palin’s assertions, the state of Alaska’s marine mammal scientists agreed with the federal conclusions that the polar bears are in serious trouble because of global warming…

Endangered species. Earlier this year, Palin approved a $2 million state appropriation for a conference on the “economic impacts” of the Endangered Species Act, designed to persuade the public that ESA listings were too costly and unwarranted….

Predator control. Palin approved and expanded the state’s aerial predator control program, where wolves are shot from aircraft and bears hunted from aircraft and killed upon landing. This year, her state biologists even dragged 14 newborn wolf pups from their den and, having already shot their parents, then shot each of the pups in the head at close range. …

Pebble mine. Palin aggressively opposed the “clean water initiative” on the August ballot in Alaska (which then failed), favoring instead foreign mining company desires for fewer government regulations controlling their toxic effluent into salmon streams. …

Oil and gas drilling. Palin has supported oil and gas drilling plans anywhere in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the central Arctic, the entire Arctic Ocean, and in fish-rich Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet. …

Exxon Valdez oil spill damages. Palin refuses to push Exxon to pay the government for the unanticipated environmental injuries from the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. …

Trans Pacific shipping. Palin repeatedly has been asked by coastal residents and organizations to enhance the safety of merchant shipping through Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, a primary shipping route between Asia and North America, but she’s done nothing. …

The pattern is clear. On the environment, Sarah Palin is essentially George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and perhaps James Watt rolled into one, but with a more pleasant demeanor. At a time when the nation and world urgently need strong environmental leadership from the United States, it is important to look beyond charisma and carefully consider the environmental implications of our vote in November.

The author, Rick Steiner, is a professor at the University of Alaska.

Terminal dysfunction

I am going to wait a while before entering panic mode, which so many have done with the polls showing a tightening race, what with the McCain convention bounce. Odd how we get all upset when the expected happens. More problematic is the fact that the press appears to have entered the tank big time for McCain. One full exhibit, this morning’s puff piece about Palin in the Times. We can only hope that Obama realizes what he’s up against and will act accordingly.

But I won’t say a word about all that. I prefer instead to discuss the canary in the mine that is California. We learn today that the prison guard union, which was instrumental in getting rid of Gray Davis, is now turning its sights on Arnold, and intends to initiate a recall petition against him. Arnold, it turns out, is only slightly more popular than Bush. While I admit to feeling a certain amount of satisfaction at the prospect of a Schwarzenegger recall, I can’t help but believe that this development is a symptom of a profoundly dysfunctional state government.

On a minor key, it is a sign of trouble when a prison guard union has the political clout of the California union. I’m a big union supporter, but there’s something seriously wrong when the prison industry has so much power.

On a major key, it seems clear that Arnold’s troubles stem from the state’s budget woes, which themselves are an outgrowth of its political system. One third of the legislature has a veto over any proposed budget, meaning the party out of power, particularly if that party is the Republican party, can block any budget without risking much by way of political consequences. This is only one feature of the California political system that has rendered the state ungovernable. Movement conservatives have used the referendum system (Ironically introduced by progressives. Everyone makes mistakes, but this one might prove fatal) to systematically undermine its ability to function. It’s an article of faith with them that government can’t work, and the referendum system gives them the tool to prove their case. Make no mistake about it, the dysfunctional nature of California’s government is, to them, not a bug but a feature. Term limits, shortsighted property tax initiatives, the two thirds budget requirement, etc., have combined to produce a political system designed to fail, and it is indeed failing. It would be delicious to see Schwarzenegger fall, but the same fate awaits the person who replaces him, since California’s constitution has mandated governmental failure. California has dug itself into a hole from which it cannot emerge; it would be well nigh impossible for it to undo the damage that has been done to its constitution through the referendum process.

Our national constitution is creaky as well. It is an 18th century form of government in a 21st century world. It is unlikely that the founders envisaged a nation in which a state the size of California would have equal representation in the Senate with a state one seventieth its size. It’s not just a question of numerical equality of course. The people in densely populated states have interests distinct from those in states such as Wyoming, but the interests of Wyoming and its like unduly predominate. While the right wing is always anxious to gut the Bill of Rights, there is never any serious talk of taking a fresh look at the basic structure of our government. That part of the Constitution has become like unto holy writ. Any suggestion that it should be fundamentally changed is considered blasphemous.

It’s not just the Senate, of course. George Bush has exploited the weak points in the constitutional system to arrogate powers to himself At some point the system will collapse, most likely degenerating into an elective dictatorship (particularly if McCain wins), with the elections becoming pro forma (if they’re not already) as time goes on. The Constitution wasn’t designed to fail, nor has it been altered in order to achieve that end, but it is showing its age and the signs of senescence are being ignored.

Technical Difficulties

One of my readers said he had problems posting comments. When he tried, he got a message to the effect that comments were turned off to prevent comment spam. I never turned the comments off, but I have, since I found out about his problem, upgraded my spam filter, which I hoped solved the problem.

I’d appreciate it if anyone landing here could leave a comment below, and then follow up with an email (click on “Contact me” at the upper right), and let me know if you had a problem.

Thanks.

UPDATE: Well, this is strange, because the person who was having trouble was told he was from a network known for spamming, but he is in fact on a perfectly respectable network. I have switched spam filters. I hope this works, and I hope I don’t start getting inundated with spam. The other filter worked pretty well, but it makes no sense to keep it if I can’t whitelist anyone. Anyway, you can STOP sending comments on this post. Feel free to comment elsewhere. Thanks.

Dragonflies

It’s almost too good a day to think about politics. There’s nothing happening anyway, except that the mortgage crisis is going into meltdown mode, (funny how these things tend to happen on Sundays lately) but who’s thinking about that? The remnants of Hanna seem to have scoured the air and, as such storms so often do, left great weather in its wake.

I am sitting here on my patio, watching something that you can only see on a few days of the year, and which no picture can capture. The air in our yard is thick with tiny insects of some sort. You can only see them when the sun hits them just right, like the specks of dust you see in the sunlight streaming in a window. Scores of dragonflies, which I have not seen before today, are swarming in their midst, presumably gorging on them. No doubt they are eating well, but they’re not making a dent in the apparent numbers, which seem to be infinite. The dragonflies are so big that I had to confirm with binoculars that they weren’t birds. Until the sun hit the little mites at the right angle, the dragonflies seemed to be flying at random, but their purpose is now clear.

I’ve often thought that if it weren’t for the inconvenient fact that I have to work for a living, it would be fun to spend a year chronicling the changes in this little slice of the earth. I don’t know if the dragonflies have put in an appearance before today; but they weren’t here last week, and I suspect that by next week, they’ll be gone, to be replaced by some other transient phenomenon. We have a backyard that has many of the properties of a meadow. It is surrounded on three sides (more or less) by trees, with the westerly side bordered by about 800 acres of open space. Due to my inherent laziness, and the inordinate amount of time I spend on this blog, the forest is creeping in around us, so at least part of our property probably qualifies as de facto open space. Even if we weren’t operating a birdie soup kitchen in the middle of it all, there would still be an abundance of wildlife making their living here. In any event, my seat out here in the patio is a perfect place to watch the show, and today’s is peculiarly spectacular.

UPDATE: A reader emailed a link to an article about Dragonflies in the New Haven Register. They are interesting little creatures and the article is quite well written.

Daily Show and Colbert cover the convention

By far the most incisive coverage of the Republican convention was on the Daily Show, followed by Stephen Colbert. We’ve sometimes been a bit disappointed with Jon Stewart, who can sometimes be a little deferential to his right wing guests, but the show pulled no punches this week. Some of my favorite bits, in no particular order. Mostly Daily Shows, as it’s hard to find individual bits from any but the last Colbert show. There may be some annoying delays in these. If so, I apologize.

Joe Biden knows his role

Missing from the last two presidential campaigns, a Democratic VP candidate who fills the attack dog role. From the Jed Report.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE[/youtube]

Friday Night Music-RNC edition

I am truly sick of writing about, nay, thinking about Sarah Palin. I am going to make a vow to avoid the topic for at least a week. It being Friday Night, I can avoid writing about anything, should I please, which is what I’m going to do, except to note in passing that John McCain’s speech, part of which I forced myself to watch, was more horrible than I could have hoped. He even did it in front of a blue screen, tailor made for another Colbert challenge, not to mention a turn in front of a huge picture of the Walter Reed Middle School, looking suspiciously like an example of one of his many homes.

Now, on to the music.

I believe in the distant past I may have posted this song (but not this performance), a great piece of cultural reportage by Randy Newman, in which he summarizes the foreign policy of the Republicans quite well. This is the sort of thinking we’ve heard this week from the folks on the stage and the folks in the seats.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI[/youtube]

If I’m going to repeat anything on this feature, it might as well be Randy, one of our greatest songwriters. He’ll be in Northampton, MA at the end of the month, by the way, and I’m hoping to be there. If I make it, it will be the first concert I’ve seen since a Dylan/Santana concert more than 10 years ago.

Heidi Simmons says we can’t criticize Sarah Palin

Heidi Simmons, the wife of our former Congressman, penned a letter to the Day, which I reproduce in full below:

Gov. Sarah Palin is a good choice and she makes good choices. Male politicians have been dictating areas unfamiliar to them a little bit too long.

I am writing about pregnancy. And I am writing about choices. Woman’s reproduction and a woman’s inherent lifelong responsibility to her child is really not anyone’s business but her own.

Let’s apply this philosophy to Sen. John McCain’s new vice presidential choice, Sarah Palin. She knew her baby had Down syndrome and she made a choice to have the baby. She believed her family unit could carry this lifelong responsibility. Good choice, Gov. Palin.

But, we are a country of labels. So instead of labeling her, Sarah Palin, pro-choice, we label her pro-life. We need to work on those bumper stickers. And we need a government that stays out of our home and our personal lives.

Let’s put aside the fact that Sarah Palin is a firm believer in a government that does not “[stay] out of our home and our personal lives”. That’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Ms. Simmon’s argument rests on the premise that we should never criticize someone for the manner in which they exercise their rights, because to do so calls those rights into question. But in fact, that is not the case. We protect individual rights because we recognize that there are certain areas in which the government should not intrude, while at the same time recognizing that individuals will often abuse those rights. It is perfectly legitimate to draw conclusions about people by examining the way in which they use or abuse their rights. I am as close to a free speech absolutist as they come, but that doesn’t mean I’m not prepared to criticize people for the content of their speech or for choosing to speak in situations where they would best remain silent. I just don’t want the government telling that person what he or she can say, or when they can say it. I believe that a woman should have the ultimate right to decide whether or not to have an abortion or bear a baby, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize that decision in individual instances.

In this particular case Ms. Simmons makes a peculiar argument. According to her Palin made the right choice by bringing a Down Syndrome child into the world because Palin decided that “her family unit could carry this lifelong responsibility”. Apparently that family unit included her 17 year old daughter, on whom the child was dumped three days after it was born, and who herself is now pregnant (perhaps, who knows, due to an act of rebellion at the approaching prospect of being saddled with caring for a special needs child not her own). I have always believed that it was the responsibility of the parents, not the “family unit” to raise a child. Put another way, it is the height of irresponsibility for Palin to decide, most likely without meaningful input from her children, to impose child rearing responsibilities on them. That would be the case even if the child were normal, but it is doubly the case for a child with special needs. With rights come responsibilities. Sarah Palin has exercised her rights, but has outsourced her responsibilities.

This tells me a lot about the kind of person she is, and I have a perfect right to draw conclusions, even if I am a male.

It’s an odd thing about Republicans. They are always more than ready to intrude into the lives of others (remember Terri Schiavo?) but when their own moral decisions are in question, suddenly discussion is off limits. Terri Schiavo and her husband were not running for anything, and their affairs really were private affairs. We are being asked to put Sarah Palin in line for the presidency, so she has made herself an issue. Since we apparently won’t be hearing much from her that’s unscripted, we can only draw conclusions from the data we have, including the choices she has made in an area in which she wishes to deny us choices.

A Distinction without a difference

In the legal biz we often distinguish between two sets of facts, in order to argue that the law should be applied in different ways to each. Oftentimes, while there may be a superficial dissimilarity between them, on a deeper level, there is none. The distinction is bogus, and we dismiss them as “distinctions without a difference”. Usually, but not always, the courts see through such arguments, and the lawyer who, often out of desperation, tries to use one ends up on the losing side.

Not so in politics, where distinctions without a difference are a trick of the trade, especially nowadays from the Republican side. Whether out of desperation or not, they are past masters at the art, and, so long as they can get away with it, they’ll keep it up. It is a subset of a tactic I described in another post-changing the subject from one they cannot defend to one in which the facts are murkier.

The latest example involves everyone’s favorite incompetent Republican candidate, Sarah Palin.

As we discussed earlier this morning, the McCain campaign has admitted that Sarah Palin attended the AIP’s 2000 Convention (as a “courtesy,” they maintain), but denies that she attended the group’s 1994 Convention.

You see, the second of these conventions was in Wasilla, when she was mayor, and how could the mayor of the town not put in appearance to say “Hi!” to the conventioneers? On the other hand, if she attended the 1994 convention, she did so as a private citizen, thus implying agreement with their goals. That’s a distinction. Even the diarist at Kos to whom I’ve linked appears to have fallen for the distinction somewhat. But is there really a difference?

The convention at issue involved a group of people who advocate breaking up the United States of America. Their founder had this to say about this country: “The fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.”. Now, maybe that sort of talk is business as usual in Alaska, but I doubt that feelings are the same in the lower 48. Even the oft traduced Reverend Wright never said anything that inflammatory. Attending the AIP convention, even to say “Hi”, implies a certain comfort level with the objectives of the organization. Would Palin, for instance, have stopped by had NARAL held a convention in Wasilla? Should the mayor of Anytown, USA say “Hi” to a KKK convention, rather than rolling up the welcome mat?

I would submit that the distinction is without a difference. I would further submit that her Republican voter registration records prove nothing, one way or the other, about her level of sympathy with the goals of the AIP. After all, Joe Lieberman is still a registered Democrat. But what the evidence actually proves is pretty much irrelevant nowadays. All that matters is what the media consensus says that evidence proves, and that jury is out. Unfortunately, based on past performance, it’s not likely that the decision will make sense in light of the evidence.