Why logic classes should be required

When it comes to Alberto Gonzales, President Bush has thus far refused to cashier him. Some defenders of that decision have made the argument that giving Gonzales to Bush's critics would simply embolden them, so they must be resisted -- ignoring the fact that Gonzales is doing more damage to Bush's cause by remaining than could ever be caused by his resignation, a point made by Captain Ed in a link in the post below this one.

Now David Schraub sees a similar logic applied to Gitmo. The summary: While the president thinks Gitmo is hampering our broader war effort and ought to be shut down, he is reluctant to do so because that would mean moving the prisoners stateside where they would enjoy greater legal rights. So apparently we'll just have to keep hampering our own war effort.

Now one can be charitable and say the president means that shutting Gitmo would hamper our war effort even more -- except that's not what he said, and it makes little sense in context. Gitmo, on balance, is either helping or hurting our cause. If it's helping, then he should support it. If it's hurting, then it should be shut down. He said it's hurting. So that leaves one of two choices:

1. He's simply concerned about PR rather than the underlying issues, in which case what he's really saying is "I'm getting hammered for Gitmo, and I'd love to shut it down as soon as I can recreate it somewhere else."

2. He's willing to "hamper our war effort", if necessary, to avoid giving the Gitmo prisoners any real legal rights. Which, if true, demands the question Schraub asks: "Why?"

Personally, I think it's #1 more than #2. He's not truly apologetic for Gitmo; I don't think he respects the civil liberties questions involved, or how damaging such an operation can be in a conflict where global perceptions are a major part of the battleground, and where we claim to represent the forces of freedom, law and goodness.

Gitmo, Bush, politics, midtopia

Gonzales taking even more fire

Alberto Gonzales is now getting fire from every side.

First, another broadside from the conservative Captain Ed:

Is there any other manner in which the Department of Justice can look any more untruthful and deceptive? Apparently so, because the Justice spokesperson now wants to argue about the meaning of the word "involved". Alberto Gonzales told the press on March 13 that he was "not involved in any discussions about what was going on" regarding the terminations. The description adopted by his supporters was that Gonzales acts as a CEO, delegating authority to his staffers and allowing them to act independently, Now we have Tasia Scolinos attempting to sell the notion that the definition of "not involved in any discussions" somehow includes attending the meeting where the decisions were made -- but not absorbing any of the details of the process.

Have we had enough yet? I understand the argument that if we allow the Democrats to bounce Gonzales, they'll just aim for more, but Gonzales made himself the target here with what looks like blatant deception. I don't think we do ourselves any good by defending the serially changing stories coming out of Gonzales' inept administration at Justice. One cannot support an Attorney General who misleads Congress, allows his staffers to mislead Congress, and deceives the American people, regardless of whether an R or a D follows his name or the majority control of Congress....

At this point, the notion that Bush has to retain Gonzales to protect himself and Republicans in general is starting to become absurd. Gonzales inflicted most of this damage on the administration himself, and the longer he remains, the more damage he will do. As Jonah said, it's hard to find a worse example of self-inflicted damage outside of circus tents.

Ooh! A double, at least.

Next up, old hand William F. Buckley:

Of one thing Mr. Bush is manifestly guilty. It is the criminal (in the metaphorical sense) mismanagement of the whole business of the U.S. attorneys. The fault is not personal; it was probably the attorney general and other advisers of the president who took so many clumsy steps. But Mr. Bush's stress on his rights invites a coordinate stress on his responsibilities. "These attorneys," he said, "serve at my pleasure." Right. But presidential pleasures have to rest on defensible grounds.

A nice twist of the knife: it's irresponsible of the president to retain such an incompetent AG. Call it a blooper single over second base; Captain Ed makes it to third.

Up steps clean-up batter Kevin Drum, who lists nine reasons to be skeptical of the AG's account. A selection:

1. Prior to the purge, DOJ lawyers quietly inserted a clause in the Patriot Act that allowed them to appoint new U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval. Why did they do this when their own emails show that the existing system hadn't caused them any problems?

4. DOJ initially lied when asked why they were fired, chalking it up to "performance reasons" even though five of the eight had previously received reviews placing them in the top third of all USAs. Why lie if there's an innocent explanation?

9. DOJ has now had weeks to come up with a plausible story for the firings and they still haven't. This is truly remarkable. Why not just tell the truth? That doesn't take weeks to concoct.

Except for #9, none of these things by themselves would generate much suspicion. Put them all together, though, and you have to be a real dead-end loyalist to believe there's nothing fishy going on. Throw in #9 and even the dead-enders ought to be scratching their chins.

Here's the pitch.... here's the swing.... CRAAACKK!! It's high and deep to centerfield. Looks like an easy out.... NO!! The Bush outfielder bobbles it! Captain Ed crosses the plate! Buckley's rounding third! Drum's going for second! Here's the throw to second.... it's in the dirt! The second baseman misjudges the bounce and is knocked cold! Buckley scores.... Drum scrambles up and races for third as the shortstop chases down the errant ball. He grabs it, turns, throws wildly.... misses third base by a mile! The ball sails into the stand, and Drum walks casually home!

And there you have it, the arc of this scandal. What should have been an easy out for the administration is turning into a home run for its critics. If the administration turns out to have actually done something illegal (other than lying to Congress, I mean), it's hard to imagine that revelation doing any more damage than the parade of bumbling, lies and half-truths that we've been witness to so far.

Perhaps you think Gonzales hasn't done anything wrong. But it's much harder to argue that he doesn't deserve to be fired.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Chavez moves to nationalize 815,000 acres

And thus the socialist revolution proceeds apace.

Venezuela's government has seized more than 330,000 hectares (815,450 acres) of land to redistribute them under an agrarian reform programme.

President Hugo Chavez said 16 farms - which he described as large and unproductive - had been expropriated.

Taken in isolation, land seizures are not a good thing. In a stable, law-abiding society, land rights should be nearly inviolable, because the ability to acquire and keep property is one of the fundamental building blocks of wealth and thus opportunity. If land can be seized arbitrarily, then people have few rights that cannot be violated.

But the history of Latin America complicates things, because the "thou shalt not nationalize private land" commandment assumes that the land was fairly acquired in the first place. And largely, it was not. In Venezuela, 97 percent of the arable land is owned by 10 percent of the population. And that's not even the worst ratio. In neighboring Columbia, half the land is owned by 0.3 percent of the population; overall, 75 percent of the land is owned by just 2.6 percent of the population.

Those ratios did not arise from free and fair market transactions; they are relics of empire and dictatorship. So it's myopic to condemn land seizures in isolation, without addressing the extreme imbalances that underlie current land ownership.

Given a set of really bad options, a well-planned system of land reform -- one that defines "underused" land objectively and fairly compensates the current owners of the land, however they came to own it -- might be the most reasonable choice. In addition, any such program must contain a sunset provision, under which the program expires once the ownership ratio reaches a certain level, or a specified amount of land has been seized.

Of course, that assumes that Chavez' plan is either well-planned, well-run or fair -- something I'm not willing to bet money on. But in such a case it is Chavez, not land reform per se, that is the problem.

land reform, Chavez, Venezuela, politics, midtopia

New e-mails contradict Gonzales

A new batch of Justice Department e-mails released Friday both fill in the "gap" in the previous releases -- and suggest even more starkly that Gonzales lied about his involvement in the prosecutor firings.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday.

The previously undisclosed meeting appeared to contradict Mr. Gonzales’s previous statements about his knowledge of the dismissals. He said at a news conference on March 13 that he had not participated in any discussions about the removals, but knew in general that his aides were working on personnel changes involving United States attorneys.

Either Gonzales lied, or he is the most inept and unluckiest attorney general in U.S. history. Because consider how this looks: Gonzales denies involvement in such a major matter. The department releases a flood of e-mails to bolster its case -- but with an 18-day gap. When some e-mails from that gap are finally released, they show that Gonzales was, in fact, involved in the firings.

Could he simply have forgotten the meeting? Yes. Could the "gap" have been unintentional? Yes. But when you put it all together, it looks like the AG lied and then tried to cover it up.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Largo city manager fired

The city of Largo, Fla., decided to fire the city manager they suspended after it became public that he was seeking a sex-change operation.

Most of 70 speakers at the six-hour meeting supported Stanton, but the council fired him anyway. They repeated that they were firing him not because he wanted the operation, but because they felt his announcement of his plans had undermined his ability to lead the city staff.

Maybe they're being truthful about that, although I'll note two things: perhaps they should give him a chance to lead the city for a while after coming out before concluding he couldn't; and the practical effect is the same: come out as a transgender, lose your job.

Weather prediction: 70% chance of a lawsuit.

gay rights, Largo, politics, midtopia

Former administration official pleads guilty

Another official goes down in the Abramoff scandal.

Former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice, becoming the ninth person and the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

The former No. 2 official in the Interior Department admitted in federal court that he lied to Senate investigators about his relationship with convicted lobbyist Abramoff, who repeatedly sought Griles' intervention at the agency on behalf of Abramoff's Indian tribal clients.

Griles pleaded guilty to a felony charge for testifying falsely before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Nov. 2, 2005, and during an earlier deposition with the panel's investigators on October 20, 2005.

Lying to Congress: not a good idea.

As part of the plea deal, Griles probably gets a 10-month sentence and prosecutors dropped allegations that he improperly helped Abramoff or personally benefited from the relationship.

The underlying charge is relatively minor -- he denied he had an unusually close relationship with Abramoff, even though they had been introduced by his girlfriend. As often happens, the cover up is worse than the crime. Nonetheless, he qualifies for the Hall of Shame.

June 26 update: Griles draws 10 months in prison and a $30,000 fine.

Abramoff, Griles, politics, midtopia

Life under a gag order

If you want to get your inner civil libertarian riled, read on.

We know, of course, that the FBI has been abusing its authority to seek information without a warrant through National Security letters.

What you may not know is that keeping such abuse secret is made much easier by another FBI power: the gag order. If you're served an NSL you're not allowed to tell anyone -- even if the request is obviously improper. Even after the FBI has abandoned efforts to get the information from you, you cannot tell anyone they tried.

Here, then, is one person's story about living under an NSL gag order.

Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law.

In other words, the people with direct experience with NSLs are prohibited from using that experience to challenge the FBI's power. A practical consequence of that is that debate over that power is truncated:

Without the gag orders issued on recipients of the letters, it is doubtful that the FBI would have been able to abuse the NSL power the way that it did. Some recipients would have spoken out about perceived abuses, and the FBI's actions would have been subject to some degree of public scrutiny....

I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn't been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law.

Here's what it's like to have a gag order imposed:

Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

There are legitimate security concerns related to NSLs. Notably, you don't want to tip off a suspect to the existence of an active investigation, particularly the information sought and why. But those concerns can be addressed more narrowly. A broad gag order is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer where a scalpel is needed, and it does more to protect the FBI from scrutiny than it does to protect national security.

Congress has warned the FBI that if they don't clean up their act, they will lose the ability to use NSLs. But Congress needs to do more than that: they need to revise the gag order provisions to protect national security in a way less damaging to democratic debate and less violative of civil liberties.

politics, midtopia

Krauthammer: Gonzales must go

Another conservative, columnist Charles Krauthammer, says it's time for Alberto Gonzales to resign.

Alberto Gonzales has to go. I say this with no pleasure -- he's a decent and honorable man -- and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their blood lust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.

It's not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

He then devotes most of the column to arguing that the prosecutor scandal isn't, in fact, a scandal. Fair enough; what we know now is only enough to raise questions, not prove bad behavior. But even Krauthammer adds a qualifier: "Yet."

Which is why an investigation is needed. One reason this case deserves scrutiny, I believe, even without incontrovertible proof of wrongdoing is that the Bush administration long ago lost any right to claim the benefit of the doubt in situations like this. From their handling of prewar intelligence to the NSA eavesdropping program to the politicization of science to National Security Letters to stupid stuff like lying about whether and why Cheney was visiting the hospital. Time and again the administration has said "Trust us", and time again they've been shown to be undeserving of that trust.

So perhaps this is just a case of incompetence on the part of an underqualified Cabinet member. Lord knows that wouldn't be the first example of such in this administration. But let's check, just to be sure.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

How's the surge going?

With the House having passed an Iraq withdrawal timetable and the Senate hoping to follow suit, the big question becomes "are such timetables a good idea?" And the answer to that, in turn, depends mightly on how the Iraq "surge" is going.

Time has a broad assessment, so we'll start there.

First, it seems clear that if anyone can make it work, Gen. David Petraeus can. I've been impressed by his energy, tactics and professionalism. He knows what needs to be done and how to do it. The former isn't particularly impressive: the need has been obvious for a long time. But execution is a different matter, and he has shown to be highly capable in that department, from the actual deployment of security forces in Baghdad to collateral operations like those conducted in neighboring areas to catch insurgents fleeing Baghdad.

Some simple measures -- like banning car and truck traffic during business hours -- has helped cut back on car bombings in crowded places. Mostly, though, it's the "hold" part of "clear and hold" that has (unsurprisingly) proven quite effective.

But such moves don't succeed in isolation. Things have gone smoothly in large part because the Iraqi government continues to act serious about supporting nonsectarian security measures -- such as the recent arrest of former Mahdi Army members -- and has helped persuade the Mahdi Army itself to stay off the streets.

The numerical results have been promising, but with a couple of notes of caution. A week or so ago, military officials reported that killings in Baghdad were down significantly. But even as the crackdown expands, the number of deaths has been creeping back up. Yesterday 33 bodies turned up in Baghdad, uncomfortably close to pre-surge numbers.

Plus there's one key question: Can we trust the numbers? Because we've been through this once before, and it turned out they weren't counting bombing deaths.

So the answer remains "we don't know yet." Early signs are encouraging, but then they often are. Even Petraeus notes that it will take months -- until mid or late summer -- before we know whether the surge is working. And after that comes the really big question: can we sustain whatever gains we make? What happens when its time for the U.S. troops to go home?

All we can do is be patient. And it's a patience that is unaffected by the proposed Congressional timetables, because they won't take effect until long after we have a verdict on the surge -- the operation that will really determine the future of our mission in Iraq.

Petraeus, surge, Iraq, politics, midtopia

House passes Iraq timetable

By a razor-thin margin -- 218-212 -- the House of Representatives passed a war funding bill that includes a hard deadline to end combat operations in Iraq: September 2008.

I've already opined that the timetable is reasonable, giving Bush a year and a half to show progress. And even if the deadlines were enforced, it's not like we would abandon Iraq as of then. We would simply shift from doing front-line work ourselves to providing aid and training for the Iraqi military. And if Bush does manage to show progress, I'm sure he would find that the deadline, to quote Captain Barbossa, "is more of what you might call guidelines than actual rules." What Congress passeth, Congress can changeth.

Bush, however, exploded.

Just over an hour later, an angry Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than political theater and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions."...

"A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job.

"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen."

Bush's rhetoric is self-serving, of course: Whatever you think of the wisdom of its chosen course, this is Congress asserting its responsibility, not abdicating it. Abdication is what the Republican-led Congress engaged in for three years.

And if funding the war is so important, he can simply sign the bill. The money is there, and the restrictions don't kick in for quite a while. Apparently the funding isn't critical enough to keep him from vetoing it.

As political theater, this cannot be beat. As a practical matter, though, the deadline is probably a goner. The first hurdle is the Senate, where it will have trouble passing. If the Senate passes a bill lacking the timetable, that will have to be resolved in conference committee. If the deadline survives that (and the conference version passes the Senate), it faces a likely Bush veto, which will almost certainly be sustained.

At that point -- or, more likely, much earlier -- Bush and Congress will have to sit down and hammer out what sort of funding bill both sides will accept. The politics are uncertain, because both sides can accuse the other of holding our troops hostage to politics. My gut says Bush will win that battle of perception by claiming the timetable provision does not belong in the funding bill. But Congress can argue that the timetable is directly relevant to the funding.

Further, they could make the point that the timetable is a limitation on Bush, so how much sense does it make to pass it as a standalone measure that Bush will simply veto? Attaching it to the funding bill is the only way Congress can exert meaningful pressure on the president.

Problem is, that would mean Congress is using a tactical argument to try to counter a moral and strategic one. And critics could plausibly point out that if Congress cannot muster enough votes to force the timetable on Bush straight up, perhaps it is still too early to be doing such forcing.

I don't buy that particular logic but I'm still somewhat in the latter camp, mostly because I believe we need to give the "surge" time to show results before we start imposing withdrawal deadlines. More on that in my next post.

Iraq, politics, midtopia

History of fired U.S. attorneys

I'm probably way behind the curve on this, but I came across a great resource today: A Congressional Research Service report on the history of firing U.S. attorneys.

(it's a summary page; there's a link you can click on for a pdf of the report itself.)

Between 1981 and 2006, 54 of 486 U.S. attorneys left before their term was up (not counting those fired upon a change of administration).

Most left for obvious reasons: 18 became judges, 6 took other executive branch jobs, 4 ran for office, 2 left to join state government, 1 died, and 15 returned to private practice.

That leaves 8. They are:

William Kennedy, fired by Reagan in 1982 for charging that the Justice Department and CIA were blocking one of his prosecutions.

J. William Petro, fired by Reagan in 1984 for leaking information on a pending indictment to the subject of the indictment.

Frank McNamara, resigned in 1989 while the subject of a probe over whether he lied when he accused his predecessor of using marijuana.

Larry Colleton, Kendall Coffey, Two Clinton attorneys who I've discussed previously. Colleton assaulted a reporter; Coffey bit a topless dancer.

Roscoe Conklin Howard, a Bush appointee, resigned in March 2004. No reason given.

Thomas DiBiagio, a Bush appointee, resigned in 2005. No reason given, but interestingly enough he was publicly rebuked in 2004 for reportedly urging his staff to produce three "front page" indictments of elected officials before the 2004 elections.

Humberto Garcia, a Bush appointee, resigned in January. No reason given.

This count does not include U.S. attorneys who served a full four-year term but were not reappointed in a president's second term.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Thursday Gonzales roundup

Subpoena fight: As expected, the Senate authorized subpoenas for White House aides in the prosecutor scandal. But Congress made no immediate move to actually issue them. First comes negotiations to see if a deal can be reached to avoid a legal battle, a process that could take days.

Gonzales lied? We have what appears to be Gonzales caught in a lie about his authority to appoint interim prosecutors. ThinkProgress thought they had him nailed a week or so ago, when they posted a transcript of Gonzales testifying that he never intended to use the power (see first update in link). At the time, it was simply juxtaposed against the obvious fact that he had used it. Now an e-mail exchange involving Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, indicates that not only did he plan to use it, but the department hoped to stall long enough that the appointments would last until the end of Bush's term.

In response to a question about what to do about the confirmation of one replacement, Tim Griffin, Sampson wrote:

I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say "no never" (and the longer we can forestall that the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in "good faith," of course.

Gotta love the use of "good faith" in this context.

At the end of the e-mail, you may have noticed this line:

I'm not 100% sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority but know that getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.

While interesting, and proof positive of White House involvement, this doesn't peg the outrage meter very high. Tim Griffin is the one appointment that the administration has acknowledged was made for political reasons, and there doesn't appear to be any additional hanky-panky with that one.

Old allegations are new again: In the category of "piling on", a retired Justice Department lawyer, Sharon Eubanks, has renewed allegations of political interference in a 2005 tobacco case. On the one hand, there was an uproar and an investigation of her claims at the time by the Justice Department's internal watchdog, and it concluded that the input from political appointees was not intended to weaken the case, as Eubanks claims. On the other hand, Eubanks calls that investigation a whitewash and says she was never asked about details of her claims. NPR had an interview with her today; give it a listen.

Trusted friend: NPR also had a good piece on how Gonzales became such a good Bush family friend: By helping a young Bush get out of a jury-duty assignment that would have required him admitting to two alcohol-related arrests -- something that could have derailed his political ambitions.

Intriguing, indeed: Finally, an interesting exchange yesterday at the end of the daily White House press briefing. Interesting enough to quote in full:

Q Just to follow up on one point earlier, yesterday the President said, and you've repeated, that the principle at stake here with executive privilege is that the President needs to get candid advice from his advisors, right?

MR. SNOW: What the President has talked about is privileged communications with close staff members, that is correct.

Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.

MR. SNOW: Correct.

Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn't looped in, you're saying, on this decision? So it was other people --

MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category.

It sure does. If the president wasn't involved, it makes an executive privilege claim hard to sustain.

Update: New e-mails make it even harder to avoid the conclusion that Gonzales lied to Congress about his intentions regarding the "interim U.S. attorney" power.

Eubanks, Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Senate adds Iraq deadline to spending bill

The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to approve a $122 billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes language setting March 2008 as a goal for ending combat operations in Iraq. That sets up a major floor battle over passage of the legislation.

The House will vote on a similar bill by Friday.

Passage is by no means certain. And Democrats are building support through a time-honored method: bribery.

Congress has loaded up President Bush's request for "emergency" spending on the Iraq war with more than $20 billion in "pork" for members' districts.

Money for peanut storage in Georgia, spinach growers in California, menhaden in the Atlantic Ocean and even more office space for the lawmakers themselves is included in what has ballooned into a $124 billion war bill.

"This emergency supplemental bill has more ornaments hanging over our many branches of government than the White House Christmas tree," Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said.

While I understand the practical aspect of such largesse -- and while the Democrats promised only to expose pork, not totally eliminate it -- I'm disappointed. I'm especially disappointed by the amount. Surely it doesn't require $20 billion to buy a few dozen votes. If you're going to spend my money on bribes, at least get value for the dollar.

It may all be moot anyway. If the deadline stays in the bill expect Bush to veto it, since it contains a direct challenge to his war authority. And expect that veto to be sustained. We'll then get a whole new squabble over who is playing politics with our soldiers' lives while they try to put together a replacement bill that Bush will sign. It will be a matter of who blinks first: Bush, who needs the money to remain in Iraq, or Congress, which doesn't want to be seen as undercutting the troops. I'd say "expect a compromise", but I'm not sure what that compromise would be.

If it comes to a confrontation, though, expect Bush to win unless Congress is prepared to shut down the Iraq adventure right now, today. They're not, they won't, and Bush will get his money without strings attached. This time.


pork, budget, Iraq, politics, midtopia

Where there's smoke, is there fire?

Let's take step back from the Gonzales case for a moment and establish some context for the next few days.

Is there a real scandal here? If you consider inept responses to questions a scandal, then yes; the Bush administration often makes the Keystone Kops look like Delta Force commandos. But if you're talking actual wrongdoing then there's a lot of smoke, but no actual fire as of yet.

Admittedly, the smoke is pretty thick. Eight prosecutors were fired midterm, an unusual circumstance in and of itself. Justice said all were for performance reasons. Then they acknowledged that at least one was pushed out simply to make room for a friend of Rove's. Then we discovered that most of them had good performance reviews prior to being fired.

Justice claimed the White House wasn't involved; then we found out it not only was involved, but apparently the whole idea originated with Harriet Miers. Then the White House backed off on that, too. And then we found out Rove was checking in on it.

The firings came amid expressed concerns about political loyalty, and timed remarkably well with either pending investigations of Republicans or a failure to bring charges against Democrats before the November election.

The Justice Department released 3,000 e-mails to bolster its case -- with a notable 18-day gap right in the middle.

All of which suggests at least the possibility of excessive administration interference with the operations of the U.S. attorneys, who though appointed by the president are thereafter supposed to serve the law, not conduct partisan vendettas.

So while we don't know if there is a fire under the smoke, that much smoke provides more than enough basis for investigation.

Does Congress have enough evidence to start subpoenaing senior administration members? Whatever happened to probable cause and "innocent until proven guilty"?

It's true that Congress can't just drag people in for questioning for no reason. Fishing expeditions aren't allowed; they need to be pursuing a legitimate government purpose and a have a specific, defensible reason for subpoenaing a given individual.

That said, I think probable cause is pretty much covered by everything I wrote above. And "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to conviction and punishment, not the investigative or trial phase.

Isn't this a criminal investigation?No; Congress doesn't have that power. This is Congress exercising its oversight powers. As the elected representatives of the people, Congress has broad powers to oversee the functioning of the other two branches. Executive agencies are created and funded by Congress, which retains legal authority over them. The president operates them for Congress. He has some of his own inviolable constitutional powers, but mostly his job is to carry out the laws Congress passes, in the way Congress tells him to.

Similarly, Congress has complete control over the size and function of the Judiciary, except for the Supreme Court -- and Congress has some control over that, too, since it sets the Court's budget, determines the number of Justices and must confirm Court nominees.

So Congress has all sorts of rights to investigate how well the executive branch is carrying out Congress' wishes. This isn't the police looking into the affairs of a private citizen; it's the board of directors looking into the behavior of the company's CEO.

I hear Clinton fired some prosecutors mid-term. If you want to call it that. Apparently three Clinton prosecutors left before their terms were up. Larry Colleton resigned after he was videotaped grapping a reporter by the throat; Kendall Coffey resigned after being accused of biting a topless dancer; and Michael Yamaguchi simply couldn't get along with local judges or the Justice Department. Clinton replaced him with a Republican, Robert Mueller -- Bush the Elder's chief of the criminal justice division and the current FBI director.

That's it. Otherwise Clinton left the prosecutors alone.

So what we have here is an oversight inquiry into possible improper conduct, fueled by partisan distrust, the unusual nature of the firings and the awe-inspiringly bad performance of the White House in response to initial questions about it.

Grab some popcorn, crack a beer, and pull up a chair to watch the fireworks.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Prepare for battle

A House subcommittee today authorized Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers to subpoena five senior administration officials in the fired prosecutors case: Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, former Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson, deputy White House counsel William Kelley and J. Scott Jennings, a special assistant to the president.

Tomorrow the Senate is expected to give similar authority to Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In response, the White House said the offer it made Tuesday -- private interviews, no transcripts and not under oath -- was final. "If they issue subpoenas, the offer is withdrawn," said press secretary Tony Snow.

One interesting aspect is the behavior of Congressional Republicans:

Congressional Republicans do not want to surrender what they see as the institutional rights of Congress to seek testimony even though they are allied with the White House.

In addition, many are unhappy with the way Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his staff handled the dismissals and the resulting furor.

“The reason Republicans are not coming over the hill like the cavalry is the best defense you can give is it was poorly handled,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee. “That is as good as it gets."

And, of course, there's this:

Some Congressional Republicans said privately that the administration’s proposal might be a tough sell because many Americans would question why the officials were unwilling to talk under oath.

Ya think?

To flog a military metaphor, I get the feeling that the Republican infantry would like to support Lieutenant Bush, but get tired of him choosing poor defensive terrain, failing to position the machine guns to provide good lanes of fire and sending out Sleepy the Dwarf for picket duty. They're loyal, but not suicidal.

There's danger for the Democrats, too. If they overplay their hand they could be seen as going after Bush for purely partisan reasons, and doing so while all but ignoring the situation in Iraq.

Given all the potential pitfalls, a lot of observers still think a compromise will be reached, and that the bluster on both sides are standard negotiating tactics. Could be; that's what rational actors would do. But as economists have discovered to the detriment of their more orderly economic models, people don't always act rationally. Bush is notably stubborn, the Democrats may think they've got a real scandal here, and both sides may think they'll win a legal battle if it comes to that. I still expect Bush to be the one to cave, going simply on the strength of his legal case. But I'm not betting money on it.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

David Iglesias: Why I was fired

David Iglesias, one of the fired U.S. attorneys, discusses what happened to him in an opinion piece published in today's New York Times.

Depending on your political persuasion, this is either another nail in Gonzales' coffin or evidence that David Iglesias is the Joe Wilson of 2006.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

Regarding the voter fraud case in question, part of the "fired for cause" argument put forth by the Justice Department:

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

He doesn't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to proceed with an investigation, but he does need a reasonable belief that he can win a case based on that standard. Pursuing a case that he believed couldn't be successfully prosecuted would have been a waste of limited resources at best, prosecutorial misconduct at worst.

This is just Iglesias' version of events, of course, and he can be expected to be a little self-justifying. As well, there can be differences of opinion over what constitutes sufficient evidence to bring a case. But thus far we haven't seen anything from the Justice Department to contradict him.

If the timing of Iglesias' firing turns out to be more than a coincidence, there's a real scandal brewing at the bottom of this political contratemps.

Gonzales, Iglesias, politics, midtopia

News of the weird

A few small things to finish off the night:

Animal rights activists want baby polar bear killed.

When Knut was born in December, his mother ignored him and his brother, who died. Zoo officials intervened, choosing to raise the cub themselves.

But Albrecht and other activists fret that it is inappropriate for a predator, known for its fierceness and ability to fend for itself in the wild, to be snuggled, bottle-fed and made into a commodity by zookeepers. They argue that current treatment of the cub is inhumane and could cause him future difficulties interacting with fellow polar bears.

So off him? Yeah, that makes sense.

And a foot fetishist's dream come true: A woman who grew a fully-formed nipple on her foot. Pictures on the link. While such "supernumerary" nipples and breasts are found in 1 percent to 5 percent of the population, they are usually found around the upper torso. This is the first time one has been found on a foot.

Scientists have been messing with flies like this for a long time, inducing eyes to grow on their knees and things like that. This just demonstrates that the same mechanisms are at work in human development, too.

science, weird, politics, midtopia

Bush's hard but brittle line

President Bush has offered to make his senior aides available to Congressional investigators in the prosecutor case -- but not under oath, and with no transcripts.

Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies — but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.

The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

"Reasonable"? Maybe. On the one hand, the demand that there be no oath sounds like more than it is: the aides would still be legally required to tell the truth. But the request for no transcripts is an odd one. Are investigators supposed to put a report together from memory? Why is Bush so adamant that there be no record of the conversations? Is this just more knee-jerk secrecy from the administration that redefined obsessive secrecy?

Reject the offer, Bush warned, and it would provoke a Constitutional showdown. He's right about that: it's unclear just what power Congress has -- or should have -- to subpoena senior members of the executive branch.

The Senate offers a good (if potentially self-serving) primer on Congressional subpoena power here (pdf). It notes that the power to subpoena is not written into the Constitution, but falls under Congress' oversight power. It points to the writings of myriad Founding Fathers attesting to that fact. George Mason noted that legislatures "possess inquisitorial powers." Another founder, James Wilson, said the House of Representatives forms "the grand inquest of the state."

Still, the power, being implied, is somewhat ill-defined. Congress could easily pass laws compelling private citizens to appear. But what of executive branch members? Alexander Hamilton and George Washington both had run-ins with Congressional investigators, though both ultimately complied with Congressional demands.

In 1927, the Supreme Court finally ruled in an executive branch case, McGrain v. Daugherty. It said Congress could investigate the executive branch in order to properly oversee it -- a reaffirmation of legislative supremacy in the Constitutional balance of powers. In 1957, in Watkins v. United States, the Court ruled that such power is broad, but it must pertain to a legitimate task of Congress.

The one exception: the implied power of "executive privilege", in which the president is allowed to keep certain internal deliberations private to encourage candid and forceful discussion among his advisers. But that power is less well-established and more limited than the subpoena power. In the most notable case, United States v. Nixon, President Nixon was compelled to turn over the Watergate tapes. When the President asserts only a generalized need for confidentiality, the privilege does not overcome the interests of governmental oversight or (in the case of Watergate) that of criminal defendants.

So what Bush is threatening is a Constitutional showdown between two implied powers: the power to subpoena executive officials, and the power of executive privilege. Both sides have long avoided such a showdown, for fear of an adverse decision. And the judicial branch has encouraged such vagueness, not wanting to get involved in such an interbranch dispute. It's not pure political cowardice at work, either. With neither side on clear constitutional footing, they tend to compromise and reach solutions that solve the problem at hand without backing either branch into a corner, or forcing the Supreme Court to start deciding which privilege dominates when.

But if it comes to it, I think Bush will lose. He is asserting a generalized privilege, while Congress is attempting to investigate a specific potential case. Much will turn on whether the investigation is well-founded or simply a fishing expedition; look for the White House to argue that there is no evidence of wrongdoing, and thus no justification for an investigation. But assuming it is deemed legitimate, then the Watergate precedent suggests the needs of government will win out over the claim of privilege.

Congress thinks so, too; they've already rejected Bush's offer and are preparing to issue subpoenas on Wednesday. I hate to predict what Bush will do, but look for him to fold on this one. His current White House counsel, Fred Fielding, is a legal realist. Whereas Alberto Gonzales would obediently fight a privilege claim to the bitter, losing end, Fielding is more able to predict who has the winning hand. He will probably advise Bush accordingly.

And then consider the irony: The two strongest proponents of executive power in recent history -- Richard Nixon and Bush -- have ended up doing the most to weaken it through their overreach.

Update: Captain Ed surveys the same terrain and reaches the opposite conclusion, based on the argument that the investigation is groundless.

Also, here's a Clinton-era case in which administration officials were ordered to comply with a subpoena. The full text of the decision is here. Note that in both this and the Nixon case there was a pending criminal investigation, which strengthened Congress' hand. In the prosecutor case there is, as yet, no special counsel or other such legal investigation, which tends to strengthen Bush's hand.

And there was some delicious commentary on it from a familiar name: Tony Snow. He wrote the following in an op-ed piece in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1998.

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.

subpoena, Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Coulter fallout continues

No update on Ann Coulter's voter fraud case, but her recent name-calling at a conservative conference continues to entertain.

So far, nine papers have dropped her syndicated column. She reportedly has 100 johns, er, clients, most of them small papers. So this has cost her maybe 10 percent of them. She's also lost some big advertisers on her Web site, including AT&T and Verizon.

Some of those papers decided to drop the column after being pressured by a gay-rights group, the Human Rights Campaign. Interestingly, liberal columnist Ted Rall opposes the campaign -- Perhaps because some of the campaign rhetoric is obnoxious:

In a Wednesday letter announcing his organization's campaign targeting individual newspapers, HRC President Joe Solmonese wrote: "Yesterday, we asked you to send a message to [President and Editor] Lee Salem ... of Universal Press Syndicate. ... You leaped into action and sent over 20,000 e-mails to Lee demanding Universal ... drop Coulter’s column. By responding so quickly, you sent a strong message that our community will not stand by silently while UPS continues to serve as a platform for hateful and destructive language in the media.

"As you may know by now, UPS has flatly defied the protests of thousands of fair-minded Americans nationwide by refusing to stop distributing Coulter’s column. ...

Bleh. Coulter is a troll, but whenever someone starts using "fair-minded Americans" to justify suppressing a viewpoint, I break out in hives. Bash her for what she says; even boycotts of advertisers is okay. But don't try to get her quashed just because you don't like what she says.

civil liberties, Coulter, politics, midtopia

How does your Congressmember rank?

The National Journal has published its latest ranking of Congress members, labeling them liberal or conservative based on their voting record.

Such rankings can be very problematic, in that there as many reasons to vote for or against a bill as there are people. For instance, on the recent Iraq war resolutions, both liberals and conservatives opposed them -- the conservatives because they thought the resolutions went to far, the liberals because they thought the resolutions didn't go far enough.

Everything is also complicated by the party-line nature of many votes.

The NJ's methodology addresses some of those concerns, and I generally have high regard for their efforts. But it remains a highly subjective process, so take it with a grain of salt.

That said, here are some of the findings:

SENATE
Most conservative
1. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
2. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.
3. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
4. John Cornyn, R-Texas
5. Jeff Sessions, R.-Ala.

Most conservative Democrat: Ben Nelson, D-Neb., ranked 48th overall

Most liberal
1. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
2. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
3. Ted Kennedy, D.-Mass.
4. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
5. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa

Most liberal Republican: Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., ranked 43rd overall.
Most liberal serving Republican: Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, ranked 45th overall

So here's one reason to suspect that the rankings don't actually say much: I don't happen to believe that the party and ideological divide in this country is so stark that, except for two outliers (Nelson and Chafee), Senate Republicans and Democrats reliably line up at opposite ends of the spectrum. I think this either reveals a flawed methodology, or it says more about party discipline than the actual political beliefs of individual senators.

The same pattern holds true for the House, where you have to go down more than a hundred names to find a Democrat on the conservative list or a Republican on the liberal one.

The most liberal House Republican: Jim Leach, Iowa.
The most conservative House Democrat: Dan Boren, Oklahoma.
Spots separating the two: 41.

That means 392 of 435 members are part of blocs at either end of the spectrum. Those blocs get even bigger if you count Leach and Ron Paul, R-Texas, as GOP outliers. Then the size of the "muddy middle" shrinks to 21 people.

Our politics may be polarized, but that polarized? I just don't buy it.

There are also individual rankings in three areas: foreign policy, economic policy and social policy. Those rankings, being more specific, are probably more accurate, although I have my doubts considering that the composite score is drawn from the three individual scores.

My Congress members rank as follows:
Rep. Jim Ramstad: 52.3 liberal, 47.7 conservative
Sen. Mark Dayton: 81 liberal, 19 conservative
Sen. Norm Coleman: 46.2 liberal, 53.8 conservative

politics, midtopia

Gonzales roundup

The Justice Department released 3,000 pages of documents related to the firing of U.S. prosecutors, hoping to persuade critics that the firings were not politically motivated.

(For the raw document dump, go here.)

It's a lot to digest, so not a lot of details just yet. They seem to show a mix of political and performance concerns for at least some of the fired prosecutors, but the full context will take some time to emerge.

Meanwhile, as support for Gonzales continues to erode, Politico is reporting that the White House is already searching for a possible replacement for Gonzales -- something strenuously denied by the White House. Among the names being bandied about:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is a White House prospect. So is former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job.

On Monday night, Republican officials said two other figures who are being seriously considered are Securities and Exchange Committee Chairman Chris Cox, who is former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and is popular with conservatives; and former Attorney General William P. Barr, who served under President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1993 and is now general counsel of Verizon Communications.

Then there's this:

Republican sources also disclosed that it is now a virtual certainty that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, whose incomplete and inaccurate congressional testimony about the prosecutors helped precipitate the crisis, will also resign shortly. Officials were debating whether Gonzales and McNulty should depart at the same time or whether McNulty should go a day or two after Gonzales.

Separately, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to repeal a Patriot Act provision that let Gonzales name replacement prosecutors without bothering with Senate confirmation -- a situation that helped raise Senate hackles when the firings first came to light.

It almost doesn't matter if the firings turn out to have been political or not. The bungled response, the attempts to marginalize or ignore Congress, the history of poor management and poor legal judgement -- all spell doom for Gonzales. Or doom for Bush's policy initiatives, if he chooses to retain his embattled AG.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Harmful books

What are the most dangerous books of the last two centuries? Here's one answer as compiled by conservatives, hence the lack of a single title by Ann Coulter.

The list, and my commentary:

1. Communist Manifesto. Okay, fair enough. Debate over the ideals and logic behind it aside, attempts to implement this little gem led to the deaths of tens of millions of people worldwide. Communism remains a nice ideal (to some) but a demonstrably horrible form of government.

2. Mein Kampf. This one's a little murkier. Yes, Adolf was a pretty bad guy, and as such perhaps his book deserves the same treatment as the Communist Manifesto, and for the same reason. Except that his book played almost no role in his rise to power. It didn't start selling until he actually took power and it became mandatory reading. Hitler bad? No question. But this ranking seems to give his rambling and incoherent book way too much credit.

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao. Another entry chosen for the same reasons as the first two. While a reasonable choice in itself, it again points up the misplaced credit given to "Mein Kampf." Because this book, like the Communist Manifesto, again led directly to myriad deaths and persecutions thanks to its influence during the Cultural Revolution.

4. The Kinsey Report. And now we start to stray into really bizarro conservative territory. After three ideologies that killed hundreds of millions, the next most harmful book is .... a study of American sexual practices. The stated reason? "The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy." Yes, I can see where that's nearly as harmful as killing or exiling millions of people.... Was Kinsey guilty of ethical and scientific lapses? Yes. Fourth most harmful book in modern history? C'mon.

5. Democracy and Education. An influential book that advocated schools spend less time teaching "character development" and memorizing facts, and more time teaching kids to think. While waves of educational fads have indeed weakened education, this was not such a fad. It makes the argument that a healthy democracy requires an educated and thinking populace more than a pliant population capable of regurgitating facts but less able to think for themselves. This is hardly radical; one commonly cited advantage of American students is their ability to think creatively, unlike their counterparts in Japan and India, for example, where students outscore us on standardized tests but often find themselves ill-prepared for more than technical jobs because while they have all the tools, they never really learned how to apply them in new ways. This may be why the most devastating thing the listmakers can think of to say about it is that it "helped nurture the Clinton generation."

6. Das Kapital. Marx/Engel's other book is apparently less dangerous than either sexuality or public education, perhaps because it's more of a critique of capitalism than an actual proposed alternative like the "Communist Manifesto." One can argue that this founding document of modern socialism contributed to the philosophical underpinnings of communism, and its calls for the abolition of private property (the full Marxist/Communist form of socialism) are offensive both morally and economically. But on the other hand socialist activists have produced much actual good, such as the five-day workweek, paid vacation and workplace safety laws. One can argue that modern capitalism is both stronger and more democratic thanks to Marx's critique, however unrealistic his alternative.

7. The Feminine Mystique. Another conservative pet peeve, feminism, nails down the #7 spot. While Betty Friedan was quite militant by today's standards -- as almost all pioneers are -- the only way one can say this book was harmful is if one also argues that it was okay to force women into subservient, gender-defined social roles. Friedan, whatever her faults or excesses, laid the groundwork for today's society, in which women are (horrors!!) allowed to choose their own life and career path. How terrible.

8. The Course of Positive Philosophy. This book is harmful because it outlines a nontheistic belief system. No, seriously. That's why it's so dangerous, because it describes a philosophy that doesn't require belief in God. If anyone was still taking this list seriously, hopefully you've stopped now.

9. Beyond Good and Evil. The infamous classic by Freidrich Nietsche argues that belief in God is a weakness, but mostly it's taken to task for its amoral, "might makes right" philosophy. I'd argue that this book is far more deserving of the #2 spot instead of "Mein Kampf", because it had more direct influence on Nazi ideology (indeed, it informed "Mein Kampf").

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. The classic economic text by John Maynard Keynes, which advocated government regulation of the economy. It was indeed hugely influential. But it is harmful only if you dislike the economic course the world has taken since the Great Depression, because Keynesian economics are the rules by which the world operates today. The most notable sign of his influence is the existence of the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee, which raises and lowers interest rates to even out business cycles -- something it has done with remarkable success for nearly 80 years. The overheated booms and destructive panics of the 19th Century are largely things of the past. Was he 100% right on everything? Of course not. But on balance his theories seem to have done more good than harm.

The Honorable Mention list is even sillier, containing books such as "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill, "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, "Unsafe at Any Speed" by Ralph Nader, "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carlson and "Introduction to Psychoanalysis" by Freud. I guess these are harmful if you think personal liberty, evolution, consumer safety, concern for the environment and the study and treatment of mental dysfunction are bad things. Although in the latter two cases there are legitimate criticisms of the authors for being excessive in their concern and incorrect in certain assertions, I think it would be difficult to argue that either Carson or Freud did more harm than good.

To be fair, it can be difficult to put together a good list of "harmful" books. Part of this is our national commitment to free speech; it's hard to argue that we should not be exposed to the ideas in "Beyond Good and Evil" or even "Mein Kampf," if only so they can be debated (and largely refuted) in the open light of day. So I have no other titles to offer in replacement of those above, simply because I'm not given to making such lists.

Perhaps that's the lesson to be imparted here. Ideas are not harmful; applications are. We should hold Hitler, not Nietsche, responsible for the National Socialist movement. We should hold the Soviet authorities, not Marx, responsible for the compound disaster that was the Soviet Union. Just like we don't hold Adam Smith responsible for the excesses of pure capitalism, or hold Ayn Rand responsible for the more lunatic Libertarian fringe, or hold Jesus responsible for the actions of the religious right. A book may give dullards a faux-intellectual hook on which to hang their actions; but their actions cannot be blamed on the book, any more than the killing can be blamed on the gun.

books, politics, midtopia

Why McCain won't be our next president

I've always been less than impressed by John McCain (notable Midtopia posts on the good senator are here and here). He's always struck me as a half-hearted maverick, who tends to raise objections and then cave almost immediately. And I've never been particularly impressed with his grasp of facts.

Tht said, this still surprised even me.

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Let's repeat this quote for emphasis: "You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."

I understand it can be hard to keep track of the nuances of opinion on hundreds of different issues. But this isn't about nuance, and it's not about some minor bit of wonkery. It's "I have to find out what my position was" on a major social issue -- while being sure that, whatever that position was, it supported Bush.

I wasn't going to vote for him anyway, but stuff like this helps persuade me that he's not mentally up to the job.

Update: Oops, screwed up the link to the Q&A. It's been fixed now.

McCain, politics, midtopia

Another stupid flag brouhaha

I've been focusing a lot on Washington and national news lately. I wonder what's been going on here at home. Let's see:

On Thursday, the Minnesota House, after a long and emotional debate that featured members quoting Abraham Lincoln, the Pledge of Allegiance, Ronald Reagan and the Declaration of Independence, approved a measure to require that all American flags sold in Minnesota be made in America.

The vote was 83-46. The bill awaits action in the Senate.

"It's time to bring the flag home," said Rep. Larry Howes, R-Walker.

Uh, wait. What was that? The state wants to wade into the marketplace and dictate where a particular product can be manufactured? Why?

Surely they're just expressing an opinion. I mean, they wouldn't actually throw someone in jail for this....

The measure would make it a misdemeanor to sell an American flag not made in the United States.... "It feels good to be for a bill like this," said Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall. But he added, "This is serious business when we are talking about 90 days in jail and $1,000 fine."

Okay, they would.

You have to love the response by the bill's sponsor, DFLer Tom Rukavina:

"That's absolutely as absurd as putting a label on your pillow saying, 'Do not remove under penalty of law.' … You can try to pretend this is going to put people in jail. It isn't," Rukavina said.

Fabulous. Make a law that you know won't be enforced because it is unreasonable on the face of it. Yeah, I'm sure that will increase respect for the law -- not just this law, but the law in general.

Rukavina has a history of stupid bills. In this session, he also introduced a bill overruling a local zoning board's decision against a friend's house addition. After enduring withering criticism, he said he wasn't serious about the bill. Which, if true, again raises the question of why he was wasting taxpayer time and money by writing it.

In 2003 he proposed selling off state-owned land in the Boundary Waters to the highest bidder, an idea so bad that Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- not exactly a noted environmentalist -- suggested Rukavina had been "drinking too much swamp water."

Earth to the entire House: the state should intervene in the marketplace -- and restrict civil liberties -- only for good reason. Trying to dictate the origin of American flags does not constitute "good reason." Nor does the mental process involved in arriving at the conclusion that such a bill is worth discussing.

There was more silliness all around:

During the debate, legislators offered several amendments, including criminalizing the destruction of the American flag, making English the state's official language and requiring lawmakers to drive American-made cars. All were ruled out of order or voted down.

The next time legislators want a pay increase, point to this debate and say "not until you stop wasting time on stupidity like this." Meanwhile, hope the state Senate isn't infected by the same strain of brain cramp.

Rukavina, Minnesota, politics, midtopia

The case against Gonzales

The WaPo's Andrew Cohen has an excellent four-part series outlining why Alberto Gonzales needs to go, and who should replace him.

Part I • Part II • Part III • Part IV

Cohen's basic argument:

1. Gonzales has been a crony all his life, and remained one as AG in abdication of his role as the people's attorney. He was an enabler for Bush rather than a counselor. Even Janet Reno showed an independent bone or two; Gonzales has none.

2. As a lawyer and executive, he's mediocre or worse. Cohen cites some well-known examples from the White House, but also some others from his tenure in Texas -- such as a failure to tell then-Gov. Bush, when commenting on a defendant's clemency petition, that the defense lawyer for a death-row inmate had slept through most of the jury selection process. Several other examples lay out Gonzales' legal incompetence -- or, alternatively, his willingness to ignore plain law when he finds it inconvenient.

3. With all the scandals popping up around him, there's no compelling reason to keep him. Various observers, of various political stripes, describe him as an "empty suit", a "lightweight" who is "in over his head." He's not the kind of AG you go to the mat for.

As far as replacements, here is where Cohen makes a notable misstep. He surveys the field and proposes... Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor in the Libby case. That just seems out of left field to me, and it's not going to happen in any event. I'm not qualified to judge the field, but surely he could have done better.

But the first three parts are a compelling, if somewhat partisan, read. Give 'em a look.

Gonzales, politics, midtopia

Mars' water is frozen, like NASA's budget

Using ground-penetrating radar, scientists have found that the south pole of Mars is covered with a layer of almost pure water ice -- enough water to cover the planet to a depth of 36 feet if it melted.

Even better, that's just the south pole. The north pole has another massive ice cap, and there's evidence that there's even more water stored underground all across the planet.

There are still plenty of technical obstacles to setting up any sort of manned station on Mars, notably the extreme cold (average temperature: -81 degrees) and thin, unbreathable atmosphere. But huge amounts of accessible water make it at least thinkable.

Other things, however, make it less thinkable. Like NASA's budget problems. Besides prompting NASA to propose scuttling useful precursor programs like the Lunar Robotics Office, the agency this week admitted it would not have a replacement for its aging space shuttles by the planned 2014 deadline. For now the delay is only a year, to 2015. But with the shuttles scheduled to be retired in 2010, that leaves a five-year gap where manned flights -- and trips to the International Space Station -- will be the domain of Russia or private organizations. Not to mention the up-and-coming space programs of India, China and Japan.

NASA's entire budget is a relatively paltry $16.8 billion. We could eliminate it entirely and still not make a meaningful dent in the budget deficit. Given the agency's usefulness -- politically, economically, militarily and scientifically -- surely we can shield it from the vicissitudes of the budget wars. If there's one thing that deserves strong support, it's scientific inquiry, the exploitation of space and (long term) developing the capacity to colonize or extract resources from other worlds.

Mars, space, politics, midtopia

Plame testifies before Congress

As I mentioned a few days ago, Valerie Plame is testifying before Congress today, as Democrats try to keep the Plame scandal going as long as possible now that the Lewis Libby trial is over. It's a transparent political move, but at the same time it's the first time we've got Plame under oath, so we may get some good questions and answers that we should have gotten long ago.

For now, two links: the AP story on the hearing and a transcript of the opening remarks.

The most notable statements so far:

1. Plame categorically denied having anything to do with sending her husband to Niger, saying "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority."

2. She repeatedly described herself as a "covert operative," saying she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret CIA missions. But she says she doesn't know if she was covert in a legal sense. She also says that shouldn't have mattered -- that White House officials, realizing she worked for the CIA, should have checked before discussing her with the press.

More assertive is the statement Rep. Henry Waxman made in opening the session. The relevant quote from the transcript:

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Got that? The CIA is saying (by clearing the comment with Waxman) that the fact Plame worked for the CIA was a secret, and thus White House officials revealed classified information.

Republican Tom Davis admits as much in his remarks:

Let me state at the outset that the outing of Mrs. Wilson's identity was wrong. And we have every right to look at this and investigate it.

His argument, though, is that nobody at the White House knew Plame's identity was classified because the CIA didn't make it clear that it was.

No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified, just as no one can be prosecuted for unauthorized disclosure of information that no one ever said was protected. So this looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem. If the agency doesn't take sufficient precautions to protect the identity of those who engage in covert work, no one else can do it for them.

True enough. But that doesn't address Plame's argument: That the simple fact she worked at the CIA should have served as a red flag. A prudent administration would have checked with the agency before discussing any CIA employee with the press.

Davis is arguing what the White House knew; Plame is arguing what the White House should have known.

It's hard to disagree with either of them, given the facts we know at the moment. That's why it's highly probable no crime was committed, even while the administration is properly flagellated for being careless with Plame's identity.

More updates as events warrant.

Update: Another witness testified about the Bush administration's lac, of curiosity about the leak, despite promises to the contrary:

Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congressional committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame....

Knodell said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: "I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office," he said.

Rep. Waxman recalled that President Bush had promised a full internal probe. Knodell repeated that no probe took place, as far as he knew, and was not happening today.

Knodell said he had "no" conversations whatsoever with the president, vice president, Karl Rove or anyone about the leak.

Hmm. The administration promised to investigate itself and then didn't. I'm shocked, I tell you; shocked.

Update II: The video of Plame's testimony.

CIA, Plame, politics, midtopia