This column on the Personal Democracy Forum, attempts to explain the reason why Republicans are winning at using technology in campaigns. Perhaps the most insightful comment is that Democrats focused on the "game" aspects (like campaign bloggin), while Republicans focused on technology that allowed them to get people on the ground.
I have previously noted that technology is not a panacea for politics and never will be. Technology is a tool by which the traditional needs of politics can be accomplished at a lower cost or a faster speed, but technology does not obviate the need for adherence to basic political principles. In short if technology helps you mobilize voters or pursuade swing voters to your side, great. Otherwise it is a distraction.
Why Republicans are Winning at Tech Personal Democracy Forum
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Reform Campaign Finance Reform--A Critique of a Proposal
This post from Chuck Hanrahan over in the Third Party/ Independent column of Watchblog. (Disclosure: I am a contributing editor at Watchblog in the Conservative Column).
Chuck makes a great case for changing with way we think about campaign finance reform by dredging up the Supreme Court case of Schenk v. U.S. , 294 U.S. 47 (1919). Here is his analysis:
Granting Justice Holmes' premise that corruption is a function of degree and proximity, Chuck makes a strong argument for removing the issue of proximity from the problem. However, despite an insightful start dealing with issue of freedom of political speech, Chuck forgets that political matters also involved a freedom of association. When later positing suggestions for Congressional action, Chuck comes up with these proposals:
The problem with proposal 1 is that while a limit on contributions given by an individual or organization have been upheld under Buckley and McConnell, limits on receipts by candidates have not. Candidates and their supporters have a constitutional right to associate as they see fit. Similar arguments can be made against proposition 2.
Political freedom is not only the freedom of speech but also the freedom to associate with like-minded individuals. The entire premise behind candidate campaign finance committees is the expression of support for a like-minded individual (the candidate) being expressed through the medium of money. While it may be argued that there is too much money in the system, I think the real problem is the distribution of money within the system that is a bigger problem.
Proposal 3 exhibits a lack of understanding of how political contributions actually work. Like most people, Chuck seems to believe that political contributions influence votes made by that politician. In fact, the opposite is true. The votes made by a politician influence the funds they receive. There is a good reason why incumbents raise more money than challenger canddiates, they have a record of votes by which interest groups and individuals can assess their stances. If an incumbent exhibits a streak of labor friendliness, they are likely to receive contributions from labor organziations and not much from business organizations.
Thus if funds are based on past political behavior, bribery cannot occur since bribery by its very nature if forward looking. Additionally, there is little way in which a political contributor with only $100 to give has any hope of actually holding a politician accountable for the outcome being sought by the contributor. Finally, on a technical note, the disclosure of a "bribe" is not bribery but more akin to extortion or blackmail.
Finally, proposals 4 through 7 contemplate a massively expanded role for the FEC in campaigns. For a person who exalts individual freedom (see Chuck's website) this proposal seems decidedly counterintuitive. To start, the FEC regulates the campaign activity of Congress, a body with a decided interest in keeping the FEC as weak as possible--thus the composition of the Commission with a partisan tie (3 Dems and 3 Reps). Similarly, the powers of the FEC are generally limited in that they have only the power to enforce the law in a civil context, criminal charges are brought by the Justice Department.
On another note, one could argue that the FEC has difficulty performing the mission currently assigned to it. Expanding their role would complicate matters and require a much bigger staff they they currently have. I don't think expanding the federal bureaucracy in this arena is such a good idea.
Finally, I don't want the federal government responsible for distributing money I give to candidates. There is simply too much room for error in this regard. On a related matter, if a candidate must rely on teh FEC to get their money, what happens if there are problems?
While Chuck makes a good case for changing how we think about campaign finance regulation, his proposal fails to address real constitutional hurdles to political freedom.
Note: Check out the comments to Chuck's post--some good ideas being thrown around, if they are based solely on Chuck's flawed plan.
Chuck makes a great case for changing with way we think about campaign finance reform by dredging up the Supreme Court case of Schenk v. U.S. , 294 U.S. 47 (1919). Here is his analysis:
This standard permits a prior restraint against free speech, such as political contributions, when they exhibit a "clear and present danger" to bring about "substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent". Bribery and improper influence clearly meet this standard. As Justice Holmes observed crucially, however,
"It is always a case of proximity and degree."
Thus, when the proximity of the private donor to the public candidate is high and the degree of the donation is large, corrupting influence is likely to ensue: political favors will be bought and sold. When either the proximity or the degree is reduced so that improper influence is eliminated, political donations become a benign form of free speech.
Campaign finance reformers have focused their efforts upon reducing the degree of political contributions by limiting their size. Rather than restricting improper political influence by limiting the degree of the donation, Congress must reduce the proximity of the donor to the recipient instead. By doing so the size of political contributions may be increased significantly without incurring the de facto bribery of corrupting influence. (emphasis in original)
Granting Justice Holmes' premise that corruption is a function of degree and proximity, Chuck makes a strong argument for removing the issue of proximity from the problem. However, despite an insightful start dealing with issue of freedom of political speech, Chuck forgets that political matters also involved a freedom of association. When later positing suggestions for Congressional action, Chuck comes up with these proposals:
1) A maximum amount of $100,000 per election cycle, either given or received, must be established regardless of the public or private nature of either the recipient or the donor.
2) Candidates for federal office and advocacy organizations must be prohibited from soliciting or accepting contributions of any kind directly or indirectly with a value in excess of $100 from any individual or organization within any thirty-day period.
3) Offering, accepting, soliciting or disclosing political contributions in excess of $100 per month must constitute the felony of bribery, pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code.
4) Individuals and organizations that wish to contribute between $101 and $100,000 to any candidate for federal office or any political advocacy organization must do so through an independent third party, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which shall guarantee their anonymity.
5) Donors must be permitted to direct the FEC to disburse their contributions to the specific individuals or organizations of their choice, and the FEC must deposit these donations into a general advocacy account that distributes these assets weekly.
6) The FEC must create and maintain a comprehensive database of donors and recipients, thereby ensuring that the $100,000 maximum limit for political contributions is not exceeded.
7) As the legal advocate for the electorate at large, the FEC must be prevented from releasing any information about the identity of a donor or a recipient or the amount donated for at least twenty years after the death of the individual or dissolution of the organizational recipients or donors. Notwithstanding a specific warrant from a court of appropriate jurisdiction, violating the public's right of attorney/client privilege must constitute a felony commensurate with the disclosure of information that has been classified as secret for national security purposes. (emphasis in original)
The problem with proposal 1 is that while a limit on contributions given by an individual or organization have been upheld under Buckley and McConnell, limits on receipts by candidates have not. Candidates and their supporters have a constitutional right to associate as they see fit. Similar arguments can be made against proposition 2.
Political freedom is not only the freedom of speech but also the freedom to associate with like-minded individuals. The entire premise behind candidate campaign finance committees is the expression of support for a like-minded individual (the candidate) being expressed through the medium of money. While it may be argued that there is too much money in the system, I think the real problem is the distribution of money within the system that is a bigger problem.
Proposal 3 exhibits a lack of understanding of how political contributions actually work. Like most people, Chuck seems to believe that political contributions influence votes made by that politician. In fact, the opposite is true. The votes made by a politician influence the funds they receive. There is a good reason why incumbents raise more money than challenger canddiates, they have a record of votes by which interest groups and individuals can assess their stances. If an incumbent exhibits a streak of labor friendliness, they are likely to receive contributions from labor organziations and not much from business organizations.
Thus if funds are based on past political behavior, bribery cannot occur since bribery by its very nature if forward looking. Additionally, there is little way in which a political contributor with only $100 to give has any hope of actually holding a politician accountable for the outcome being sought by the contributor. Finally, on a technical note, the disclosure of a "bribe" is not bribery but more akin to extortion or blackmail.
Finally, proposals 4 through 7 contemplate a massively expanded role for the FEC in campaigns. For a person who exalts individual freedom (see Chuck's website) this proposal seems decidedly counterintuitive. To start, the FEC regulates the campaign activity of Congress, a body with a decided interest in keeping the FEC as weak as possible--thus the composition of the Commission with a partisan tie (3 Dems and 3 Reps). Similarly, the powers of the FEC are generally limited in that they have only the power to enforce the law in a civil context, criminal charges are brought by the Justice Department.
On another note, one could argue that the FEC has difficulty performing the mission currently assigned to it. Expanding their role would complicate matters and require a much bigger staff they they currently have. I don't think expanding the federal bureaucracy in this arena is such a good idea.
Finally, I don't want the federal government responsible for distributing money I give to candidates. There is simply too much room for error in this regard. On a related matter, if a candidate must rely on teh FEC to get their money, what happens if there are problems?
While Chuck makes a good case for changing how we think about campaign finance regulation, his proposal fails to address real constitutional hurdles to political freedom.
Note: Check out the comments to Chuck's post--some good ideas being thrown around, if they are based solely on Chuck's flawed plan.
Making Teachers Professionals
Jenny D. posited a great thought experiment calling for Solutions for Fixing Education. In her comments, Jenny notes
Jenny implicitly points out a basic assumption made by most people without realizing it. Teaching is a profession but not profession on par in society's mind with other professions such as attorneys or physicians despite their relative importance to society. The latter two professions have a recognized, rigorous course of instruction coupled with fairly stringent licensing requirements. True, teaching requires certification or licensing, ongoing professional development and shares many other attributes with other professions, but there is a clear difference--there is no rigorous course of instruction like law school or medical school.
Law school, contrary to popular belief, is not really about learning the law, but rather learning about how the law works. Thus, law students spend a majority of their time and effort learning the basic principles of the law, how the law is made, works and is applied in society. Medical school is much the same way. Unless I am mistaken, there is not the same type of emphasis in education schools. True, there are classes on pedagogy, classroom management, subject matter expertise, testing and other aspects of teaching, but education school does not carry the same general systematic approach to the methodology of teaching.
To be admitted to law school or medical school, one must have a bachelor's degree. Then, only after completing law or medical school may a person apply to become a lawyer or a doctor. They must sit for a rigorous set of multi-day examinations to ensure minimum competency. Educators may enter the classroom with a bachelor's degree and a promise or contractual provision to obtain a master's degree. However, there is no professional requirement to obtain an advanced degree in teaching. There is no requirement to sit for a rigorous series of multi-day exams to become a licensed teacher. There is not systematic, relatively standardized method of training teachers to TEACH in the same manner in which we educate future lawyers or doctors.
Teaching should be treated as a profession, but in order for society to hold teachers in the same esteem as other professions, the practice of teaching needs to be taught and the only way to do that is as Jenny has pointed out. We need to reduce the practice of teaching to is core principals, require everyone who wants to be a teacher to learn those principles and demonstrate a minimum competency in those principles--before stepping into a classroom.
The practice of law and medicine used to not be a state regulated profession. However, over time the good of society was served by a regulated profession staffed by people trained in a similar, somewhat standardized fashion so that the faith placed in that profession by society was well placed.
Teachers are entrusted with a duty far more fundamental than the law, yet we require more traning of future attorneys (which we turn out in the hundreds of thousands a year) than we do of teachers.
(BTW--if teachers has this same level of professional training in teaching, they could and should demand more salary--after all they trained for it.)
There is a much greater problem, and one that won't solve itself. We don't know much about teaching. Some teachers do because they've figured it out after years of practice. But most teachers don't know for certain how to teach. And it's not their fault. We in the ed business have not done enough work to learn about teaching, and determine what works, in what order, and what might work best. Yes it might be the same for 80 percent of the kids, and the other 20 percent might need much more tailored instruction.
Jenny implicitly points out a basic assumption made by most people without realizing it. Teaching is a profession but not profession on par in society's mind with other professions such as attorneys or physicians despite their relative importance to society. The latter two professions have a recognized, rigorous course of instruction coupled with fairly stringent licensing requirements. True, teaching requires certification or licensing, ongoing professional development and shares many other attributes with other professions, but there is a clear difference--there is no rigorous course of instruction like law school or medical school.
Law school, contrary to popular belief, is not really about learning the law, but rather learning about how the law works. Thus, law students spend a majority of their time and effort learning the basic principles of the law, how the law is made, works and is applied in society. Medical school is much the same way. Unless I am mistaken, there is not the same type of emphasis in education schools. True, there are classes on pedagogy, classroom management, subject matter expertise, testing and other aspects of teaching, but education school does not carry the same general systematic approach to the methodology of teaching.
To be admitted to law school or medical school, one must have a bachelor's degree. Then, only after completing law or medical school may a person apply to become a lawyer or a doctor. They must sit for a rigorous set of multi-day examinations to ensure minimum competency. Educators may enter the classroom with a bachelor's degree and a promise or contractual provision to obtain a master's degree. However, there is no professional requirement to obtain an advanced degree in teaching. There is no requirement to sit for a rigorous series of multi-day exams to become a licensed teacher. There is not systematic, relatively standardized method of training teachers to TEACH in the same manner in which we educate future lawyers or doctors.
Teaching should be treated as a profession, but in order for society to hold teachers in the same esteem as other professions, the practice of teaching needs to be taught and the only way to do that is as Jenny has pointed out. We need to reduce the practice of teaching to is core principals, require everyone who wants to be a teacher to learn those principles and demonstrate a minimum competency in those principles--before stepping into a classroom.
The practice of law and medicine used to not be a state regulated profession. However, over time the good of society was served by a regulated profession staffed by people trained in a similar, somewhat standardized fashion so that the faith placed in that profession by society was well placed.
Teachers are entrusted with a duty far more fundamental than the law, yet we require more traning of future attorneys (which we turn out in the hundreds of thousands a year) than we do of teachers.
(BTW--if teachers has this same level of professional training in teaching, they could and should demand more salary--after all they trained for it.)
Monday, August 01, 2005
Chris Dodd--Rewriting the Constitution
With a young daughter demanding attention on Sunday's I generally don't get to watch the Sunday news shows. But I generally try to catch replays on CSPAN or read the transcripts. Fox News Sunday had some interesting Constitutiuonal revision going on in a exchange with Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) from which we get this little gem:
Now I generally don't expect Senators to be intimately aware of all the ins and outs of constitutional law interpretations and such. However, I do expect them to know what is actually IN the Constitution and know the LANGUAGE used.
I have read the Constitution cover to cover on many occaisions and I still can't find a privacy clause. The Framers must be rolling over in their graves!!!
I might even forgive a freshman senator of this gaff, but Dodd has been in the Senate for 30 years. I would expect him to have read the Constitution a few times.
On another issue, why should we decry the lack of civics and government education in our kids if our Senators apparently need some as well.
The open-ended question for us clearly is what are his views about some of the basic values, the equal protection clause, the privacy clause of the Constitution.
Now I generally don't expect Senators to be intimately aware of all the ins and outs of constitutional law interpretations and such. However, I do expect them to know what is actually IN the Constitution and know the LANGUAGE used.
I have read the Constitution cover to cover on many occaisions and I still can't find a privacy clause. The Framers must be rolling over in their graves!!!
I might even forgive a freshman senator of this gaff, but Dodd has been in the Senate for 30 years. I would expect him to have read the Constitution a few times.
On another issue, why should we decry the lack of civics and government education in our kids if our Senators apparently need some as well.
The $8.78 Million Maneuver - New York Times
Hat Tip to the Volokh Conspiracy for this one.
The $8.78 Million Maneuver - New York Times
As a law student, there were years when I thought I personally used $75,000 in Lexis/Nexix and Westlaw services. I still do quick searches in Lexis or Westlaw, but I am still the kind of guy who likes to have the case book in my hands. Silly, given the vast technological advantages to Lexis services, but I like it. Although researching from scratch in the stacks truly sucks, at least compared to my peers, being comfortable in the books gives me an advantage in practices where extensive online research is seen as a waste of funds by paying clients.
The $8.78 Million Maneuver - New York Times
As a law student, there were years when I thought I personally used $75,000 in Lexis/Nexix and Westlaw services. I still do quick searches in Lexis or Westlaw, but I am still the kind of guy who likes to have the case book in my hands. Silly, given the vast technological advantages to Lexis services, but I like it. Although researching from scratch in the stacks truly sucks, at least compared to my peers, being comfortable in the books gives me an advantage in practices where extensive online research is seen as a waste of funds by paying clients.
Ribbon Stickers Have to Go!!!
Warning: High Rant Content Ahead!!!
I have had it with the little ribbon stickers people put on their cars to remind the drivers behind them about some cause. On a recently sited mini-van (and why is it always a mini-van or SUV--don't people in beat up cars like mine have causes?) I saw no fewer than six different colored stickers. In addition to the now standard pink for breast cancer, yellow for the troops and red for aids. I say a black one for POW-MIA, a black and white polka dots or paw prints for some animal rescue organization and a blue one for some cause that I couldn't read since the blue was so dark that the black printing was difficult to read. (not very sound PR efforts if a person sitting 10 feet away can't read it.)
Now before people go chopping my head off, I would like to make clear, I am not attacking the cause itself, merely the means by which the cause is publicized.
It seems to me that this plethora of ribbon showing demonstrates the lack of creativity among the public relations professionals working for non-profit causes. The colored ribbon has become the equivalent of a shorthand for support. The problem is the wide range of colors detracts from the ability of a viewer to understand what the person sporting the ribbon supports. How am I supposed to understand or empathize with your cause symbolized by a ribbon I don't recongnize?
In the absence of a cheat sheet issued to all drivers of the color-coded ribbon stickers, I see a total ban on all stickers that do not conform to the following list. If your cause is not listed here, then come up with a different means of publicizing your cause. Get a little creative talent in a room and come up with something that has nothing to do with a ribbon. The same goes for all the copycat LIVESTRONG yellow bands distributed by the Lance Armstrong foundation. They came up with that idea and now no one else can copy it--period.
Red for AIDS Awareness--the granddaddy of ribbons gets an automatic pass. AIDS activists came up with the idea and like the LIVESTRONG bracelet, they are in.
Pink for Breast Cancer--although not the originator of hte concept, the breast cancer awareness ribbon gets in because they have been the best user of the ribbon idea. On a side note, it also looks better with most outfits as well.
Yellow for Supporting the Troops. Although this is a cop out, yellow ribbons have a long history associated with supporting troops and Americans overseas that denying the use of the ribbon would counteract that history. In the alternative, I will allow a red, white, and blue ribbon for the same purpose. Expressly not permitted is the use of camoflage colors--it just looks silly.
I am a big believer in free speech and will support just about anyone's right to make their case. However, a case is better made if it is made in a creative way. Stop being a copy cat, you are annoying the crap out of me!
Thus endeth the rant.
Ranting in the Traffic Jam
I have had it with the little ribbon stickers people put on their cars to remind the drivers behind them about some cause. On a recently sited mini-van (and why is it always a mini-van or SUV--don't people in beat up cars like mine have causes?) I saw no fewer than six different colored stickers. In addition to the now standard pink for breast cancer, yellow for the troops and red for aids. I say a black one for POW-MIA, a black and white polka dots or paw prints for some animal rescue organization and a blue one for some cause that I couldn't read since the blue was so dark that the black printing was difficult to read. (not very sound PR efforts if a person sitting 10 feet away can't read it.)
Now before people go chopping my head off, I would like to make clear, I am not attacking the cause itself, merely the means by which the cause is publicized.
It seems to me that this plethora of ribbon showing demonstrates the lack of creativity among the public relations professionals working for non-profit causes. The colored ribbon has become the equivalent of a shorthand for support. The problem is the wide range of colors detracts from the ability of a viewer to understand what the person sporting the ribbon supports. How am I supposed to understand or empathize with your cause symbolized by a ribbon I don't recongnize?
In the absence of a cheat sheet issued to all drivers of the color-coded ribbon stickers, I see a total ban on all stickers that do not conform to the following list. If your cause is not listed here, then come up with a different means of publicizing your cause. Get a little creative talent in a room and come up with something that has nothing to do with a ribbon. The same goes for all the copycat LIVESTRONG yellow bands distributed by the Lance Armstrong foundation. They came up with that idea and now no one else can copy it--period.
Red for AIDS Awareness--the granddaddy of ribbons gets an automatic pass. AIDS activists came up with the idea and like the LIVESTRONG bracelet, they are in.
Pink for Breast Cancer--although not the originator of hte concept, the breast cancer awareness ribbon gets in because they have been the best user of the ribbon idea. On a side note, it also looks better with most outfits as well.
Yellow for Supporting the Troops. Although this is a cop out, yellow ribbons have a long history associated with supporting troops and Americans overseas that denying the use of the ribbon would counteract that history. In the alternative, I will allow a red, white, and blue ribbon for the same purpose. Expressly not permitted is the use of camoflage colors--it just looks silly.
I am a big believer in free speech and will support just about anyone's right to make their case. However, a case is better made if it is made in a creative way. Stop being a copy cat, you are annoying the crap out of me!
Thus endeth the rant.
Ranting in the Traffic Jam
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Crawling Out of the Cave
I just finished my bar exam exactly 35 minutes ago!!!
I am looking forward to returning to regular blogging, just as soon as I catch up on what has been happening in the world.
Good to be back.
I am looking forward to returning to regular blogging, just as soon as I catch up on what has been happening in the world.
Good to be back.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Bar Exam Hell
I will not be blogging much over the next two weeks or so as the bar exam approaches. For all the blawgers out there who have experienced this delicious little torture, wish me luck. For everyone else, I could use your good wishes as well.
Just so long as I am not in the minority who fails, all will be well in the world on July 28.
Just so long as I am not in the minority who fails, all will be well in the world on July 28.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Radio Commentary a Political Donation
A case in Washington state is on the receiving end of a blogging blitz. In the ruling, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that two on-air radio personalities had made in-kind contributions to an anti-gas tax initiative because their vocal opposition to a gas-tax taking effect. The ruling is stunning because of hte potentially chilling effect not only on talk radio but also on editorial pages across the country. The news story notes that an appeal is likely, I would think that an appeal is certain.
The story is well covered among blogs. See Michelle Malkin, Skeptic's Eye, Bob Bauer. There are others I am sure. My interest is different from these writers, namely the justification for the ruling. In particular, Bob Bauer points to the regulatory abandonment by the Federal Communications Commission as a cause for this ruling, at least that is one cause.
But The ruling by Judge Wickham raises another question. Over the course of campaign finance jurisprudence, the only acceptable compelling governmental interest that serves to support campaign finance regulation has been the "corrpution or appearance of corruption" standard. There have been some collateral cases with other justifications, but usually the corruption has been the underlying reasoning.
One of the reasons for concern among campaign finance reformers about blogs is the potential for inherent anonymity possible. One of the juditifications behind the media exemption is that consumers of media have the ability to discriminate for themselves the motivations behind any editorial comment. The situation with the Washington radio case is closer to the latter than the former. The political views of the hosts are clearly known and one presumes, people have the right to change the channel. Some commentators have rightly pointed out that the comments by these radio hosts are not unlike a newspaper endorsement in the editorial page.
But by making the ruling, Judge Wickham seems to indicate that there should be a new standard for campaign finance regulation, but since I can't find the ruling I don't know what it is. I fail to see how the radio hosts have corrupted the initiative process or even have the potential to corrupt the process. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the FEC and state campaign finance agencies can regulate the political activity of anonymous bloggers under the standard of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, how then do named media sources and commentators fit into the rhubric of regulated entities?
There are times when Justice Thomas can be amazingly prescient. In his dissent in McConnell v. FEC, he wrote, that campaign-finance law was leading toward "outright regulation of the press." Judge Wickham has made just that step in a frighteningly Orwellian manner.
Stuck in a Beltway Traffic Jam
The story is well covered among blogs. See Michelle Malkin, Skeptic's Eye, Bob Bauer. There are others I am sure. My interest is different from these writers, namely the justification for the ruling. In particular, Bob Bauer points to the regulatory abandonment by the Federal Communications Commission as a cause for this ruling, at least that is one cause.
But The ruling by Judge Wickham raises another question. Over the course of campaign finance jurisprudence, the only acceptable compelling governmental interest that serves to support campaign finance regulation has been the "corrpution or appearance of corruption" standard. There have been some collateral cases with other justifications, but usually the corruption has been the underlying reasoning.
One of the reasons for concern among campaign finance reformers about blogs is the potential for inherent anonymity possible. One of the juditifications behind the media exemption is that consumers of media have the ability to discriminate for themselves the motivations behind any editorial comment. The situation with the Washington radio case is closer to the latter than the former. The political views of the hosts are clearly known and one presumes, people have the right to change the channel. Some commentators have rightly pointed out that the comments by these radio hosts are not unlike a newspaper endorsement in the editorial page.
But by making the ruling, Judge Wickham seems to indicate that there should be a new standard for campaign finance regulation, but since I can't find the ruling I don't know what it is. I fail to see how the radio hosts have corrupted the initiative process or even have the potential to corrupt the process. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the FEC and state campaign finance agencies can regulate the political activity of anonymous bloggers under the standard of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, how then do named media sources and commentators fit into the rhubric of regulated entities?
There are times when Justice Thomas can be amazingly prescient. In his dissent in McConnell v. FEC, he wrote, that campaign-finance law was leading toward "outright regulation of the press." Judge Wickham has made just that step in a frighteningly Orwellian manner.
Stuck in a Beltway Traffic Jam
What Makes a School Principal
The Washington Post is reporting today on a program by which the DC school system fills principal vacancies by hiring form a program called New Leaders for New Schools. The story does a good job presenting both sides of the argument. Essentially what the program provides is a one year training program designed to equip graduates with skills necessary for effective principals. From their website: (emphsis added)
Truly successful principals understand that when a child fails in school, the root cause of the problem is not the child, but rather the adults in that child's life. If it takes a principal to make regular housecalls to parents to get them to understand what is at stake, then that is what a great principal does.
The selection criteria covers a broad range of skills, including management, teaching, team building, communications, and committment to education of students AND themselves. Although teaching certification is not required, it is highly recommended and they require actual classroom experience to qualify for the program. The program appears to be highly professionalized, with a residency requirement (not unlike residency for doctors) where the gradtuate is paired with an experience principal and commits to serving a minimum of three years in the district that hires them upon completion.
The program focuses on leadership skills in the area of instructional, operational and tranformational leadership, practical skills and reflective exercises. What is interesting about the program is the emphasis placed on transfromational leadership. With the need to change the way things are done in a school that has consistently failed in its mission requires a unique set of leadership qualities not found in most leadership courses.
Of course, as one would expect in Washington, DC, there are those who oppose the idea of actually training principals.
I am of the mind set that qualified principals are not simply a product of time in service. You shouldn't get a promotion merely because you have been there the longest. Anytime a bold step is taken to increase the accountibility of principals or to look for new ideas, there is a group that will always throw up roadblocks. But these principals are trained to look for ways around it.
Community leaders also have gotten a little upset.
Of course, the principal Rev. Motley speaks of is the third principal in three years at one of the largest high schools in DC. Apparently the previous two, products of the old system, did not make any impact. Why then is there a fear of trying something new? Perhaps radical change is best in some situtations.
Whether the principals trained through the New Leaders New Schools program are better than principals trained through traditional programs remains to be seen. But anytime a challenge is made to seniority rights system of promotion, I think we are in a better place. The traditional method of principal training often involves taking senior teachers, perhaps those who are truly excellent at teaching and move them into administration. However, being a great teacher does not make a great principal. Many teaching colleges and education programs do not cover leadership skills, budgeting or other management skills necessary for successful principals.
In a city that is rife with traditional mindset thinking about education, the fact that something new is being tried is a blessing in itself.
Mission:New Leaders fosters high academic achievement for every child by attracting, preparing, and supporting the next generation of outstanding leaders for our nation's urban public schools.
Core Beliefs:
1. Every child can achieve the highest levels of academic excellence. At New Leaders for New Schools, we mean every child in every circumstance.
2. Adults are responsible for ensuring that all children excel academically. We as adults can and must do more to unlock the potential of each and every student.
3. Delivering high quality public education to all children is critical to a just society that affords every child the full range of opportunities in life.
4. Great schools are led by great principals. These principals coach and inspire teachers to reach and teach every child and collaborate with their parents, families, and communities to make schools work.
5. With access to outstanding public schools, all children will develop the competence, critical thinking, social and civil skills to reach their highest potential in the classroom and in life.
Truly successful principals understand that when a child fails in school, the root cause of the problem is not the child, but rather the adults in that child's life. If it takes a principal to make regular housecalls to parents to get them to understand what is at stake, then that is what a great principal does.
The selection criteria covers a broad range of skills, including management, teaching, team building, communications, and committment to education of students AND themselves. Although teaching certification is not required, it is highly recommended and they require actual classroom experience to qualify for the program. The program appears to be highly professionalized, with a residency requirement (not unlike residency for doctors) where the gradtuate is paired with an experience principal and commits to serving a minimum of three years in the district that hires them upon completion.
The program focuses on leadership skills in the area of instructional, operational and tranformational leadership, practical skills and reflective exercises. What is interesting about the program is the emphasis placed on transfromational leadership. With the need to change the way things are done in a school that has consistently failed in its mission requires a unique set of leadership qualities not found in most leadership courses.
Of course, as one would expect in Washington, DC, there are those who oppose the idea of actually training principals.
The New Leaders program is not without critics. Announcements of the hirings have sparked some debates on who best qualifies as a principal -- the candidate with the most experience in the system or the one with the most determination to shake up the system.
Those especially disparaging of the recruiting effort are veteran school administrators, some of whom refer to those in the program as "microwave" leaders because they are groomed for their new posts so quickly.
Bernard C. Lucas Sr., president of the Council of School Officers, which represents D.C. public school principals, said he recently filed a grievance against the school system, alleging that several assistant principals were discouraged from applying for principals' jobs. Given that the assistant principals were qualified, according to the grievance, the school system's action was "capricious and age discriminatory."
I am of the mind set that qualified principals are not simply a product of time in service. You shouldn't get a promotion merely because you have been there the longest. Anytime a bold step is taken to increase the accountibility of principals or to look for new ideas, there is a group that will always throw up roadblocks. But these principals are trained to look for ways around it.
Community leaders also have gotten a little upset.
"Just because a person goes through this [program] doesn't mean they are qualified to lead a school at this point in their career," said the Rev. Anthony J. Motley, president of a nonprofit education program in Southeast. "What are we doing to our students when we select people without a proven track record?"
Of course, the principal Rev. Motley speaks of is the third principal in three years at one of the largest high schools in DC. Apparently the previous two, products of the old system, did not make any impact. Why then is there a fear of trying something new? Perhaps radical change is best in some situtations.
Whether the principals trained through the New Leaders New Schools program are better than principals trained through traditional programs remains to be seen. But anytime a challenge is made to seniority rights system of promotion, I think we are in a better place. The traditional method of principal training often involves taking senior teachers, perhaps those who are truly excellent at teaching and move them into administration. However, being a great teacher does not make a great principal. Many teaching colleges and education programs do not cover leadership skills, budgeting or other management skills necessary for successful principals.
In a city that is rife with traditional mindset thinking about education, the fact that something new is being tried is a blessing in itself.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
DC Area Schools Struggling to Find Teachers
The Washington Post takes a none-too-subtle jab at NCLB today by saying that the annual scramble to find teachers for local schools system lies more at the feet of the law, rather than the simple over-arching need to find highly qualified teachers.
This statistical fact therefore, begs the question. If next year all core curriculum classess must be taught by "highly qualified" teachers, what will happen next year?
A little-noticed provision of the federal No Child Left Behind law is raising the stakes this recruiting season for school officials seeking credentialed teachers. By the end of the coming school year, the law requires "highly qualified" teachers in all core academic classes.Highly qualified teachers is of course always a difficult search because, as with any profession in demand, there is a finite number of such individuals. However, at least in my recollection, this is the fifth or sixth year the last minute search for teachers has occurred in the DC area. In other words, the story is not new. Sure, perhaps the NCLB provision adds a new spin, but in this field, the number of persons highly qualified will always be less than the positions needing to be filled.
This statistical fact therefore, begs the question. If next year all core curriculum classess must be taught by "highly qualified" teachers, what will happen next year?
The Iron Triangle of Public Schools
Charter schools, voucher programs and other school choice options routinely receive criticism for their “abandonment” of public schools in favor of some alternative model of “consumer driven” education (with consumer driven always said with a sneer). Of course this is true, but the current crop of school leaders and Democrats need a lesson in market research from which they will learn how to improve the public school system.
In the American economy, we are flooded with options for consumer products and services. One can go to any grocery store and see ten different mustards, dozens of flavors of ice cream from ten different manufacturers. We have options for cellular phone service, internet service and a vast array of professional services. Yet when people think of education, they have historically had but one choice—public education. Why?
The answer lies in the iron triangle of tradition, apathy, and fear. The iron triangle plagues public schools and causes reactionary fear leading to a paralysis of thinking, the thought that if we just throw more money at the problem, or reduce class sizes or do something else, we can save public schools. But the thinking never leaves the triangle, never steps outside to determine if the movement toward school choices can provide a guide for making public schools better.
In corporate America, when a company is faced with competition so sharp as to endanger the company’s market share, one of two events occur. Either the company hunkers down and accepts their tiny and dwindling market share, or the company looks long at hard at itself, retools, re-brands and re-emerges as a stronger, more viable company than before. In order for the second course of action to occur, senior management must look inward and accept a simple fact—they don’t know it all and they must change their thinking or they will all fail.
The iron triangles first leg, tradition is easy to see. We have always provided education to most children via a top-down model of public education. But why? In a society as consumer driven as ours, why have we failed to account for the consumer in education, the child and their parents. The reason is tradition—the state has always assumed it knew better than parents. My fraternity, Phi Sigma Pi, has a saying, “Merely because a practice is prevalent, may be the poorest reason for continuing it.” Tradition has to make way for consumer driven policies, something schools, by tradition, have ignored.
Apathy takes a little more digging to find. True, many educators truly believe, deep in their hearts and souls that they are doing right by the kids. Some are, but many aren’t and the troubling factor remains, too many don’t care enough to change their mind set. Make no mistake, change can be frightening, but the mere thought of change has paralyzed too many education policy makers that they simply don’t care.
Finally, fear, above everything else, drives the current resistance to school choice programs. The fear that another model of education, one that is consumer driven, with choices suitable for all children and their parents scares the daylights out of educators, who are used to near monopolistic control.
But by working beyond the tradition, apathy and fear, modern education administrators may find out why school choice programs are growing in popularity. By examining why parents clamor for choice schools can take a good long look at what about their business model needs to be re-tooled and re-branded. By stepping outside the triangle, public schools can be made better and then compete on the same level as the options they fear—even reasserting their market dominance. After all, if you have satisfied customers, they keep coming back.
Cross-posted at WatchBlog
In the American economy, we are flooded with options for consumer products and services. One can go to any grocery store and see ten different mustards, dozens of flavors of ice cream from ten different manufacturers. We have options for cellular phone service, internet service and a vast array of professional services. Yet when people think of education, they have historically had but one choice—public education. Why?
The answer lies in the iron triangle of tradition, apathy, and fear. The iron triangle plagues public schools and causes reactionary fear leading to a paralysis of thinking, the thought that if we just throw more money at the problem, or reduce class sizes or do something else, we can save public schools. But the thinking never leaves the triangle, never steps outside to determine if the movement toward school choices can provide a guide for making public schools better.
In corporate America, when a company is faced with competition so sharp as to endanger the company’s market share, one of two events occur. Either the company hunkers down and accepts their tiny and dwindling market share, or the company looks long at hard at itself, retools, re-brands and re-emerges as a stronger, more viable company than before. In order for the second course of action to occur, senior management must look inward and accept a simple fact—they don’t know it all and they must change their thinking or they will all fail.
The iron triangles first leg, tradition is easy to see. We have always provided education to most children via a top-down model of public education. But why? In a society as consumer driven as ours, why have we failed to account for the consumer in education, the child and their parents. The reason is tradition—the state has always assumed it knew better than parents. My fraternity, Phi Sigma Pi, has a saying, “Merely because a practice is prevalent, may be the poorest reason for continuing it.” Tradition has to make way for consumer driven policies, something schools, by tradition, have ignored.
Apathy takes a little more digging to find. True, many educators truly believe, deep in their hearts and souls that they are doing right by the kids. Some are, but many aren’t and the troubling factor remains, too many don’t care enough to change their mind set. Make no mistake, change can be frightening, but the mere thought of change has paralyzed too many education policy makers that they simply don’t care.
Finally, fear, above everything else, drives the current resistance to school choice programs. The fear that another model of education, one that is consumer driven, with choices suitable for all children and their parents scares the daylights out of educators, who are used to near monopolistic control.
But by working beyond the tradition, apathy and fear, modern education administrators may find out why school choice programs are growing in popularity. By examining why parents clamor for choice schools can take a good long look at what about their business model needs to be re-tooled and re-branded. By stepping outside the triangle, public schools can be made better and then compete on the same level as the options they fear—even reasserting their market dominance. After all, if you have satisfied customers, they keep coming back.
Cross-posted at WatchBlog
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Al Queda Desparate?
In a number of instances, I have argued that if take an action that implicitly admits defeat, you have indeed lost a key battle. With the killing of an Egyption diplomat to Iraq, Al Queda has implicitly admitted defeat in teh battle to prevent the creation of a democratic Iraq.
Al Queda alledgedly killed Egyptian ambassador Ehad Sherif for serving as an ambassador to Iraq. In the video statement, the killers said Sherif was being killed for being "the ambassador of the apostates, the ambassador of Egypt." Such a statement implies that Al Queda recognizes the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of Iraq. The Iraqi people should take a perverse pride in that recognition, because it does two things. One it grants them legitimacy in teh eyes of their enemy, legitimacy they did not have under Saddam Hussein.
Second, it automatically confers onto Al Queda the status of criminals. No longer are they freedom fighters or even jihadists, but common criminals and murderers in the eyes of Iraqi law.
This is a great statement as well: (emphsis added).
In Cairo, the Egyptian government issued a statement expressing "deepest sorrow for the loss of one its finest sons and a martyr of her diplomatic service . . . who lost his life at the hand of terrorism that trades in the name of Islam but which knows no nation nor faith." Sherif's killing would "not thwart Egypt from its unwavering policy of supporting Iraq and its people," the statement said.
I hope that other Muslim nations will start to denounce the efforts of Al Queda in a similar fashion. Now that the hostility of Al Queda extends to Muslim and Arabs, not just Jews and Christians, how long do they think they can sustain their efforts? I wonder what will happen to world opinion now?
Al Queda alledgedly killed Egyptian ambassador Ehad Sherif for serving as an ambassador to Iraq. In the video statement, the killers said Sherif was being killed for being "the ambassador of the apostates, the ambassador of Egypt." Such a statement implies that Al Queda recognizes the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of Iraq. The Iraqi people should take a perverse pride in that recognition, because it does two things. One it grants them legitimacy in teh eyes of their enemy, legitimacy they did not have under Saddam Hussein.
Second, it automatically confers onto Al Queda the status of criminals. No longer are they freedom fighters or even jihadists, but common criminals and murderers in the eyes of Iraqi law.
This is a great statement as well: (emphsis added).
In Cairo, the Egyptian government issued a statement expressing "deepest sorrow for the loss of one its finest sons and a martyr of her diplomatic service . . . who lost his life at the hand of terrorism that trades in the name of Islam but which knows no nation nor faith." Sherif's killing would "not thwart Egypt from its unwavering policy of supporting Iraq and its people," the statement said.
I hope that other Muslim nations will start to denounce the efforts of Al Queda in a similar fashion. Now that the hostility of Al Queda extends to Muslim and Arabs, not just Jews and Christians, how long do they think they can sustain their efforts? I wonder what will happen to world opinion now?
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
The Immigration Blog--Check it Out
Michelle Malkin has created an immigration blog that is in its early stages. Given the real problems we are facing in immigration policy, more people need to spend sometime discussing this issue.
Check out the site.
The Immigration Blog
Check out the site.
The Immigration Blog
A Little Overexaggerated Perhaps
While the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is important and certainly should be taken seriously, I don't think it rises to the level of "Holy War" as Newsweek proclaims.
The Holy War Begins - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com
The Holy War Begins - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
The Inconsequential Effects of Closing a School
In Miami, Superintendant Rudy Crew is proposing to close a couple of poor performing schools, including one school that has received four consecutive F's. The closure is meeting with some resistance among the school board and teh community, but one of the dumbest reasons to keep the school open is reported on in this story.
It seems that some people are concerned that the closure of the school would affect the school's athletic legacy. Of course, academic legacy is not an issue for football coach Corey Bell, who said, "It will be a big blow to the student-athletes that have worked so hard to establish themselves. Some of them are among the elite in the state of Florida and nationwide." Apparently, his student athletes, assuming they are a cross section of the school's population (a dangerous assumption but one that must be made), are not making the grade and the school is failing them.
Furthermore, an Edison closure could affect athletes' chances of securing college scholarships, both for the Edison players and players pushed aside by the potential transfers.
''Not only is it unfair to my kids, but what about the kids from those rival schools?'' Bell said. ``Those kids have worked hard in their program. Now all of a sudden, you're taking my kid and take him over there. Now they're in a whole new role. It's unfair to both parties. . . . It could cause a lot of chaos.''
The problem with Bell's contention is that his athletes are so superior that colleges will overlook their poor academic preparation--which is of course what will happen. Of course, I find it difficult to believe that a player of any sport at a different school being considered for an athletic scholarship would suddenly not be in the running simply because another player came into the picture. Perhaps Coach Bell should spend his time worrying more about the education his student-athletes are receiving. He is quite clearly a role model for his players and the community, he should be screaming at the top of his lungs to change the way education is being delivered. But, I suspect, Mr. Bell has aspirations beyond Miami Edison and closing his program which has been successful might provide a convenient excuse to look elsewhere.
I know that a school's athletic prowess is a strong source of pride for the school, its students, the administration and the community. But it seems to me that Mr. Bell and those who are opposing the closure have forgotten the purpose of the high school--to educate the kids that attend the school. If the school board even considers the effect on athletics, both at Edison and other schools in teh area, then the Board should be replaced immediately with a panel who places the focus squarely on education. Sports are an "extra-curricular" activity and should not be considered in any respect. The fact that this article is a follow-up appeared the day after the initial report that a closing was possible shows the priorities of hte community. If the priority is on what will happen in sports, it is clear that Superintendant Crew has a mighty obstacle before him to provide a quality education for the students on his watch.
Stuck in a OTB Traffic Jam
It seems that some people are concerned that the closure of the school would affect the school's athletic legacy. Of course, academic legacy is not an issue for football coach Corey Bell, who said, "It will be a big blow to the student-athletes that have worked so hard to establish themselves. Some of them are among the elite in the state of Florida and nationwide." Apparently, his student athletes, assuming they are a cross section of the school's population (a dangerous assumption but one that must be made), are not making the grade and the school is failing them.
Furthermore, an Edison closure could affect athletes' chances of securing college scholarships, both for the Edison players and players pushed aside by the potential transfers.
''Not only is it unfair to my kids, but what about the kids from those rival schools?'' Bell said. ``Those kids have worked hard in their program. Now all of a sudden, you're taking my kid and take him over there. Now they're in a whole new role. It's unfair to both parties. . . . It could cause a lot of chaos.''
The problem with Bell's contention is that his athletes are so superior that colleges will overlook their poor academic preparation--which is of course what will happen. Of course, I find it difficult to believe that a player of any sport at a different school being considered for an athletic scholarship would suddenly not be in the running simply because another player came into the picture. Perhaps Coach Bell should spend his time worrying more about the education his student-athletes are receiving. He is quite clearly a role model for his players and the community, he should be screaming at the top of his lungs to change the way education is being delivered. But, I suspect, Mr. Bell has aspirations beyond Miami Edison and closing his program which has been successful might provide a convenient excuse to look elsewhere.
I know that a school's athletic prowess is a strong source of pride for the school, its students, the administration and the community. But it seems to me that Mr. Bell and those who are opposing the closure have forgotten the purpose of the high school--to educate the kids that attend the school. If the school board even considers the effect on athletics, both at Edison and other schools in teh area, then the Board should be replaced immediately with a panel who places the focus squarely on education. Sports are an "extra-curricular" activity and should not be considered in any respect. The fact that this article is a follow-up appeared the day after the initial report that a closing was possible shows the priorities of hte community. If the priority is on what will happen in sports, it is clear that Superintendant Crew has a mighty obstacle before him to provide a quality education for the students on his watch.
Stuck in a OTB Traffic Jam
She Wants to be Speaker of the House???
Okay, this press briefing by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is just filled with silliness and a clear lack of understanding of how the govnerment works and the point of legislation she worked on. Here are some of the juicier tidbits:
When asked about campaign finance reform legislation moving through Congress:
The point of the most recent campaign finance reform was to separate Members of Congress from raising huge amounts of money. ...The problem was the connection between raising millions of soft dollars from individual special interest donors by policymakers in Washington, D.C.
In 2003 Nancy Pelosi's leadership PACs (PAC to the Future and Team Majority) settled a case for violations of the campaign finance law. But BCRA, the original Shays-Meehan bill did not "separate Members of Congress from raising huge amounts of money" but rather limited the kinds of money they could raise. In fact, Members of Congress continue to raise huge sums of money.
On Social Security:
Q: Ms. Pelosi, do House Democrats or Senate Democrats plan to offer their own Social Security proposal, and if so, what might it say? And if not, why not?
Ms. Pelosi: Are we going to offer our own Social Security proposal? ...We have been, I think, very effective in saying our plan is to save Social Security, to stop privatization, to stop the raid on Social Security, and to strengthen solvency. That is our plan.
The question was whether there is going to be a Democratic Social Security plan. This answer tells me "No--we can't even answer a question straight, why would be put together a plan."
On the Kelo decision and legislation to withhold federal funds from states and localities for use in eminent domain purchases:
Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.
Now aside from the inability to make a distintion between separation of powers between the Judicial and Legislative branches and the separation of church and state, this particular answer is full of stupidity.
First, the power of the purse (over federal funds) lies with Congress and Congress alone. Congress may make any stipulation on the use of funds it gives to states and local governments, including prohibiting funds for the use of eminent domain purchases. The Supreme Court has held the exercise of this power to be constitutional time and time again. It is not a separation of powers issue for Congress to exercise its power of the purse to prevent actions legal under a Supreme Court decision to be used by the states. The legislation does not prevent eminent domain purchases by state and local governments permitted under Kelo, only prevents using federal funds. You would think that that the Senior Democrat in the House of Representatives would understand the power of the purse--but apparently not.
Next, the Courts rely upon the legislative and in particular the executive branch to enforce their decisions. The Courts have no independent enforcement power. Again, the Minority leaders should know this.
Here is a fun little exchange that again, points to a clear lack of understanding of the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of government, a misunderstanding that the leader of House Democrats should not have:
It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?
Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.
Um, not to point out the obvious, but the Supreme Court is not God, nor is it even an oracle for God. (Wow talk about the problems of separation of church and state if the Supreme Court were an oracle for God). The court is not infallible (see the history of Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scot decision for more details). Often a decision of the Supreme Court becomse a starting point for political debate (see Roe v. Wade or Bakke decisions). Kelo is simply the latest in a long line of cases that have sparked a prolonged and meaningful debate about govermental powers.
Now, if Congress wanted to change the law and decision of hte Supreme Court they could, by passing legislation. The Fifth Amendment already protects against uncompensated takings, the Congress could simply define better what constitutes a proper taking. A simple majority in both Houses and a signature by the President would do that. A constitutional amendment is not necessary.
Nancy Pelosi aspires to be Speaker (assuming she could get enough Democrats elected to the House--a marginal proposition at best). The speaker is just two hearbeats away from the White House and some one with such a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works should be no where near the White House, let alone be someone who could be in a position to occupy the White House. It is amazing how uneducated a senior member of the House of Representatives can be about basic constitutional concepts. Scary to say the least.
U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Transcript of Today's Pelosi Press Conference"
When asked about campaign finance reform legislation moving through Congress:
The point of the most recent campaign finance reform was to separate Members of Congress from raising huge amounts of money. ...The problem was the connection between raising millions of soft dollars from individual special interest donors by policymakers in Washington, D.C.
In 2003 Nancy Pelosi's leadership PACs (PAC to the Future and Team Majority) settled a case for violations of the campaign finance law. But BCRA, the original Shays-Meehan bill did not "separate Members of Congress from raising huge amounts of money" but rather limited the kinds of money they could raise. In fact, Members of Congress continue to raise huge sums of money.
On Social Security:
Q: Ms. Pelosi, do House Democrats or Senate Democrats plan to offer their own Social Security proposal, and if so, what might it say? And if not, why not?
Ms. Pelosi: Are we going to offer our own Social Security proposal? ...We have been, I think, very effective in saying our plan is to save Social Security, to stop privatization, to stop the raid on Social Security, and to strengthen solvency. That is our plan.
The question was whether there is going to be a Democratic Social Security plan. This answer tells me "No--we can't even answer a question straight, why would be put together a plan."
On the Kelo decision and legislation to withhold federal funds from states and localities for use in eminent domain purchases:
Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.
Now aside from the inability to make a distintion between separation of powers between the Judicial and Legislative branches and the separation of church and state, this particular answer is full of stupidity.
First, the power of the purse (over federal funds) lies with Congress and Congress alone. Congress may make any stipulation on the use of funds it gives to states and local governments, including prohibiting funds for the use of eminent domain purchases. The Supreme Court has held the exercise of this power to be constitutional time and time again. It is not a separation of powers issue for Congress to exercise its power of the purse to prevent actions legal under a Supreme Court decision to be used by the states. The legislation does not prevent eminent domain purchases by state and local governments permitted under Kelo, only prevents using federal funds. You would think that that the Senior Democrat in the House of Representatives would understand the power of the purse--but apparently not.
Next, the Courts rely upon the legislative and in particular the executive branch to enforce their decisions. The Courts have no independent enforcement power. Again, the Minority leaders should know this.
Here is a fun little exchange that again, points to a clear lack of understanding of the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches of government, a misunderstanding that the leader of House Democrats should not have:
It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?
Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.
Um, not to point out the obvious, but the Supreme Court is not God, nor is it even an oracle for God. (Wow talk about the problems of separation of church and state if the Supreme Court were an oracle for God). The court is not infallible (see the history of Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scot decision for more details). Often a decision of the Supreme Court becomse a starting point for political debate (see Roe v. Wade or Bakke decisions). Kelo is simply the latest in a long line of cases that have sparked a prolonged and meaningful debate about govermental powers.
Now, if Congress wanted to change the law and decision of hte Supreme Court they could, by passing legislation. The Fifth Amendment already protects against uncompensated takings, the Congress could simply define better what constitutes a proper taking. A simple majority in both Houses and a signature by the President would do that. A constitutional amendment is not necessary.
Nancy Pelosi aspires to be Speaker (assuming she could get enough Democrats elected to the House--a marginal proposition at best). The speaker is just two hearbeats away from the White House and some one with such a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works should be no where near the White House, let alone be someone who could be in a position to occupy the White House. It is amazing how uneducated a senior member of the House of Representatives can be about basic constitutional concepts. Scary to say the least.
U.S. Newswire : Releases : "Transcript of Today's Pelosi Press Conference"
Do We Expect Judicial Activisim?
The political screeching about judicial activism, soon to become a daily occurrence as the the nomination to replace Justice O'Connor accelerates, may be of our own making. In this post from the Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki quotes a potential nominee, Judge Edith Jones regarding the judicial confirmation process. One interesting part of her comments is this:
For much of the twentieth century, mandarins of the law viewed the courts as agents of social change and the law as contingent, evolutionary, and ultimately subservient to political expediency. Federal judges long ago caught on to this heightened view of their power, and it was inevitable that state judges would do the same. (emphasis added).
Many of the right's issues with judges is they believe the courts are making policy--leftist policy. Much of the left's issues with judges rests on teh belief that conservative judges don't care about those wronged by the law. In truth both sides of the political spectrum have invited judges to make law from the bench.
Democrats have, since the after the New Deal, routinely turned to the courts to vindicate "rights" they could not get the political branches to create. By turning to the courts the left has asked judges to make law in their favor. The problem the left then experiences occures when the courts either fail to take up the case on a procedural matter or decide that the right asserted by leftist plaintiffs does not exist either in the constitution or in a statute. By relying on the courts to find rights, the left abandoned any effort to change the law in the political process, which leads to other problems outside the scope of this post.
Republicans find fault with judges who look for and/or find rights in legislation that was passed or in some interpretation of the Constitution. The problem for the right rests not on reliance on judges but on the belief that judges will understand what is written on the page. Conservatives want judges to enforce the law as written. But, poorly written law, in the form of vague legislation or poorly written regulation, leaves much to the discretion of hte court to assign a definition to words on the page. Thus, when a case comes to the court where the court must decide which definition or interpretation to give to a word or phrase, the right calls any decision against their beliefs to be legislating from teh bench--but the court MUST make a decision because our system of justice requires a winner in each case.
Either by omission or commission, both sides of the political spectrum have come to expect judicial activism, but only call it judicial activism when the decision goes the wrong way. Judges can only work with cases and laws presented to them. When a Democratic senator calls a judge an extremist, or when a Republican senator does the same, both would do well to look into the mirror and ask themselves, who is the root cause of our problem? The judge? or Me?
Returning to Judge Jones comments, courts can be agents of social change (witness Brown v. Board), but the capacity for courts to be agents of social change is very small and reactive at best. but by coming to expect judicial activism (what ever definition you attach to it) you run the risk of decisions contrary to your own intent. Both sides of the political spectrum would do well to examine their own motivations in the battle over judicial confirmations.
Stuck in an OTB Traffic Jam
For much of the twentieth century, mandarins of the law viewed the courts as agents of social change and the law as contingent, evolutionary, and ultimately subservient to political expediency. Federal judges long ago caught on to this heightened view of their power, and it was inevitable that state judges would do the same. (emphasis added).
Many of the right's issues with judges is they believe the courts are making policy--leftist policy. Much of the left's issues with judges rests on teh belief that conservative judges don't care about those wronged by the law. In truth both sides of the political spectrum have invited judges to make law from the bench.
Democrats have, since the after the New Deal, routinely turned to the courts to vindicate "rights" they could not get the political branches to create. By turning to the courts the left has asked judges to make law in their favor. The problem the left then experiences occures when the courts either fail to take up the case on a procedural matter or decide that the right asserted by leftist plaintiffs does not exist either in the constitution or in a statute. By relying on the courts to find rights, the left abandoned any effort to change the law in the political process, which leads to other problems outside the scope of this post.
Republicans find fault with judges who look for and/or find rights in legislation that was passed or in some interpretation of the Constitution. The problem for the right rests not on reliance on judges but on the belief that judges will understand what is written on the page. Conservatives want judges to enforce the law as written. But, poorly written law, in the form of vague legislation or poorly written regulation, leaves much to the discretion of hte court to assign a definition to words on the page. Thus, when a case comes to the court where the court must decide which definition or interpretation to give to a word or phrase, the right calls any decision against their beliefs to be legislating from teh bench--but the court MUST make a decision because our system of justice requires a winner in each case.
Either by omission or commission, both sides of the political spectrum have come to expect judicial activism, but only call it judicial activism when the decision goes the wrong way. Judges can only work with cases and laws presented to them. When a Democratic senator calls a judge an extremist, or when a Republican senator does the same, both would do well to look into the mirror and ask themselves, who is the root cause of our problem? The judge? or Me?
Returning to Judge Jones comments, courts can be agents of social change (witness Brown v. Board), but the capacity for courts to be agents of social change is very small and reactive at best. but by coming to expect judicial activism (what ever definition you attach to it) you run the risk of decisions contrary to your own intent. Both sides of the political spectrum would do well to examine their own motivations in the battle over judicial confirmations.
Stuck in an OTB Traffic Jam
Sunday, July 03, 2005
What Is The Functional Difference
Last week, in an ironic sense of timing, the Federal Election Commission held a two day hearing on the future of blogging, the Internet and the regulation of campaign practices by bloggers on the Internet. I say ironic, because less than a week from the celebration of our Nation's birth, the FEC is considering the prohibition of a right we hold dear, that to speak our minds, in the electronic medium in the most protected of speech arenas--political speech.
For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, I urge to to visit this site, put up by Mike Krempasky.
The efforts of the FEC in this arena are troubling on a fundamental level. In essence, assuming the regulations offered by the FEC are implemented, the fact that bloggers and other internet activists post any information about a candidate for federal office, the writer could be forced to register and report that activity to the FEC. In short, if I say, Vote for Candidate X for president, these regulations COULD force me to register as a political committee.
The troubling part is that the FEC will be regulating speech based on the form of the speech, not the content (which would clearly be unconstitutional), nor on the speaker (also clearly unconstitutional). The FEC's distinction would be on the method of transmission of the political message.
Several commentators in this field have compared the modern blogger to the pamphleteers of hte past, the Tom Paines, James Madisons, Alexander Hamiltons and John Jay's of the colonial period. At the core, these commentators are not incorrect, but a more modern equivalent can be found--the guy in the park.
Assume for a moment a man puts on a t-shirt emblazoned with Frist for President or Hilary for President and walks into the neighborhood public park at noon on a Saturday. In a polite manner, using only his voice he beings to extoll the virtures of his chosen candidate. At the conclusion of each paragraph of virtues, he urges anyone within earshot to vote for his candidate. While most people might find this gentlemen to be a worst a nuisance, his actions are clearly constitutional and more importantly not regulated. Now, the man may be prohibited from using a loud speaker with out obtaining a permit or prohibited from making his speech at 2:00 am in the morning, but barring these permitted time, place, and manner restrictions, his actions are constitutionally protected.
What the FEC is considering at this time would make those same actions, if posted on teh man's blog, potentially a corrupting influence on the election process and thus in need of regulation. Note carefully, that the man is not paid by his candidates election committee. He may use some of the same words and slogans as his candidate, which could cause him to come into contact witht he coordinated expenditure rule and force him to register as a committee.
So the question is, what is the functaional difference between a man in the park on a Saturday afternoon and a man sitting at his keyboard at 3:00 am because he has insomnia? In terms of message--nothing. In terms of intent--nothing. The only difference is that the man at his keyboard is using the electronic soapbox and that is what the FEC may be regulating.
I have simplified my argument a great deal, as many who will read this will no doubt tell me. But at the core of the discussion between the public and the FEC on this proposed regulation is how much we are going to allow the government to regulate activity that is fundamental to our functioning democracy--the speaking of political views in a public forum. And so the question to the FEC is what is the functional difference between a man speaking his political thoughts in public and a man posting his political thoughts online?
For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, I urge to to visit this site, put up by Mike Krempasky.
The efforts of the FEC in this arena are troubling on a fundamental level. In essence, assuming the regulations offered by the FEC are implemented, the fact that bloggers and other internet activists post any information about a candidate for federal office, the writer could be forced to register and report that activity to the FEC. In short, if I say, Vote for Candidate X for president, these regulations COULD force me to register as a political committee.
The troubling part is that the FEC will be regulating speech based on the form of the speech, not the content (which would clearly be unconstitutional), nor on the speaker (also clearly unconstitutional). The FEC's distinction would be on the method of transmission of the political message.
Several commentators in this field have compared the modern blogger to the pamphleteers of hte past, the Tom Paines, James Madisons, Alexander Hamiltons and John Jay's of the colonial period. At the core, these commentators are not incorrect, but a more modern equivalent can be found--the guy in the park.
Assume for a moment a man puts on a t-shirt emblazoned with Frist for President or Hilary for President and walks into the neighborhood public park at noon on a Saturday. In a polite manner, using only his voice he beings to extoll the virtures of his chosen candidate. At the conclusion of each paragraph of virtues, he urges anyone within earshot to vote for his candidate. While most people might find this gentlemen to be a worst a nuisance, his actions are clearly constitutional and more importantly not regulated. Now, the man may be prohibited from using a loud speaker with out obtaining a permit or prohibited from making his speech at 2:00 am in the morning, but barring these permitted time, place, and manner restrictions, his actions are constitutionally protected.
What the FEC is considering at this time would make those same actions, if posted on teh man's blog, potentially a corrupting influence on the election process and thus in need of regulation. Note carefully, that the man is not paid by his candidates election committee. He may use some of the same words and slogans as his candidate, which could cause him to come into contact witht he coordinated expenditure rule and force him to register as a committee.
So the question is, what is the functaional difference between a man in the park on a Saturday afternoon and a man sitting at his keyboard at 3:00 am because he has insomnia? In terms of message--nothing. In terms of intent--nothing. The only difference is that the man at his keyboard is using the electronic soapbox and that is what the FEC may be regulating.
I have simplified my argument a great deal, as many who will read this will no doubt tell me. But at the core of the discussion between the public and the FEC on this proposed regulation is how much we are going to allow the government to regulate activity that is fundamental to our functioning democracy--the speaking of political views in a public forum. And so the question to the FEC is what is the functional difference between a man speaking his political thoughts in public and a man posting his political thoughts online?
Allison Hayward on FEC, Kelo and Negative Liberty
What is the connection between the Kelo property rights decision and the potential regulation of bloggers by the Federal Election Commission? Well Allison Hayward of the Skeptic's Eye tells us in the article linked to below.
I so rarely rave about other writers and bloggers, I usually let the fact that I link to their work speak for themselves, but this is a truly brilliant piece, bringing together a vital strand of thought, that as well allow government to intrude more and more into our lives through regulation and enforcement, we sacrifice the kinds of liberties we have always taken for granted, specifically, the liberty to be secure in our own homes and in our own minds.
Among my favorite passages:
The negative liberty secured by the takings clause and the Constitution's respect for private property kept the government out of private land deals. Eroding that protection increases the pressure to seek influence from decision-makers, and for those who cross the line, corruption. The inevitable scandal then provides an impetus for yet more regulations. The process is a one-way ratchet. (emphasis added).
The fact is that once a regulation is put in place, it is very, very difficult to change. Similarly, once the Supreme Court has made a decision, it is very hard for the Court to change its mind. The Court does change its collective mind, albeit very, very slowly.
So a great big thank you to Allison for pointing this one out. I hope you go and check out her blog--it is a good one.
Allison Hayward on FEC on National Review Online
I so rarely rave about other writers and bloggers, I usually let the fact that I link to their work speak for themselves, but this is a truly brilliant piece, bringing together a vital strand of thought, that as well allow government to intrude more and more into our lives through regulation and enforcement, we sacrifice the kinds of liberties we have always taken for granted, specifically, the liberty to be secure in our own homes and in our own minds.
Among my favorite passages:
The negative liberty secured by the takings clause and the Constitution's respect for private property kept the government out of private land deals. Eroding that protection increases the pressure to seek influence from decision-makers, and for those who cross the line, corruption. The inevitable scandal then provides an impetus for yet more regulations. The process is a one-way ratchet. (emphasis added).
The fact is that once a regulation is put in place, it is very, very difficult to change. Similarly, once the Supreme Court has made a decision, it is very hard for the Court to change its mind. The Court does change its collective mind, albeit very, very slowly.
So a great big thank you to Allison for pointing this one out. I hope you go and check out her blog--it is a good one.
Allison Hayward on FEC on National Review Online
Friday, July 01, 2005
Cafritz Pans Broader Plan For Vouchers
A proposal in the U.S. Senate (Congress oversees the functioning of Washington, DC) would expand the voucher program in operation in the city to allow students to choose to go to school outside the city, namely in schools within three miles of the district. Predicatbly, the Board of Education president opposes the plan. Here is one comment, which says a lot:
"We feel strongly they shouldn't send our kids outside the city," said Cafritz, who had long opposed private-school vouchers but supported the voucher bill passed by Congress last year. "To send kids outside with public money pushes the envelope to a point beyond what this program was supposed to be."
Reading between the lines we can see that once again, the educrats have lost sight of their ultimate consumer--kids. The fact of the matter is that despite throwing millions of dollars and reform proposals into the DC school system, the system has not improved the education of its children. The fact that a Senator has proposed expanding school choice is offensive to some people. But if you focus on providing kids an education, you find that this solution offers more choices to find a better education.
Any kid who decides to go to a suburban school would have to get their on their own, often meaning a commute of some distance. Therefore, the education provided by teh suburban school must be worth the effort. If the DC schools provided that kind of education, then kids wouldn't need to go outside the city.
The school board president then throws some anti-catholic school bigotry out as reasoning.
"The Catholic schools in [Prince George's County] and around the Beltway -- they need population," she added. "This is part of a larger scheme to rescue that system."
You know what, the Catholic schools don't need "population." Every Catholic school in teh region--to my knowledge, usually is full up with students. Could the schools benefit from a few DC kids attending a suburban Maryland school, perhaps. But one needs to remember that no matter what, the Catholic church has the funds to support the schools.
So what is the real reason: space.
DC Schools are over crowded and
Officials at the Washington Scholarship Fund, the nonprofit group that administers the program, said that as many as 80 students who have been offered vouchers for this fall might not be able to use them because of a shortage of high school slots.
How can a city who cries about letting kids go to a school of their choice not find space for 80 kids? Teh answer, the private schools these voucher kids want to attend are full, because the DC schools are in such disrepair. Again, I go back to my premise, if hte DC public schools provided a high-quality education there would be no need for a voucher program and consequently no need for students to attend suburban schools.
Offer poeple a choice between high, equal quality schools, almost everyone will chose the school closest to their home. It makes getting the kids to school easier. But when there is not choice between high-quality alternatives, people will choose the best alternative--each time, every time they can.
Cafritz Pans Broader Plan For Vouchers
"We feel strongly they shouldn't send our kids outside the city," said Cafritz, who had long opposed private-school vouchers but supported the voucher bill passed by Congress last year. "To send kids outside with public money pushes the envelope to a point beyond what this program was supposed to be."
Reading between the lines we can see that once again, the educrats have lost sight of their ultimate consumer--kids. The fact of the matter is that despite throwing millions of dollars and reform proposals into the DC school system, the system has not improved the education of its children. The fact that a Senator has proposed expanding school choice is offensive to some people. But if you focus on providing kids an education, you find that this solution offers more choices to find a better education.
Any kid who decides to go to a suburban school would have to get their on their own, often meaning a commute of some distance. Therefore, the education provided by teh suburban school must be worth the effort. If the DC schools provided that kind of education, then kids wouldn't need to go outside the city.
The school board president then throws some anti-catholic school bigotry out as reasoning.
"The Catholic schools in [Prince George's County] and around the Beltway -- they need population," she added. "This is part of a larger scheme to rescue that system."
You know what, the Catholic schools don't need "population." Every Catholic school in teh region--to my knowledge, usually is full up with students. Could the schools benefit from a few DC kids attending a suburban Maryland school, perhaps. But one needs to remember that no matter what, the Catholic church has the funds to support the schools.
So what is the real reason: space.
DC Schools are over crowded and
Officials at the Washington Scholarship Fund, the nonprofit group that administers the program, said that as many as 80 students who have been offered vouchers for this fall might not be able to use them because of a shortage of high school slots.
How can a city who cries about letting kids go to a school of their choice not find space for 80 kids? Teh answer, the private schools these voucher kids want to attend are full, because the DC schools are in such disrepair. Again, I go back to my premise, if hte DC public schools provided a high-quality education there would be no need for a voucher program and consequently no need for students to attend suburban schools.
Offer poeple a choice between high, equal quality schools, almost everyone will chose the school closest to their home. It makes getting the kids to school easier. But when there is not choice between high-quality alternatives, people will choose the best alternative--each time, every time they can.
Cafritz Pans Broader Plan For Vouchers
Goodbye Justice O'Connor--Hello Senate Circus
With the news of Justice O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court will come the speculation of who will President Bush nominate to her seat. While there have been pundits galore opining on the subject, I want to post something a little different and little further down the road--the confirmation battle.
I think there are two things that will happen. First, you can guarantee a media spectacle--so much of one, I am surprised anyone would willingly go through with it. Second, you are going to see more outside spending on this nomination that you would see in a Senate seat battle--I am not sure of the impact that will have on the country.
See, until the nomination battle of Judge Robert Bork, most Supreme Court nominees were tested on competence, i.e. did this nominee possess the necessary legal training, epxerience and aptitude to be Supreme Court Justicts. Even intensely ideological nominees, like Antonin Scalia were confirmed with no dissenting votes. Now, any judge coming to the Judiciary Committee runs the risk of being Borked and/or filibustered.
But here is where Democrats are going to have to be very careful. Let's assume for a moment that Chief Justice Rehnquist steps down this summer as well. A reliably conservative vote, President Bush would be in pretty safe territory to nominate a conservative replacement without much more than a pro-forma battle. If President Bush promotes form withing, the likely candidates being either Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, President Bush can still nominate a reliably conservative jurist.
However, O'Connor is a swing vote, always has been. Replacing her with a conservative constructionist or even an originalist is sure to draw the ire of Democrats and liberals. But here is where Bush can win. I think he should nominate a conservative in the Rehnquist mold to replace O'Connor for a couple of reasons.
First, it is the President's constitutional perogative to nominate Justices. He may consider any criteria he considers relevant, presumably including ideology. Of course, the President is likely to nominate those who share similar outlooks, but that does not guarantee anything. Just ask the ghost of Dwight Eisenhower how he felt, after the fact, about nominating Earl Warren. Democrats need to think about that. O'Connor was considered pretty conservative when she was nominated, yet turned out to be much more middle of the road than President Reagan may have expected. That is the risk of a lifetime appointment--that Justice's opinions and outlooks may slowly shift over time. Democrats should just accept that as fact.
Second, President Bush can nominate a Rehnquist like conservative and succeed because the Democrats cannot afford to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. While there is nothing magical about nine justices, America has come to expect nine Supremes. If the Democrats filibuster, they will be seen as blocking the good order and operation of hte Court, despite the fact that the Supreme Court can operate just as well with 8 Justices. Americans of both parties will never forget the filibuster of a nominee. If a nominee is voted down--that is the price of our Republic and the public can accept that as part of our government. But to deny a vote will be seen as obstructionist for no good reason.
This second factor cuts in the favor of President Bush and he should exercise it. The fact that nominations to the Court have become so political needs to be highlighted. Both parties are guilty of this and the President should force the issue. He should nominate someone with strong legal credentials, who shares his outlook on the law, if not on all the issues and dare the Senate to make a spectacle of it.
I think there are two things that will happen. First, you can guarantee a media spectacle--so much of one, I am surprised anyone would willingly go through with it. Second, you are going to see more outside spending on this nomination that you would see in a Senate seat battle--I am not sure of the impact that will have on the country.
See, until the nomination battle of Judge Robert Bork, most Supreme Court nominees were tested on competence, i.e. did this nominee possess the necessary legal training, epxerience and aptitude to be Supreme Court Justicts. Even intensely ideological nominees, like Antonin Scalia were confirmed with no dissenting votes. Now, any judge coming to the Judiciary Committee runs the risk of being Borked and/or filibustered.
But here is where Democrats are going to have to be very careful. Let's assume for a moment that Chief Justice Rehnquist steps down this summer as well. A reliably conservative vote, President Bush would be in pretty safe territory to nominate a conservative replacement without much more than a pro-forma battle. If President Bush promotes form withing, the likely candidates being either Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, President Bush can still nominate a reliably conservative jurist.
However, O'Connor is a swing vote, always has been. Replacing her with a conservative constructionist or even an originalist is sure to draw the ire of Democrats and liberals. But here is where Bush can win. I think he should nominate a conservative in the Rehnquist mold to replace O'Connor for a couple of reasons.
First, it is the President's constitutional perogative to nominate Justices. He may consider any criteria he considers relevant, presumably including ideology. Of course, the President is likely to nominate those who share similar outlooks, but that does not guarantee anything. Just ask the ghost of Dwight Eisenhower how he felt, after the fact, about nominating Earl Warren. Democrats need to think about that. O'Connor was considered pretty conservative when she was nominated, yet turned out to be much more middle of the road than President Reagan may have expected. That is the risk of a lifetime appointment--that Justice's opinions and outlooks may slowly shift over time. Democrats should just accept that as fact.
Second, President Bush can nominate a Rehnquist like conservative and succeed because the Democrats cannot afford to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. While there is nothing magical about nine justices, America has come to expect nine Supremes. If the Democrats filibuster, they will be seen as blocking the good order and operation of hte Court, despite the fact that the Supreme Court can operate just as well with 8 Justices. Americans of both parties will never forget the filibuster of a nominee. If a nominee is voted down--that is the price of our Republic and the public can accept that as part of our government. But to deny a vote will be seen as obstructionist for no good reason.
This second factor cuts in the favor of President Bush and he should exercise it. The fact that nominations to the Court have become so political needs to be highlighted. Both parties are guilty of this and the President should force the issue. He should nominate someone with strong legal credentials, who shares his outlook on the law, if not on all the issues and dare the Senate to make a spectacle of it.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
The Forgotten Supreme Court Deicsion
In all the hubbub surrounding the 10 Commandments cases, Kelo, and Grokster cases everyone seems to have forgetten another case handed down on Monday--National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services that will have a more direct impact on our day to day lives than any other.
The issue in Brand X stems from a decision by the Federal Communications Commission to exempt from regulation broadband internet services provided by cable companies. Actually, that is not toally accurate, as Justice Thomas writes in the majority opinion:
In the order under review, the Federal Communications Commission concluded that cable companies that sell broadband Internet service do not provide "telecommunications servic[e]" as the Communications Act defines that term, and hence are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II. We must decide whether that conclusion is a lawful construction of the Communications Act (Brand X, 545 U.S. ___, *1).
The real subject of the case is the Communications Act of 1996 which set up a regulatory structure that no longer applies in 2005. In the 1996 Act, telecommunications were separated into two categories--telecommunication service and information services. Telecommunications service is the "offering of telecommunciations for a fee directly to the public regardless of the facilities used." An information service, on the other hand, is "the offering of a capabilityfor generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications." Brand X, at *5.
Of course those crystalline definitions provide no real guidance as to how cable internet is to be regulated at all--hence the controversy. Internet service provided by dial-up or DSL is regulated as a common carrier, meaning the the phone company who owns the lines going into your house (and they do), must permit other companies to use those lines for a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee. That means if your phone lines in your house were laid by Verizon, you have the option as a consumer to use MCI or SBC or any other telephone company for your phone and/or DSL connection and Verizon must honor that choice and allow that company access to the lines Verizon owns going into your house. Again, this is all because dia-up and DSL use phone lines, which are regulated as a telecommunications service.
The FCC makes a disticntion between DSL and internet cable based on a rather silly notion that consumers have no choice in. When a customer uses DSL, they must also choose an ISP (even though the DSL company is an ISP also--in most cases.). With a cable modem, there is no need to choose an ISP because the cable company serves as your ISP, even though you would be free to use another ISP as well. If you look carefully, you can see a chicken-and-egg argument. The cable company acts as your ISP because they can and the FCC doesn't require them to provide an option for a different DSL because they are a cable provider. Fun Huh?
Cable internet connections are labled as an information service--although they are in essence the same thing. This difference in definition seems to hold little relevance for the consumer, but it can make a big difference in your pocketbook, because under the FCC decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court on Monday in Brand X. The cable company, as an information service is not regulated as a common carrier. This means that competing companies offering internet connections via cable modems CANNOT force your cable company to provide access to the lines into your house.
So, if you live in my area, Adelphia provides your cable TV service (already a de facto monopoly) and they own the cable lines leading to your house. Since they own the "last mile" of cable, they own the pipeline into your house for cable internet service. Thus if you like the reliability of a cable internet, you have no choice but to go with Adelphia. Of course, as a monopoly they can charge you what they want. There is no competing service nor do they have to allow a competing service.
To be fair to the Supreme Court they are completly hamstrung by a poorly written law in desparate need of rewriting. In fact, many communications services, including cellular telephony, internet telephony and other new services available overseas, cannot move beyond their infancy here because of this law. As more decisions like Brand X and FCC rulings become commonplace and consumers get frustrated, there will be pressure on Congress to change the law. We need to get the 1996 Communications Act repealed and replaced with a law that does not distinguish between methods of delivery the information we receive.
Contact your Congressman and Senators and tell them to get busy so that rediculous decisions like Brand X are not forced on us.
The issue in Brand X stems from a decision by the Federal Communications Commission to exempt from regulation broadband internet services provided by cable companies. Actually, that is not toally accurate, as Justice Thomas writes in the majority opinion:
In the order under review, the Federal Communications Commission concluded that cable companies that sell broadband Internet service do not provide "telecommunications servic[e]" as the Communications Act defines that term, and hence are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation under Title II. We must decide whether that conclusion is a lawful construction of the Communications Act (Brand X, 545 U.S. ___, *1).
The real subject of the case is the Communications Act of 1996 which set up a regulatory structure that no longer applies in 2005. In the 1996 Act, telecommunications were separated into two categories--telecommunication service and information services. Telecommunications service is the "offering of telecommunciations for a fee directly to the public regardless of the facilities used." An information service, on the other hand, is "the offering of a capabilityfor generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications." Brand X, at *5.
Of course those crystalline definitions provide no real guidance as to how cable internet is to be regulated at all--hence the controversy. Internet service provided by dial-up or DSL is regulated as a common carrier, meaning the the phone company who owns the lines going into your house (and they do), must permit other companies to use those lines for a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee. That means if your phone lines in your house were laid by Verizon, you have the option as a consumer to use MCI or SBC or any other telephone company for your phone and/or DSL connection and Verizon must honor that choice and allow that company access to the lines Verizon owns going into your house. Again, this is all because dia-up and DSL use phone lines, which are regulated as a telecommunications service.
The FCC makes a disticntion between DSL and internet cable based on a rather silly notion that consumers have no choice in. When a customer uses DSL, they must also choose an ISP (even though the DSL company is an ISP also--in most cases.). With a cable modem, there is no need to choose an ISP because the cable company serves as your ISP, even though you would be free to use another ISP as well. If you look carefully, you can see a chicken-and-egg argument. The cable company acts as your ISP because they can and the FCC doesn't require them to provide an option for a different DSL because they are a cable provider. Fun Huh?
Cable internet connections are labled as an information service--although they are in essence the same thing. This difference in definition seems to hold little relevance for the consumer, but it can make a big difference in your pocketbook, because under the FCC decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court on Monday in Brand X. The cable company, as an information service is not regulated as a common carrier. This means that competing companies offering internet connections via cable modems CANNOT force your cable company to provide access to the lines into your house.
So, if you live in my area, Adelphia provides your cable TV service (already a de facto monopoly) and they own the cable lines leading to your house. Since they own the "last mile" of cable, they own the pipeline into your house for cable internet service. Thus if you like the reliability of a cable internet, you have no choice but to go with Adelphia. Of course, as a monopoly they can charge you what they want. There is no competing service nor do they have to allow a competing service.
To be fair to the Supreme Court they are completly hamstrung by a poorly written law in desparate need of rewriting. In fact, many communications services, including cellular telephony, internet telephony and other new services available overseas, cannot move beyond their infancy here because of this law. As more decisions like Brand X and FCC rulings become commonplace and consumers get frustrated, there will be pressure on Congress to change the law. We need to get the 1996 Communications Act repealed and replaced with a law that does not distinguish between methods of delivery the information we receive.
Contact your Congressman and Senators and tell them to get busy so that rediculous decisions like Brand X are not forced on us.
NY Times: Tenuous Connections
I have had with editorial writers who use some heart string ploy when making their point, exploiting the death of a fallen soldier (without the families permission I am sure) to make a political critique. The latest is NY Times' Bob Herbert, who in today's Op-Ed, writes:
More than 1,730 American troops have already died in Iraq. Some were little more than children when they signed up for the armed forces, like Ramona Valdez, who grew up in the Bronx and was just 17 when she joined the Marines. She was one of six service members, including four women, who were killed when a suicide bomber struck their convoy in Falluja last week.
First, every casualty is a tragedy for someone--including the President. But it is easy for a writer to criticize, he doesn't have to make the agonizing decision to send troops into harms way.
But this particular exploitation galls me. In one paragraph Herbert seems to insinuate that President Bush has personally killed or sent to their death young people and women in greater numbers than any President. Such an argument is wrong on many levels.
First, most combat troops are young. Combat is a young person's profession due to the physical demands. While lives are cut short in combat on a regular basis, the fact that young people die in combat is not unique to the war in Iraq. In World War II, although I have no hard data, I would guess that the average age of a combat casualty was probably younger than Corporal Valdez. I would also wager that if one were to average the age of those who have died in Iraq, you would get an age closer to 20 or 21 or even higher than the 19 or so that was probably common in World War II.
Second, I will grant that more women may have died in "combat" operations in Iraq than in previous wars. But keep in mind, this war is one of the first to have such casualties as a significant . This is a function of two things--the opening of more jobs in teh army to women. 9Which I am sure that Mr. Herbert supported with full volume) Second, more and more "combat" is occuring away from the major combat areas--the convoys and logistical support efforts than had been the case in the past. As a result these logistics units are taking more casualties, and more female casualties, than in the past.
Noting that two years ago, President Bush did not have an "exit" strategy or a plan for defeating the blossoming insurgency, Herbert writes:
Mr. Bush had no coherent strategy for defeating the insurgency then, and now - more than 1,500 additional deaths later - he still doesn't.
The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals.
First, I don't know if the President has a plan for winning in Iraq--and I am pretty certain that Mr. Herbert doesn't know either. Just because we haven't been told doesn't mean there isn't a strategy. Assuming there is (and I believe there is), I, and I am absolutely certain, Mr. Herbert would not be on the plan's distribution list.
Next, the Republicans running Congress in 1994-1995 didn't impeach President Clinton when we got entangled in Kosovo and Bosnia. They respected the fact that the President had more information than they did about the situation. Now, Mr. Herbert would probably respond--"we were involved in a United Nations mission there." So, American troops died there. Albeit not in numbers like in Iraq, but nonetheless people died--young people.
Herbert closes with this little dig:
Whether one agreed with the launch of this war or not - and I did not - the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Herbert fails to distinguish between minimal military competence and political competence. Here is how it works in the real military world. The civilian leadership determines the political goals of a war. Then the military takes over and carries out the missions. The troops on the ground understand their role in the world, more so than any other army in history. They rely on their training and their leaders to protect them. This war has been admirably led. There is a political goal, a free and secure Iraq. The mission is being accomplished and if the NY Times would get its head out of the liberal sand and take a look around in Iraq--they would see it.
Finally, the next time Mr. Herbert feels he needs to make a political poing by using a fallen soldier or Marine, I would like to see a disclaimer--"I have used a dead soldier's name without the permission of their family in order to score my rhetorical points." At least then his readers would know where he is coming from.
Sitting in the Beltway Traffic Jam
Dangerous Incompetence - New York Times
More than 1,730 American troops have already died in Iraq. Some were little more than children when they signed up for the armed forces, like Ramona Valdez, who grew up in the Bronx and was just 17 when she joined the Marines. She was one of six service members, including four women, who were killed when a suicide bomber struck their convoy in Falluja last week.
First, every casualty is a tragedy for someone--including the President. But it is easy for a writer to criticize, he doesn't have to make the agonizing decision to send troops into harms way.
But this particular exploitation galls me. In one paragraph Herbert seems to insinuate that President Bush has personally killed or sent to their death young people and women in greater numbers than any President. Such an argument is wrong on many levels.
First, most combat troops are young. Combat is a young person's profession due to the physical demands. While lives are cut short in combat on a regular basis, the fact that young people die in combat is not unique to the war in Iraq. In World War II, although I have no hard data, I would guess that the average age of a combat casualty was probably younger than Corporal Valdez. I would also wager that if one were to average the age of those who have died in Iraq, you would get an age closer to 20 or 21 or even higher than the 19 or so that was probably common in World War II.
Second, I will grant that more women may have died in "combat" operations in Iraq than in previous wars. But keep in mind, this war is one of the first to have such casualties as a significant . This is a function of two things--the opening of more jobs in teh army to women. 9Which I am sure that Mr. Herbert supported with full volume) Second, more and more "combat" is occuring away from the major combat areas--the convoys and logistical support efforts than had been the case in the past. As a result these logistics units are taking more casualties, and more female casualties, than in the past.
Noting that two years ago, President Bush did not have an "exit" strategy or a plan for defeating the blossoming insurgency, Herbert writes:
Mr. Bush had no coherent strategy for defeating the insurgency then, and now - more than 1,500 additional deaths later - he still doesn't.
The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals.
First, I don't know if the President has a plan for winning in Iraq--and I am pretty certain that Mr. Herbert doesn't know either. Just because we haven't been told doesn't mean there isn't a strategy. Assuming there is (and I believe there is), I, and I am absolutely certain, Mr. Herbert would not be on the plan's distribution list.
Next, the Republicans running Congress in 1994-1995 didn't impeach President Clinton when we got entangled in Kosovo and Bosnia. They respected the fact that the President had more information than they did about the situation. Now, Mr. Herbert would probably respond--"we were involved in a United Nations mission there." So, American troops died there. Albeit not in numbers like in Iraq, but nonetheless people died--young people.
Herbert closes with this little dig:
Whether one agreed with the launch of this war or not - and I did not - the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Herbert fails to distinguish between minimal military competence and political competence. Here is how it works in the real military world. The civilian leadership determines the political goals of a war. Then the military takes over and carries out the missions. The troops on the ground understand their role in the world, more so than any other army in history. They rely on their training and their leaders to protect them. This war has been admirably led. There is a political goal, a free and secure Iraq. The mission is being accomplished and if the NY Times would get its head out of the liberal sand and take a look around in Iraq--they would see it.
Finally, the next time Mr. Herbert feels he needs to make a political poing by using a fallen soldier or Marine, I would like to see a disclaimer--"I have used a dead soldier's name without the permission of their family in order to score my rhetorical points." At least then his readers would know where he is coming from.
Sitting in the Beltway Traffic Jam
Dangerous Incompetence - New York Times
The Silence at Ft. Bragg--Just a Disciplined Army
It seems strange to me that this is even an issue. The military, in particular, the elite troops of the special forces and the airborne units stationed at Bragg, is a highly disciplined organization. Assuming the Times got these facts right:
"The guy from White House advance, during the initial meetings, said, 'Be careful not to let this become a pep rally,' " Captain Earnhardt recalled in a telephone interview. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that account.
As the message drifted down to commanders, it appears that it may have gained an interpretation beyond what the administration's image-makers had in mind. "This is a very disciplined environment," said Captain Earnhardt, "and some guys may have taken it a bit far," leaving the troops hesitant to applaud.
it would seem to me that the mission was accomplished. If an order was handed down to keep the raucous tone down, it is not unreasonable for military commanders to interpret those orders pretty strictly--meaning, keep the applause to a minimum and be respectful.
Of course, had teh troops been their usual rowdy self in the presence of their Commander in Chief, the White House and the Army would have been blasted by the NY Times for making a policy speech too political. (of course, the Times would also not be able to see the irony in making a "policy" speech political--after all policy is political.).
For similar thoughts see, The Captain's Quarters and Outside the Beltway.
Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate
"The guy from White House advance, during the initial meetings, said, 'Be careful not to let this become a pep rally,' " Captain Earnhardt recalled in a telephone interview. Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that account.
As the message drifted down to commanders, it appears that it may have gained an interpretation beyond what the administration's image-makers had in mind. "This is a very disciplined environment," said Captain Earnhardt, "and some guys may have taken it a bit far," leaving the troops hesitant to applaud.
it would seem to me that the mission was accomplished. If an order was handed down to keep the raucous tone down, it is not unreasonable for military commanders to interpret those orders pretty strictly--meaning, keep the applause to a minimum and be respectful.
Of course, had teh troops been their usual rowdy self in the presence of their Commander in Chief, the White House and the Army would have been blasted by the NY Times for making a policy speech too political. (of course, the Times would also not be able to see the irony in making a "policy" speech political--after all policy is political.).
For similar thoughts see, The Captain's Quarters and Outside the Beltway.
Troops' Silence at Fort Bragg Starts a Debate
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Hate the Media, but Love MY Media
Hat Tip to Balkinization
The Pew Research Center has issued a new study that says the more poeple believe the media to be less credible, yet at the same time still like their media sources. Daniel Solove has a good post over at Balkinization about the study, noting
What conclusions can be drawn from these trends? One conclusion is an ominous one -- that the public doesn't use credibility as a major factor in analyzing media performance. After all, if the media still receives high favorability ratings in spite of declining credibility, then this shows that credibility is not tied much to favorability. Shouldn't there be a better connection? It would seem to me that credibility is a critical component of what the media should be all about. People should expect credibility, and if they're not getting it, they should not still be liking the media.
Another conclusion is an optimistic one. Perhaps this means that the public is watching the news with a healthier skepticism; people are less willing to take whatever is reported in the news as the truth. And a healthy skepticism is a good thing, right? To some extent, yes, but what if this skepticism increasingly means that people are just dismissing facts that run against their ideologies and partisan interests?
Actually, while Solove may be right, the results could be reflective of a more basic phenomenon. Similar to the way most people don't like Congress, but love their Representative, I think people dislike the media as an entity, but love their personal media outlets. People like the hometown newspaper or their hometown newscast, but distrust national outlets.
Part of this may be reflective of the more homogeneous nature of hometown news outlets. In smaller towns and cities, more of a connection exists between the reporters and their subjects than exists in large national media outlets. I think Solove is in that more people have a health skepticism about media representations, but the notion "that people are just dismissing facts that run against their ideologies and partisan interests" may be overstating the case. There has always been a dismissal of ideas and interpretations that run counter to one's ideology, but rarely do people dismiss facts out of hand because they don't like them--so long as they are facts.
The Pew Research Center has issued a new study that says the more poeple believe the media to be less credible, yet at the same time still like their media sources. Daniel Solove has a good post over at Balkinization about the study, noting
What conclusions can be drawn from these trends? One conclusion is an ominous one -- that the public doesn't use credibility as a major factor in analyzing media performance. After all, if the media still receives high favorability ratings in spite of declining credibility, then this shows that credibility is not tied much to favorability. Shouldn't there be a better connection? It would seem to me that credibility is a critical component of what the media should be all about. People should expect credibility, and if they're not getting it, they should not still be liking the media.
Another conclusion is an optimistic one. Perhaps this means that the public is watching the news with a healthier skepticism; people are less willing to take whatever is reported in the news as the truth. And a healthy skepticism is a good thing, right? To some extent, yes, but what if this skepticism increasingly means that people are just dismissing facts that run against their ideologies and partisan interests?
Actually, while Solove may be right, the results could be reflective of a more basic phenomenon. Similar to the way most people don't like Congress, but love their Representative, I think people dislike the media as an entity, but love their personal media outlets. People like the hometown newspaper or their hometown newscast, but distrust national outlets.
Part of this may be reflective of the more homogeneous nature of hometown news outlets. In smaller towns and cities, more of a connection exists between the reporters and their subjects than exists in large national media outlets. I think Solove is in that more people have a health skepticism about media representations, but the notion "that people are just dismissing facts that run against their ideologies and partisan interests" may be overstating the case. There has always been a dismissal of ideas and interpretations that run counter to one's ideology, but rarely do people dismiss facts out of hand because they don't like them--so long as they are facts.
Open CRS Network - CRS Reports for the People
Open CRS Network - CRS Reports for the People is a relatively new website that has links to all of the publicly available reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service. The CRS is the non-partisan research arm of Congress. In essence any member of Congress may ask the specialists at CRS to conduct research into any topic. Normally these reports are private (depsite being paid for by public funds) and are released to the public by the Member of Congress who requested the report.
I for one believe this to be a fine idea, from a taxpayer standpoint and from a public information standpoint. However, Amanda Butler (hat tip to Outside the Beltway) at Crescat Sententia is on the fence:
I'm inclined not to believe that making CRS reports generally available to the public would not cause a burden upon the CRS itself: as it stands, these are internal memos designed to be frank and honest and nonpartisan. They are not intended to be used as ammunition. They are not peer-reviewed. They are simply designed to be useful to members of Congress. If they must also be safe for public consumption, will they be able to fill that role?
Again, I'm on the fence: I've found the CRS reports I've used before to be helpful, and I'd be interested in reading more of them. But I'm also not sure yet if the proposal's prudent.
I disagree. Leaving aside the taxpayer funded matter, I think that these reports are probably the BEST source of information about Congressional questions. Too often information released by members of Congress and lobbying operations is so full of spin and contradictions that it is impossible to tell what the truth is about a subject. With a non-partisan, non-agenda setting report written by academics who have no stake in the fight other than providing Congress with solid facts, I think the CRS reports represents the best opportunity to have solid information about what Congress is looking at.
Members of Congress use these reports as the foundation for policy decisions or non-decisions. Why should the public not have access to these reports on subjects safe for public consumption (read: not related to national security issues).
My only critique of the site is its poor search capabilities. For example, I threw in a search for charter schools and got back a report on NASA appropriations. But as a start-up site, this source has a great deal of potential.
I for one believe this to be a fine idea, from a taxpayer standpoint and from a public information standpoint. However, Amanda Butler (hat tip to Outside the Beltway) at Crescat Sententia is on the fence:
I'm inclined not to believe that making CRS reports generally available to the public would not cause a burden upon the CRS itself: as it stands, these are internal memos designed to be frank and honest and nonpartisan. They are not intended to be used as ammunition. They are not peer-reviewed. They are simply designed to be useful to members of Congress. If they must also be safe for public consumption, will they be able to fill that role?
Again, I'm on the fence: I've found the CRS reports I've used before to be helpful, and I'd be interested in reading more of them. But I'm also not sure yet if the proposal's prudent.
I disagree. Leaving aside the taxpayer funded matter, I think that these reports are probably the BEST source of information about Congressional questions. Too often information released by members of Congress and lobbying operations is so full of spin and contradictions that it is impossible to tell what the truth is about a subject. With a non-partisan, non-agenda setting report written by academics who have no stake in the fight other than providing Congress with solid facts, I think the CRS reports represents the best opportunity to have solid information about what Congress is looking at.
Members of Congress use these reports as the foundation for policy decisions or non-decisions. Why should the public not have access to these reports on subjects safe for public consumption (read: not related to national security issues).
My only critique of the site is its poor search capabilities. For example, I threw in a search for charter schools and got back a report on NASA appropriations. But as a start-up site, this source has a great deal of potential.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
If this Is True--How Appropriate!!
This from the Volokh Conspiracy--apparently there is a move afoot to eminent domain land owned by Justice David Souter to build a hotel under the law Souter just supported.
Oh, the irony!!!
Oh, the irony!!!
The Quitters Caucus
Recently, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced H. Con. Res. 35, a call for bringing the troops home from Iraq. The legislation, which even if passed by Congress, would be non-binding on the President, says that President Bush should:
(1) develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(2) develop and implement a plan for reconstructing Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure;
(3) convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace United States Armed Forces in Iraq with Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard forces to ensure Iraq's security; and
(4) take all steps necessary to provide the Iraqi people with the opportunity to completely control their internal affairs.
I love this resolution because it just shows how simple-minded Woolsey and her compatriots in the Quitters Caucus are.
First, immediate withdrawal is impossible becasue in order to effectuate requirements 2 and 4, you need to have the troops there. Rep. Woolsey can't have her cake and eat it too. Second, immediate withdrawal is logistically impossible. How does she propose we move tens of thousands of troops and their equipment in a orderly fashion? Teleportation?
Next, how do you think that average trooper in Iraq feels when the Quitters Caucus says they should come home with a mission not completed. These are professional soldiers and as a group they don't like to leave a job undone. Why then force them to quit. It makes America look like we can't handle the tough job over the long haul--exactly what the terrorists want to prove.
A UN peacekeeping mission? Oh, those have been so successful in the past. Evidence--look at Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. Do you really expect a peacekeeping force to come from Iraqi neighbors. Half those neighbors want to conquer Iraq for themselves.
Here is the Quitters Caucus. If one of them happens to be your Representative, you should let them know how you feel about their membership in the Quitters Caucus.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [WI-2]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [CA-31]
Rep. Lacy Clay [MO-1]
Rep. Johon Conyers [MI-14]
Rep. Danny Davis [IL-7]
Rep. William Delahunt [MA-10]
Rep. Lane Evans [IL-17]
Rep. Sam Farr [CA-17]
Rep. Barney Frank [MA-4]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [AZ-7]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [NY-22]
Rep. Mike Honda [CA-15]
Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee [TX-18]
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones [OH-11]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [MI-13]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [OH-10]
Rep. Barbara Lee [CA-9]
Rep. John Lewis [GA-5]
Rep. Jim McDermott [WA-7]
Rep. James McGovern [MA-3]
Rep. Cynthia McKinney [GA-4]
Rep. Michael Michaud [ME-2]
Rep. Gwen Moore [WI-4]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [CA-38]
Rep. John Olver [MA-1]
Rep. Major Owens [NY-11]
Rep. Ed Pastor [AZ-4]
Rep, Donald Payne [NJ-10]
Rep. Charles Rangel [NY-15]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [IL-9]
Rep. Jose Serrano [NY-16]
Rep. Pete Stark [CA-13]
Rep. Maxine Waters [CA-35]
Rep. Diane Watson [CA-33]
This Post can be found in the Beltway Traffic Jam
(1) develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(2) develop and implement a plan for reconstructing Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure;
(3) convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace United States Armed Forces in Iraq with Iraqi police and Iraqi National Guard forces to ensure Iraq's security; and
(4) take all steps necessary to provide the Iraqi people with the opportunity to completely control their internal affairs.
I love this resolution because it just shows how simple-minded Woolsey and her compatriots in the Quitters Caucus are.
First, immediate withdrawal is impossible becasue in order to effectuate requirements 2 and 4, you need to have the troops there. Rep. Woolsey can't have her cake and eat it too. Second, immediate withdrawal is logistically impossible. How does she propose we move tens of thousands of troops and their equipment in a orderly fashion? Teleportation?
Next, how do you think that average trooper in Iraq feels when the Quitters Caucus says they should come home with a mission not completed. These are professional soldiers and as a group they don't like to leave a job undone. Why then force them to quit. It makes America look like we can't handle the tough job over the long haul--exactly what the terrorists want to prove.
A UN peacekeeping mission? Oh, those have been so successful in the past. Evidence--look at Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. Do you really expect a peacekeeping force to come from Iraqi neighbors. Half those neighbors want to conquer Iraq for themselves.
Here is the Quitters Caucus. If one of them happens to be your Representative, you should let them know how you feel about their membership in the Quitters Caucus.
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [WI-2]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [CA-31]
Rep. Lacy Clay [MO-1]
Rep. Johon Conyers [MI-14]
Rep. Danny Davis [IL-7]
Rep. William Delahunt [MA-10]
Rep. Lane Evans [IL-17]
Rep. Sam Farr [CA-17]
Rep. Barney Frank [MA-4]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [AZ-7]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [NY-22]
Rep. Mike Honda [CA-15]
Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee [TX-18]
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones [OH-11]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [MI-13]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [OH-10]
Rep. Barbara Lee [CA-9]
Rep. John Lewis [GA-5]
Rep. Jim McDermott [WA-7]
Rep. James McGovern [MA-3]
Rep. Cynthia McKinney [GA-4]
Rep. Michael Michaud [ME-2]
Rep. Gwen Moore [WI-4]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [CA-38]
Rep. John Olver [MA-1]
Rep. Major Owens [NY-11]
Rep. Ed Pastor [AZ-4]
Rep, Donald Payne [NJ-10]
Rep. Charles Rangel [NY-15]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [IL-9]
Rep. Jose Serrano [NY-16]
Rep. Pete Stark [CA-13]
Rep. Maxine Waters [CA-35]
Rep. Diane Watson [CA-33]
This Post can be found in the Beltway Traffic Jam
Pelosi with Blinders On
In a recenct interview, Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, said that she would stake her repuation on picking up seats in the 2006 elections.
Six months into her second term as the top House Democrat, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) laid out her strategy for victory in 2006 and staked her reputation on the party picking up seats in the next election.
Pelosi, in a wide-ranging interview on politics and policy, made no firm promise that her party would regain control of the House, but said if the “election were held today,” Democrats would prevail. She said Democrats are on strong footing on the major issues of the day — Social Security, the ethics of the GOP majority and the war in Iraq — and have the political machine in place to win seats.
First of all, if any partisan leader looks at polls for an election that will not happen for 15 months and think they are a lock for anything, they are smoking crack. Right now most people are asked teh question, "If the election were held today, would you vote for a Democratic or a Republican candidate?" Or something to that effect. With many people in a funk (created in part by negative reporting by the MSM), they are likely to say they would vote against the party in power--which in this case means the Democrats get some support. The problem with this line of thought is that when push comes to shove, voters hate Congress but love their Congressman, thus the high re-election rate.
As to issues, the GOP has won half the battle on Social Security--until this year, the Democrats insisted there was nothing wrong with the system, but now they admit there is a looming problem. Of course the only plans offered to date to fix the Social Security system have come from Republicans--but as I have said, the Democrats suffer from a lack of a message or ideas.
When asked whether she would at least bank her credibility on House Democratic pickups, Pelosi said: “Yes. I think we will make gains, it’s just a question of how many.”
Of course, Democrats said the same thing in 2002 and the GOP still picked up seats. This administration and the GOP has shown its ability to buck history with every election--why then should 2006 be any different?
The former Minority Whip said Democrats have enjoyed solid recruiting so far this cycle by already locking in 19 candidates in open and GOP held seats, showing record fundraising and putting together a massive rapid response effort to combat Republican proposals and attacks.
Responding to proposals and attacks, but not with anything of substance.
Pelosi said Democrats are targeting as many as 50 districts for pickups this cycle, and if they can win a third of those, they have a good shot.
Targeting 50 races at this stage is going to be a waste of money. With the need to pick up 15 seats and hold their current seats, the Democrats face a tough battle. If I were plotting strategy, I would be looking at no more than 30 races and probably 25 where efforts could be conentrated. But then again, Democrats always hold idealistic ideas instead of looking at the real situation. Of the 15 most vulnerable Republican seats, they Democrats have a realistic shot at only about 5-7. Statistically though, 13 or 14 of those vulnerable Republicans will still get re-elected.
The California Democrat said the political environment is far better for House Democrats this cycle given it is a mid-term election and history is on the minority party’s side, they no longer have the impossible hurdle of overcoming Texas redistricting and do not have to reckon with the Bush 11th hour get-out-the-vote operation.
This is what I call the ostritch strategy. As noted above, this Republican party has demolished the conventional wisdom in three straight elections, on what basis do the Democrats think conventional wisdom will serve them here? The law of averages? True, the Texas redistricting is not in play this year, but what makes the Democrats think the Bush GOTV operation is not really a GOP operation that can translate to record votes in the 2006 elections? The answer is wishful thinking.
There are no indications that the Democrats are in a good place politically. First, their primary ground operatives, the unions, are fighting amongst themselves. Union membership is down some 30 percent over the past 50 years, to just over 12% of U.S. households. Of that 12%, 3 or 4 percent vote Republican--just a statistical fact when you consider that skilled union members often make six figures with overtime--at that level they start voting economic issues-- in line with the GOP.
The so-called advantage of the Democratic 527 organizations did not come through in 2004 and now that the Republicans are fielding their own 527's that "advantage" is likely to be blunted. Finally, depsite record Democratic fundraising, the GOP is still raising more hard money than the Democrats.
So long as the GOP remains the party of ideas and the party of action, not dreams, they will continue to win in Congress.
This Post in a Beltway Traffic Jam
Pelosi Sees '06 House Gains
Six months into her second term as the top House Democrat, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) laid out her strategy for victory in 2006 and staked her reputation on the party picking up seats in the next election.
Pelosi, in a wide-ranging interview on politics and policy, made no firm promise that her party would regain control of the House, but said if the “election were held today,” Democrats would prevail. She said Democrats are on strong footing on the major issues of the day — Social Security, the ethics of the GOP majority and the war in Iraq — and have the political machine in place to win seats.
First of all, if any partisan leader looks at polls for an election that will not happen for 15 months and think they are a lock for anything, they are smoking crack. Right now most people are asked teh question, "If the election were held today, would you vote for a Democratic or a Republican candidate?" Or something to that effect. With many people in a funk (created in part by negative reporting by the MSM), they are likely to say they would vote against the party in power--which in this case means the Democrats get some support. The problem with this line of thought is that when push comes to shove, voters hate Congress but love their Congressman, thus the high re-election rate.
As to issues, the GOP has won half the battle on Social Security--until this year, the Democrats insisted there was nothing wrong with the system, but now they admit there is a looming problem. Of course the only plans offered to date to fix the Social Security system have come from Republicans--but as I have said, the Democrats suffer from a lack of a message or ideas.
When asked whether she would at least bank her credibility on House Democratic pickups, Pelosi said: “Yes. I think we will make gains, it’s just a question of how many.”
Of course, Democrats said the same thing in 2002 and the GOP still picked up seats. This administration and the GOP has shown its ability to buck history with every election--why then should 2006 be any different?
The former Minority Whip said Democrats have enjoyed solid recruiting so far this cycle by already locking in 19 candidates in open and GOP held seats, showing record fundraising and putting together a massive rapid response effort to combat Republican proposals and attacks.
Responding to proposals and attacks, but not with anything of substance.
Pelosi said Democrats are targeting as many as 50 districts for pickups this cycle, and if they can win a third of those, they have a good shot.
Targeting 50 races at this stage is going to be a waste of money. With the need to pick up 15 seats and hold their current seats, the Democrats face a tough battle. If I were plotting strategy, I would be looking at no more than 30 races and probably 25 where efforts could be conentrated. But then again, Democrats always hold idealistic ideas instead of looking at the real situation. Of the 15 most vulnerable Republican seats, they Democrats have a realistic shot at only about 5-7. Statistically though, 13 or 14 of those vulnerable Republicans will still get re-elected.
The California Democrat said the political environment is far better for House Democrats this cycle given it is a mid-term election and history is on the minority party’s side, they no longer have the impossible hurdle of overcoming Texas redistricting and do not have to reckon with the Bush 11th hour get-out-the-vote operation.
This is what I call the ostritch strategy. As noted above, this Republican party has demolished the conventional wisdom in three straight elections, on what basis do the Democrats think conventional wisdom will serve them here? The law of averages? True, the Texas redistricting is not in play this year, but what makes the Democrats think the Bush GOTV operation is not really a GOP operation that can translate to record votes in the 2006 elections? The answer is wishful thinking.
There are no indications that the Democrats are in a good place politically. First, their primary ground operatives, the unions, are fighting amongst themselves. Union membership is down some 30 percent over the past 50 years, to just over 12% of U.S. households. Of that 12%, 3 or 4 percent vote Republican--just a statistical fact when you consider that skilled union members often make six figures with overtime--at that level they start voting economic issues-- in line with the GOP.
The so-called advantage of the Democratic 527 organizations did not come through in 2004 and now that the Republicans are fielding their own 527's that "advantage" is likely to be blunted. Finally, depsite record Democratic fundraising, the GOP is still raising more hard money than the Democrats.
So long as the GOP remains the party of ideas and the party of action, not dreams, they will continue to win in Congress.
This Post in a Beltway Traffic Jam
Pelosi Sees '06 House Gains
Charles Krauthammer: A Party Without Ideas
Or without a message. This editorial appeared in last week's Washington Post, and while it deals primarily with CAFTA, the first several paragraphs pinpoint the Democratic problem.
What has happened to the Democrats over the past few decades is best captured by the phrase (coined by Kevin Phillips) "reactionary liberalism." Spent of new ideas, their only remaining idea is to hang on to the status quo at all costs.
This is true across the board. On Social Security, which is facing an impending demographic and fiscal crisis, they have put absolutely nothing on the table. On presidential appointments -- first, judges; and now ambassador to the United Nations -- they resort to the classic weapon of Southern obstructionism: the filibuster. And on foreign policy, they have nothing to say on the war on terror, the war in Iraq or the burgeoning Arab Spring (except the refrain: ``Guantanamo'').
A quarter-century ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted how it was the Republicans who had become a party of ideas, while the Democrats' philosophical foundation was ``deeply eroded.'' But even Moynihan would be surprised by the bankruptcy in the Democrats' current intellectual account.
In short, as I have argued before, the Democrats are the "anti" party. They oppose anything supported by the Bush Administration in a completely knee-jerk reaction--even if it runs counter to their own expressed principles.
I think Moynihan is rolling over in his grave. Of course, this makes winning for Republican easier since they run on ideas and Democrats run on anti-ideas--a losing proposition.
Charles Krauthammer: A Party Without Ideas
What has happened to the Democrats over the past few decades is best captured by the phrase (coined by Kevin Phillips) "reactionary liberalism." Spent of new ideas, their only remaining idea is to hang on to the status quo at all costs.
This is true across the board. On Social Security, which is facing an impending demographic and fiscal crisis, they have put absolutely nothing on the table. On presidential appointments -- first, judges; and now ambassador to the United Nations -- they resort to the classic weapon of Southern obstructionism: the filibuster. And on foreign policy, they have nothing to say on the war on terror, the war in Iraq or the burgeoning Arab Spring (except the refrain: ``Guantanamo'').
A quarter-century ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted how it was the Republicans who had become a party of ideas, while the Democrats' philosophical foundation was ``deeply eroded.'' But even Moynihan would be surprised by the bankruptcy in the Democrats' current intellectual account.
In short, as I have argued before, the Democrats are the "anti" party. They oppose anything supported by the Bush Administration in a completely knee-jerk reaction--even if it runs counter to their own expressed principles.
I think Moynihan is rolling over in his grave. Of course, this makes winning for Republican easier since they run on ideas and Democrats run on anti-ideas--a losing proposition.
Charles Krauthammer: A Party Without Ideas
Monday, June 27, 2005
College Core Courses
The link below is to one of Jay Mathews' columns from the Washington Post talking about a required course at tiny Ursinus College. In an attempt to get students involved and impart a little broad based knowledge, the college has a one year course required of all first year students. The class involves works of history, art, politics, science and social theory that provides a springboard for thought and discourse.
I have to admit I like the concept but wonder, yet again, why such innovation and programs occur only at small colleges. One quick result might be the Political Correctness police at larger schools. The faculty board who would have to put together a course such as the one at Ursinus would quickly devolve into squabbling about which works should be included.
But the fundamental question survives--should colleges and universities be training grounds for workers or should they be fonts of thinkers; people who have the skills to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze any scenario and speak coherently on a subject. For me, I believe a university education should provide a basic to intermediate understanding of a broad range of topics. Thus allowing a choice of core courses enables students to amass the necessary thinking skills in topics of interest to them.
However, I do believe that colleges should require 9 courses, the same courses, for all students. Furthermore, these courses should not be "waivable" by taking AP or IB classes. These courses should be taken in the first or second year of college. Some of these are commonly taught in core courses, but the goal here is to make the course use a common curricula to get all students on the same page analytically. So here are the subjects along with a justification for my choice. They are presented in alphabetical order.
American Government. You live in America, whether you are a citizen or not, and far too many people don't understand the system of government that runs their life. This course should included a detailed study of the Constitution and Amendments, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence as well as the interaction between and among the federal and state and local governments.
Economics. This course should focus on macro issues, including various economic systems, the manner in which markets work and the application of economic principles to various problems in society. The course should also look at the interaction of various industries and how non-economic institutions, i.e. the government, the media and other groups influence economic behavior.
History of Science. This class should focus on the development of human understanding of the world around ourselves. This class, a survey course, would look at the major developments in the physical, biological and social sciences. The impact of scientific discoveries on society should also be explored in order to understand the role of science in society.
Human Anatomy. Far too many people do not understand how their own body works. By including in the course, topics such as health and nutrition, this course can provide all students with an understanding of human biology, how to care for the body, and the consequences of negative behavior. Maybe this could the the antidote to the Freshman Fifteen.
Literature. This is a tricky topic since any literature class that includes some works will, by necessity, leave others out which is going to irk some people. But the goal of this course is to provide a fundamental understanding of the role of literature in our history and society. At the same time, the course should provide a skill set for people to be able to read anything critically and analyze the writing for a purpose.
Mathematics/Statistics. The basic understanding of mathematical principles and the use of statistics happens every day. We hear about studies and polls that use statistics and sampling techniques. We use math in real world situations all the time, this course should reflect those ideas. I am not talking about advanced calculus or differential equations, but common, everyday uses of math and statistics.
U.S. History--like American government, you live in America and should be familiar with the development of our nation. This course should be taken concurrently with American Government in order to understand the relationship between the political history and the social history of the United States.
World History. By its very nature, this would have to be a year long course, short on details. However, the course should cover, major time-oriented developments, including large scale conflicts; religious history, (i.e. the development of the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, the rise of Islam, Asian religious); social developments; developments in government and nation states. The primary focus of this course is to give students an understand of the passage of events and the ability to analyze why such events happened, even if they don't fully explore or develop each segment.
Writing. To be honest, there needs to be much more focus on writing at the collegiate level. Too many students never write a significant paper beyond their early classes. I would like to see writing graded each year. This is the outlier to my suggestion. Each year in school, a student will be required to submit a thesis--a paper of substantial length (say 20 pages in the first year up to 60 or 70 in the final year of college) which is graded. The purpose of this is to get the student used to researching and writing for substance and thought.
There you go, the nine classes that I think should be the core course of any collegiate education. I realize that I leave many questions to be decided, such as who gets to determine which concepts are "major" or "important." But this idea is not fully developed and I seek input from others. Ideally, I would like to see these course taught at high schools, but that is a crusade for another time.
A Mix of Core Courses
I have to admit I like the concept but wonder, yet again, why such innovation and programs occur only at small colleges. One quick result might be the Political Correctness police at larger schools. The faculty board who would have to put together a course such as the one at Ursinus would quickly devolve into squabbling about which works should be included.
But the fundamental question survives--should colleges and universities be training grounds for workers or should they be fonts of thinkers; people who have the skills to quantitatively and qualitatively analyze any scenario and speak coherently on a subject. For me, I believe a university education should provide a basic to intermediate understanding of a broad range of topics. Thus allowing a choice of core courses enables students to amass the necessary thinking skills in topics of interest to them.
However, I do believe that colleges should require 9 courses, the same courses, for all students. Furthermore, these courses should not be "waivable" by taking AP or IB classes. These courses should be taken in the first or second year of college. Some of these are commonly taught in core courses, but the goal here is to make the course use a common curricula to get all students on the same page analytically. So here are the subjects along with a justification for my choice. They are presented in alphabetical order.
American Government. You live in America, whether you are a citizen or not, and far too many people don't understand the system of government that runs their life. This course should included a detailed study of the Constitution and Amendments, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence as well as the interaction between and among the federal and state and local governments.
Economics. This course should focus on macro issues, including various economic systems, the manner in which markets work and the application of economic principles to various problems in society. The course should also look at the interaction of various industries and how non-economic institutions, i.e. the government, the media and other groups influence economic behavior.
History of Science. This class should focus on the development of human understanding of the world around ourselves. This class, a survey course, would look at the major developments in the physical, biological and social sciences. The impact of scientific discoveries on society should also be explored in order to understand the role of science in society.
Human Anatomy. Far too many people do not understand how their own body works. By including in the course, topics such as health and nutrition, this course can provide all students with an understanding of human biology, how to care for the body, and the consequences of negative behavior. Maybe this could the the antidote to the Freshman Fifteen.
Literature. This is a tricky topic since any literature class that includes some works will, by necessity, leave others out which is going to irk some people. But the goal of this course is to provide a fundamental understanding of the role of literature in our history and society. At the same time, the course should provide a skill set for people to be able to read anything critically and analyze the writing for a purpose.
Mathematics/Statistics. The basic understanding of mathematical principles and the use of statistics happens every day. We hear about studies and polls that use statistics and sampling techniques. We use math in real world situations all the time, this course should reflect those ideas. I am not talking about advanced calculus or differential equations, but common, everyday uses of math and statistics.
U.S. History--like American government, you live in America and should be familiar with the development of our nation. This course should be taken concurrently with American Government in order to understand the relationship between the political history and the social history of the United States.
World History. By its very nature, this would have to be a year long course, short on details. However, the course should cover, major time-oriented developments, including large scale conflicts; religious history, (i.e. the development of the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformation, the rise of Islam, Asian religious); social developments; developments in government and nation states. The primary focus of this course is to give students an understand of the passage of events and the ability to analyze why such events happened, even if they don't fully explore or develop each segment.
Writing. To be honest, there needs to be much more focus on writing at the collegiate level. Too many students never write a significant paper beyond their early classes. I would like to see writing graded each year. This is the outlier to my suggestion. Each year in school, a student will be required to submit a thesis--a paper of substantial length (say 20 pages in the first year up to 60 or 70 in the final year of college) which is graded. The purpose of this is to get the student used to researching and writing for substance and thought.
There you go, the nine classes that I think should be the core course of any collegiate education. I realize that I leave many questions to be decided, such as who gets to determine which concepts are "major" or "important." But this idea is not fully developed and I seek input from others. Ideally, I would like to see these course taught at high schools, but that is a crusade for another time.
A Mix of Core Courses
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)