Ingenius Thieves Steal Pool With Water

Wha....:

Someone stole 1,000 gallons of water from Daisy Valdivia's backyard. And they didn't spill a drop.

Valdivia woke Wednesday morning to find that her family's inflatable pool, hip high and 10 feet in diameter and filled with water, was stolen from her backyard in the middle of the night. There is no evidence that the water was poured out, pumped out, evaporated or drunk.

"I've never heard of a pool being stolen, let alone one with water in it," Valdivia said.

I thought the stealing the gold bathtup was wierd, but at least the tub was gold. I don't get this.

Tour de France Now a Joke

Doping scandals, failed drug tests and now a tour leader yanked over lies to his team have turned cyclling's biggest event into a late night show punchline. Danish rider Michael Rasmussen, who had won yesterday's grueling 16th Stage and looked set to win the event this weekend, we booted from his team for violating team rules. What does that mean?

The expulsion, which Bergsma said was ordered by the Dutch team's sponsor, was linked to "incorrect" information that Rasmussen gave to the team's sports director over his whereabouts last month. The Danish cyclist missed random drug tests May 8 and June 28, saying he was in Mexico. But a former rider, Davide Cassani, told Denmark's Danmarks Radio on Wednesday that he had seen Rasmussen in Italy in mid-June.

Only once before in the history of the 104-year-old Tour has the race leader been expelled. In 1978, Belgian rider Michel Pollentier, trying to evade doping controls after winning a stage at the Alpe d'Huez in the Alps, was caught with an intricate tube-and-container system that contained urine that was not his, said Tour historian Jean-Paul Brouchon.

Under the rules of itnernation competition for the World Anti-Doping Agency, athletes must make themselves available for random testing throughout the year, including out-of-competition testing. Reportedly Rasmussen missed two test days. Such behavior cannot be tolerated and probably should have been know before the Tour began, in essence Rasmussen's team should not have let me start the race at all.

But why pull him now? I think the team thought something might be a little fishy in his lack of appearances for random testing and they figured it better to pull him from the race rather than allow him and his team to become tainted if anything came up later. Although Rasmussen has tested clear during the race, his team may wonder about his pre-race preparation.

This year's tour has seen two riders and an entire team disissed from the competition.

German rider Patrick Sinkewitz crashed into a spectator then was revealed to have failed a drug test in training before the Tour, and [Alexndre] Vinokourov [and team Astana were] sent home after testing positive for a banned blood transfusion. On Wednesday, as Rasmussen was riding toward his stage 16 win, the Cofidis squad confirmed its Italian rider Cristian Moreni failed a doping test, prompting the withdrawal of the entire squad.

Police detained Moreni after he finished the stage and searched the hotel where his Cofidis team was staying. Results from the raid weren't expected until Thursday. France has tough laws against trafficking in doping products.

Cofidis manager Eric Boyer said Moreni "accepted his wrongdoing" and waived his right for a follow-up test to confirm the results of the first, which was positive for the male hormone testosterone.

The ridiculous matter is that these riders somehow believe they will not be caught? The status of international cycling has lead some calling for drastic steps:

All this talk of doping prompted Jean-Francois Lamour, vice president of the World Anti-Doping Agency, to suggest the sport should be yanked from the Olympics. German public broadcasters have stopped airing the race, and one of Switzerland's biggest newspapers stopped writing about it. The daily Tages Anzeiger said on its Web site Wednesday it will limit its coverage to results and doping stories.

What a joke this race has become. One of the world's premier endurance events has become nothing more than an advertisment for wrongdoing.

What has happened to sports when the biggest stories are drowned out by cheating scandals?

Baltimore Schools Labeled "Persistently Dangerous"

Maryland state school officials named five Baltimor schools as persistently dangerous under the No Child Left Behind Act. Some community leaders don't like the desingation:

A few state school board members expressed concern before the vote that the designation puts a harsh label not only on a school but its community. The federal government allows states to define a dangerous school - and Maryland has one of the broadest descriptions in the nation.

"I think this part of [the No Child Left Behind law] is a real problem because of the difficulty it creates for a local community," said Blair G. Ewing, a new member of the board from Montgomery County. He said the federal education law applies a pejorative term to describe a school without offering any assistance in resolving the problem.

"This labeling of schools doesn't fix anything," said Dunbar Brooks, the new board president.

According to the Maryland definition, which NCLB allows the state to define dangerous,

For a school to get on the list, 2 1/2 percent of its student body must have been suspended for arson, possessing a weapon or drugs, assaulting a teacher or other student, or sexual assault.

The number of incidents at the five schools varied from as many as 21 to as few as six. Walbrook had 10 incidents last year that were counted under the persistently dangerous category. They were six drug offenses, an assault on an adult and three attacks on students, city officials said.

At Thurgood Marshall Middle School, there were six incidents; five involved weapons other than a gun. The sixth was listed only as an attack on a student.

Let's say your local Maryland school has a student body of 1000 kids. To get to the level of 2.5 percent, that means 25 kids have to be suspended for felonious behavior--and everything on the list is a felony. These felonies have to be committed on school grounds. In a 36 week, school year, 25 felonies in one school means a crime is commited on average every 7.2 school days.

Yes that is persistently dangerous and no student and no teacher should have to work in such conditions.

As for the negative connotation associated with the label, big deal. Baltimore has a crime problem, an acknowledged crime problem. The whole city suffers under the notion that it is "persistenly dangerous." Solve the crime problem and you solve the problem of crime at schools. We are not talking about the self-esteem of kids, we are talking about their physical safety and no matter what the condition of the neighborhood may be, schools should be the one safe place in these kids lives. If it takes a negative label to effect change, then so be it.

Leading Dems Get Nasty on Foriegn Policy

One of the few questions that really got my attention in teh CNN/YouTube debate dealt with the issue of meeting with the leaders of nations the United States has shunned, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and North Korea. Obama's response that he would meet with leaders and Clinton's response have spaked one of the more interesting clashes between the leading candidates. Roger Simon looks behind the scenes at the brewing fued.

Can Oprah Deliver Her Fans to Obama?

In a word, yes. Steven Stark explains how.

Although the press covers them pantingly, endorsements often mean little -- if anything -- in presidential politics. The days when a public official could deliver a constituency have long since passed. Even labor unions, once rock-solid in their bloc-ability, have been unable lately to steer their members to a chosen candidate.

Sure, endorsers may help a candidate's fundraising efforts by granting access to their Rolodexes. And the support of a mayor can usually get a few senior citizens to the polls on Election Day. But that's about it.

Unless, of course, the endorser in question is Oprah Winfrey. If anyone is an exception to all the rules, it's Oprah.

From her still-popular TV talk show, to O magazine, to her book-club endorsements that regularly lift titles -- any titles -- to the lofty top slot, Oprah's influence on American culture is enormous. One leading television historian has called Oprah "the most celebrated and powerful black woman in US history." (Okay, it was me.) Life magazine has labeled her "America's most powerful woman." Forbes magazine went one step further, calling her the most influential person in the world. None is exaggerating.

In some polls, Oprah even ranks as the celebrity Americans believe to be most qualified to serve as president. Another recent survey from about.com ranked Oprah as the country's favorite entrepreneur, with nearly double the votes of that ne'er-do-well Bill Gates. And a 2003 VH1 poll named her the country's greatest pop-culture icon -- beating out, for example, Superman and Elvis. It's not just that everything she touches turns to gold; when Oprah speaks, America listens. When she tells them to buy something, they do.

Certainly most celebrity endorsements mean little, particularly given their normally leftward tilt and unsurprising tenor. But Oprah Winfrey, the $260 million dollar woman in 2006, has cache that most celebrities only dream of. If her endorsement of a book can lift an otherwise mediocre book to the top of the best seller list, what do you think she can do for a political candidate? While her influence with her audience is limited on her TV show, her magazine and other media outlets don't operate under such "fair play" rules. Winfrey's influence among the very voters that Hillary Clinton calls her base, lower and middle class women, means that Clinton must be sweating this endorsement and certainly has her lawyers watching every Winfrey telecast.

Yeah, Oprah can deliver votes for Obama, but will it be enough to win? Maybe, just maybe.

Judging Thompson's Legal Career and Political Career

Everyone knows that Fred Thompson is an actor and was a lawyer, but opponents are busy churning up infomration on Thompson's law practice and how it affected his tenure as a Senator.

Officially, Thompson and his aides declined to answer questions about his legal work on the grounds that he is not a declared candidate. Privately, his advisers said they are acutely aware that GOP opponents could try to paint Thompson as too liberal, based on his legal work, his support from the trial lawyers' lobby and his votes on liability legislation that conflicted with those of most Republicans.

There will always be a concern that he wants to be the leader of the cobra party, and he was, for a while, a mongoose," said Grover Norquist, head of the Americans for Tax Reform, which supported tort reform and is influential in GOP circles. "He needs to articulate not where he was while practicing law under the tort laws at the time but where he think those laws should go now."

Thompson recently sought to head off attacks, posting a statement on a conservative blog explaining his opposition to federal limits on malpractice lawsuits by saying it is a matter best left to states.

Thompson is probably a better federalist than any other conservative out there, including people like Grover Norquist. Don't get me wrong, Norquist is a conservative as they come, but he is not a federalist--meaning Norquist believes that matters that would be considered state issues should and must be solved at the federal level.

Thompson did buck his party when it came to the Contract with America's tort reform items, but for a really good reason--tort reform is not a federal matter--unless you are dealing with federal torts. Most tort cases are state level law and the states should decide what is appropriate tort reform in their states. Imposing a federal cap on a state law dispute could arguably be unconstitutional, assuming a state wanted to fight the matter and is certainly a violation of the concepts of federalism.

Look, I think malpractice awards can be a little too high, but those are isolated cases. Not every malpractice claim ends in a multi-million dollar settlement or verdict. Most are settled for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think the cost of litigation is such that it drives malpractice insurance rates higher, which makes my visits to the doctor more expensive, which makes my health insurance coverage more expensive, which means I am losing money from my check. It is a vicious cycle, but it is a cycle that must be corrected by teh states and not the federal government.

Sen. Thompson, well done on this issue and let the GOP whine--at least under your vision there is still hope. With a Democrat in the White House, tort reform, even on teh state level, would be a dirty word.

Milestones: 2,000th Post

Accroding to the data provided by Blogger, this is my 2,000th post.

To be honest, I didn't know if I would be able to stick with blogging for this long. I figured that at some point, I would run out of things to say and write about. Turns out, I have a big mouth and an opinion on just about anything.

I have also been happy that more people are coming to read my opinions and it has been fun. There are some patterns that I have noticed. First, I don't write about campaign finance as much as I used to, in part because I have been getting a little bored with my work and in part because I don't have much else to say on the subject.

Second, I have found myself posting quick hits, sort of Instapundit style. I started doing it to give myself an opportunity later to go back and write a little more on teh subject, but that hasn't happened. I don't know if it is a matter of losing interest or losing time to go back.

Third, when I write longer pieces of more pure commentary, that is talking about issues that interest me outside of the news, I have become a little more verbose. I hope to work on this a little more, to take a little bit more time to write the first draft and then edit. I like these long form posts, even it others don't.

Fourth, and finally--I still like politics, even though politicians disappoint me regularly. I still love this nation and its governmental strucutre, even if the officeholders leave much to be desired.

For everyone who has visited this site in the past two and a half years or so, thanks for visiting and if you like what you read, let me know and tell your friends.

In Defense of Soccer in America

For those few readers who have reguarly been coming to this space, you may have noticed that I am posting a lot more soccer news and material to this blog. As the brief bio points out, this blog is about my passions and I love soccer. I have loved soccer since I started playing at age 9. I still love the "Beatiful Game" and probably always will. My vision of my deathbed is my wife, kids, grandkids and close friends sitting around watching a soccer game.

I also love the United States, with all my heart. In terms of my allegiances, you could easily say, my family, my country, my fiends and my soccer--in that order. But there are times when I wished that I grew up in a nation that followed soccer a great deal more than the United States--say England or Germany. But I was blessed to be an American and cursed to be a soccer fan in America.

I have come to accept that right now, Americans don't follow soccer with the same passion that I do. In fact, thanks to chuckleheads like this guy, most Americans get a viciously skewed view of the game. But Americans can and should love this game, if only they looked at from a different point of view. Instead of looking at the scoreboard and the game's lengthy test of endurance, Americans needs to view the sport in terms of American values. There is so much about American that can be seen in soccer, so many things that while not uniquely American in the game, certainly match with American sensibilities and mores.

From the time I was consciously aware of it, America has always been a land of optimisim. Even in the worst of circumstances, America maintains a positive outlook, predicated on plucky, stick-to-it-iveness that simply is not a part of the national psyche in other countries. America has always believed that if it kept trying, kept thinking, and kept working, then success would come to them. That optimism underscored the phenonenal success of our nation, our government and our way of life. No other nation achieved so much in such a short history.

Detractors bemoan the lack of scoring in soccer, noting that games often end with just one or two goals scored in a game. To these people soccer lacks excitement and thus they are pessimistic about the game. But soccer is a game designed for optimists, for American optimism. It takes a great deal of optimism and "stick-to-it-iveness" to routinely and repeated go on the attack trying to score. It takes faith, another American trait, to believe that this attack will end in a goal, even though statistically, it won't. Teams scheme and work and continually try to score. In that respect, soccer is no different than football or baseball.

America has always prided itself on its inherent inventiveness, the genius of finding a new solution to a problem. We are a nation of Robert Fulton, Eli Whitney, Alexander Graham Bell, Henry Ford, NASA engineers, Bill Gates and Sergey Brin. We are the people that find solutions to problems. We are a nation of thinkers and of do-ers. We are an industrious people, for whom hard work is no stranger and believe that hard work leads to success, regardless of whether that success is modest or grandiose.

In so many ways, soccer is thinking man's game. It is a game of fluidity, of action and reaction. Soccer boasts a constant movement, a constant adjustment of strategy and tactics. Unlike football, where plays are plotted and rehearsed over and over again, soccer is a game the requires adaptation on the fly all the time. Improvisation and ingenuity are rewarded, routine and rigidity punished. The only time you see improvisation on a football field during a game is when a play breaks down. With soccer you see solutions to problems developed in the run of play, not in a huddle every 40 seconds. Soccer should appeal to the thinker in us all.

Despite everything, America is a nation that believes the little guy can still win, where a poor adopted kid from Hope, Arkansass can become President. Soccer is a game where at anytime, on any given game day, anyone can win. A combination of luck, skill and determination can carry the day over big payrolls and big names. Soccer is a game where the George Mason's of the world are far more common than you would believe. While soccer as a game can carry heartache and heartbreak, remember it is still a game of optimism. There will be another time, another match.

Soccer is not a game of bursts of energy or violence in the same way that baseball or football presents. Soccer can't be broken down into numbers and situations the way those games lend themselves to. Soccer has so few set plays, whereas football and for the most part basketball are predicated on set plays. There is no playbook for soccer. Soccer has skills that are rehearsed regularly in training, but unlike baseball, they must be combined every game in new ways and applied in new situations against new teams.

Perhaps this is why soccer fails to garner the type of fan base as others. But outside of the professional ranks of sports in this country, there are more people playing soccer.

More children participate in soccer in the United States than in baseball/softball and football combined. Soccer atrracts more young people to sport than any other game in America. Soccer is is a game that requires teamwork, communication and group problem solving, but it is also a game that still admires the talented individual.

Soccer is the ultimate democratic game of democractic nation, it requires no specialized equipment or specialized fields, it requires no massive outlay of money, only an effort, desire, an open space, a ball and a few peple who want play. Soccer can be played with teams as few as three and as many as 11 at anyone time. It asks nothing of a player but his or her energy and skill. It provides the joy of athleticism, of speed and endurance, of individual achievement and group success. It teaches about life, about failure and success, about learning from mistakes and reveling in success.

Soccer may not be America's game but it is a game that shares American values far more than any other.

Multiple Test Format Accountability Schemes

EdWeeks NCLB: Act II blog is looking and following closely the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. One of the big questions they are now asking is whether the accountability provisions will survive the reauthorization.

In my comments to that post, I noted that the political environment is far too heated for any sort of drastic changes, so my prediction is that Congress will punt until after the 2008 elections. But one of the deeper questions about the accountability provisions is one that will have to be addressed. Do we put too much emphasis on a single, snap shot in time measurements?

I will agree that once a year testing produces incentives that may not actually raise the academic achievement of students. Too much time is spent preparing for the tests, too much emphasis is given to "bubble kids" and there are far too many opportunities for the state and school districts to game the system.

I believe that accountability is important and that data doesn't lie. We cannot scrap the accountability provisions all together, but we do need to look for alternatives. One of the alternative methods that is being tested is the so-called growth model, whereby states can show that their students are learning, thus meeting the definition of adequate yearly progress.

So if there are already alternatives for measuring AYP, what about different models for testing. Well some of those ideas include the use of so-called multiple measures for gauging AYP. I am not sure what Congress means by that, but Education Trust and other groups worry that such multiple measures will gut the accountability provisions and confuse parents.

Yet, I am not sure. Multiple measures can mean several things and what I would like to see the term used in a way that would help the growth model people--multiple state wide tests used to measure progress. At a minium we would be talking about three or four tests a year. The first test of each year would give a baseline starting point for the students. The middle test or tests would provide data to schools and teachers, allowing them to modify teaching content and the final test would provide year end measures.

The wealth of test data that is possible with this model is far superior to any single test format currently available and can help alleviate some of the worst features. Additionally, it can help advance many of the teacher quality issues that I and other have spoken about.

As a starting point the multiple test format ("MTF") allows for mid-year corrections to curricula and teahcing methods. The test data would allow for schools to address areas that show weaknesses on the tests, helping students achieve the necessary standards on later tests. MTF also enable experts who develop tests and curricula to get a better match between the test standards and the curricula so that the disconnect between what is taught and what and how it is tested shrinks.

One of hte most common complaints about the current single test format is the "high stakes" testing atmosphere that is roundly decired by teachers and testing critics. A MTF lowers that stress level as multiple tests breeds a familiarity with the format and provides a sort of leveling of scores. One bad day can be overcome with regular performance on the remaining test days.

The MTF is not all about helping students, but can also help school districts and administrator to identify exceptional teachers and teachers needing some professional development. Growth models and MTF would allow teachers to be measured against their peers in a number of different factors and with far more data available to study, the evaluation becomes much more accurate. Issues such as merit pay can be more readily accepted because the primary means of measuring educational skill is based on multiple tests, not on one test.


Of course, a MTF evaluation would cost more and that is a real hurdle for such a scheme. However, a series of four tests can provide so much more data on what is working, what is not working, the matching of curricula to tested items, the impact of a teacher upon student learning, etc, that the investment might be appealing. Instead of guessing what is happening in classrooms, principals, policymakers and parents would have real data, available in time so that corrections can be made instead of weeks or months after the fact.

Moral Paralysis

Thomas Sowell holds forth on the moral paralysis of 1930's Europe and the modern world.

This is why history is so important to study.

What are you waiting for, go read Sowell's piece.

Why The Democratics Candidates Won't Win the Conservative Democrat Vote

Michelle Malkin details the responses of two Democratic presidential candidates to a question about gun control.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was asked to respond first. CNN host Anderson Cooper noted that Richardson has "one of the highest NRA ratings." Richardson ran so fast from his record, you could see the Road Runner puff of cartoon smoke billowing at the base of his podium.

Richardson babbled on about background checks and mentally ill buyers and blah, blah, blah. Moderator Anderson Cooper took pity on Richardson and moved to another candidate. Based solely on his background, Richardson should be wiping the floor with this crop of candidates, but he isn't and his performance in the "YouTube" debate is why.

But it was Joe Biden who lent the perfect frame to why the Democrats will never win in a state like West Virginia, a normally Democratic bastion. Quick background though. The questioner was one Jared Townsend from Michigan, who introduced his Bushmaster AR-15 as his "baby" and wondered what the candidates would do to protect his baby.

Biden's first line:

"I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help."

Biden threw red meat to the blue audience. He was richly rewarded with loud applause. Biden showed off his lawyerly credentials and continued to wallop the YouTube gun owner: "I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun." Why? Because he showed affection for his possession? Because he's an enthusiastic hobbyist? Because he talked about his gun the way Paris Hilton talks about her Chihuahua or Brad Pitt talks about his Ducati or Al Gore talks about his Priuses and compact fluorescent light bulbs?

The absolute disdain for gun ownership among law abiding citizens is just proof that the current crop of liberal candidates is so completely out of touch with not only the American people, but with American history.

But it is completely in line with their vision of the world, a world in which the government controls all and liberty is reduced for everyone. The Framers knew that private gun ownership was not just a matter of self-defense against Indians or wild animals. Private gun ownership was about the survival of the nation, the fact that guns in the hands of individual citizens put a check on the power of the government in their lives. In the liberal world, only police and the military would have guns and the fewer of those the better.

While Joe Biden has zero chance of becoming President, the fact that front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said and did nothing to assuage Jared Townsend's concerns, Townsend and those like him have much to fear from a Democratic administration.

Work Hard and Avoid Debt, How One College Handles College Debt

The College of the Ozarks is not a school you hear much about, until this article in the New York Times, I had never heard of it. But their difference is all the difference:

Like many undergraduates, students at the College of the Ozarks here work their way through school, though they often do such unconventional campus jobs as milking cows at dawn in the college’s barns and baking fruit breads for sale to donors.

But what is truly different about Hard Work U. — as the college styles itself — is that all 1,345 students must work 15 hours per week to pay off the entire cost of tuition — $15,900 per year. If they work summers, as one-third are doing this summer, they pay off their $4,400 room and board as well. Work study is not an option as it is at most campuses; it is the college’s raison d’être.

This is a college that is philosophically opposed to students starting careers with an Ozark mountain of debt — 95 percent graduate debt free — and it believes that students who put sweat equity into their education value it more.

“I find I take more pride in doing well in class when I know I’ve washed dishes to be able to take that class,” said Sarah Ledoux, a sophomore from Deridder, La.

Other students make similar remarks on this campus, spread across a thousand acres of the hardscrabble hills and hollows of southwestern Missouri. Those students and the college’s longtime president, Jerry C. Davis, think the up-by-the-bootstraps credo is one that more campuses should adopt. Too many parents, they say, think children should focus only on the “full college experience” of classes, clubs and sports, and be spared the economic realities or have those realities postponed through loans.

I worked in college, two jobs (one on campus, one off campus), to supplement my loans, scholarships and GI bill (which I had to work to earn as well). However, those didn't come close to covering teh costs of tuition and living expenses in College Park, Maryland. As the Times points out the College of the Ozarks is unique in many respects:

If work colleges have flourished through an almost spiritual faith in self-reliance, the practical economics are clearly not suited for every campus. Roger Lehecka, the former dean of students at Columbia and a consultant to scholarship programs including one at The New York Times, points out that working 15 hours a week amounts to earning roughly $6,000 for two semesters, a small portion of a year at Columbia that can cost more than $45,000.

“No way a kid could do that working 15 hours,” Mr. Lehecka said.

Student labor is common on campus (I worked as a tutor at the Writing Center, which aside from driving the buses on campus, was the best paying job on campus and much better hours) and many campuses thrive on student labor. To be honest, there is probably a good likelihood that more student labor could be used.

Still, I certainly valued my education in part because is was a lot of my own money on teh line. I generally earned enough money (plus the GI bill payments) to pay for most of my living expenses and then used loans and scholarships to pay for tuition. It kept expenses down as much as possible.

House Judiciary Committee Approves Contempt Citations

Politico.com reports that the House Judiciary Committee approved a contempt resolution against White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

The House Judiciary Committee, in a straight party-line vote, approved a contempt resolution against White House Chief of Staff John Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, setting up a constitutional battle between the Bush administration and Congress over executive privilege.

After several hours of skirmishing over whether to send a contempt resolution to the House floor, the committee voted by a 22-17 margin to approve the measure.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders will now have to decide if and when to hold a vote by the full House on the resolution. A vote could take place as early as next week, said Democratic insiders.

As I said before, this move does nothing and gains nothing.

Maybe This Fashion Statement Can Relieve Tension on the Hill

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) went onto the House floor dressed in a loose-fitting Hawaiian shirt, linen pants and slippers. In a bit of irony, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) was presiding over the House noted: The chair must remind Members that the proper standard of dress in the chamber is business attire, which includes both coat and tie for gentlemen."

But Lee, herself, has also gone summer casual on the House floor, staffers mock!

Follow this link to see what Lee herself has worn in the House.

Sen. Spector To Look At Roberts, Alito Confirmation Testimony

Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) has said that he intends to "personally re-examine the testimony" of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito "to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate," according to a report in Politico.com.

The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.

Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.

"It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Roberts has defended his rulings as applications of "existing precedent."

Specter, however, said Breyer's statement was "an especially forceful criticism of the Roberts court."

"I only noticed it in a couple of cases," Specter said of the court overturning or undermining precedents. But Breyer, in their Aspen conversation, said "there were eight."

Those that have earned the most criticism from liberals were rulings that struck down desegregation programs, upheld a federal law prohibiting late-term abortions and weakened restrictions on broadcast ads during campaigns.

This "review" is a fool's errand and quite frankly more damaging to the legal system and the power of the Supreme Court than anything Congress could possibly do.

It is important to note that Specter's review is certainly within his purview as a Senator, but it is highly impolitic to publicly undertake such a query. The fact that Roberts and Alito spoke of respect of the stare decisis doctrine cannot undermine their duty to decide the cases in a manner dicated by the facts and the law. Each case is different and the Court cannot rigidly apply precedent just because the cases are similar. Often decisions are based upon a view of the evidence and facts. For example, the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case could have come out very differently if the court interpreted the event where the irreverant sign was displayed had not been a school sponsored event.

However, this legislative inquiry undermines the Court's autonomy. In reality there is very little force, other than traditional respect for the Court's rulings, that the Supreme Court can apply to ensure its decisions are followed. The Court has no independent police power to enforce its decisions. This kind of inquiry undermines the judicial independence and respect for the Judiciary that remains key to the Court's efficacy. The Specter inquiry leads the public to distrust what the Court is doing and that public trust is important. Even if one disagrees with the Court's ruling, there can be no question about the Court's motives and methods.

The Justices know that their writings and opinions will be closely parsed for meaning, nuance and agenda. Justices also have views that change, often with the facts of a case, and often over time. Yes, Justice Roberts and Alito have not been on the Court for long, but to parse their prior testimone simply because you don't like their decisions undermines their positions, undermines their honor and undermines the public faith in the Court.

Having said that though, I do believe the Senate has a responsibility to critically examine the manner in which confirmation hearings are held. Right now they are more of a media circus than a critical attempt to probe the nominee's fitness for the job. The Senate Judiciary Committee does far more grandstanding than actual inquiry. The questions are more politically motivated, an attempt to score points among one's base, than they should be. A confirmation hearing is supposed to be like a panel job interview, compounded by TV cameras. The Judiciary Committee knows that no nominee is going to talk about hypotheticals or current cases. No nominee is going to say they don't respect precedent and no nominee worthy of sitting on a federal court is going to admit that they won't treat each as it comes across their bench with the due deference of a unique case. The Committee should look much harder at whether a person is qualified for the job, not whether their political views match their own.

Senator Spector, I urge you to refrain from this inquiry. If you truly love the Court, you must leave this alone.

An Ideal Principal?

Right Wing Prof tells you how he would run a school if given the opportunity. While many of the ideas are great one, this one in particular I love:

I would have to insist that I be allowed to teach a class every year. I would not make decisions that affect teachers and students without being in the classroom, with my own students.

snip

Likewise, I would have to insist that wherever possible, all administrators in the school teach at least one class a year. Not all employees in administrative positions need to be in the classroom — office assistants, for example — but as a general rule, administrators need to be teachers.

I have often thought that, if given the opportunity, to design and build a school, that just about every adult who worked at the school would have some teaching responsiblity. Further, I would offer teachers the chance to earn more money by doing some administrative work--i.e. guidance counseling or other higher level work. Finally, assuming I had a student body of an appropriate age, say 8th grade or higher, I wouldn't have office assistants, but student interns.

I have seen schools with a staff that included less than 50% teachers. Even being generous and designating library aides and others as "teaching positions" school often operate with a faculty (teaching positions) to staff ration of like 4 to 3 or something like that. In short, I think too many schools have too many non-teaching staff soaking up resources and not contributing to the educational mission of the school.

Fred Thompson Re-Staffs His "Campaign"

Although not officially a candidate for the Presidency, former Sen. Fred Thompson made some campaign staff changes that would indicate a formal announcement is getting closer. Thompson "re-assigned" Tom Collamore, who had been leading the campaign and tapped expereince Florida GOP operative Randy Enwright to lead the campaign's day-to-day operations. Thompson also corralled former Energy Secretary and Senator Spencer Abraham to join the campaign in a chairman like position.

These are pretty smart moves. Enwright's solid Florida credentials are going to be important for Thompson. Florida's primary will occur between the Iowa Caucuses/New Hampshire Primary and the "national primary" date. Thompson needs a respectable, i.e. third place) showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, with a healthy vote total. A win in Florida (which seems to be his target) and a strong showing in South Carolina (second or a very close third place) on Feb. 2 would give Thompson the momentum going into the national primary of Feb. 5. A win in South Carolina will eliminate McCain and put Thompson so close to Giuliani and Romney that the term dead heat will be bandied about a great deal in the three days between South Carolina and national primary.

Rick Moran thinks that Thompson won't be able to compete financially with Romney or Giuliani. But I disagree. While Giuliani and Romney have posted some pretty good fundraising quarters, I am not impressed with either total. The GOP faithful know that their candidate is going to need some serious cabbage to compete with the Hillary/Barack fundraising team, but I am not seeing that kind of money flowing into the GOP candidate coffers. This leads me to believe that many in the GOP, particularly conservatives, are looking for Thompson or Gingrich to jump into the race and thus are keeping their powder dry until one or the other jumps in or makes a declaration that they aren't going to run.

I wouldn't be surprise that when (if) Thompson announces, his thrid quarter fundraising totals surpass Romney and Giuliani by a big percentage and might even rival the Obama machine.

When all is said and done, between Giuliani, Romney and Thompson, the winner on Feb. 5 will be the campaign that makes the fewest mistakes.

Two Types of Republicans

Peter Sasso thinks there are two types of Republicans right now:

There are two camps: the obtuse and the defeatists. The Obtuse are those who refuse to admit that this election is going to be ‘Mount Everest’ for Republicans. We enter the election as the party with a 29 % presidential approval rating and operating a highly unpopular war. Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican front runner to finish ahead of Edwards, Obama or Clinton in a long list of polling at realclearpolitics.com. Those who are blind to the Republican Party’s underdog position should open their eyes and pay attention to reality.

The other camp of Republicans- the defeatists- pay too much attention to the polls. Off the record they tell you that they simply can not imagine a Republican winning the White House. Many seasoned beltway GOPers are quietly thinking which Democrat contender would be the easiest President to work with. These Republicans need a reminder that we don’t sulk or quit before the fight is finished.

Not a bad summary.

The GOP Future

Fulton Lewis talks about the College Republicans and the TeenAge Republican Leadership groups. Nice overview.

Republican Opposition to CHIP Expansion

Several key Congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have announced that their members will oppose efforts to expand a government health insurance program for children. Sounds pretty callous right.

Republican leaders of the House and Senate on Tuesday attacked proposals that call for a major expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, to be financed with higher tobacco taxes.

“Republicans will fight these proposals,” said the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio.

In an unexpected turn of events, the top two Republicans in the Senate, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Trent Lott of Mississippi, said they opposed a bipartisan bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved last week and would offer an alternative on the Senate floor.

House Democrats announced their proposals on Tuesday night and estimated that they would provide coverage for five million children who are now uninsured. The Senate bill is expected to cover 3.2 million children.

My goodness, the GOP opposes a bill that woudl insure five million uninsured kids?!!! Why?

Well for one thing, it imposes a government insurance program upon people who may not want one and takes away partial subsidies for Medicare supplemental insurance now enjoyed by a number of senior citizens. Second, it does so by increasing cigarette taxes.

Now I don't smoke and never have. In theory I have no objection to cigarette taxes, but there is a problem. The more taxes you impose on cigarettes the more smokers begin to make an economic calculation about smoking. Hard core smokers will always buy cigarettes, either through addiction or other reasons. But the so-called "social smoker," the person who only smokes occaisionally, usually while in some sort of social situation, will begin to think twice and not buy a pack. The fallacy of imposing higher taxes on cigarettes is that over time, the government will actually lose money. Thus, all these programs funded by tobacco taxes will eventually need new sources of funding. It is simply ludicrous to think that the funds will continue to flow from cigarette taxes. When that funding source dries up, this insurance program expansion will need to be funded some other way, usually through some other tax.

But the expansion of the government run insurance program also lets the adults in these kids lives off the hook. The CHIP, or Children's Health Insurance Program, was initially designed to help cover children of the truly poor in America, so that these youngsters could have access to quality health care their parents would otherwise be unable to afford. The program was desinged to be small and limited in scope. However, Democrats are looking to expand the program, creating a dependency on government that shouldn't be there. Exapnding the program allows parents to shirk their responsibility to provide for their kids.

Actuarily, children are relatively cheap to insure. Their medical care is usually routine examinations and occaisional injuries. Their care is predictable and cheap. Therefore insurance for kids is usually cheap as well. Most of the uninsured in this country are actually working Americans, some of whom opt not to take insurance coverage or work for an employer who doesn't provide insurance. If the government wants to make sure that children have coverage, a better method would be to encourage insurance companies to provide low cost insurance for children that is not dependent upon insurance coverage for the parents. This way parents would be able to obtain low-cost coverage for their children, even if they cannot afford to obtain insurance for themselves.