I have the unpleasant task here of disagreeing with a few of my co-authors. For me they’ve got their priorities out of order. I conclude this from what I view as, in this overall context, splitting hairs over what constitutes a gulag in comparison to what occurs in Guantanamo. The goal of the AI report is not to bring down Bush or any of the other paranoid fantasies I’m reading across the blogosphere. It is simply to stop the acts we know are happening, regardless of whether we disagree about why they’re happening. It is perhaps telling (and shameful) that seemingly all our Vice-President or President can do in response to criticism is join in the bashing of one of the world’s most altruistic organizations, but, my friends, these are the facts:
Month: May 2005
TPM Cafe, And Blogs More Generally
by hilzoy
Today, Josh Marshall opened his new site, TPM Cafe. It is really, really interesting. Thus far, I particularly like America Abroad, the foreign policy section, and John Edwards’ guest blog, as well as the main “Coffee House” section. (Note: in this section, a lot of the posters are commenting on one another’s posts, so it helps to start at the beginning. To do this, go down to the bottom of the page and click what it confusingly called “Next n”, where n is the number of posts you choose to display when you sign up. Likewise, ‘previous n’ gets you back to the later posts.) Good stuff which should finally lay to rest the right-wing claim that Democrats have no ideas.
I think TPM cafe is interesting in a way that goes beyond the interest of its various posts, though; and to explain why, I’m going to have to back up and say a few things about what I think of blogs in general. I am normally skeptical of claims that blogs are revolutionizing this or that. I love them, of course; and I particularly love the fact that they let anyone at all write commentary on whatever they like, and acquire an audience through the simple fact of having something interesting to say. Blogs let me know about all sorts of interesting things I would otherwise have missed, and they provide interesting commentary and insight that otherwise wouldn’t exist at all. But this, while wonderful, is not (to my mind) enough to warrant all the breathless rhetoric about blogs that I periodically read.
But there is one thing that blogs can do that I think is as important as allowing everyone who has a computer to join a huge ongoing conversation, but that is not generally remarked on, and it has to do with rectifying what I see as huge informational gaps in the world of most citizens.
The Day After Memorial Day Post
By popular demand, here’s a post on Memorial Day: 1. Throughout human history, some people have been fortunate enough to live their entire lives in relative peace, dealing with the ups and downs of everyday life until, hopefully at a ripe old age, they pass away, with a legacy behind them and only God knows … Read more
Don’t Cry For Us, Argentina…
by hilzoy After spending a delightful weekend birding, gardening, and reading about debt crises in various countries, I decided to check back in with blogs; and what should I find on Ezra’ Klein’s site but this truly terrifying graph from the GAO: That expanding blue portion is debt service, and this graph shows it taking … Read more
The Amnesty Travesty
by Charles
Rather than respond in comments, I thought I’d write some of my thoughts here as a counterpoint to Edward’s earlier post as it pertains to Amnesty International. The sentence most meriting a response is this:
It seems to me that Amnesty’s point was that as the world’s remaining superpower, the US bears a bigger responsibility than North Korea or Iran to set an example.
Unless it has changed its vision, Amnesty International has no business making such a point:
AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.
Emphases mine. There’s no cherry-picking here, and there’s no singling out a particular nation because that nation happens to be really, really powerful. The vision of Amnesty International is one standard applied to every person. To the extent that the leadership of Amnesty International has focused its ire on a country that has done more than any other on earth to advance freedom and human rights, it is an organization that has lost its bearings. To put it more forthrightly, the perspective of the leadership of Amnesty International is so whacked and so skewed that it’s credibility as a human rights organization is in mortal peril. Consider the statement made by the Secretary General, Irene Khan:
The detention facility at Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law.
The Washington Post put it best:
Open Thread: Rilkefan Gets Married!
by hilzoy This evening’s open thread is in honor of rilkefan and, well, maybe we should say the rilkebride: we wish them all the happiness the world has to offer. Rilkefan will, I think, never be at a loss for words, so he will not need the Victorian Sex Cry Generator (via Amygdala), but someone … Read more
On The Rules
by hilzoy As I noted in comments last night, our posting rules prohibit incivility, and we have interpreted this as a ban on all personal attacks on posters and commenters alike, by posters and commenters alike. You can, of course, point out the factual errors and/or argumentative flaws in someone’s reasoning, but you cannot call … Read more
A Break From Your Regularly Scheduled Blogging
In part to remind myself that most of the blather over the judicial nomination wars is just that — blather — I’ve been re-reading Roger K. Newman‘s remarkable biography of Justice Hugo Black. Justice Black, as some may know, nearly had his 1937 nomination to the Supreme Court derailed by rumors that he had been a member of the KKK (rumors that were, in fact, true).
But the story of how a former Klansman became one of the great Supreme Court Justices of all time is old hat. What strikes my fancy today is a gem hidden in the book’s footnotes regarding the Roosevelt administration’s apparent obliviousness to (then, Senator) Black’s past in the Klan. (The more things change ….) As the dirt on Black came out, a reporter expressed shock to Joe Kennedy that Black had not informed FDR tha the had been a Klansman (p. 251):
Kennedy’s reply (cleaned up for publication) was "If Marlene Dietrich asked you to make love to her, would you tell her you weren’t much good at making love?"
(Another gem: Right after Justice Black was confirmed, a reporter remarked to Mrs. Black about a large family gathering that the Black’s had held over the holidays. "Yes. Quite a gathering of the clan," she said before realizing.)
Bolton: Remixed, Revised, Reassessed
Readers of this blog know that, after some wavering, I came out against John Bolton as UN Ambassador. Specifically: An effective UN Ambassador must be believed. He or she must not only be an honest broker, but must also be perceived as an honest broker. An ambassador must enjoy the cut-and-thurst of reasoned debate and … Read more
Chutzpah
by hilzoy Via Angry Bear: CNN reports the following: “Thousands of former Enron Corp. employees will share $85 million in insurance proceeds to compensate for pensions lost when the energy giant collapsed into bankruptcy, a federal judge ruled this week. (…) Lynn Sarko, a lawyer for the former Enron workers, said the settlement money would … Read more
A Bleg
Would someone please point me to the reasoning, if any, behind Hugh Hewitt’s increasingly hysterical pronouncements of Constitutional doom in the wake of the fourteen-Senator deal on the filibuster? Please keep in mind that the undersigned: 1. Generally approves of Bush’s nominees. 2. Has questioned the Constitutionality of the filibuster in the past. 3. But, … Read more
CAFTA Blog: Addition to Von’s Blogroll
Doverspa of RedState points to a comprehensive blog supporting the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). To get it out on the table, free trade is one of the few policies that almost always has my unqualified support. Since I haven’t seen any legitimate reason to withold such support from CAFTA, support it I do. … Read more
Infinity Past Orwell and Beyond
OK, so try and keep up. When we first heard a guard had flushed the Koran down a toilet in G-bay, the account was dismissed widely by the Pentagon, leaving us to imgaine the detainee who reported it was a willful liar or deluded or whatever. Now we’re being told that same detainee has retracted … Read more
Two Quick Points on Moral Relativism
by Edward The Amnesty International report is unsurprisingly being bashed by conservative bloggers, and nearly universal among their critiques is a strong distaste for "moral relativism." A comment in the AI thread on the Belmont Club summed up this position well (even though the link says "0 Comments" click it and you’ll see them): It’s … Read more
Proselytizing from the Bench
Via a diarist on Kos~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In what seems an obviously unconstitutional order, Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion County Superior Court in Indiana has prohibited a man and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in … Read more
Did Newsweek Make a Mistake?
It’s hard to keep up with this one. And count me among those shocked that the Associated Press would run with this story, but they did. Even as the MSM, including Fareed Zakaria, have universally conceded that Newsweek made a mistake in printing the allegation that US military personnel had flushed a Koran down the … Read more
BFF
Via Sullivan Accepting their explanation at face value, it’s still difficult to conclude the accidental labeling of a student in her high school yearbook as simply "Black Girl" doesn’t reveal a latent racism on the part of the yearbook staff: A Texas school district has apologized to a student identified only as "Black Girl" in … Read more
What to do with the Uzbeki Goonacracy
The problem with Uzbekistan is the problem with Pakistan is the problem with Saudi Arabia. The former Soviet republic is a repressed unfree country without a preferred opposition. According to Freedom House, it is solidly not free. Its economy is in similar straits, its press freedom rivals that of Russia and Belarus and it is … Read more
Democracy Iranian Style
A guffaw or a loud snort should follow any statement that puts Iran and democracy in the same vicinity. Why? Because Iran is not free and it is not a real democracy. It’s a joke: Iran’s hard-line Guardian Council on Sunday rejected all reformists who registered to run in presidential elections, approving only six out … Read more
Conservatism In Theory And Practice
by hilzoy
According to Merriam-Webster, ‘conservatism’ means:
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
This is a view I can respect, even when I disagree with it. Changing institutions can often have large unintended consequences, and a generally cautious attitude towards changing them often makes sense to me. To quote a passage from Chesterton that Sebastian cited recently:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”
So why aren’t more Republicans taking a conservative position on the nuclear option?
In Sadding Around
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania today; it’s quite a bit better than I remember it (or maybe it’s just gotten better). The Federal Courthouse is decidedly unimpressive, but the old brick and narrow alleys have a certain charm. And the commons before the Statehouse is verdant and encompassing — even under a threat of stormclouds. So what if … Read more
Minor Annoyance Monday
If she’s gonna start using her celebrity to promote her husband’s agenda, then First Lady Laura Bush (why do I always want to type "Barbara Bush"?) is opening herself up to the public critique of her words and actions. In that context, I’d like to note that this is a silly statement about the protests … Read more
“Circling The Wagons”
by hilzoy
There’s a fascinating new idea abroad in some parts of the right-wing blogosphere: that Friday’s story about the torture and death of two Afghan prisoners in US custody is just an attempt on the part of the New York Times to divert attention from Newsweek‘s retraction of its story on flushing Qur’ans down toilets. Some cites:
Instapundit: “READER JAMES MCCORMICK EMAILS:
Does the latest NYT articles on deaths-in-custody in Afghanistan smack of diversion to take the heat off Newsweek? Set a fire somewhere else so Newsweek never has to acknowledge any responsibility for its acts. Newsweek can return the favour during the next NYT scandal. The MSM guild is all about authority without responsibility. Can’t have that change …
And it’s not just the NYT, as I’ve seen other examples of this phenomenon in quite a few outlets. As Martin Peretz noted, they’re circling the wagons.”
John Podhoretz at The Corner: “The New York Times continues the bizarre act of carrying Newsweek’s water in the wake of the false Koran-desecration story (which I write about this morning here). The paper’s lead story is a lurid account of the vicious treatment of two Afghan prisoners by U.S. soldiers — events that occurred in December 2002 and for which seven servicemen have been properly punished. Let me repeat that: December 2002. That’s two and a half years ago. Every detail published by the Times comes from a report done by the U.S. military, which did the investigating and the punishing. The publication of this piece this week is an effort not to get at the truth, not to praise the military establishment for rooting out the evil being done, but to make the point that the United States is engaged in despicable conduct as it fights the war on terror. In the name of covering the behinds of media colleagues, all is fair in hate and war.”
See also Hugh Hewitt, the inimitable Wretchard, and, of course, LGF.
This is just crazy.
Adding the F-word to the N-word: A Washington Governors’ Race Update
by Charles
Last January, I became convinced that Dino Rossi should contest the governor’s race and call for a revote. This Monday, the trial begins and Republicans will make their case that the 2004 election for governor should be canceled and that a revote be conducted. Most of the evidence will focus on lapses by King County election officials. While other counties also made mistakes, they pale before massive numbers of mistakes in King County. If anything, there are now many more and many larger errors by King County, in the form of illegal provisional ballots included in the vote tally, felon votes and discrepancies between the numbers of ballots and numbers of voters. While the N-word (negligence) has been used liberally and rightfully so in this mess, I had seen no evidence of the F-word (fraud). Until two days ago. In the Seattle Times:
Good Question.
One of the likely scenarios for the nuclear option involves Vice President Cheney, in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruling that it is unconstitutional to filibuster judicial nominees. After running through some of the Constitutional questions that might be asked about this position, Paul Horwitz (via Discourse.net) asks a very good question: “What … Read more
What To Say?
Via The Light Of Reason, I see that Bush has changed his views on media responsibility for violence, and about whether the White House should tell journalists what to do. Either that, or it makes a difference that Newsweek is not involved this time: “President Bush said Friday that he did not think photos of … Read more
Entirely Redundant, I am.
Daniel Drezner states, far better than I did, the odd sense that many of us are ____ on Flushgate (choose one, and only one, cliche’ to fill in the MadLib): failing to see the forest for the trees; confusing the horse for the hay*; seeing the stars but not the sky**; and generally missing the boat. Drezner writes:
Let me put this more bluntly: assume that the Newsweek goof was of the maximal variety — i.e., despite Gitmo prisoner claims, it turns out that no Qu’ran was ever flushed down any toilet. Should it nevertheless be considered a major foreign policy problem that this report triggered significant protests in Afghanistan, a populace with good reasons to support the United States? In today’s New York Times, David Brooks is right to point out the blogosphere’s misplaced foci, and suggests that "radical clerics in Afghanistan" used the story to trigger outrage. What bothers me is that it was too damn easy for the clerics to whip up anti-American sentiment.
I leave it to my readers: am I overly concerned about this?
It would behoove us all — particularly those of us who believe in an engaged U.S. foreign policy — to be just as concerned as Drezner. Success in the war on terror requires that we win the battle of ideas. The fact that a single mistaken sentence in a newsmagazine blurb can derail our foreign policy efforts to such an extent that it requires repeated rebukes from the President and his senior staff — well, let’s just say that it’s not a good thing.
As for the penalty that should be applied to Newsweek: the most balanced decision I’ve read thus far comes from Jane Galt. Go read the whole thing.
UPDATE: And also read our own Charles Bird, if you haven’t already; it’s an insightful and provokative piece.
Blocking Judicial Nominees: Let Me Count The Ways…
by hilzoy
Sebastian has been making an interesting argument about the history of blocking judicial nominees over in the ‘Out of Bounds’ thread, and what he said prompted me to do some more digging on the various ways in which, traditionally, judicial appointees could be blocked. A good short history by the Congressional Research Service is here (pdf). Some of the means included:
NY Times Abuse Story Open Thread
Per votermom‘s request, this is an open thread to discuss this New York Times article. Lacking the time to read it all the way through, I therefore offer this as a jumping-off place for those who have read it to discuss.
Out Of Bounds
by hilzoy
Today, in the debate over the nuclear option, Rick Santorum said this:
“We shouldn’t go mucking around in this institution and changing the way we’ve done things, particularly when it comes to the balance of powers between the three branches of government, and the independence of one of those branches, the judiciary. We must tread very carefully before we go radically changing the way we do business here that has served this country well, and we have radically changed the way we do business here. Some are suggesting that we are trying to change the law, that we’re trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It’s the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942,saying, “I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.” This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused.” (Transcript mine, from the CSPAN video linked at Crooks and Liars.)
Four points. First, this is completely and totally out of bounds. And I don’t mean this in some PC, “ooh he said the H-word” sort of way. I mean: no one who had a shred of honor, or who in any way appreciated the horror of Nazi Germany, would dare to make this comparison without thinking for a very, very long time about whether it was fully warranted, and whether there was no other way to make his point. In this case, there were many other ways. Santorum could, for instance, have compared the Democrats to a child who takes her sister’s toys and then says, no, you can’t take them, they’re mine. He could have said any number of things and made the same point. But he said this. It’s dishonorable and shameful. And yes, I feel the same way when Democrats do this.
All Your Single Anonymous Source Are Belong to Us
Via Kos~~~~~~~~ Payback is being served up at the WH gaggles lately, and it’s about bloody time. Apparently some members of the MSM merely misplaced their spines for a while. On Tuesday, in response to McClellan’s freelance editing of Newsweek, the Press Corp actually did their jobs, apparently not missing that the White House is … Read more
Looking Beyond Flushgate
Newsweek’s false story on alleged Koran desecration at Gitmo revealed several things. For one, when its editors said that Isikoff & Co. followed proper journalistic standards, then the logical conclusion is that Newsweek needs higher standards, especially when it comes to national security matters during a time of war. Taking the word of someone who … Read more
Latest installment in a series of increasingly inaccurately titled posts.
Well, this speech made by Professor John Lewis Gaddis at Middlebury College last month is making the rounds, and it’s worth a read. By that, I mean: go read it, and let me know what you think. Besides, you know, that he must be a Skull-and-Bones fellow to say even one thing complimentary about Bush. … Read more
Freedom, and its limitations
Pejman Yousefzadeh, writing in RedState, delivers a well-put rant targeting Messrs. Drum‘s and Sullivan‘s argument that (per Drum):
the only thing that matters to conservative bloggers [regarding the Koran-flushing story in Newsweek] is their continuing jihad against the liberal media. All else is subordinate.
This is an idiotic statement — and it does not become less idiotic merely because it’s being made by my "favorite liberal blogger." As Pejman puts it:
I probably shouldn’t even bother to write this because life is short, but it appears to be important to point out to Andrew Sullivan and his snide and newfound fan that in all likelihood, the reason "conservative bloggers" are upset and angry about the Newsweek screwup is that it cost lives in the Middle East and it could have cost a lot more lives as well. In addition–and this is a somewhat important point, so please pay attention Political Animals and New Republic senior editors–it harmed our country’s prestige and standing on the basis of a story that was entirely false. It is the kind of story that can fan rather vicious flames, and if you want to fan flames, you damn well better make sure that you have your facts right. If you do, feel free to publish the story. If you don’t and you publish the story anyway and people die as a result and your country ends up suffering diplomatically . . . well . . . it ain’t a good day at the office, now is it?
…. And here’s a news flash: I have this belief–call me naïve, but I hope that you would be wrong in doing so–that bloggers on the other side of the ideological and partisan divide have the exact same wish. That’s difficult to do, of course, when a prime blogger on the other side of the ideological and partisan divide decides to put forth his own little spin hinting at dark and malevolent plans on the part of "conservative bloggers." Maybe, just maybe, we might actually have some noble and upstanding motives in expressing our concerns.
Pejman is, frankly, spot on. But there’s an important point that both sides in this "debate" seem to be losing sight of. A poorly-sourced sentence in a paragraph-sized blurb in an American newsmagazine did not, in and by itself, cause this explosion of violence. It was the match, to be sure. But the powder was already present, prepared, and primed.
The real story — missed among the partisan bickering — is the fact that there was so much powder lying around that a relatively small mistake could ignite it. Indeed, what the jihadist explosions demonstrate more than anything is that we are not even close to winning in the war in Afghanistan (and let’s not even begin with our putative allies, the alternatively fascist and jihadist Pakistanis). One small slip (and it was small, despite the hype) is all that’s needed to set the bomb off — and maybe set us and our allies back on our heels.
Blast Newsweek, sure. Blast Messrs. Drum and Sullivan for their conspiracy theories, absolutely. But don’t overstate the case, and don’t take your eye off the ball. Newsweek didn’t kill anyone; the folks in Afghanistan and Pakistan did. All Newsweek is guilty of is making the kind of mistake that can occur only where there is a free press and free society. In fact, such mistakes will inevitably occur where people are free. The central aim of a republic is not, contrary to popular belief, message control — and that remains true even while we are at war.
And that, from a certain way of thinking, is a good thing.
Going Nuclear
by hilzoy
Tomorrow morning, the Senate is scheduled to begin the debate that could lead to the Republicans invoking the ‘nuclear option’. I think that invoking the nuclear option would be a terrible mistake. I do not say this because of my views on the filibuster itself. I have tried to step back from current controversies and consider the filibuster dispassionately, and when I do, I find that I am much more strongly in favor of it in the case of judicial nominations than in other cases, both because, while legislation can generally be undone, judicial appointments are for life, and because what’s at issue in judicial appointments is the constitution of a separate branch of government. For this reason, I would oppose removing the possibility of filibustering judicial nominations in any case.
For me, the biggest problem with the nuclear option is not that it would prevent Senators from filibustering judicial nominations, but that it would require breaking the Senate’s own rules. And this is not just a problem for liberals. Here’s what Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute has to say about it:
The Senate is on the verge of meltdown over the nuclear option, an unprecedented step that would shatter 200 years of precedent over rules changes and open up a Pandora’s box of problems in the years ahead. The shaky bipartisanship that holds the Senate together–in a way that is virtually absent in the House–could be erased. Major policy problems could be caught up in the conflict. The Senate itself would never be the same.
Let us put aside for now the puerile arguments over whether judicial filibusters are unprecedented: They clearly, flatly, are not. Instead, let’s look at the means used to achieve the goal of altering Senate procedures to block filibusters on judicial nominations.
Without getting into the parliamentary minutiae–the options are dizzying, including whether points of order are “nested”–one reality is clear. To get to a point where the Senate decides by majority that judicial filibusters are dilatory and/or unconstitutional, the Senate will have to do something it has never done before.
Richard Beth of the Congressional Research Service, in a detailed report on the options for changing Senate procedures, refers to it with typical understatement as “an extraordinary proceeding at variance with established procedure.”
To make this happen, the Senate will have to get around the clear rules and precedents, set and regularly reaffirmed over 200 years, that allow debate on questions of constitutional interpretation–debate which itself can be filibustered. It will have to do this in a peremptory fashion, ignoring or overruling the Parliamentarian. And it will establish, beyond question, a new precedent. Namely, that whatever the Senate rules say–regardless of the view held since the Senate’s beginnings that it is a continuing body with continuing rules and precedents–they can be ignored or reversed at any given moment on the whim of the current majority.
There have been times in the past when Senate leaders and presidents have been frustrated by inaction in the Senate and have contemplated action like this. Each time, the leaders and presidents drew back from the precipice. They knew that the short-term gain of breaking minority obstruction would come at the price of enormous long-term damage–turning a deliberative process into something akin to government by the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland.”
Rule XXII is clear about extended debate and cloture requirements, both for changing Senate rules (two-thirds required) and any other action by the Senate, nominations or legislation (60 Senators required). Ignored in this argument has been Senate Rule XXXI, which makes clear that there is neither guarantee nor expectation that nominations made by the president get an up-or-down vote, or indeed any action at all.
It reads: “Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.”
By invoking their self-described nuclear option without changing the rules, a Senate majority will effectively erase them. A new precedent will be in order–one making it easy and tempting to erase future filibusters on executive nominations and bills. Make no mistake about that.
I agree with Ornstein completely. This is serious business. So let me try to address some of the procedural issues involved.