Judicial appointments and the right to Filibuster

The President and his Constituency of Evangelical Christians - "A big wet kiss to the far right"?The new attack dog of Christian zealots, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee (eyeing the White House in 2008) offered a "compromise" on the impasse about judicial appointments.What was his offer? Limit debates to 100 hours before a straight up and down vote. Big deal. Instead of continuing with direct attempts to kill filibuster rights he just took a different tack to achieve the same end."But in a surprise to no one, Democrats rejected Frist's proposal within minutes. "There's no way we're going to give up our right to extended debate," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. He repeated the colorful description he had used in his floor remarks a bit earlier: Frist's offer, he said, was "a big wet kiss to the far right." Lost in the clamour of the conservatives are facts about judicial appointments by Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush (who has another 3.5 years ahead of him). A report titled "The Decision Making Ideology of George W. Bush's Judicial Appointees" is a must-read for those who are interested in learning more.The authors:Kenneth L. ManningAssociate Professor of Political ScienceUniversity of Massachusetts-DartmouthandRobert A. CarpProfessor of Political ScienceUniversity of HoustonLinks to Washington Post and Univ. of MassachusettsA big wet kissG.W. Bush's Judicial Appointments"Across the ages, clergy have been interested [according to Jefferson] not in truth but only in wealth and power; when rational people have had difficulty swallowing "their impious heresies," then the clergy have, with the help of the state, forced "them down their throats." Five years later, he [Jefferson] wrote of "this loathsome combination of church and state" that for so many centuries reduced human beings to "dupes and drudges." Attribution: Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 47. According to Gaustad, the first quotes are from a letter from Jefferson to William Baldwin, January 19, 1810; the second source is a letter from Jefferson to Charles Clay, January 29, 1815.

April 30, 2005 · 2 min · musafir

"Support the Right to Arm Bears" (Bumper sticker seen in Palo Alto, California)

Slogan used by the National Rifle Association: "Guns don't kill people, people do"Well, one cannot argue with the fact that someone has to pull the trigger. It is also indisputable that people can be stabbed to death, beaten to death, strangled to death,poisoned to death, pushed to death, drowned to death and so on.One cannot also argue with the fact that guns make killing very easy. The following is from data base of the Center for Disease Control (CDC): "The rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries."My respect for the Constitution is high and I have contempt for those who urge amendments for political expediency or for the sake of their own narrow beliefs.The Second Amendment"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "There are legal arguments about the "absoluteness" of Second Amendment. No authority on the Constitution, I, but the words "a well regulated militia" jump out at me. Currently, availability of lethal firearms is not limited to such bodies; any adult without a criminal record can procure them.High powered semi-automatic weapons and ammunition for them were non-existent when the framers of the Constitution added Second Amendment. It was a different world then.Here are some numbers about the tolls they take. Source: Injury Facts of the National Safety Council's report, 2002 edition.______________________ In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries. This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists. The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to: 214 unintentional 1,078 suicides 1,990 homicides 83 for which the intent could not be determined 20 due to legal intervention Of the total firearms-related deaths: 73 were of children under five years old 416 were children 5-14 years old 2,896 were 15-19 years old In addition to firearm deaths, we need to look at how many children and young people are hurt by guns. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 1997, 2,514 children aged 0-14 were non-fatally injured by guns. In the same year, 30,225 young people aged 15-24 sustained nonfatal firearm injuries. These statistics include suicide attempts and both intentional and accidental shootings. ...

April 27, 2005 · 3 min · musafir

The New Ruling Class

Blinded by Faith and Ego - Leading us down a chute “I couldn’t afford to learn it,” said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. “I only took the regular course.”“What was that?” inquired Alice.“Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,” the Mock Turtle replied; “and then the different branches of Arithmetic—Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.”“I never heard of ‘Uglification,’” Alice ventured to say."---Lewis Carroll [Charles Lutwidge Dodgson] (1832–1898), British author, mathematician, clergyman. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, ch. IX, Macmillan (1865).Paul Krugman of MIT hits the nail on the head with his biting commentary about the Bush administration. Although an economist by training, Professor Krugman's observations about politics and society have earned his columns in The NY Times a large following.Link:The Oblivious Right# posted by musafir @ 9:10 AM Comments (7) | Trackback (0)

April 25, 2005 · 1 min · musafir

The Greenspan Tango (or Shuffle)

Oracle of the Fed? No, Just Another Politicized BureaucratFour years after shedding his neutrality to endorse President Bush's massive tax cuts (targeted primarily to benefit the top 1% of wealthy Americans) the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank is having "second thoughts"! The fact that even Alan Greenspan failed to remain apolitical, as his position required, is a sad commentary on our system of government."Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that his support for tax cuts in early 2001 unintentionally encouraged policies that helped swing the federal budget from surplus to record deficits. ...

April 25, 2005 · 1 min · musafir

Tony Blair and the War against Iraq

A damaging document surfaces 11 days before the pollsEver since Tony Blair involved Britain in the war against Iraq, there has been numerous questions raised in and outside the British Parliament about the legality of the decision. It was legal opinion by Attorney General Oliver Goldsmith that Prime Minister Blair used to support his position. However, the full report was never released despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of British citizens felt that it should be.Now, 11 days before the polls open in England, the 13-page legal opinion submitted by Justice Goldsmith has leaked out.The war, named "Operation Iraqi Freedom", began 9:34 PM EST on March 19, 2003 (5:34 AM local time in Baghdad on March 20). According to the leaked document, Justice Goldsmith issued his report on March 7, 2003. It expressed "serious reservations about the legality of the conflict" and spelled out six reasons why Blair could be in violation of international law. "Ten days later, he apparently changed his mind, delivering a summary to Blair declaring the war was legal - the cue for the invasion."The timing of the leak couldn't have been worse for the prime minister. But he is an eloquent speaker, fast on his feet. He is going to survive. One question that the Goldsmith document will not answer is why did the prime minister feel the need so strongly to align himself and his nation in the unjustified war.The Observer,UK:"An ICM poll carried out for Vote for Peace, which campaigns for anti-war MPs in marginal constituencies, found this weekend that only seven per cent of Britons would support a US-led war on Iran without UN agreement. More than a third would not support it in any circumstances."Blair and Iraq War

April 24, 2005 · 2 min · musafir

Pope Benedict XVI's role in Sex Abuse Enquiry

Ratzinger blocked release of allegations - A follow up to my post dated April 23, 2005.A report by Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent of The Observer reveals that Cardinal Ratzinger ordered Catholic bishops to keep the investigations confidential "for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood"secret ".A copy of the confidential letter sent in May 2001 has been obtained by The Observer. Cardinal Ratzinger made it quite clear where he stood on this issue."It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.Link:Ratzinger and Sex Abuse EnquiryNote: The Observer is a sister paper (published on Sundays) of The Guardian.

April 24, 2005 · 1 min · musafir

Faith Based Politics in Action

Concern for fetuses but does not acknowledge hungry and sick childrenThe Bush Administration, always ready to side the with the pro-lifers, has issued a directive specifically formulated to appease them and to make it more difficult for women seeking abortion as well as the physicians involved in the procedure. There is a strange disconnect between the Department of Health & Human Services' concern for fetuses and its callousness about children who need food, medicine and clothing to survive."David Grimes, a licensed obstetrician/gynecologist who previously worked for the abortion surveillance division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the act and Friday's instructions were medically unnecessary."I don't see this as a big issue. Physicians are going to do what's appropriate," said Grimes, who now practices in North Carolina. "It's all rhetoric from persons with political views they want to advance."He said the act's definition of alive is "silly," given that it implies a fetus miscarried at 14 or 16 weeks "with no chance of survival" would be legally identified as a living person. Most medical experts agree that a fetus delivered prior to 23 weeks has little chance of survival, he said."Link:Politics of Fetuses

April 23, 2005 · 1 min · musafir

Pope Benedict XVI

Beginning of a New Era at the VaticanNew does not mean different. In his first sermon after being appointed, Benedict XVI promised "open and sincere" dialogue with other religions. What that means remains to be seen. A good example is the current occupant of the White House who declared himself as a "compassionate conservative". And I am an alien from outer space.There has been some negative comments about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as Pope Benedict was known, including his role during Hitler's Third Reich. That allegation lacks documentary evidence. The records, however, include some disturbing facts. Among his responsibilities as Cardinal was the leadership of the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also known as the Holy Office, the body that promulgated the infamous Spanish Inquisition.For those who are not aware of the background, in 1478 Pope Sixtus IV issued a Bull empowering the Spanish sovereigns to set up tribunals to extirpate heresy within their realms. From then until it was abolished in 1834, the Inquisition pursued the goal of destruction of every person who was not a sincere Roman Catholic Christian. "First and foremost this meant Jews, but the Holy Office later expanded its range of victims to include Protestants, mystics, and non-conformist of every sort." (The Spanish Inquisition by Cecil Roth, published by W.W. Norton & Co.)"Death sentence usually meant being publicly burned at a stake. It was known as Auto da Fe, Act of Purification.We can rejoice that the murderous tribunal is no longer active although one gets the feeling that there are Christians who salivate at the thought of heretics being burned at stake.In his own words:On holy communion and the voteA Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia.· Ratzinger memo to US Catholic bishops conference in Denver, June 2004On Aids and condomsTo see a solution to the problem of infection by promoting the use of prophylactics would be to embark on a way not only insufficiently reliable from the technical point of view, but also and above all, unacceptable from the moral aspect. Such a proposal for "safe" or at least "safer" sex - as they say - ignores the real cause of the problem, namely, the permissiveness which, in the area of sex, as in that related to other causes, corrodes the moral fibre of the people.· Ratzinger quoting, in a 1978 interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, from an Osservatore Romano article on Aids believed to have originated with himOn celibacyNot a dogma of the faith, but something that has grown in a human way and clearly contains the dangers for those who undertake it of a headlong fall.· Salz der Erde, 1997On women and AnglicanismA new situation has been brought about by two circumstances: the extending of the majority principle to questions of doctrine and the entrusting of doctrinal decisions to national churches ... Both of these are in themselves nonsensical; because doctrine is either true or not true.· 1976, quoted in Cardinal RatzingerOn lawsThe church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection ... In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it".· Memo to US Catholic bishops conference in Denver, June 2004On liberation theologyIn the crisis of the 1960s and 1970s, many missionaries came to the conclusion that missionary work, that is, the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, was no longer appropriate today. They thought the only thing that still made sense was to offer help in social development. But how can positive social development be carried out if we become illiterate with regard to God?Gospel and social advancement go together.· Lecture to Campania bishops, Benveneto, June 2002I did not find any statement in which Pope Benedict condemned or mentioned the numerous cases of sexual abuse of children by members of clergy of the Catholic Church.Postscript: After publication of this post I learned from Laurie Goldstein's report in The NY Times that Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in investigating cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests but the hearings were "secret"."It is impossible to assess Cardinal Ratzinger's record in disciplining the priests accused over the years. The hearings were secret, and under longstanding rules, the Congregation and its staff do not release any information about specific cases, the number of cases considered, or how the cases have been handled."Link:Ratzinger on Sexual Abuse

April 23, 2005 · 4 min · musafir

Oil - Lifeblood of the Industrialized World

Are we nearing the "peak" of production ?The Guardian,UK, (4/21/05) contains a fascinating article by John Vidal. It is based on a report prepared by Colin Campbell of the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Center. Lucid and factual, Campbell describes a scenario that is causing waves. It is a wake up call from somone who knows all that is worth knowing about the business of oil .No, we are not going to run out of oil tomorrow or the next year. But, in Campbell's opinion we are nearing the "peak" of production.We can forget about oil prices going back to where they were a year ago or even six months ago. Are the industrialized nations (the U.S. at the top) going to change direction and make serious attempts about conservation instead of looking for new sources of production ? Fat chance. Politicians rarely take positions that are likely to be unpopular and they need to cater to the interests of their friends in the industries that benefit from high consumption. This time, however, even the movers and shakers in the oil industry are cautious about the ability to keep pace with the exponential growth in consumption, and the dwindling oil reserves."But the business of estimating oil reserves is contentious and political. According to Campbell, companies seldom report their true findings for commercial reasons, and governments - which own 90% of the reserves - often lie. Most official figures, he says, are grossly unreliable: 'Estimating reserves is a scientific business. There is a range of uncertainty but it is not impossible to get a good idea of what a field contains. Reporting [reserves], however, is a political act.' "Guardian,UK-The end of oil is closer than you think

April 21, 2005 · 2 min · musafir

The Cars We Drive

And What They Tell About UsThe brutish, extra-wide Hummers make me think of the owners being mean, selfish and arrogant---typical Bush Republicans. This article from The NY Times confirms that I am not far from the truth. Too bad that some Democrats like the ugly, gas hogging monstrosity on wheels."Among Hummer buyers, the Republican-to-Democrat ratio was a whopping 52 to 23."The NY Times April 1, 2005Your Car: Politics on WheelsBy JOHN TIERNEYIT has always been tempting to think you can figure out who a person is and what he thinks by what he drives. That subject was raised recently by Chely Wright in her country and western hit, ''Bumper of My S.U.V.,'' in which she tells of a ''lady in a minivan'' giving her a vulgar hand gesture for driving a car with a Marines bumper sticker:''Does she think she knows what I stand for/Or the things that I believe/Just by looking at a sticker for the U.S. Marines/On the bumper of my S.U.V.?''The lady in the minivan might not know, but some of the finest minds in market research think they do. By analyzing new-car sales, surveying car owners and keeping count of political bumper stickers, they are identifying the differences between Democratic cars and Republican ones.Among their findings: buyers of American cars tend to be Republican -- except, for some reason, those who buy Pontiacs, who tend to be Democrats. Foreign-brand compact cars are usually bought by Democrats -- but not Mini Coopers, which are bought by almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And Volvos may not actually represent quite what you think.How valuable is this information? ''I think it's fun to talk about,'' the political analyst James Carville said, ''but I mean, you see a guy in a pickup truck with a rifle and a Confederate flag, and you know how he's going to vote anyway.'' But upon further reflection Mr. Carville acknowledged the value of the surveys. ''It actually does have some merit, especially when used in conjunction with other information about consumer habits. It can be a very accurate predictor.''Last year, the Republican National Committee applied data supplied by Scarborough Research, a New York market research firm, to a range of leisure-time and consumer activities to find where it could reach potential voters with advertising. Part of Scarborough's effort was to survey 200,000 car owners about their political affiliations.Scarborough found that Porsche owners identified themselves as Republican more often than owners of any other cars, with 59 percent calling themselves Republicans, 27 percent Democrats and the rest either calling themselves independents or declining to answer. Jaguars and Land Rovers also registered as very ''Republican'' vehicles.Scarborough also determined that Volvos were the most ''Democratic'' cars, by 44 to 32 percent, followed by Subarus and Hyundais. But although a lot of old Volvos on the road are driven by Democrats, the customers in Volvo showrooms no longer fit the old stereotype, according to a survey of 163,000 new-car buyers last year that was conducted by CNW Marketing Research of Bandon, Ore.As Volvo's advertising has stressed performance in addition to safety, more and more Republicans are buying Volvos. The CNW survey last year showed that Democratic buyers of Volvo cars outnumbered Republicans by only 32 percent to 27 percent.''Volvos have become more plush and bourgeois, which is a Republican thing to be,'' said Mickey Kaus, a dual expert in politics and cars as the author of the Kausfiles and Gearbox columns for Slate. ''Subaru is the new Volvo -- that is, it is what Volvos used to be: trusty, rugged, inexpensive, unpretentious, performs well, maybe a bit ugly. You don't buy it because you want to show you have money; you buy it because you have college-professor values.''The CNW survey, which measured political affiliation not just by make but also by model, found that a Jeep Grand Cherokee S.U.V. was more than half again as likely to be bought by a Republican than by a Democrat, at 46 percent to 28. Among Hummer buyers, the Republican-to-Democrat ratio was a whopping 52 to 23.According to CNW's figures, staunch Democrats drive S.U.V.'s too, but they tend to prefer smaller, foreign-made ones. Republicans generally like them bigger and American-made, or at least bearing the name of an American company, even if they were built elsewhere.The survey also found that minivans skewed blue, just as Chely Wright surmised in her song. At first glance, this might seem odd, because Republican car buyers tended to have more children -- 3.5 on average, versus 1.7 for the Democratic buyers. Explaining this apparent contradiction offers a look into the increasing exactitude marketers seem to be applying to the question of who drives what.''You might think with all the kids, they'd want the practicality of a minivan,'' said Art Spinella, the president of CNW. But practicality was not the Republican customer's highest priority, as Mr. Spinella's company discovered by tracking the customers throughout the buying process.''There is a certain resistance that male new-car buyers have to minivans even in a household with two or three kids,'' Mr. Spinella explained. ''For the most part, red-state households are more male-dominated when it comes to decision-making for a vehicle. In blue states, it's more of a joint decision-making process.'' Because the Democratic women get more of a say in the decision, their families end up with more minivans than S.U.V.'s.The Democrats also tend to consider a wider range of cars before buying. ''In red states, there's more affinity to specific brands or loyalty to the same brand they had before,'' Mr. Spinella said. ''A person in a red state will start with an average of 2.5 vehicles on the shopping list. In the blue states the average is 6.''The blue-staters, not surprisingly, are a lot more likely to put hybrid cars on their list: buyers of the Toyota Prius hybrid were Democrats by a 35 to 22 percent. Democrats in general are more fond of smaller cars (the Ford Escort and Dodge Neon both skewed blue by about 34 to 20), although energy efficiency is hardly the only reason. Besides having fewer children, Democrats tend to be younger, less affluent and more likely to live in cities where small cars are easier to park.Some of these differences have more to do with geography than personal politics. Democrats are concentrated in port cities with more links to Europe and Asia, making them more open to foreign car companies. Republicans are more likely to be living in the heartland, where there's room for bigger cars and a tradition of loyalty to the American cars built in nearby factories.But car buyers are also responding to the political images that come with some cars. Some foreign car companies have marketed cars as environmentally friendly, and some have at times focused on parts of the Democratic base. Saab and Subaru were the first and most visible to aim advertising at gay drivers.Midsize and large American cars skew Republican, and so, of course, do big American pickup trucks. That may have something to do with American car companies marketing themselves through one of the great symbols of Republicanism, Nascar, which is enormously popular in the red states.''Nascar has an American-made-only requirement for cars and a variety of other rules that discourage foreign makers from competing,'' said Steve Sailer, a conservative journalist who has analyzed the red-blue divide. ''Toyota has dipped its toe into Nascar's truck-racing series with its American-made trucks, but there isn't a lot of demand for Japanese participation.''In truth, a lot of fans would be sore about ending the all-American monopoly. Nascar has become a covert ethnic-pride celebration for red-state whites of Northern European descent.''All surveys found that nothing is more Republican than a big pickup. ''The No. 1 vehicle bought by millionaires is the Ford F-Series pickup truck,'' Mr. Spinella said. ''They're farmers, ranchers, contractors, independent businesspeople. They basically work for themselves and they have substantial assets.''The Saab is a Democratic car, according to both CNW and Scarborough, which found that Saab owners were about twice as likely to be Democrats. It's an upscale car an affluent Democrat can drive without feeling guiltily ostentatious while also reveling in a different sort of status symbol, said the president of Scarborough, Bob Cohen.''The Saab owner is not going after the obvious status symbol like a BMW,'' Mr. Cohen said. ''He wants to make a statement that he's in a small group with specialized knowledge who don't go for a safe choice like BMW, because he can get a better deal with a Saab.''A less affluent version of that car buyer might go for a Saturn, the offbeat brand of choice for aficionados who skew heavily Democratic, by 39 to 11 among last year's car buyers. Mr. Kaus says they appeal to Democrats because they are ''clunky, Earth Shoe-like cars.''SATURN owners were also prone to put their Democratic loyalties on display, at least according to a count undertaken by Political Bumpers, which was billed as ''an extremely unscientific'' project undertaken near the end of the presidential campaign last year.Volunteers counted more than 1,300 bumper stickers in a half dozen states from Sept. 20 to Oct. 31 and came up with results (www.laze.net/bumpers) that roughly jibed with the much larger market-research surveys. Like the larger surveys, the Political Bumpers totals added up to within a couple of percentage points of the 51-percent-to-48 result of the 2004 presidential election.The Political Bumpers spotters, who recorded bumper stickers in favor of or against any of the candidates in the 2004 election, found that the drivers of pickup trucks and large S.U.V.'s were overwhelmingly right-leaning. But the leader of the project, Ryan MacMichael, of Leesburg, Va., said his biggest surprise was the pronounced Democratic skew of bumper stickers on economy cars (71 percent were left-leaning) and station wagons (67 percent).The most left-leaning models with at least a dozen sightings in Mr. MacMichael's project were the Honda Civic (80-20 left-leaning), Toyota Corolla (78-19) and Toyota Camry (74-26). The list of most right-leaning was led by another Toyota, but a midsize S.U.V., the Toyota 4Runner (86-14), followed by the Ford Expedition (76-24) and Ford F-150 (75-25).To Mr. Spinella, those bumper stickers merely provided further proof of the most fundamental difference between the two parties.''Democrats buy cars,'' he said. ''Republicans buy trucks.''

April 20, 2005 · 9 min · musafir