Bird Flu Czar Named

Bush Names Coyote To Be Bird Flu Czar

(AP) President Bush has appointed Wile E. Coyote to head up the administration's Bird Flu Response Team. According to a White House spokesman, Mr. Coyote's track record of competence and success in dealing with birds is exactly what you would expect from the Bush administration.

Mr. Coyote is currently executive vice president of Acme Company, a subsidiary of Halliburton, Inc.

Where Angels Fear to Tread

I chided Pete the other day for tuning into Sean Hannity, but I suppose we all do stupid things, partly in an effort to try to understand what the thinking is on the political right. We do have to live in the same country as them (at least until they all move to South Carolina and secede), and if some portion of them can be brought back into the reality-based community, things would be better for all of us. So, from time to time, I also delve into their world, usually by going through the Daou Report on Salon.com, and checking out a few of the right-wing blogs. I think I'm hoping that someday I'll come across something indicating that they know what's going on, that reason and rationality are somehow breaking through their thick skulls, but, alas, not yet.

Today the biggest topics are (shockingly enough) the nomination of Alito, Harry Reid's shutting of the doors on the Senate, and Scooter's Follies.

Here's what I've run across this morning, and I think this is a fairly representative summary of a large percentage of what I've read: "All of this righteous indignation by the Moonbats about the Libby indictment spells big trouble for them. While they focus on inside the beltway minutia, the average American is completely tuned out, despite the best attempts by the MSM. This indictment is simply not important to Joe Six Pack. In the real world gas prices have dropped back down, Thanksgiving is coming up and people are thinking about Christmas shopping. Consumer confidence and consumer spending are up. In the real world, their President has just nominated a sterling judge with impecable credentials to protect the constitutional rights of Americans against activist judges legislating from the bench. In the real world their President has just presented a plan to protect the American people from the threat of a Bird Flu Pandemic. In the meantime, the donks in Congress threatening a filibuster and are trying to protect their trial lawyer friends at the expense of the safety of the American public. So keep it up moonbats, you look loonier and loonier every day."

I won't reply directly to that wingnut, since he won't listen anyway (I read the rest of the thread. It hurt a lot.) However, there are number of things this person is confused about. Here's five.

1) The average American doesn't care about Valerie Plame, sure. A comment I saw once said, very wisely I think, "The administration says the American people want tax cuts. Well, duh. The American people also want drive-through nickel beer night. The American people want to lose weight by eating ice cream. The American people love the Home Shopping Network because it's commercial-free." But they do care when their president lies to them and people die. The SCLM (so-called liberal media) has not made the effort to expose the lies clearly, but with Scooter's trial, etc, they'll have no choice. Then people will care.

2) Gas prices are down - so low I can hardly see them. Here in Champaign, they're at a miniscule $2.19, although last weekend up in the city they were still near $3. After Exxon and Shell made record profits by gouging us with gas prices the last few months (as if they had no control over how much they hurt consumers), I'll be damned if I think $2.19 a gallon is somehow good. That's like saying "Well, it hurt a lot when you were jabbing 2 red-hot pokers up my nose, but now that there's only one, it's not so bad."

3) Consumer confidence is up? HA! That's a flat-out lie. "The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index, which had plummeted in September, declined again in October. The Index now stands at 85.0 (1985=100), down from 87.5 in September. The Present Situation Index declined to 108.2 from 110.4. The Expectations Index decreased to 69.5 from 72.3 last month." In case that's too tough to read, here's a picture.

4) In other places here, Pete and I have both commented on the role of the judiciary. I'll just reduce my remarks here to: impeccable has 2 c's.

5) I haven't paid much attention to Chimpy's Bird-Flu "Plan" yet, but as soon as he comes up with a way to actually protect anyone from terrorists, which he's supposedly been working on for 4+ years, I'll start listening. In the meantime, go read this from this week's Onion.

So, as you travel 'round this great big world, remember that somewhere around 40% of adult Americans are willing to say that Chimpy McFlightsuit has done a good job as President. Also remember that, as of today, it's illegal to hit them with your car.

A response to Peter

I think the Senate has every right to study a nominee's ideology, at least with respect to this issue:
I believe that the Constituion, specifically the Bill of Rights, is an enumeration of specific rights that the state does not have, and, in essence, a statement that the guiding principle of American governance is not "majority rules", but "defense of the individual". The state, nor any of its agencies, cannot infringe on my rights to do a whole long list of things, regardless of the popularity or offensiveness of my viewpoint.

However, because the other two branches of government are populated with people who have their positions due to popularity contests (elections), their continuing power partially depends on succumbing to the will of the majority, regardless of how that affects individuals. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to defend the rights of individuals, as spelled out in the constitution, or the document becomes meaningless. So, if a nominee's ideology is that governmental rights trump individual rights, or that our laws should be based on what's popular (say, Christian theology), or that their ideology unduly influences their ability to carry out the duties of their job (like, say, a pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions), then, while their academic and professional training may appear adequate, they are not suitable for that job.

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls....

From University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole

Talabani Opposes Military Action against Syria, Admits Helplessness

Some 20 Iraqis were killed or wounded in guerrilla violence on Tuesday. In one incident, a 13 year old boy carried out a suicide bombing that killed the head of the emergency police in Kirkuk.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Tuesday before the United Nations: "I categorically refuse the use of Iraqi soil to launch a military strike against Syria or any other Arab country . . . "But at the end of the day my ability to confront the US military is limited and I cannot impose on them my will."

So let's get this straight. The president of Iraq elected six months after the US "turned over sovereignty" on June 28, 2004 is saying before the United Nations that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld decide whether his country can be used as a base to attack other countries, and he is unable to influence such decisions-- even though he categorically rejects any such action.

For all those "Bush's Iraq" boosters who laud the "democratic" elections of January 30 and the recent constitutional referendum, this clear admission that Iraq remains under American military occupation, and that its government is helpless before American decisions about the fate of Iraq, is a rather strong refutation. After all, no country is a "democracy" where the military calls the shots, overruling the civilian president-- how much less so if it is a foreign military! Talabani is saying that Iraq is more like Burma, Pakistan or the Sudan than it is like democracies such as India or Brazil.

Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari asked the UN to extend the mandate for coalition troops in Iraq for up to another year. But the Iraqi government wants the UN to review the resolution 8 months from now, and at any time that the Iraqi government requests a review. Jaafari also wants to reserve the right of the Iraqi government to ask foreign troops to leave before the end of 2006 if it so decides. That is, the Iraqi government wants US troops for the time being, it just doesn't want to be stuck with them. It is not a very gracious invitation; but then, see above.

Al-Hayat: The Iraqi Islamic Party [Sunni] complained Tuesday about the practice of the new Iraqi security forces, of taking women hostage in order to put pressure on their husbands that are suspected of being part of the guerrilla movement. The communique said that Iraqi security forces on Sunday evening invaded a home in the area of Latifiyah in search of its owner. "When they did not find hi, the group attempted to kidnap one of the women of the household. When she resisted, they fired at her and wounded her in the foot." The IIP called on the government to stop such practices. There have been several incidents where US or Iraq troops have taken women hostage as a way of pressuring their male relatives, producing local protests-- some of which have been effective.

The rate of death for civilian contractors in Iraq is increasing, with 428 civilian contractors killed and another 3,963 wounded as of Monday.

The Scootershank Redemption

The Scootershank Redemption



FLOYD: Takin' bets today, Red?

RED: Smokes or coin, bettor's choice.

FLOYD: Smokes. Put me down for two.

RED: Alright, who's your horse?

FLOYD: That little one there, holding the picture of Dick Cheney.

RED: That guy? Scooter? Never happen.

(cut to the admitting area)

WARDEN NORTON: This is Private Lyndie England, she's captain of the guard. I'm Mr. Norton, the warden. Any questions?

SCOOTER: When do we eat?

LYNDIE ENGLAND: YOU WILL EAT HALLIBURTON MEALS WHEN WE SAY YOU EAT! YOU GOT THAT?

(cut to cell block)

RED: The first night's the toughest, no doubt about it. Somebody always breaks down crying. Happens every time. The only question is, who's it gonna be?

VOICES: Fishee, fishee, fisheeee... You takin' this down, new fish? Gonna be a quiz later. Keep it down. The screws'll hear...Fishee fishee fisheeee...Hey

RED: The boys always go fishin' with first-timers, like Scooter... and they don't quit till they reel someone in.

HEYWOOD: Hey Scootie! Talk to me, boy. I know you're there. I can hear you breathin'. Now don't you listen to these nitwits, you hear me?

SCOOTER: GOD! HELP ME DICK! JUDY? REMEMBER THE ASPENS AND THE ROOTS? I DON'T BELONG HERE! I WANNA GO HOME!

HEYWOOD: AND IT'S SCOOTER BY A NOSE!

VOICES: Fresh fish... fresh fish... fresh fish... fresh fish... fresh fish... fresh fish... fresh fish... fresh fish...

SCOOTER: I WANNA GO HOME! I WANT CONDI!!! HELP ME DICK!!

On originalism

I would like to address the latest conservative word de jour, "originalism," with regard to the federal judiciary, and another phrase often tossed in for emphasis is the notion of "legislation from the bench."

Several points need to be made here. First of all, the framers were quite familiar with the notion of "judge-made law" or "legislation from the bench." The English system of law is based in the common law, or law derived from precedential decisions by judges. Unlike countries with civil law systems, which are based on codifications and historically derived from Roman law, case law was the primary source of law in common law countries. If one was unfortunate enough to venture into law school, virtually your entire first-year curriculum of substantive classes (with all due respect to civil procedure) would involve reading cases, as the law of contracts, real property, personal property, torts and even much of the criminal law was "legislated from the bench."

The distinction has been blurred recently, as much customary common law has been codified and legislative and administrative bodies have moved into areas not covered under common law, but the framers were certainly familiar with the notion that judges made as well as interpreted the law. Of course, this is merely illustrative rather than dispositive, because courts approach common law issues differently than they do questions of constitutional or statutory construction. While courts are guided by canons of construction when interpreting statutes, it is important to note that these canons have emerged over time based on the judicial experience of jurists versed in a common law tradition.

How also do we divine the "original" intent? After all, the document does not guide us in that regard. If the framers wanted us to rely on their specific views of particular provisions, why were the records of the constitutional convention sealed away for more than two generations? Today, courts look to the "legislative history" of debates and reports in construing statutes. The deliberations of the framers were secreted away and federal law developed without the use of their discussions as a point of reference for half a century.

In addition, whose views of "original intent" should be controlling? We can talk of the "framers," but this is no monolith. We have a tremendous divergence of thought both within the Philadelphia convention and in the ratification conventions throughout the various states. For example, Oliver Elsworth of Connecticut, one of the "Committee of Five" that prepared the first draft of the constitution and a future chief justice, wrote that the document "defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the states go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the general government, the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so."

And of course, we also have the sage advice of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist Paper #22 that "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation. The treaties of the United States, to have any force at all, must be considered as part of the law of the land. Their true import, as far as respects individuals, must, like all other laws, be ascertained by judicial determinations."

So, it seems to me that one must be very careful when considering the cant of originalism. Rather than viewing the constitution through a fixed lens of the framers' intent, the result of looking backwards is often the ever-changing view through a kaleidoscope. Originalism in so many ways then becomes a convenient disguise for legitimizing "our" view of constitutional theory rather than protecting and promoting "theirs."

Alito

Well, I was right in theory, that Harriet was a smokescreen, and had half of the short list (Luttig from the 4th Circuit).

The question becomes, what is the proper role of the Senate on this one?

The man may well be qualified (he certainly passes my "went to a better law school than I did" test, and has more than a decade on the federal appellate bench). Ideology is another issue, however. How far should the Senate, and Senate Democrats in particular, go to question a nominee's legal philosophy? What is the proper role of the Senate with regard to the advise and consent function?

Your comments are encouraged.

Alito - so far right he makes the right look left

Here's a bit of "inside" information. One of the professors here stopped by this morning to tell me that his nephew is a law clerk for Alito. Apparently, this nephew is about as far right as you get, having expressed clearly that he'd like to turn America into a Christian theocracy, etc. According to him, he went to work for Alito because he was the one (in this person's view) to help guide the country in that direction.

For what that's all worth.

A quick note for Team Thinker

Blogger has had some display problems, so your humble and obedient servant has had to modify some graphics, etc. to get the page to show up correctly. While Big Brother may well be watching, it was me!

From W's favorite philosopher

Recent events reminded me of this verse.

Luke 18

Now a certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” The man replied, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when the man heard this he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy.

Forwarding address for I. Lewis Libby

For you Civil War buffs out there

For some reason, I was reminded of this place this morning!

Libby Prison

Happy Halloween!

I don't believe in ghosts, but I just like this picture. This is from the Whaley House in San Diego, supposedly on of America's most haunted. I took this with a digital camera, and while it is in all likelihood a weird flash reflection, I just think it's cool!

Happy Halloween!

A picture puzzle

Can you figure this one out, boys and girls?











has





's













in a

A New Film Starring Scooter Libby!

Crime doesn't pay, Scooter!

And one more Fitzmas note

Pat spent $700,000 on his investigation, as compared to Ken Starr's bloated $40 million.

Reflections on Fitzmas

Patrick Fitzgerald did exactly what I expected him to do.

He brought an indictment that he can prove and will keep looking until he gets to the bottom of this. He is a remarkable man.

I have heard some remarkable spin coming from the right on this case, spin that reaches the heights of absurdity. First of all, can we dispose of the "he didn't indict on the underlying crime" issue? For one thing, he still may. The main point is, though, that the crimes charged are quite serious. Fitzgerald was hired to INVESTIGATE potential criminality.

That investigation may have come to nothing, not because there was no wrongful conduct but because the statutes involved are rather technical in nature and are composed of several elements that can be difficult to prove. Mr. Fitzgerald was entitled under the law to complete a fair and thorough examination of the facts, however, and Scooter Libby, among others, intentionally interfered with that investigation into very serious matters of national security. That interference is criminal. Period. The fact that the criminality would not have occurred "but for" an investigation is irrelevant. The investigation did not cause criminal conduct, Scooter Libby did.

I also did something that I generally regret--I turned on Sean Hannity for a moment. I know, I know, I shouldn't, but I shouldn't look at wrecks on the tollway either, and I do. He was trying to minimize this by ripping Fitzgerald. Bad move, as Elliott Ness could have learned from this guy. Hannity was criticizing Fitzgerald's conduct in the investigation of former Illinois governor george Ryan. In that case, Fitz got the already-convicted right-hand man, Scott Fawell, to open up by enticing him with an offer of a reduced sentence for his fiancee.

Three things, Sean.

1. This is the oldest prosecutorial tactic in the world;
2. Fawell is a sleaze who deserves no sympathy and
3. His fiancee is a criminal too, not an exploited innocent.

Merry Fitzmas!

A decade of...what?

Take a look at this link to video of W's debate in his run for the Texas state house.

http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm

He was of course still a moron and grossly unqualified for that office. The W of 10 years ago is not the completely dysfunctional can't even speak a coherent sentence drooling caricature that he is today, though.

So my question is, who is sitting in the Oval Office?

Cokie McCrackpipe?
Drinky McTwelvepack?
Dementia McSchizo?

or all of the above?

Also, check out the eyes and the blotchy skin:

If Fox News had been around

from Daily Kos

The Mark Silva Comedy Tour

We have previously met Mark Silva, national writer from the Chicago Tribune. This shameless hack told us back in September that that the president took "swift and personal responsibility" in dealing with Hurricane Katrina.

This morning he tops that one, with a statement so ridiculous that it doesn't even come close to passing the giggle test. Mark cracks us up here with comedy club-quality material, as he says "the mere loss of Libby, a close confidant to Cheney and Bush and an architect of administration foreign policy, is a blow for a White House that has prided itself on adherence to high ethical standards."

Ladies and gentlemen, Mark Silva! He'll be here all week at The Laugh Factory, formerly known as the Chicago Tribune, two shows a night. Tip your servers, drive home safely and good night!