Are You Better Off?

Lou Dobbs asks Are you better off today than you were three years ago?:



Even for a non-scientific poll, that's quite the result. I wonder what would have been said about Clinton, had he been overseeing the past three years' economic performance....

The saddest part of all is, perhaps, that this is not likely to change even as the economy continues to "recover". The wealthy may do better with each generation, but the days of generational economic improvement seem to be ending for the working classes.

Comments

Rumors & Megalomania

It is rumored that Saddam Hussein may have terminal cancer:

The ousted Iraqi dictator, who is currently under custody with the coalition forces, suffers from cancer of lymph glands, Kuwaiti Al-Anba daily reads, citing an Iraqi official. According to the daily, the disease is in an advanced stage, so doctors predict the former dictator would probably live a couple of years more.

This, of course, may be the best explanation yet for why he acted in such a peculiar, and apparently self-destructive manner in the lead-up to the war. With little to lose, even a miniscule possibility of defeating the coalition invaders and becoming in the eyes of many a modern Saladin would seem awfully tempting to a megalomaniac.

Comments

Self-Serving Twittery?

A number of years ago, exploiting connections he had obtained while with the FBI, Gary Aldrich wrote a book excoriating the Clintons. Now, in "First Kids", he complains, "The mainstream media chooses to portray our country’s First Children either negatively or positively, depending on the political party of their parents, the President and First Lady." He bases this entirely upon the reaction to a passage in his book where he attacked Chelsea Clinton (claiming that she referred to some Secret Service officers assigned to her as "personally trained pig", and that she "told them that she was just repeating what her mother and father had said about them"), as contrasted with the media's treatment of Bush's twin daughters. Given that I alluded to the Bush twins yesterday, I think that Aldrich's merits brief discussion.

First, as Aldrich implicitly acknowleges, he has no personal knowledge of Chelsea's reported conduct - whereas the Bush twins have engaged in public conduct that is, as a result, of public record. Second, as Aldrich also implicitly acknowledges, Chelsea was a minor when this statement was supposedly made, while the Bush twins have acted as adults (even if not always acting like adults). Third, even if true, the statement attributed to Chelsea is that of a kid in a snit, whereas some of the conduct which attracted media attention to the Bush twins was criminal in nature. Fourth, even respecting Aldrich's zeal to assume the worst about the Clintons (and to ride a wave of Clinton-hatred to sell his book and columns), any objective person would be highly skeptical of a teenager's attempt to avoid consequence for bad conduct by suggesting parental approval. And despite Aldrich's claims to the contrary, there were press efforts to attack Chelsea Clinton, whether on the statement he attributes to her, her appearance, her reported smoking of cigarettes as a college student, a reported anxiety attack during college... all sorts of irrelevancies. It should be no surprise that the public, no doubt including large numbers of Republicans and even haters of her parents, finds such attacks to be irrelevant and offensive. Were Chelsea, as an adult, to act in a manner comparable to that of the Bush twins, the press would be all over her. Finally, the Clintons have never pretended to be paragons of virtue, and thus invite less criticism of the manner in which they raised their daughter.

Aldrich also neglects to mention the press coverage of the arrest of Al Gore's 21-year-old son for possession of marijuana - years after Gore left office. It's media bias when a Bush twin gets arrested, but Al Gore III is fair game? No wonder Aldrich limits his analysis of "bias" to the rather well-behaved Chelsea versus the rather rambunctious Bush twins.

Comments

Foreign Lobbying is Okay - But Not This?

In Canada's cash, Tony Blankley, former press secretary to Newt Gingrich, acknowledges that foreign nationals are prohibited by law from contributing directly to a candidate for U.S. federal office or to the candidate's election campaign. Nonetheless, he finds it highly problematic that they might contribute to advocacy organizations which, in turn, support a particular political position which may weigh in a federal election:

Whatever the legality of these methods turns out to be, it is stunning that a major candidate for president would think nothing of being seen to raise foreign money. This lack of judgment is only compounded by the fact that we are at war, and the money is being solicited by the foreigners expressly to try to stop President Bush from carrying out our war on terrorism.

(Oh, those evil Canadians.) Blankley continues with this assertion - suggesting that any Canadians who provide indirect support for General Clark are "supporters of the enemy in time of war". Oh, really.

What Blankley fails to acknowledge is that foreign nationals and foreign governments already wield significant influence on Capital Hill, courtesy of their significant expenditures on lobbying. From Billy Carter to Neil Bush, foreign powers have not even hesitated to make significant contributions to the President's close relatives in the hope of influencing White House policy. Why does Blankley find it objectionable that foreign individuals might make small contributions to groups which advocate a particular political position, possibly indirectly supporting a candidate for federal office, but has no apparent problem with foreign lobbyists pouring cash into direct and overt efforts to change U.S. government policy? The answer seems obvious - Blankley recognizes that the individuals at issue are likely to contribute because they oppose present Republican policy, whereas foreign corporations and governments have a very different agenda. Foreign money is fine - but only if it advances Republican interests and if it helps keep Bush in the White House.

Blankley poses an interesting question,

What would be an appropriate cut-off date for permitting terrorism supporting Saudi Princes or multi-billionaire international currency manipulators from buying advertising intended to manipulate American public opinion and bring down a president?

Presumably, the members of the Bin Laden family with whom the President has a long, documented relationship, and the members of the Saudi Royal Family who routinely meet with President Bush in efforts to influence his policies are not "terrorism supporting"? (Wahhabism and support for terrorism, after all, emerge in a vacuum, despite the complete opposition of Saudi Arabia's opressive, totalitarian oligarchy. And the state-sponsored press never engages in rhetoric against U.S. interests or in support of terrorism.)

A footnote: In an observation worthy of idiotorial status, Blankley states,

It should be noted that the CanadaForClark Web site asserts that: "This site is not affiliated in any way with the official Clark campaign." But, of course, the official campaign Web site links to the "not affiliated" Web site.

I happen to run a sizeable Internet directory, primarily of expert witnesses, which links to a lot of sites and contains a similar disclaimer. And guess what - it's true.

Comments

The "Religion Divide"

Today, William Safire writes,

With the year 2004 still in its diaper, a spacecraft aptly named Stardust, launched five years ago, scooped up a shovelful of dust from the nucleus of the comet Wild 2 a quarter of a billion miles away. If it brings back even a thimbleful of these first materials from deep space two years from now, we may learn whether comet dust contains the organic molecules necessary for life — which would be evidence that comets are universal messengers of life-producing chemicals.

How very secular of him to say so. (He goes on to apologize for misquoting the Bible.)

This, while we are increasingly told in the news of a growing divide between Democrats and Republicans over religion. In "The God Gulf", Nicholas Kristof writes:

America is riven today by a "God gulf" of distrust, dividing churchgoing Republicans from relatively secular Democrats. A new Great Awakening is sweeping the country, with Americans increasingly telling pollsters that they believe in prayer and miracles, while only 28 percent say they believe in evolution. All this is good news for Bush Republicans, who are in tune with heartland religious values, and bad news for Dean Democrats who don't know John from Job.

To me, the notion that only 28% of the public believes in evolution - a percentage that obviously includes the very conservative Mr. Safire - is more of an indictment of our nation's educational system than it is evidence of a "God gulf". Also, the term "relatively" is somewhat misleading - it is possible to be religious while being skeptical of claimed miracles and while believing in evolution. (It is also possible to be deeply moral and ethical without being religious, and many secular movements have helped advance and protect rights and freedoms we now see as integral to U.S. culture.)

Kristof continues,

So expect Republicans to wage religious warfare by trotting out God as the new elephant in the race, and some Democrats to respond with hypocrisy, by affecting deep religious convictions. This campaign could end up as a tug of war over Jesus.

It is a mistake for a relatively secular person to claim a religious awakening on the campaign trail, as such conversions do not seem genuine. But note that it apparently is not hypocrisy to abuse God's name, and to espouse a religious fervor that in many cases seems to end the second the speaker leaves the stage - in order to try to win elections - apparently that's just good Republican politics. (Granted, Kristof does take on Bush for some of his more ludicrous statements on religion - "To me, nonetheless, it seems hypocritical of Mr. Bush to claim (as he did in the last campaign) that Jesus is his favorite philosopher and then to finance tax breaks for the rich by cutting services for the poor" - but even there the hypocrisy cited is not in the abuse of religious belief on the campaign trail, but in the tax cuts).

From my perspective, the "God gulf" is not a natural phenomenon, but results from the intentional manipulation of the public. We are not told of devout Democrats, or the religious values which lead them to their political choices. We are instead told that Democrats are "increasingly secular" because the evangelicals are increasingly Republican. While it is fair to say that the average Democrat is more secular than the average evangelical, the average Democrat is no more secular (and many are far less secular) than Bill Safire. Kristol's own statistics tell us that. If 72% of Americans reject evolution, and the population is relatively split between Democrats and Repubicans, there are far more skeptics of evolution in this nation than there are adherents to the new religion of Republicanism.

Additionally, it is worthy of note that many highly secular people also have highly evolved moral codes, and there is no great secular wish to deprive the rest of the population of their right to worship in the manner of their choosing. Kristof references the message in Cheney's Christmas card and his impression that Bush's religious message is sincere. The notion that being raised in a religious household will somehow cause children to be good, respectful, law-abiding citizens is perhaps called into question by the conduct of the President's own daughters. And what do evangelicals make of Cheney's daughter? The President and Vice President know that they are abusing religion and advancing lies about religion - their own beliefs, and how religion affects family and society - and they do so with the deliberate goal of further dividing this nation against itself... yet it is the Democrats who are accused of hypocrisy?

Comments

Criticizing the Neo-Cons

Today, David Brooks suggests that the public perception of the "neo-cons" is incorrect, and seems to suggest that criticism of neo-cons is tantamount to anti-Semitism:

In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another. The ones outside government have almost no contact with President Bush. There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he's shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings.

Fair enough - there probably is overstatement, perhaps premised on the fact that PNAC's report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, was seemingly followed extremely closely by the Bush Administration, particularly with regard to Iraq and the Middle East. I think PNAC itself bears some responsibility for any inflated public perception of its influence - it seems to want people to believe that it is everything its fiercest critics claim, and links prominently to that report on its website. Additionally, I think many people apply a broader definition of neo-con than that embraced by Brooks, and to them the movement is not synonymous with its Jewish constituents.

And if you can give your foes a collective name — liberals, fundamentalists or neocons — you can rob them of their individual humanity. All inhibitions are removed. You can say anything about them. You get to feed off their villainy and luxuriate in your own contrasting virtue. You will find books, blowhards and candidates playing to your delusions, and you can emigrate to your own version of Planet Chomsky. You can live there unburdened by ambiguity.

That's a good point, too often forgotten in today's world of deepening partisanship. But stepping back to an earlier statement,

Still, there are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organized and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything.

and the article's conclusion that anti-Semitism is resurgent, I hope the intended message is not that criticism of neo-cons (or of the overblown influence of the neo-cons) is rooted in anti-Semitism. Most people I have heard criticize the neo-cons have no apparent knowledge of which ones are or are not Jewish, and their criticism seems to be rooted in policy and concern about undue influence as opposed to their religion. (The most ridiculous rumor cited by Brooks is about Dick Cheney - "my favorite described a neocon outing organized by Dick Cheney to hunt for humans". Cheney, of course, is not Jewish. Simiarly, Ann Coulter is probably the most hated of the self-professed neo-cons - and she favors converting as much of the developing world as possible to Christianity.) If I heard, or even sensed, that this was a reinvention of the notion of Jewish cabals which, in one way or another, control or manipulate the world, I would be one of many who would promptly jump down the throats of any advancing such nonsense.

Comments

"Reader's Digest Reasoning" Plus an Urban Myth?

In "Censorship across the divide: 'Epithet' that!", Diana West displays what I call "Reader's Digest reasoning" - the repeated use of the biased sample to try to convey a political message that has little to no basis in reality. Many people who are predisposed either to the politics behind such a writing, or who are inclined to believe anything they read, will accept such "arguments" without recognizing how little support is actually extended for the conclusions asserted by the author.

After whining about how one of her friends joked about the ACLU coercing him to say "Happy Holiday" (singluar) instead of "Merry Christmas", she complains,

Everyone has a war story from the Yuletide front, where Christmas comes under such heavy fire that Americans wave the pre-emptive white flag of "Happy Holidays" to avoid giving what is known as "offense" and receiving what feels like censure. Not that "Christmas" is the ultimate unmentionable. A story recently made the rounds about a Virginia teacher who spoke the utterly non-denominational (in fact, traditionally superstitious) injunction "God bless you" over a sneezy student. Said student, sniveling wretch, proceeded to inform on the teacher for this act of New Blasphemy, for which the teacher was, incredibly, reprimanded.

Somehow I managed to get through the entire season without taking or giving offense at the expression, "Merry Christmas" - and, for that matter, "Happy Christmas" with my British friends and family. How peculiar.

But that Virginia story really caught my eye - as a probable urban myth. It does not yet appear to be in Snopes, but I felt confident that such an incident would be covered by the Virginia press if it were real. So I checked a dozen Virginia newspapers, including the leading papers of all major cities, and scoured their archives - nothing. Searches of Yahoo! news and Google news turned up Diana's article, but otherwise no confirmation was found. (And, as with a typical urban myth, the proponent can't cite a reliable source and doesn't provide any details which would be helpful in tracking down the roots of the story.) Go figure.

The rest of Diana's article meanders from whinging that Lenny Bruce was given a posthumus pardon for an obscenity conviction that could not occur under modern First Amendment law to how unfair comedians are to Republicans. As a proponent of free speech, Diana has a real problem with... free speech? Okay - so I was wrong in assuming she supported free speech - I guess she opposes it. She then complains that the Supreme Court "effectively censored G-rated political speech by upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act" - and as an opponent of free speech she has a real problem with this restriction on free speech? Um.... Perhaps the primary problem is that she's not big on internal consistency?

She next complains that the Democrats told mean jokes about George Bush, his policies and cabinet, at a comedy fund raiser, and how such insolence would result in harsh media reaction had "anything like this" occurred at a Republcan event. Mind you, as with her apparent urban myth, Diana offers nothing to support this bare claim, beyond attributing it to "the New York Post's Deborah Orin". Apparently when Diana and Deborah agree, no proof or evidence is necessary.

Her conclusion is that comics can swear and insult Republicans without social sanction, but "when it comes to holiday greetings, you're on your own. H---- N-- Y---.

Well, gosh - now I'm intimidated. I think I said "Merry Christmas" and "Happy New Year" several times in recent weeks - right here in this blog. (As Britney might say, "Oops, I did it again.") And I obviously haven't met my quota of "socially safe" blasphemy and obscenity. The PC police will no doubt be along for me any second now....

I think I'll link this to the discussion thread for idiotorials:

Comments

Circular Christmas Letters

Some love 'em, some hate 'em - but we all ge 'em. The photocopied synopsis of "my family's life, this past year". A British journalist asked his readers to send him examples. Here are the results.

Comments

Upcoming "Movie Of The Week"

As Deputy Attorney General James Comey is appointed to serve as a special prosecutor in the Plame case and investigators ask White House staffers to waive confidentiality of their discussions with reporters, plans are announced for the film version of the scandal:

An audio clip.

Comments

Unequal Press Coverage of Justice II

Continuing on yesterday's observation about the different treatment given by the media to the Tate and Abraham cases as compared to the King brothers, I wish to speculate a bit as to why the media treated the cases differently - and why they will continue to treat such cases very differently based upon the appearance and background of the child. The short version is "stereotypes".

Stereotyping is not inherently bad - even though it causes cognitive distortions. Stereotypes are both a natural and invaluable part of how our minds process information in an efficient and useful manner. At the same time, a stereotype is not likely to be universally true, and some will be wildly incorrect - and it is thus important to work to recognize when we are relying upon stereotypes, and to be willing to revisit our assumptions - our prejudices - when there is cause to do so. This is often a lot harder than it sounds.

The depiction of Tate as a deceitful, murderous thug fit the greater societal stereotype for an African American child murderer, and that stereotype affected both the coverage and the manner in which the public responded. It didn't much matter that Tate had never before been in trouble with the law, and at present the public has little patience for the notion that even a mentally slow black child should not be held completely responsible for a homicide. Abraham's case was an even better fit for that stereotype, and the prosecutors in his case were more than eager to share his past criminal history to try to paint him as what various politicians have deemed a "super predator" - a child born and bred to be a remorseless, violent, and incurable criminal, who should be locked up forever. His mental deficiencies were regarded as making him more dangerous, as opposed to more deserving of treatment, support or rehabilitation. Under this stereotype, the neglect and abuse he suffered as a child were part of what turned him into a "super predator", and were thus again not factors which mitigated the greater public reaction. Thus, in the minds of many people, there was no problem in pretending that a developmentally delayed, illiterate, eleven-year-old whose childhood was a tale of abuse and neglect was an "adult".

The King boys, on the other hand, didn't automatically fit the "super predator" stereotype. By the time they hit the news, they had been cleaned up and dressed in neat, middle class garb. They benefited also from the fact that a convicted child molestor had involved himself with them, may have molested the younger brother, and may have played a role in the killing. With or without his involvement, though, the kids did not "look like" super predators, and despite a background considerably less stable than that of Tate the public reacted to them quite differently. That is not to say that a white child cannot fit the "super predator" profile and be treated every bit as harshly as Tate or Abraham - but such a white child is much more likely to be a teenager, and to be "scary" in other ways - like the three teens in Arkansas whose unorthodox appearance and behavior, and supposed involvement with satanism, made it almost natural to accept that they could be responsible for the gruesome murder of three eight-year-old boys. This is, of course, an international phenomenon, although the stereotypes differ from nation to nation. The two ten-year-old boys who killed young James Bulger in England were subjected to a media frenzy and negative stereotyping to much the same effect as was seen in the Abraham case. (The furur continues, with a public outcry over the fact that the two boys were issued new identities upon their release from eight years of imprisonment, due to well-grounded fears of vigilantism. The possibility that the two boys might be completely reformed, or that confinement from the age of ten through eighteen is in many senses "a lifetime" for the offender, doesn't mesh with the stereotypes which drive "get tough" measures against young offenders, and is thus difficult to advance.)

Another aspect of stereotypes is that they can be abused in an extremely manipulative manner, and are often carefully constructed and propogated by special interests in order to cause us to make incorrect assessments or judgments. Karl Rove is reportedly working on an ad campaign that will depict Howard Dean as a pessimist - with the hope being that they can lodge that stereotype in the public psyche such that it colors our initial reaction to anything Dean says or does. Industry lobbyists have worked hard to depict "tort reform" as a fight against frivolous lawsuits, despite the fact that their efforts are almost invariably directed at limiting recovery in meritorious lawsuits where the plaintiff has suffered the most serious injuries. The stereotype that Democrats are not fiscally responsible permits Bush to arguably be the most fiscally irresponsible President in U.S. history while simultanously convincing large numbers of Americans that he is fiscally responsible and that the Democrats (who handed him a budget surplus) would not be. Reagan exploited stereotypes about welfare, convincing significant numbers of Americans that the typical recipient was an undeserving "Cadillac-driving welfare queen" - with the implicit understanding that we were speaking of black women. And, as alluded to above, it permits politicians to depict a fictitious class of child and teen "super predators", and to justify a wide range of excpetionally harsh punishments and the reduction in rehabilitative efforts for young offenders.

Once a stereotype of this place is lodged in the public consciousness, it is difficult to overcome. It tends to be impressed upon media coverage - after all, reporters are people too, and are subject to the foibles of their very human brains - and each express or implicit repetition reinforces the perceptions of a public disinclined to reexamine its prejudices. There have been numerous cases where a white offender has killed his or her spouse (or even his children), and has blamed a fictional intruder for the offense - make it a scary black man, and the media is usually happy to present sympathetic coverage until police investigation reveals the lie. A couple of years ago the Chicago Police were so quick to adopt the "super predator" stereotype with two African American boys, aged seven and eight, that they bungled the investigation and all-but-certainly let a convicted child molester get away with molesting and murdering an eleven-year-old girl.

The media has a greater responsibility than the individual to guard against this type of prejudice, as the media plays a significant role in the creation and perpetuation of incorrect stereotypes, and can be a significant power in their defeat. The mainstream media also has the resources to fact-check most of what it publishes, and with proper care can do a much better job of avoiding the propogation of false stereotypes. Unfortunately, today's media seems more inclined to advance stereotypes, and in the case of the so-called "conservative" media, does so quite unapologetically.

Comments

Unequal Press Coverage of Justice

In 2001, Lionel Tate was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for killing a six-year-old girl. At the time of the death, Tate was twelve years old. Tate's defense at trial was that he was emulating wrestling moves he saw on television, and killed her accidentally. The prosecutors presented a compelling case that, given the nature and extent of the girl's injuries, the death resulted from a very serious beating and not as the defense claimed. But nobody involved with the case disputed that Tate was developmentally slow, nor that the disputed that life without parole was an unreasonably harsh penalty - even the prosecutors advocated a lower sentence, but "life without parole" was the only setencing option under Florida law. (While Governor Jeb Bush made some sympathetic noises suggesting that he felt it was inappropriate to apply such sentences to children and very young teens, he apparently lacks the backbone to translate those sentiments into action.)

Now, almost three years after his sentencing, Tate's conviction has been reversed. The reversal was described with an unusal association by Newsweek:

Almost three years after he became the youngest person sentenced to life in prison (at 14), Lionel Tate won a new trial last week. A Florida appeals court ruled that his mental competency should have been evaluated before his 2001 trial for stomping a 6-year-old to death. There were plenty of signs that he didn't comprehend his situation: doctors deemed him developmentally slow, he spent parts of the trial doodling obliviously and he rejected a generous three-year plea deal. Along with two other Florida cases--involving Nathaniel Brazill, who's serving 28 years for shooting his teacher to death at 13, and Alex and Derek King, who are serving seven and eight years, respectively, for bludgeoning their father to death when they were 12 and 13--Tate has focused a national spotlight on the state's treatment of juvenile offenders. Florida leads the nation in trying children as adults and is one of 15 states that empower prosecutors rather than judges to do so.

While the heavy news coverage of the trial of the King brothers inspired, in me, immediate thoughts of the Tate case, despite the similarities of the case - poor children in Florida, charged with first degree murder arising out of the beating death of the victim - I don't recall that the media has often drawn parallels between the case.

What I found interesting about the coverage of the King brothers case, as compared to the coverage of the trial of similarly aged children as adults with potential for life sentences without the possibility of parole, was how sympathetic the public, press, and pundits seemed. Whereas in cases like that of Lionel Tate, or Michigan's trial of Nathaniel Abraham as an "adult" for a murder he committed at age eleven, the difference in treatment seemed to arise from the fact that Tate and Abraham were African American, while the King brothers were photogenic white kids. (Do you disagree? Please share your thoughts in the comments section about what I am missing.)

Comments

Tort Reform Distortions

The poorly reasoned editorial of the day is unquestionably "Some things I wonder about" by Walter E. Williams. First he expresses that it only makes sense to buy at the lowest price, and thus that it is perfectly reasonable for CEO's to seek lower cost workers overseas.

How many times have we heard the accusation that a corporation moved overseas to take advantage of lower-priced labor or hired cheaper-priced Indians with HB-1 visas to replace higher-priced American high-tech workers? You'd think that a desire for lower prices is somehow immoral. Why should a preference for low prices be OK for you and me, and not so for CEOs?

Needless to say, the debate is not over the merits of bargain-hunting, and Mr. Williams presents a classic example of failing to see the forest for the trees. Not so poorly reasoned yet? Don't worry - it gets better. Williams next complains that homosexuals die at much younger ages than heterosexuals, yet insurance companies don't hike up premiums for homosexuals:

After all, life insurance companies do ask applicants about other forms of behavior that have an impact on life expectancy, such as: Are you a pilot? Do you abuse alcohol and drugs? And do you have DUI arrests? Why not also: Are you a homosexual? I think I know the answer. Life insurance companies would be charged with lifestyle discrimination.

Um... perhaps it is because the "death" statistic he cites - to the extent that it is valid - is not the result of homosexuality, but is in fact the result of a certain medical condition known as AIDS, and life insurance companies most certainly do inquire about that condition before issuing policies? You would think he would know that, as he cites a source, "'The Longevity of Homosexuals,' in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994" - but somehow forgets to mention that the full name of the article is "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic". He somehow also forgets to mention that the statistic at issue comes not from a credible source, but from a seriously flawed 'study' of selected obituaries by Paul Cameron. His other source is a reference to a study in "Psychological Reports" - coincidentally, also by Mr. Cameron. I wonder why he didn't direct his readers to even more, um, supporting material from Mr. Cameron's website, where we learn that homosexual desire is often caused by dominant mothers, rejecting fathers, excessive masturbation, and sex with animals. Yep, Cameron wrote that - and more.

And Williams isn't even done. He concludes by arguing,

I also wonder about judges. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. The R.V. left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him $1,750,000 plus a new motor home. Winnebago changed its manuals. I wonder why. Anyone so stupid as to leave the driver's seat is probably also too stupid to read a manual.

Presumably he's never heard of Snopes?

He gets paid for this?

Comments

Happy New Year

Some stories from England to let you know that although your New Years activities may not be the best or funniest in history, they also probably won't be the worst....

Comments

At this price? A bargain!

Looking for an investment property?

Comments

Words I Never Thought I'd Hear

The other day, a long-time friend of mine and self-described classic conservative, told me, "I had to admit this, but I've been thinking about it and I have to admit that Bill Clinton had the potential to be a great President - if he'd only kept his damn zipper up." He then expressed what he detested most about Clinton - his worldview was completely at odds with that my friend had developed through years as a military officer, but was coming to recognize as pervasive in government - in GW's government - since entering the civilian world.

Which brings me to a couple of weirditorials. Not idiotorials, but not entirely sensible, either. First, we have Robert Samuelson arguing,

The political story of 2003 was, in some ways, the fashionableness of "hate." It became respectable not simply to disagree with George W. Bush or to dislike him and criticize him -- but to go further and declare your everlasting hate for the man. People bragged about how much they hated Bush. This loathing of Bush from the left does not, as yet, seem any more vicious (and perhaps less so) than the loathing of Bill Clinton from the right. But what is different is the willingness to call it "hatred" and to have the label blessed by much of the press, which has concluded that Bush is different from other modern presidents.

Perhaps it is just me, but I don't recall any shortage of people willing to describe their sentiment toward Bill Clinton as "hatred". To the extent that the press covered the hatred differently, perhaps it was out of a misguided sense of "fairness" and "balance" - to those criticizing Clinton. Outlets like Fox News, which have no particular interest in fairness or balance beyond sloganeering, don't much care if their treatment of "Bush Haters" is dismissive of the reasons for that hatred.

From his comfy chair, Samuelson hypothesizes,

In the end, Bush hating says more about the haters than the hated -- and here, too, the parallels with Clinton are strong. This hatred embodies much fear and insecurity. The anti-Clinton fanatics hated him not simply because he occasionally lied, committed adultery or exhibited an air of intellectual superiority. What really infuriated them was that he kept succeeding -- he won reelection, his approval ratings stayed high -- and that diminished their standing. If Clinton was approved, they must be disapproved.

Ditto for Bush. If he succeeded less, he'd be hated less. His fiercest detractors don't loathe him merely because they think he's mediocre, hypocritical and simplistic. What they truly resent is that his popularity suggests that the country might be more like him than it is like them. They fear he's exiling them politically. On one level, their embrace of hatred aims to make others share their outrage; but on another level, it's a self-indulgent declaration of moral superiority -- something that makes them feel better about themselves. Either way, it represents another dreary chapter in the continuing coarsening of public discourse.

I don't know about that. The people to whom I have spoken who most "hate" Bush, whether at home, in England, or in Canada, seem to have formed that opinion early in his Presidency, prior to 9/11 when his approval rating was anything but high. While it may be that some resent the fact that a large percentage of the population supports Bush, that development came after their contempt was fully formed. Also, obviously, those in Canada and England also don't fear being politically exiled or marginalized - they have no vote, and no direct stake in U.S. popular sentiments.

Also I am not sure that any of his detractors see much "success" in Bush's record - other than, that is, his amazing ability to slash taxes for the wealthy and to raise taxes for his reelection campaign. The jury's still out on Afghanistan and Iraq - although I certainly hope that the ultimate verdict is delivered as quickly as possible in our favor. I personally think that if Bush had achieved rapid democratization and redevelopment in Iraq, with the "candy and flowers" welcome we were implicitly promised following the invasion, a lot fewer people would be in the "haters" camp.

And then we have Bill Safire.... Bill talks about his lack of "cognitive dissonance" in distrusting the Clintons, and applauds his own "consistency" for insisting that Cheney, whom he trusts implicitly, disclose the facts and circumstances of his energy task force. (This created in poor Bill some "cognitive dissonance" because it meant that he "chose to stray off the Bush reservation" - and no, I'm not making that up. But that was okay, because he claims it would have been even more dissonant had he approved the inappropriate secrecy.)

As you might expect, he ends up taking pot shots at Howard Dean, for imposing a full decade of "executive privilege" on the records from when he governed Vermont. He suggests that this must create "cognitive dissonance" ("C.D.") in Dean's supporters:

They could deal with C.D. by (1) suppressing their cognition about executive-branch secrecy, or (2) changing their cognition about Dean or (3) calling on their hero to tear down that stonewall. There is also the choice of emulating the shrewd action of Aesop's fox: deciding that the grapes of wrath are sour.

Now, I'm all for transparency in government, so given those three choices I would say "tear down the wall". But... if Safire wanted to be honest, and to avoid another bout of cognitive dissonance in himself, perhaps he should have mentioned that President Bush has placed his own gubernatorial records under a reported fifty year seal in his father's presidential library. Even Fox News seems to think that a relevant fact when criticizing Dean.

Comments

The Import of Pakistan

A couple of years ago I read Shame by Salman Rushdie - a tale set in a "fictional" nation which obviously represented Pakistan. I was left with a greater understanding of Pakistan, and the firm conviction that Salman Rushdie absolutely detests that nation. President Musharref seems, in many ways, like he stepped off the pages of that book.

Prior to 9/11, the United States was not exactly in Pakistan's cheering corner. In fact, there was considerable strain and concern, relating to Pakistan's rumored trade of weapons technology (including nuclear technology), its development of its own nuclear arsenal, and its conflict with India over Kashmir (with at best indifference and at worst support for cross-border terrorism). There was also the fact that the Taliban was largely a Pakistani movement that had found a home in neighboring Afghanistan, but the significance of that had not yet sunk completely in - the Bush Administration, in fact, was at that time happy to reward the Taliban for its role in suppressing heroin production.

After 9/11, Pakistan became an important but vexing ally in the war against Afghanistan, and it remains crucial to our fighting that war. Musharref seems to recognize that his future is most assured if he has the backing of the United States, and (given his circumstances) has made a considerable effort to do what the Bush Administration asks of him. It was obvious from the outset that this was putting him into greater conflict with Pakistan's religious extremists. Over the past two weeks, that conflict has produced two significant assassination attempts, which were obviously made on the basis of inside information. Musharref escaped in both cases by a matter of seconds. Unless a highly placed mole (or perhaps more than one highly placed mole) is identified, and the flow of information ended, it is unlikely that Musharref's luck will hold.

In today's London Guardian, Peter Preston examines some of the issues surrounding Musharref, his importance in the continuing war effort in Afghanistan, and the improbability that a successor will be as accomodating of the United States.

Pervez Musharraf, for all his evasions, is a pretty determined man. He has India's prime minister coming to town for talks about peace. He has chosen a necessary course and, by and large, sticks to it. But Washington and London, applauding benignly, can take absolutely nothing for granted. Here is a teeming country boasting its own brand new weapons of mass destruction. Knock one piece off the board (or blow up one bridge on time) and everything, including the nature of the finger on the button, changes.

Another 9/11 attack on the White House lawn - or the back side of Downing Street? Maybe. The awful warnings of homeland security are always, rather hysterically, with us. But a calculating, canny Osama has a much easier and more tempting place to strike: and is doing just that. Pakistan is the frontline of 2004, with only one lonely (almost) ex-soldier guarding the gate. When the WMD go off there, then the connections engulf us all.

It's an unpleasant possibility for those of us who have long been concerned that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal might end up in the hands of an extremist government not far removed from the Taliban, or be funneled by a successor government (or during the chaotic period between governments) into the hands of a terrorist group that would like to plant a megaton or two in Los Angeles, London, New York, or Tel Aviv.

Of course, there's also the possiblity that following the assassination of Musharref, Bush might roll in some troops to maintain order, producing yet another occupation of yet another nation that is largely ungovernable. So I guess we should all be rooting for the survival of a self-serving, corrupt, non-elected third world despot "because the alternative is worse". Happy New Year.

Comments

But Who Will Be Responsible....

A few weeks ago a very nice AP reporter called me to ask some questions about an Ohio case, where a woman who had murdered her newborn child was being considered for parole. We had a long discussion about the parole system, in general terms, and I suggested that one of the leading factors in parole decisions, particularly where there is media attention, is fear of being held responsible if a parolee commits a subsequent horrible crime. I then referred him to another attorney who is a true expert on parole issues, for a more detailed analysis.

Recall 1998, when George H.W. Bush attacked Michael Dukakis for having granted a weekend furlough to convicted murderer Willie Horton, who committed another homicide during his unsupervised vacation from prison. While it is, to put it mildly, a bit shaky to try to hold Dukakis directly responsible for the conduct of every fuloughed inmate, Bush also glossed over the fact that the prior governor of Massachusetts, a Republican, had signed the furlough bill into law.

And there, perhaps, we have the "Nixon goes to China" angle to the story. It is okay for a Republican governor to create a lax furlough program because Republicans are "tough on crime". A democrat who signed a similar law - or, in Dukakis's case, failed to somehow repeal it - can be skewered by that same law due to the stereotype that Dems are somehow "soft on crime". (The ultimate send-up of this stereotype was, perhaps, the Simpsons episode where Sideshow Bob ran against Mayor Quimby, and ran an attack ad regarding Quimby: - "Mayor Quimby supports revolving door prisons. Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob -- a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for mayor.")

Moving to the present, following many years of "getting tough on crime", many states are finding that the result is not safer streets, but an enormous part of the state's budget devoted to sustaining enormous prison populations. And, given the financial straitjacket many states are in, a large number of states are considering ways to reduce that prison population.

In California, The Governator (and how can a Governator possibly be soft on crime) has suggested that there should be changes in the parole system to reduce the prison population. Needless to say, The Governator would prefer that somebody other than he be responsible for the release decisions. I suggest that he be more brave - like he was in Commando - and simply do the job himself with his powers to pardon prisoners and commute sentences. Surely, when the inevitable happens and there is an ugly incident of recidivism, The Governator doesn't want to look like he's hiding behind the skirt of an anonymous bureaucrat....

Why is it that so few Republicans are willing to adopt Truman's sentiment, "The Buck Stops Here"?

Comments

Most Frivolous Lawsuit of the Year

As the year draws to a close, it appears that the most frivolous lawsuit of the year award goes (unsurprisingly) to Fox News and Bill O'Reilly for their absurd lawsuit over Al Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his latest satirical work. Granted, Fox News almost topped itself - it threatened to sue The Simpsons and Matt Groening for presenting a parody of Fox News on an episode of The Simpsons. But, as Groening pointed out, he thought it was worth the risk because he didn't think that Rupert Murdoch would bankroll what would amount to Fox suing itself.

Where are the tort reform advocates when you need them? Isn't Fox News supposedly crawling with "conservatives" who detest frivolous lawsuits? Isn't Bill O'Reilly supposedly such a creature? Why is it that they instead focus their news efforts on capping and limiting meritorious suits, even as they waste the time and resources of our court system with the most frivolous of lawsuits imaginable?

Oh - and if you don't want to take my word for it that the lawsuit was frivolous, let's see what Bill O'Reilly had to say about it.... ""we never thought we were going to win the lawsuit." Oh, really? And did you volunteer to pay the defense costs associated with fighting the frivolous lawsuit you knew you weren't going to win, Bill? (I guess the word for the day is "hypocrite".)

I guess it is possible that a more frivolous lawsuit will be filed within the next few days and I'll have to amend this award, but.... more likely, six years from now this will be the most frivolous lawsuit of the decade.

Comments

The Christmas Spirit

In a pre-Christmas conversation, a relative presented an observation about the United States: "We're a very generous nation. If anybody's going hungry, it's their own damn fault." I pointed out that there was something of a tension between those two assertions.

When I was practicing criminal defense law, I was exposed to a world of people I wouldn't otherwise know existed. People you probably will neither encounter nor notice if you live a standard U.S. middle class lifestyle. It is eye-opening to see the effects of multigenerational poverty, alcoholism, abuse, neglect, and drug addiction. It is rather appalling to see families who, like the proverbial crabs in a bucket, do their utmost to claw and pull any relative who attempts to escape the cycle back down into the bucket. It is sad to see people who are trying hard to improve their lot in life, but lack the requisite grounding in basic job skills to hold a decent job - what most of us consider to be "common sense" practices, such as getting to work on time, or the manner in which we address a supervisor or boss (even, or perhaps especially, when treated unfairly).

This is coupled with government policies which work to discourage marriage among the poor, by slashing benefits for many poor women who admit cohabitation or enter into marriage with the fathers of their children. If you want full benefits, you stay single - but, at least in part as a consequence, family units are far less stable, and many poor kids tend to grow up without a consistent father figure, or with siblings from several different fathers.

I do not mean to indict the entire social welfare system, as on the whole it works. The majority of welfare recipients use the aid to recover from a personal or financial crisis, and after about three years on average are back to self-sufficiency. The problem is that the system has both helped create a population which is completely dependent upon welfare, and despite the "reforms" of recent years continues to be structured in a manner which perpetuates dependency among that population.

When I read Jennifer Nicholson's "Christmas" column, Ebenezer Was Right, in the National Review Online, I was impressed with how a minor exposure to the world I saw on a daily basis as a criminal defense attorney had inspired an incredibly hostile reaction in Ms. Nicholson. While I was impressed with the need to find ways to break the cycle of poverty, Ms. Nicholson's reaction was of anger, spite, and on the whole a desire to ignore the problem - not because ignoring it will make it go away, but because she is at heart a selfish person.

Oh no, she would surely protest - she attended to the poor lady's kids, generously giving them food, support, and attention that they lacked at home. But what was her conclusion - that we need to find a way to help those kids escape the cycle despite poor parental role modeling? That we need to find a way to teach their mother greater job and parenting skills? No. It was to dismiss them all as human refuse - throw away the mother as a useless person, and let the kids go down with her - whether to jail or to the poor house. Merry Christmas.

Ms. Nicholson's column also reflects an inherent weakness of thinking - she (and the NRO editors who approved her column) are deeply in the grip of the "hasty generalization". It is easier for them to look at one individual, whether it be Ms. Nicholson's neighbor or the mythic "welfare queen in a Cadillac" who featured so prominently in Ronald Reagan's campaigning, than it is to look at the whole. And it is easier for them to argue that an entire population should be thrown away, than it is to suggest viable solutions.

Ms. Nicholson didn't focus on the efforts her neighbor was trying to make, but instead focused on her failings. The neighbor managed to obtain jobs, and was obviously trying to provide a better life for her family - but Ms. Nicholson focuses on the woman's difficulty holding a job, difficulty providing appropriate child care while working in menial jobs, and literally laments that she cannot give truth to Ebenezer Scrooge's desire for prisons and poorhouses for that type of person. Oh yes - and the neighbor she openly despised was not sufficiently grateful for the kindness Ms. Nicholson showed to her children. (Let's overlook the fact that she couldn't have avoided noticing the degree of antipathy held for her by Ms. Nicholson.)

The "hasty generalization" is used by people like Ms. Nicholson to justify no end of prejudice, anger, and even hatred. It becomes okay to hate poor people, because of the "ingratitude" of one poor neighbor. It becomes okay to hate black people "because my cousin was mugged by a black guy". It becomes okay to hate Arabs because there are a few Palestinian suicide bombers. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum.

Ms. Nicholson's final sentiment,

Maybe, with the help of a jail and a poorhouse, the little family will get it together, discover the value of work. It's a long shot, but, as the magnet on my refrigerator says, "Dreams come true at Christmas."

is about as far from the Christmas spirit, and about as far from a Christian spirit, as one can get. It is no small wonder that she and her editors idolize Ebenezer Scrooge - who was similarly trapped in small-mindedness, greed, prejudice, and anger.

If you are a believer, your prayers this season no doubt include those less fortunate than you. You might want to add a word for those like Ms. Nicholson who have lost their way.

Comments

Wages Fall... For The Masses

In today's Washington Post, Harold Meyerson observes:

Since July the average hourly wage increase for the 85 million Americans who work in non-supervisory jobs in offices and factories is a flat 3 cents. Wages are up just 2.1 percent since November 2002 -- the slowest wage growth we've experienced in 40 years. Economists at the Economic Policy Institute have been comparing recoveries of late, looking into the growth in corporate-sector income in each of the nine recoveries the United States has gone through since the end of World War II. In the preceding eight, the share of the corporate income growth going to profits averaged 26 percent, and never exceeded 32 percent. In the current recovery, however, profits come to 46 percent of the corporations' additional income.

Conversely, labor compensation averaged 61 percent of the total income growth in the preceding recoveries, and was never lower than 55 percent. In the Bush recovery, it's just 29 percent of the new income coming in to the corporations.

So who is doing extraordinarily well in this recession? As you might expect, corporate executives. Whether in the United States, Australia, or Britain, corporate executives behave pretty much like third world tyrants who treat their national treasuries like a personal cookie jar. (Which is, no doubt, why they are so much more deserving of tax relief than the working classes who have suffered terribly in this recession and continue to suffer in the jobless recovery.)

Comments