All Things Being Equal

Catholics, Christians, Politics, and Willow - Is That You?

2005-04-02T17:52:00.000-05:00

Okay, first and foremost, if you caught the reference to Joss Whedon's Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you must turn off the TV and rescue me from my self-imposed Netflix exile of "catching up" on the Buffy/Angel mythology. I warn you, if you try, I could become aggravated and stake you, but that's a separate issue.

Actually, I'll digress slightly further - The Buffyverse (as its fans like to call it) is really fascinating. Each of the characters is full and three dimensional; the mythology is consistent and fascinating without calling too much attention to the major religions, while using their symbolism to cast out demons, ward off vampires and so on; and there's something to learn or reflect on in each episode. That's the content part.

What's more amazing is how tight the writing is - each episode pushes the story forward, each season has an arc that you can follow, introducing new villains and friends that continue to further the prophesies of the Slayer and the Vampire With a Soul. It's a case study in brilliant TV writing, and for all those out there who worship at the coke dusted feet of Aaron Sorkin, I recommend checking out how it's really done with some Buffy action.

Okay, digression over.

So a friend of mine wondered aloud whether the Pope's death would preempt TV everywhere, or just in "Catholic" places. I thought it probably was a big enough story (Rule 1: If it bleeds, it leads ---> logical progression to Dead Pontiff = Big News), that it would preempt anyway; but then it occurred to me that enough Christians in the country look to the Pope as a leader. He's the one Big Cheese in the Christian world; Jerry Falwell can't hold a candle to John Paul II.

So then we wondered, how many Catholics are there? The answer: a lot.

By the numbers (with snide, and interesting places of note along the way):

So I checked 2001 census data - they can't make religious status a mandatory question, but they're data tracks other surveys I looked at:

Out of 207 million American Adults:

Total "Christian": 159,506,000
50 million Catholics (about a third of religious people)
34 million Baptists
14 million Methodists
14 million Christian (no denomination, this number's up from 1990, when there were only 8 million)
9.5 million Lutherans
5.5 million Presbyterian
4.6 million non-denomination Protestants [This is a fascinating number because in 1990 17 million said they were Protestant but didn't name a denomination. Wonder why?]
4.4 million Pentecostals
3.4 million Episcopalians
2.7 million Mormons
2.5 million Church of Christ
2.4 million Nondemoninational (up from 195,000 - I'm sensing dissatisfaction and relocation)
1.3 million Jehovah's Witness
1 million Evangelicals
194,000 Christian Science
56,000 Born Again (down from 204,000 in 1990)

Then there's "other religions," totaling 7.7 million.
Jews lead the pack here: 2.8 million [though they've shrunk or stopped responding - in 1990, there were 3.1 million]
Muslim: 1.1 million [doubling the last census figure]
Buddhist: 1 million [nearly tripling the last census figure]
Hindu: 766,000 [tripled!]
Unitarian: 629,000 [my friend in college said it was the only religion with an IQ prerequisite]
Native American: 103,000 [doubled - or maybe they're backing away from forced christianity, or maybe they're emboldened to say so]
Scientologist: 55,000 [10,000 new actors since 1990!]

How 'bout Magic?
Wiccans have grown like magic weeds! - 8,000 in 1990 (pre-Joss Whedon), 134,000 in 2001.
Deity worship is up from 6,000 to 49,000!
33,000 Druids!
22,000 practicing Santeria!
140,000 self-described Pagans!
116,000 Spiritualists

And here are my favorites, speaking as a disaffected Gentile: 29.5 million say no religion.
902,000 Atheists
991,000 Agnostics (honest folks, I suspect)
49,000 Humanists
53,000 Secularists
27.5 million No religions.

Interestingly, only 11 million refused to reply.

Okay, enough data for a Saturday morning.

Tube In, Tube Out

2005-03-21T10:35:00.000-05:00

It's reprehensible that the Congress engaged in special session to pass a law for just one person interfering with state court and guardian decisions. It offends basic concepts of federalism. It is an incredible waste of resources. And Bush's remark that courts should have a "presumption in favor of life" is about as gross, blatant and, oh, lacking any basis in law... there are all sorts of legal presumptions, but please - i call that pandering. Too bad it's not the criminal sort.

But that's, in some ways, neither here nor there. Congress has acted, the President has signed, a court will decide (again).

But here's what I want to know. Terry Schiavo is apparently brain damaged; but her brain still has the ability to control her breathing and her heart, so she's not what I understand to be "brain dead." If her care requires only a feeding and a hydration tube, and her parents and siblings are happy to handle the care, I wonder why her husband is determined that she be taken off those tubes.

Is it truly that he feels so strongly that Terry didn't want to be on a feeding tube? Is it that seeing her in this way is so painful that he's given up hope that she might ever recover? Is it, as her family says, because he wants some money? He's got a girlfriend with whom he has had children; some in Congress argue that this is abandonment and that he has forfeited his rights to make decisions for his wife. Why not do the humane thing - not for Terry but for her parents and siblings, who can not let go - and divorce her, turn her care over to them, and hope that one day science and a hefty dose of miracles will revive Terry or send her on?

It's one of those things: maybe he is a cruel sonofabitch who wants his wife dead so he doesn't have to divorce her - but that seems so far to go for so little reward. Maybe he fights because he believes so strongly this is what Terry would want. Maybe Schiavo and the Schindlers hate each other so much that they are willing to make Terry the pawn in their petty bickering. No matter what, it's sad, it's awful, and it's none of our business.

Ain't nothin' but a family thing.

Poor Terry

2005-03-18T14:04:00.000-05:00

Terry Schiavo. How much more can we do to her? How many times can we torture her body by removing a tube and then reinserting the tube? How much can we torture her body with constant litigation and legislation and subpoenas and injunctions?

What did Terry Schiavo ever do to deserve this?

Maybe I'm just too Oregonian for this topic, but it seems to me it's time to let her go. Life is, indeed, precious. That's why what's being done to this woman's body in the name of "life" is so criminal. There must be a middle ground between preserving life and preserving the notion of a humane end to life.

Let her go.

Social Security Wobbles; Gen X Shrugs

2005-03-03T18:44:00.000-05:00

The conversation no one's having about Social Security is the one that the left is loathe to have and the seniors pray won't happen. It's the conversation about how everyone under the age of 45 wasn't really counting on Social Security checks anyway. So who cares?

That's right, the generation defined by an ill-advised book by Douglas Coupland and the term "slacker", doesn't really care about Social Security - and that's our dirty little secret.

Joshua Micah Marshall blogs about Social Security on a daily basis, and I'm bored to tears. He's showing due diligence, upholding the loyalty of the left to its New Deal heyday, and I could care less. I check out his lists - the Fainthearted Faction and the Conscience Caucus, both cleverly named - and I see little that is surprising. I yawn, and go find out what Drudge has deemed newsworthy, since I know that's what I'm going to see on the evening news anyway.

The New York Times pointed out today that Bush is out of step with average Americans, in particular on social security but that may be the secret to his success. He is showing us all that he has the political will to do that which no predecessor President has - bring Social Security to the Final Solution, and kill it.

What might be shocking is the number of congressmen who are willing to consider it seriously - the so-called Third Rail of American Politics is apparently not so dangerous when we can blame it on John Wayne, and herald the coming of the "ownership class".

But what should come as a huge shock to the so-called Greatest Generation (otherwise known as the Generation Who Did The Right Thing Once And Figured They Were Off The Hook For The Rest), is that their grandchildren watched them live off those Social Security checks and pension checks, shedding the yoke of their fabled generational austerity to go golfing and move to assisted living resorts in warmer climes, while we fought over hard-to-get part-time jobs for four bucks an hour.

They had their health care taken care of at the VA or a Medicare approved HMO while our parents' insurance started cutting dental, orthodontia and optometry - and eventually the prescription drugs that matter now because the Greatest Generation is propped up on its three legs (that's a Riddle of the Sphinx reference, there) by the pharmaceutical business.

They worked for the same company or civil service for 30 or 40 years before retiring promptly at 62 or 65. Our parents moved from job to job as recessions hit every labor sector in the 70s, and then the 80s, and then the 90s. When we finally graduated from high school, our graduation ceremonies were bereft of the optimism usually attributed to such a milestone; we were told we would be the first generation worse off than our parents, that we would go into vast amounts of debt to pay for college, that college wouldn't be enough, and that we would not find good jobs.

In other words, if you've got an entitlement program, we already wrote it off years ago. We've absorbed the hard truth - the Greatest Generation was pretty sure a generation of slackers didn't deserve entitlements, and the result of their willy-nilly post-war "expansion" would be that we wouldn't afford one anyway since we'd be too busy paying meager amounts to our over-populated parental generation.

So expect Social Security to go the way of the dodo - not because anyone's convinced it's in crisis or because any particular lobby is more powerful than another, but because the next few generations of beneficiaries weren't counting on it anyway.

I Am Woman, It's Really Too Bad

2005-02-17T14:32:00.000-05:00

So South Dakota has put a law to its congress stating that should the United States Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, they shall declare abortion a felony.

The State Affairs Committee unanimously approved HB1249, which would make it a felony to do abortions if Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, is overturned. The bill would allow exceptions in cases where a pregnant woman's life is at risk.

Those who do abortions could face up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

The committee changed the bill to remove a provision that would have made it a crime to advise women to seek abortions.

Rep. Joel Dykstra, R-Canton, the bill's prime sponsor, said it is designed to protect the rights of fetuses in case states are given the right to regulate abortion.

I've got a few things here:

1. "a felony to do abortions"? Does that mean both the woman and the doctor would face two years in prison and a $2000 fine, or just the doctor?

2. "a crime to advise women to seek abortions"? Who does that? Boyfriends who don't want the responsibility? Husbands who don't want another girl? Because it ain't doctors or social workers or therapists, unless a pregnancy would kill the woman.

3. and finally - this is contingent legislation. Is that kosher? Can a state say, hey if the US Supreme Court overturns Brown v. Board of Education, we're going to immediately effect a law that will not only permit, but require segregation in our schools? Can they say, hey if the US Supreme Court overturns Marbury v. Madison, we're going to do the exact opposite of everything the Supreme Court has ever said we had to do - because they're not the boss of us! Doesn't that constitute a legislative threat?

4. and finally, finally... "protect the rights of fetuses." This is code for enforce a system of forced motherhood. This is code for making women second class citizens to an organism that is completely dependent on our bodies for their lives. If that's okay, then we should have laws prohibiting the separation of conjoined twins where one might die in the process - we believe in a "culture of life" - right? I've got big news for everybody out there - fetuses don't have rights. Children and infants barely have any rights at all. But that's because we now have a social system that can take a child or infant from its mother if it deems her unfit and place it in a system which will care for him just enough to turn him into a criminal. But fetuses - as long as you're forcing a woman to undergo pregnancy and delivery, that woman's rights can not be trumped by something that could die on its own without mom - otherwise every miscarriage would require an inquest to determine cause of death. It would make every miscarrying woman a murder suspect.

We're losing this war, people. But no one seems to care.

Democrats Do the Safety Dance

2005-02-16T16:55:00.000-05:00

The Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page would have you believe that the trouble with Democrats is that they just loooove government control - can't get enough of it. Senate Democrats, terrified of (or perhaps merely disdainful of) Howard Dean, tried to get Terry McAuliffe to stay on - anything to avoid The Dean Scream. He was "too liberal" some Democrats said, too "out of touch" with average Americans.

[I'd love to know why I'm not an average American. How'd that happen? I spell things -er instead of -re, and -ize instead of -ise... I wear jeans almost everywhere I go and I'm addicted to television. How am I an un-average American?]

But today, The New York Times reports that the Democrats are moving significantly to the right - or should we say wrong? - on abortion rights. First of all: newsflash from the Times! It's almost as if they didn't really notice Harry Reid's nomination as Senate Minority Leader, or Tim Roehmer's running for both Reid's role and now Dean's, or Hillary Clinton's dissappointing moral righteousness on the subject at a recent speech.

Well, bully for them. Meanwhile, Emily's List, Naral Pro-Choice, Planned Parenthood, NOW are all picking their legislative battles. The trouble is, they now have a two-front war - Pro-Life Republicans and Chicken-Shit Democrats. So, beginning this week, I'll compile a list of sitting Pro-Choice Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the statehouses.

But I do have one note I'd like to make on this debate. Truthfully, it shouldn't even be a debate. We no longer live in a world, an economy, a political system or a society in which forced motherhood is a practical or even desirable notion. And what we're really talking about with respect to abortion rights isn't fetal rights (try though the far right might to make it so) but the rights of women to choose their role in society. It's awfully sweet of Naral Pro-Choice to try to shift attention to increased access to birth control so we can reduce the rate of pregnancy; but are they going to shift attention to pharmaceutical companies and the relative ineffectiveness of some kinds of birth control and the relative expense of others? Are they going to get into a meaningful conversation about what abortion really means to people? Are they going to get into the debate about the role of women in society?

Because it seems to me that as long as we make it about procedures we can stomach, and fetal rights, and the "when does life begin?" debate, we're going to leave millions of American women to the wolves. We're going to look them in the eye and call them careless, loveless, cruel, frivolous and shit out of luck.

With all the debate going on in the pages of Time and Newsweek about what makes a good mother, shouldn't we begin by encouraging women to become mothers by choice? Shouldn't that be the way we frame this unholy debate?

Credibility Issues

2005-02-08T23:36:00.000-05:00

To begin with, a little housekeeping: I am in the process of relaunching my companion site PrettyLittleHead.com as a site dedicated to my professional interests - a sort of bizarre mix of the law and the "discipline" known as account planning, that practice responsible for making advertising and branding effective. I have decided to go into business for myself, and PLH will also be a site for contacting me for information about the work I do.

This site, however, will remain a place for examining American politics from the perspective of a left-libertarian, former Oregonian, holding an ever-so-useful double degree in Political Science and Journalism (and a soon to be completed J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law), now living in Manhattan, trying to make sense of the insanity, while poking a little fun at the inanity.

Phew. That was a long damned sentence.

Some thoughts on Sy Hersh after the jump:

Item Of The Day: Sy Hersh

So I finally caught up with my New Yorker reading - well, almost. The Anniversary Issue arrived today, and I'm not past checking out the cartoons and movie reviews from last week. But I did read Sy Hersh's article on "The Coming Wars" in Iran. In the second half of the first paragraph, Hersh notes: "The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as 'facilitators' of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney."

Okay. "One government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon"? What ever happened to the leaked memo from newly appointed DCI Porter Goss, widely reported, even in the very conservative Washington Times. According to the UPI report on that newspaper's site, "As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies," Goss wrote, adding analysts' goal is to "support the administration and its policies in our work."

So why quote someone anonymously when you've got it on the record, in the press, from the horse's mouth? In all seven or so pages of Hersh's reporting, the following sources are cited by name:
Silvan Shalom, Israeli Foreign Minister (but from an interview with another New Yorker reporter, not Hersh) - paragraph 14
Patrick Clawson, a deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (but quoted primarily from an essay he wrote, and then from a "subsequent conversation with [Hersh]") - paragraph 15
Sharhram Chubin, director of research at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy - paragraphs 16, 17
The President (but at a news conference last year) - paragraph 25
Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution and former Bush administration NSC scholar - paragraph 28
Howard Hart, retired chief of the C.I.A.'s Paramilitary Operations Division
Vince Cannistraro & Philip Giraldi, publishers of Intelligence Brief and former C.I.A. clandestine officers (but from their newsletter) - paragraph 31, 32
Jeffrey H. Smith, a West Point grad and former C.I.A. general counsel - paragraph 35
John Arquilla, professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School and terrorism consultant for RAND (but from a series of articles) - paragraph 39, 40
Fred Kaplan, editor of Slate (but from Kaplan's article) - paragraph 49

But most of the sources are described in this way:
"one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon" (6 times)
"a former high-level intelligence official" (12 times)
"past and present intelligence and military officials" (1 time)
"a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency" (1 time)
"a retired senior C.I.A. official" (2 times)
"one Western diplomat" (2 times)
"a European Ambassador" (2 times)
"a former high-level Pakistani diplomat" (2 times)
"a Pentagon consultant" (4 times)
"a Pentagon advisor"; also, "the first Pentagon advisor" (3 times)
"the Pentagon advisors" (1 time)
"the second Pentagon advisor" (4 times)
"a retired four-star general" (2 times)
"I was told" (1 time)
"a former senior C.I.A. officer" (2 times)
"a former C.I.A. clandestine-services officer" (3 times)

In other words, the story almost entirely relies upon the reports of unnamed sources, even ones that are identified with enough specificity that one could figure out a reasonably small range of possibilities; but perhaps what is most irritating is that first paragraph. An unnamed source to report something already widely known and on the record - if the first paragraph is any indication, and sources like the European Ambassador were used to report that Bush plans a visit to Europe in February, then Hersh has become perhaps too dependent on the unnamed source. The sources he does cite were largely culled from secondary materials, and not through Hersh's direct reporting.

I have no doubt that most of what is reported in "The Coming Wars" is accurate; but Hersh comes away with a credibility problem. His reporting relies heavily on the "former high-level intelligence official"; his identifications become confusing as the article progresses. And at the end I'm left wondering if Hersh is certain he didn't fall prey to the decoy story that gave Dan Rather a footstool with which to hoist himself on his own petard.

It's time for mainstream, and even the so-called liberal press to kick their addiction to the unnamed source; where sources are available on the record elsewehere, quote the secondary source and tell me if they refused to comment for your story - I'll draw my own conclusions about that person and his honesty; and where sources are unwilling or unavailable for comment, follow the multiple source verification rule. It is critical for the credibility of the American press that they vet their own sources - as Rather and his team did not; it is equally critical that they vet the credibility of the information reporters have received. And finally, it's important to have more sources on the record than off - otherwise, really - how do I know if it's not all just made up?

Game Theory & A Lesson in Civics

2005-01-31T19:01:00.000-05:00

I was standing there, in my kitchen, the tiny white TV tuned to C-SPAN. On January 6, 2005, Democrats in Congress were debating an objection to the certification of Ohio's electoral votes. Thanks to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Congressional Black Caucus finally got to talk about voter disenfranchisement; in the Senate chamber, hell, even Senator HIllary Clinton (D-NY), got into the act, fretting about vote fraud, disenfranchisement, electronic voting, the apparently quaint and obsolete notion of "one person, one vote".

But then the two houses voted. The House went 31 in favor of agreeing to the objection; 267 against, 132 not voting. All 31 were Democrats; shamefully, 88 voted against. The Senate was even more dismal: one yea vote, 74 nays, 25 not bothering to vote. Thankfully, Sen. Boxer had the decency to vote for her own objection.

And then the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stepped into the fray. First Joe Biden (D-DE) congratulated then nominee Condoleezza Rice for learning to play the piano and ice-skate (though, I suspect, not at the same time). Then he began to ask her The Tough Questions. Again, Sen. Boxer stepped in, actually saying what so many wanted to hear:

BOXER: Well, you should you read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that particular vote. But again, I just feel, you quote President Bush when it suits you, but you contradicted him when he said, Yes, Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. You go on television, nine months later, and said, Nobody ever said it was going to be.

RICE: Senator, that was just a question of pointing out to people that there was an uncertainty, that no one was saying that he would have to have a weapon within a year for it to be worth it to go to war.

BOXER: Well, if you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you will rethink it.

RICE: Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will reframe from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much.

BOXER: I'm not. I'm just quoting what you said. You contradicted the president and you contradicted yourself.

RICE: Senator, I'm happy to continue the discussion. But I really hope that you will not imply that I take the truth lightly.

Ah, Senator Boxer. Had I only known you were our only ally in the Senate I'd have sent my money to you rather than to Howard Dean, John Kerry or the DNC, I truly would've. (By the way, I hope that serves as the necessary financial disclosures).

Then, dear heart, Senator Kerry stepped up to the plate. He may never have seen a plate, or known what to swing at, before, but this time, he hit it out of the park:

KERRY: Despite Paul Bremer saying he thought they needed more troops, despite General Shinseki talking about more troops, despite the acknowledged mistake by so many people -- certainly all the leaders I met with in the region in recent days -- about the disbanding of the military, the de-Baathification that went as deep as it did, despite the failure to guard ammo dumps, the weapons of which are now being turned on our troops, despite the failure to guard nuclear facilities, when after all the purpose of the invasion was to deal with weapons of mass destruction, despite the inability to deliver services immediately, despite the security level that we have today, you sat there this morning and suggested it was the right number of troops, contrary to the advice of most thoughtful people who have been analyzing this.

The chairman of this committee at one point said that he thought the administration's efforts with respect to the delivery of aid, et cetera, was embarrassing. The ranking member on their side, Senator Hagel, thought it was both pitiful and even reached a zone of dangerous...

And then afterwards you said, Well, there were unforeseen consequences, unforeseen events, because the army melted into the countryside.

Well, that wasn't unforeseen. That's exactly what they did in '91. And we, in fact, encouraged them to do it. Because we leafleted and broadcast and told them that if they disbanded, we would pay them, and they would not suffer any consequences for putting down their arms and going home and getting out of uniform. So we told them to do that.

But we didn't pay them. We went back on that promise. And they got angry and organized.

Now, having just come back from there -- haven't been as many times as Joe -- but in Fallujah and Kirkuk, Mosul, I talked with Iraqis who are trying to make this work, who are desperate about the lack of support from Baghdad, the lack of resources coming. They almost feel forgotten by Baghdad.
...
Now I think we have to rescue our policy from ourselves.
...
We've got kids who are dying over there. They're going on missions that, in my judgment, are questionable in what they're going to achieve in terms of the population and the overall goal...
...
Our troops are stunning, superb. You know that, I know that, the president knows that, every American knows that. But they deserve and want a policy -- they ask questions... how are we going to do this, how are we going to get out of here, how are we going to take care of this business?

Well, God bless him. Certainly the Senate won't. And didn't. The Committee voted - 17-2 in favor of recommending Dr. Rice to the full Senate for confirmation. And in an 85-13 vote (2 senators couldn't be bothered to vote for the next Secretary of State), the full Senate confirmed her.

And herein lieth the lesson, dear heart. When you're going to lose if you vote yes (and yes is against your conscience), and you're going to lose if you vote no (when no is what you truly believe) - then you've got NOTHING to lose. So you vote your conscience, because it sends the right message to your constituents and to the majority; on the other hand, you vote against your conscience, perhaps because you don't have one.

It's a kind of game theory, you see. It's how to act when you're the loyal opposition, when you're in the minority, and nothing short of an election can bring you back from the ghetto. You stand up, and you vote no.

It was Mark Twain, that great American philosopher and humanist who once said, "Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest." How astonished we might've been if only the Democrats had stood up and voted their conscience, rather than standing up and noting wisely that Dr. Rice would no doubt be confirmed just before going on to list a host of reasons we should not put her in the top diplomatic post.

It appears, though, that the Democrats are saving their ire for Alberto Gonzalez. All eight Democrats on the Judiciary committee voted unsuccessfully to block the full Senate from considering his nomination. His confirmation process has been riddled with delays. Which only goes to prove that Democrats really aren't as strong on international relations.

Condoleezza Rice was one of the main architects of the war in Iraq, she has been skewered by conservatives and liberals alike, in the American and European press. She is widely regarded as an ineffectual manager and administrator, but is recognized as a close confidant of President Bush. Is that all it takes? And where are the Democrats, and the lessons they were supposed to learn from another stunning defeat? Hanging out their usual sign: "Open for Business (As Usual)."

Finally, a minor note: this article about American high school students and their instincts for free speech. Turns out they've been dulled to the point that 75 percent mistakenly believe that flag burning is illegal, 36 percent believe newspapers should have to seek government approval before running their stories, and 32 percent believe that the press enjoys too much freedom. So, to my erstwhile friends over at Rathergate.com, I salute you: while fully enjoying the rights guaranteed you under the First Amendment to skewer a public figure and a public corporation, you have helped to further stunt the instincts that drive Americans to exercise those beliefs. Kudos!

Now, bite me.

Update: Safest and Most Dangerous States (2003)

2004-12-18T21:42:00.000-05:00

This according to the FBI for 2003:
[Ed. note: this data includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia. I also include in parens the ranking of each state's total tax (local, state and federal combined) burden, according to the Tax Foundation.]

Ten Safest States (number of murders and nonnegligent homicides per 100,000 population):

#1: Maine (6)
#2: South Dakota (43)
#3: New Hampshire (27)
#4: Iowa (41)
#5: Hawaii (23)
#6: North Dakota (42)
#7: Oregon (31)
#8: Massachusetts (4)
#9: Vermont (16)
#10: Rhode Island (5)

Ten Most Dangerous States

#41: California (10)
#42: Illinois (13)
#43: South Carolina (47)
#44: Georgia (21)
#45: Arizona (22)
#46: Nevada (9)
#47: Mississippi (45)
#48: Maryland (15)
#49: Louisiana (44)
#50: District of Columbia (44.2 murders and nonnegligent homicides per 100,000! wow!)

You know, it seems to me that the morally righteous Bush voters in these bottom 10 should start taking crime prevention, prosecution, rehabilitation and incarceration more seriously than, say, a lame-ass tax cut.

A Cesspool!

2004-12-18T17:17:00.000-05:00

"You read about this stuff," she said. "It blows you away when it's here. This stuff is supposed to be in New York City or Los Angeles."

This is a brilliant quotation from them average Red State folks we hear so much about. It's about this horrible murder/kidnapping of the 8 month fetus in Missouri. The fetus was found in the possession of some psycho woman in Kansas.

But it's supposed to be in NYC or LA? Ha!

Deanna Laney is on trial for STONING two of her children and assaulting a third, leaving him nearly blind. You know where she's from? Texas.

Remember Andrea Yates? She DROWNED her five kids in the bath tub in (wait for it) Texas.

Or Susan Smith? She put her kids in the car and rolled it into a lake, drowning them. Unlike the other two, she reported her kids kidnapped by black people. And where did she do that? South Carolina.

Horrific crimes, committed by women against children.

And what about this bizarre practice of killing pregnant women and stealing their fetuses? Turns out it's women who kill other women for their babies, usually because they're insane, and because they've been lying about their own pregnant status and become desperate.

The newest incident happened to 23 year old Bobbie Jo Stinnett, strangled to death and cut open by (allegedly) Lisa Montgomery in Missouri.

But about a year ago, another pregnant woman was killed for her fetus: Carolyn Simpson, six months pregnant, shot in the head by Effie Goodson, who stole the fetus (the fetus died). And which town do you suppose they lived in - New York or Los Angeles? No, sir. Lamar, Oklahoma.

So who are we kidding here, Red Staters? According to the US Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Rates of murder, and especially those involving guns, are higher in southern regions of the United States--in the East South Central, West South Central, and the South Atlantic regions."

In 2002, the violent crime rates for the states we've mentioned were as follows (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate):

California, 6.8 murders per 100,000 population

Missouri, 5.8 murders per 100,000 population

New York, 4.7 murders per 100,000 population

Oklahoma, 4.7 murders per 100,000 population

South Carolina, 7.3 murders per 100,000 population

United States Total, 5.6 murders per 100,000 population

Three states of our little sample of states were above the national average - California, Missouri and South Carolina. Two were below the national average - New York and Oklahoma. Seems like we're all in this together.

According to the FBI's preliminary 2004 uniform crime report (for January to June 2004), murders were up in cities of three certain sizes:

500,000 to 999,999, +3.6

250,000 to 499,999, +0.3

10,000 to 24,999, +7.8

(Small town and exurban America are dangerous places in which to live.)

But, to be fair, they were down in cities of all other sizes. I'd like to point out just one size:

1,000,000 and over, -8.7

Of course, these things really only happen in New York City or Los Angeles, right?

It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year

2004-12-15T13:27:00.000-05:00

'Tis the season.

I'm neck deep in final exams. I go home to Portland for three weeks starting next week. I'm exhausted.

There are going to be birthdays; one of them will be mine.

There are going to be lots of moments spent thinking pointless thoughts. There are going to be lots of planning sessions discussing things that can't be planned. There are going to be lots of times when I'll think, "You can never really go back."

But can you go forward? It's going to be New Year soon, and resolutions are often made, mostly to be broken. What should my resolution be? Someone I know used to say his New Year's resolution was to wing it. It's a nice idea. I'll borrow from e.e. cummings and say "let's live suddenly without thinking".

Except you know I won't.

Ever get the feeling that the whole damn place is on the verge of something, some sea change, some major catastrophe, some triumph, some discovery, some something that will change everything? I'm wrecked with that feeling right now, as if some major thing is about to happen and that if it doesn't I might die. There are answers I need to certain questions:

Can I?
Do I?
Should I?
Does he?
Do they?
Will he?
Will they?
Where will it go?
Can it go?
What the hell is going on?

These are the thoughts of December. I am officially on hiatus until after Christmas. Count your blessings, and the pieces of candy in your stockings. If you're a Jew, this is easy on account of no stockings, and only having to count to eight. Also, no pesky savior stuff or wondering what the hell frankincense and myrrh are.

To all those who read this blog (all twelve of you):
Boze Narodzenia & Szczesliwego Nowego Roku!
(Merry Christmas & Happy New Year, in Polish)

Learning to Love Losing

2004-12-08T21:46:00.000-05:00

So. The Democratic Party remains in the minority. In 1994, we lost the Congress. In 2000, we lost the Presidency. In 2004, we lost both a little more.

We're wringing our hands trying to figure out how to get further to the right without totally losing our identity. The so-called base (maybe I should stop saying "so-called") is getting together for group therapy in the comforting electronic arms of MoveOn.org.

I have an argument to make, and no one's going to like it much...

We are weak. I'm not just talking the party heads, nor am I talking solely about the talking heads. I'm talking about the base. I'm talking about almost every liberal out there.

In 2000, we rested on our laurels, sold out our candidate, criticized him publicly, and found ourselves swayed by the absurd notion that nobody likes the smartest guy in the room.

In 2004, we turned out the vote, sure. Kerry got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history - but so did Bush. If you're sitting around waiting for the Democratic Fairy Godmother to suddenly appear and turn the State of Ohio into a coach and footmen, or say, the electoral votes needed to put Kerry in office, you need to stop sucking on your Disney Little Golden Books. We lost.

Let me say it again. We lost.

We lost because we are all of us weak. We lost because the base, feeling generally sorry for itself while also feeling certain that we do, in fact, represent the majority of Americans, built itself and online group therapy portal or twelve, and hunkered down until the firefight was over. But it barely began. With so many liberals keeping their heads down, doing their best Lieberman impersonations, there was no one to take the fight to the true swing voters - not just independents, but uncertain Democrats, and uncertain Republicans. We were so convinced that front-loading the primaries would give us an advantage in fundraising that we took the fire out of the belly of the liberal voting bloc. We were so caught up in post-2000 electoral strategy that we gave up the fight in 35 states before it began, and then gave up 10 more a month before election day.

I live in New York. I saw hardly any campaign advertising. You're going to find yourself skeptical over that comment, but it's true. I'm from Oregon. Oregon is a perennial swing state, though most people don't care much about our 7 electoral votes; we're a mostly red state, with a couple of blue cities, but everyone thinks we're the land of pot, Birkenstocks and Ralph Nader. We're not - we're the land of pioneers, privacy and pride, which pretty much means you'll find us on both sides of the political aisle. And as for New York? Well, our 31 electoral votes cover a vast amount of territory - much of it agricultural or industrial, and if you think most farmers and blue collar workers were climbing over themselves to vote for Kerry, you're wrong.

It's called nuance. We were never a particularly subtle party. We were the party of FDR, JFK, LBJ and Bill Clinton. These were not subtle men. They were men who believed that every American that wanted one should have a job, an education, a secure retirement, an equal opportunity, and a safe country. They believed that all Americans were smart, decent, good people, who deserved the chance to be rewarded for it, with the opportunity to be a little more prosperous. They believed that men and women of all backgrounds should have a shot at the American Dream, and that they should help to make the American Dream a little closer to their grasps. That's not subtle. And it's certainly not weak.

But we've lost our way. We console ourselves on blogs and in MeetUps, we bitch to our like-minded friends. But we are not the majority party in this country. We are not in terms of measurable power; and we are not in terms of voter registration. This country is 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 Independent.

We need to come to terms with our minority status. We need to embrace it. In the days after Barry Goldwater, the minority religiously conservative wing of the Republican Party grew on the basis of a minority mindset. They built coalitions, they generated ideas, they identified their enemy, and they fought on every front. Even now, they will not accept their victory as smugly as President Bush did a few weeks ago. They will not spend all their political capital at once, not without constantly replenishing the supply. We should learn from them.

We should recast the Republicans as the majority that they are. We should become the fighting, righteous minority. We should find wedge, morality-based issues to marginalize them with. It's not hard. While the most pious party, they are certainly not the most moral, nor the most ethical.

George W. Bush, when he ran for Governor of Texas, never missed an opportunity to point out that juvenile crime had skyrocketed in the state, and that he was the man to change it. The juvenile crime rate had not increased much; the overall crime rate was decreasing. But people, terrified of razors in apples on Halloween, and teenagers coming to school armed, and abortionists encouraging their teenaged daughters to have sex and kill their babies, believed him.

On the other hand, when Bill Clinton ran for President, his campaign never missed an opportunity to point out that the economy was in the hole. It certainly had been languishing and even crashing under the Reagan/Bush years, but the broken "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" promise had started the climb out. Certainly good fiscal stewardship, especially vis-a-vis the deficit, helped, but the groundwork had, indeed, been laid. But who were you going to believe, thin-lipped, bitchy George Bush, or beatific Bill Clinton?

Some have said, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Others have said that one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Those people have been fascists and bloody dictators. But they weren't wrong.

We need to stop deluding ourselves about how mainstream we already are. We need to stop trying to follow the Republicans around the political spectrum in the hopes that people will forget what they're doing and vote for us. We need to get the fire in the belly stoked again, to believe that we are embattled, to wage our own holy crusade to take the Democratic Party back to where it came from, with a whole-hearted belief in increasing opportunity, growth, education, and security.

And we need some ideas that sound new to back them up.

We lost. Let's figure out how to win, instead of spending all our time trying to figure out how to keep losing by respectable margins.

The Lesser of Who Cares?

2004-12-07T15:22:00.000-05:00

It used to be that our votes were about the lesser of two evils, but the way that the Democratic party wages campaigns, and liberal pundits and even bloggers talk about politics, has led us down a new path - the lesser of who cares.

The Democratic party gets saddled with a few things:

Being in favor of legal abortion

Being in favor of limitations on the use of the death penalty

Being in favor of increasing the minimum wage

Being in favor of fixing and retaining Social Security and Medicare

Being in favor of providing public assistance in the form of welfare and Medicaid to those living in desperate poverty

Being in favor of working for multilateral solutions to international problems, while safeguarding our national interests

Now, I could point out that I can't for the life of me come up with a way to look at those things and think - "Those bastards!" But on many of those issues, the Dems need to find a new line or just drop it altogether.

Abortion
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ratified the action of a dozen states by making abortion legal everywhere. They used a pretty flimsy due process argument, turning the case into essentially a "law & medicine" case, to establish a limited right of privacy that could be balanced against state interests but assured women of limited access to abortion services should they need it. I'm not going to define for you what "need" means; and you shouldn't try to define it until you've walked a mile in the shoes of a woman who finds herself pregnant unexpectedly.

Today, abortion is unavailable in 85 percent of United States counties. Most states have some limitation on the availability of abortions; the Supreme Court has held that parental notification for minors, short waiting periods, and notification of dangers of the procedure, methods and alternatives are reasonable limitations on the right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade, thirty years ago. Florida just passed another one of these limitations, requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion.

The United States Congress has prohibited so-called "partial birth" abortions (I say "so-called" because there is no such medical term, it's a political term). They have also attached riders to bills related to foreign aid, military appropriations, treaty ratifications and countless other spending bills, limiting funding and even discussion of abortion in government sponsored, run or staffed facilities.

In 1973, the year that Roe v. Wade became law, there were 615,831 legal abortions reported. In 2001, there were 846,447. One out of every 100 women, aged 15 to 44, had an abortion in 2001, the same rate as in 1973. This is pretty remarkable, given that half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned.

Despite the progress made in the 90s in bringing down the abortion rate from its peak in 1980 of 2.5 out of every 100 women getting an abortion, particularly among women under 24, the Bush Administration has spent billions on abstinence-only education, and anti-abortion activists have pushed through legislation limiting the access of young women to abortions, and giving pharmacists the go-ahead to not dispense emergency contraception or even birth control to young women.

So what's really changed in 30 years? Not much. Abortions are relatively rare. But this time, they're also safe and legal. This has been largely a symbolic victory for the so-called left; and a real victory for women in need of the service who do not have to seek far more dangerous illegal procedures. But it was also an incredibly important symbolic loss for the so-called right - they have used abortion to marginalize liberals and terrorize conservatives; they have used it to raise money and wage campaigns; they have used it to polarize the country around an issue that is simply not that important.

Yes. I, a woman, a woman who likes knowing that the procedure is legal and available, just said "abortion is not that important." I say this because most women don't have access to abortion services, most women don't get one. On the first point, that's a shame; on the second, that's a victory, even for pro-choice activists. The idea is not a system in which every woman aborts a pregnancy just for the hell of it, but that we not be sentenced to death or sterility or jail for getting one when we need it. These fictionalized women who get an abortion because a pregnancy would interfere with their trip to Aspen, or who use it as birth control are certainly not those I would have as standard-bearers for the pro-choice movement; but their problem isn't the legality or availability of the procedure, but rather their awareness of, access to, ability to afford, and willingness to use birth control. Just because you have some stupid, irresponsible women out there, doesn't mean those who aren't stupid or irresponsible should be penalized.

So in the symbolic world, we won the battle - we got our legalized abortion, for as long as it'll have us, and we lost the war. We can't get one easily, we're marginalized for supporting it, we're ghettoized for having one. What's changed since 1973? Not a god-damned thing.

So can we drop it now? Can Democrats learn to simply quietly vote against measures that would limit the already limited right, and against judicial nominees that intend to force women to remain pregnant, while doing more important work that affects more women's lives? Or how about more American's lives?

Death Penalty
According to Gallup, in 1994, 80 percent of Americans supported the death penalty; today only 66 percent do. 12 states and the District of Columbia do not permit the death penalty as a punishment. Very few people who are sentenced to death, outside the state of Texas, will ever be executed, due to lengthy appeals processes. Recent headlines about wrongly convicted defendants on death row have given some states cause to suspend the practice. The Supreme Court, after reinstating the death penalty in 1976, has worked to limit it to adults of reasonable competence. Organizations like the Innocence Project work to free wrongly convicted defendants with DNA evidence.

The public is having a reasonable debate about the punishment; states are considering it carefully (except in Texas); the number of federal executions is about one per year. So let's drop it.

Minimum Wage
Minimum wage workers want a hike in the rate, small businesses and, for that matter, big businesses protest. The federal minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. That's about $10,700 per year. The federal poverty rate is about $17,400. The so-called "minimum" wage falls short by $6,700. The Economic Policy Institute says a family of four would need $33,400 per year to afford just the basics - housing, food, utilities, transportation. Even assuming a dual wage-earning household, the average family of four would fall $12,000 below what the EPI says they'd need to live, but they'd be above the poverty line.

35.9 million people live in poverty, 4.3 million more than in 2000, and that number has steadily risen since 2000. In 1994, nearly 40 million people lived in poverty, the highest rate since 1959. In the last year, poverty rates remained unchanged for Hispanics, non-Hispanic Whites, and Blacks, though it rose for Whites and Asians. Of those below the poverty line in 2003, 12.6 million were children. This 35.9 million represents 7.6 million families.

Now this - this is something the Democrats should engage. The poorest states tend to be the Reddest. How do we reach out to people who are living below the EPI's poverty line, or for that matter, the federal government's? How do we lift all boats? What is the right combination of economic growth, a simplified tax code, an increased minimum wage, health care cost controls, readily available insurance, and widespread public education?

This can be an inspirational story that touches people's lives. Allowing people to live in poverty is perhaps the least moral thing we, as citizens, can do.

[More on Social Security & Medicare, welfare & Medicaid, and multilateralism & national interests later...]

Playing Polonius

2004-12-06T09:42:00.000-05:00

So Polonius is checking out Hamlet's ranting, put on for the benefit of the weasels at court, and notes: "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."

And that, dear friends, is all I could think of as I read a little ditty on OpinionJournal.com this morning that critiqued Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? . According to Steven Malanga, nothing's the matter with Kansas - indeed, things are going great.

I've got to be totally honest - despite having ancestors who helped settle Kansas, I honestly don't care if there's anything the matter with them or not. I will guess that somewhere in the course of Frank's book he examines more than employment rates, so-called "job creation" rates (which count every job, usually including part-time jobs, minimum wage jobs, temporary jobs and create a number that far exceeds the experience of working, and not working folks - but I should point out, I'm not an economist), and the agriculture sector in his analysis of Kansas's economy. Having not read the book, I wouldn't know - but I would imagine that to fill some 320 pages, Frank would have to come up with more than three data points to make the argument. I could be wrong. Conservative and liberal polemics have been written on much less.

So, caveat, caveat, caveat. Onward.

What's interesting about Malanga's piece is how formulaic it is as a conservative critique. It's as if a template has been created for conservative commentators to use when performing a standard hack job on a piece of liberal writing. Here's a few examples of what I mean:

"The state's rock-solid support of Mr. Bush and other conservative candidates has sent at least one of its native sons, political commentator Thomas Frank, into paroxysms of rage." We're only in the second sentence, and the template is in full swing. "Rock-solid support", roughly translated, means loyal, unabashed, yea even righteous belief in conservatism and all its tenets. But my favorite is "paroxysms of rage" - a Lexis/Nexis search of major newspapers returned 162 hits for that phrase, nearly all of them in commentaries on various species of liberal who had flown into these paroxysms over some totally reasonable conservative initiative or victory. A "paroxysm of rage", by the way, is usually a mere criticism.

Malanga's commentary characterizes Frank's commentary as characterizing Kansans (a whole lotta characterizing going on) as "rubes" who've "got things backward". Again, I've not read the book, but this is standard conservative critique - all liberals think all "average folks" are "rubes." Of course they do! They must - they're smug elitists, after all.

"In purple prose", Malanga tells us, Frank pursues his skewering of these unsuspecting red-staters. "Purple prose", for those who don't have a copy of the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy is "writing full of ornate or flowery language." As you know by now, red-state, average folks don't cotton to purple prose - it's a good thing Malanga is here to parse. Malanga provides some choice quotes painting Kansas as awash in tumbleweed, rusting cars and snarling guard dogs. Oh, and don't forget the rubes.

So, now that Malanga has laid out the "facts" of Frank's argument, it's time to rebut. Let's begin by calling Frank's version of the facts "bizarrely" at odds with reality. When liberals cite "facts" with which conservatives disagree, they're "bizarrely" at odds with reality. Last week on CNN, there was some discussion of information being disseminated in conservative-run, abstinence-only programs - among the talking points: HIV can be spread by tears and saliva, abortion leads to sterility and suicide, and that touching the genitals can lead to pregnancy. If there are "facts" that are out there, at odds with reality, in fact "bizarrely" so - they are these. Not one of them is true. And yet, in a search of the transcripts of CNN's shows on December 2, no one - not a guest, not a moderator, not a reporter - called these statements "bizarre." It's a pretty consistent position of conservative commentators that liberals are not merely out of touch - they are bizarrely at odds with most Americans. It's as if we were in some drug-induced, hallucinogenic haze, imagining an America that never was. Well, they may have us there.

And the finale: "But what's really astounding is that Mr. Frank, who offers little in the way of economic data, would base his argument on such blatant falsehoods. To Mr. Frank's liberal prejudices, something may be the matter with Kansas, but it sure isn't its economy." Ah yes, "astounding", "little in the way of economic data", "blatant falsehoods", "liberal prejudices."

Structurally, Malanga did the following: Kansas belongs to conservatives, liberals can't get over it, particularly this liberal, clearly an odd duck from a steadfastly conservative state. This odd duck laid out some colorful anecdotes and characterizations of the state of economic affairs in Kansas and suggested something that is obviously anathema to all we hold dear - that, as Truman once said, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democrat". Ooh! Here are some loosely organized and broadly painted economic data points that appear to refute the odd duck's colorful anecdotes and characterizations. We asked one of the average folks in Kansas what they thought and they said something really polite while disagreeing with the odd duck. They're so nice. Not like this odd duck. No. This duck is a prejudiced liberal, with no facts to refute my facts! Ha! I guess I showed him.

And that's the standard form of political disagreement in the nation's conservative columns. Liberals are characterized as naive, prejudiced, smug, elitist, out of touch, bizarre liars. And yet, methinks Malanga protests too much. In fact, there is something remarkably familiar about the conservative line on conducting oneself in public. It's Polonius' monologue - the Hypocritical Oath:

"Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
The friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in,
Bear’t that the opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgement.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man...
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

First They Came for Judith Miller

2004-12-01T18:15:00.000-05:00

[Ed. note: this is from a paper I wrote a year ago on the limited privilege of reporters to protect their sources]

When Robert Novak revealed the identity of a CIA operative in his column, the profession of journalism, and the profession of law, as well as the people who watch both, were forced to revisit the issue of protecting sources. Novak has never revealed the source of his information, despite calls for a Congressional investigation, an ongoing White House investigation, and amid accusations of illegal acts leading to the leakage of that information.

Although journalists are not typically held liable for information lawfully obtained, Novak has two layers of behavior to be concerned about – his own, and that of his source. While it is clear that Novak himself did not do anything outside the normal day of a Washington journalist (interviewing contacts within the White House), the source may have broken one or more laws when he conveyed the information, and, it is argued, put at least one person’s life in danger in the process. CNN reported on its website on September 29, 2003, “Such a leak could constitute a felony. According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, a federal employee with access to classified information who is convicted of making an unauthorized disclosure about a covert agent faces up to 10 years in prison and as much as $50,000 in fines.”

Novak could have found himself subpoenaed by a grand jury regarding the source of the leak, and his thus far steadfast dedication to protecting his source in the White House could have been tested by the lack of a comprehensive newsman’s privilege recognized by the courts or established by statute. But instead, the reporter subpoenaed was Judith Miller of the New York Times, who never ran the story.

Novak’s relationship with his leak may be reminiscent of the famous relationship between Bob Woodward and “Deep Throat.” Today, speculation continues about the true identity of “Deep Throat” – ranging all the way from then National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, to a composite of many sources. Often, the information provided by “Deep Throat” was unverifiable. In Novak’s instance, it could be verified that Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife was in fact a CIA analyst – mostly by the admission of that fact from both the CIA and Wilson himself.

Nevertheless, in the years since Watergate, the use of the unnamed source has become both a custom of journalists and a liability. Unnamed sources, according to Fred Brown, writing for the Society of Professional Journalist’s Quill, “can produce a culture that is susceptible to manipulation and corrodes the credibility of everyone involved.” But the possibility of manipulation and diminished credibility are not the worst of it. Brown also noted that, “They [the reporters] know the name of someone who probably committed a crime; it’s a felony to identify an undercover CIA agent. They knew whether that person was a high-ranking official of the Bush Administration, and whether the president himself might reasonably have known of a decision to leak the name… They would not break a promise to a source… The real question is whether they should make the promise in the first place…”

The competing interests at stake pose difficult ethical and legal questions for those providing leaked information, those seeking it, those implicated by it, and those exposed to it. The commonly accepted journalistic notion of the public’s right to know, often trumps other interests. But, Brown said, “To be fair, it must be emphasized that in an environment such as Washington, where the stakes and the egos are enormous, important information never would become known if the leakers couldn’t leak without fear of reprisals.”

In the 95 years since the first Journalism school was formed at the Missouri School of Journalism, the push to make it a bona fide profession has been thwarted by the low public opinion of reporters in general, and by the use of questionable information gathering practices, including the anonymous source. In response, professional organizations, like the Society for Professional Journalists, have formed codes of ethics. According to Brown, the “SPJ’s Code of Ethics says journalists should ‘identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.’ It also says journalists should ‘always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity.’

The obligation of journalists is to balance skepticism with the search for truth, and to convey both to their audience. Trust in news outlets is often based on the verifiability of their information, the trustworthiness of their sources, and the quality of their presentation. Unnamed sources prevent news audiences from evaluating the story on most of these levels, and appear to let journalists “off the hook” for verifying their own sources and checking their own facts. But journalists often see it as a case of sources wanting to do the right thing without ultimately having to commit to it, protecting themselves as much as disclosing valuable information. One newspaper editor once remarked that after years of anonymously quoting Kissinger as a senior State Department official, they ran Kissinger’s photo with the caption: “Senior State Department official.”

In general, the value in favor of disclosure of information in the public interest has only become more prevalent. The Freedom of Information Act also presumes in favor of disclosure, carving out nine permissive, but not mandatory, exceptions to disclosure of government records. This presumption in favor of disclosure has trickled down to apply to newspapers as well. The courts will not tell a newspaper that it cannot disclose a source’s name with few exceptions; nor will the courts tell a newspaper that it must publish information. Nevertheless, the courts may compel a journalist to reveal the sources and methods of obtaining information if it is relevant to a grand jury investigation.

While the First Amendment’s protection of speech and press might seem to prevent the government from impeding in any way the free flow of information through the press between the government and the people, the courts have traditionally not found this protection to trump other laws of so-called general applicability. The press, it turns out, has no special immunity from the obligations of normal citizens, most notably, to be called to testify before a grand jury, and to be required to reveal sources. This lack of a complete privilege for journalists is not unique to the United States; the United Kingdom, and the European Convention on Human Rights are equally conditional in the grant of confidentiality to journalists with respect to sources.

In the case of reporters having information about the commission of crimes, and therefore being subpoenaed by a grand jury, the United States Supreme Court has traditionally held that reporters are not immune from subpoena or testimony. In Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court held that requiring reporters to appear and testify before grand juries does not abridge the freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment. In all the cases heard, reporters refused to reveal sources to grand juries; in none of the cases did the reporters claim an absolute privilege, instead they “assert that the reporter should not be forced either to appear or to testify before a grand jury or at trial until and unless sufficient grounds are shown for believing that the reporter possesses information relevant to a crime the grand jury is investigating, that the information the reporter has is available from other sources, and that the need for the information is sufficiently compelling to override the claimed invasion of First Amendment interests occasioned by the disclosure."

While the court did not suggest that newsgathering qualifies for no First Amendment protection, it did carve out a set of circumstances under which First Amendment protection applies, including “intrusions upon speech or assembly, … prior restraint or restriction on what the press may publish, … express or implied command that the press publish what it prefers to withhold.” Further, the court noted that “[t]he use of confidential sources by the press is not forbidden or restricted; reporters remain free to seek news from any source by means within the law. No attempt is made to require the press to publish its sources of information or indiscriminately to disclose them on request [emphasis added].” In other words, reporters can expect their promise of confidentiality to anonymous sources to be honored by the courts, under certain circumstances. If the news is sought lawfully, the press will not be required to publish sources or expected to hand out, willy-nilly, the names of its sources. But if there is a compelling public policy interest, as in a grand jury investigation, especially of a criminal matter, the press will be required to reveal sources and testify under subpoena.

The Court was largely unconcerned about the chilling effect foreseeable when informants learned that their information and names could be made available to grand juries. Ultimately, the Court determined that the public interest in fighting crime was greater than the public interest in reading about it.

Finally the majority rejected the notion that a constitutional shield is necessary, expressing a fair amount of disdain for the culture of anonymous informants seeking to escape the justice system under the seemingly welcoming umbrella of the First Amendment. “Neither are we now convinced that a virtually impenetrable constitutional shield, beyond legislative or judicial control, should be forged to protect a private system of informers operated by the press to report on criminal conduct, a system … unaccountable to the public, … a threat to the citizen’s equally justifiable expectations of privacy, … equally protect[ing] well-intentioned informants and those who … otherwise betray their trust …”

Despite this clear rejection of a judicially interpreted constitutional shield, the majority did not reject out of hand the possibility that legislatures, including Congress, could “determine whether a statutory newsman’s privilege is necessary and desirable and to fashion standards and rules as narrow or broad as deemed necessary to deal with the evil discerned, and equally important, to refashion those rules as experience from time to time may dictate.” In other words, the Court did not find a Constitutional shield, but would not object to a legislative determination in favor of creating a privilege, with appropriate standards and limitations.

Furthermore, the majority believed that the press “is far from helpless to protect itself from harassment or substantial harm” and observed that the Department of Justice had already issued guidelines for issuing subpoenas to journalists, asking prosecutors in a DOJ Memo dated September 2, 1970, to weigh the “limiting effect” on First Amendment rights against “the public interest to be served in the fair administration of justice.” And finally, the majority expressed confidence that the judicial control over the scope and manner of inquiry in a grand jury investigation would be properly observant of both the First and Fifth Amendments. Between avenues of self-help, the restraint of the judicial process, and the pragmatism of prosecutors, the threat to journalists and their sources, the Court reasoned, was not overwhelming.

Justice Powell in his rather prescient concurrence, however, insisted on narrowing the scope of the court’s holding with regard to the limited privilege of reporters in protecting their sources. “We do not hold… that state and federal authorities are free to ‘annex’ the news media as ‘an investigative arm of government.’” Powell established a litmus test for reporters called to testify before a grand jury: if a reporter is called to give information with only a remote relationship to the investigation or, if he has a reasonable belief that implicating his confidential source will not serve a legitimate need of law enforcement, he can file a motion to quash and obtain an appropriate protective order. Journalists have come to view this concurrence, as well as Stewart’s dissent as carving out a limited privilege for journalists; that is, if the prosecutor fails to show relevance of the journalist’s testimony and a legitimate need for the testimony, the journalist should be able to refuse to testify and obtain a protective order preventing testimony from being compelled. The Bush Administration Department of Justice appears to disagree.

The qualified privilege is frequently disregarded, in part because prosecutors usually only request testimony of a reporter when they can not obtain the information in some way that does not offend the news media’s First Amendment sensibilities, or otherwise hinder the free flow of information from the press to the people. In other words, subpoenas often only come when there is no other way to obtain information critical to an investigation. Many in the DOJ could argue that this is the case in the Valerie Plame case.

Despite the qualification of the “privilege” and the lack of a First Amendment or other statutory federal shield for reporters who want to maintain anonymous sources, Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., established another limitation of the First Amendment – Minnesota’s promissory estoppel doctrine. In that case, the plaintiff, a public relations consultant, offered reporters documents about the criminal record of his client’s opponent on condition of anonymity. Reporters from two newspapers accepted the information on the plaintiff’s terms, but their editors, over the reporters’ objections, chose to include the plaintiff’s name, because they deemed the source of the leak newsworthy.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the promise not to disclose the name of the source was not a contract, and that while the plaintiff might have a cause of action for breach of the promise of confidentiality on a promissory estoppel theory, judging in favor of that theory would violate the First Amendment. The plaintiff, now unemployable in politics, appealed on this promissory estoppel theory.

The Supreme Court reversed, finding that “generally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects on its ability to gather and report the news.” Justice White, for the majority, found no special immunity for newspaper publishers “from the application of general laws” and found that Minnesota’s doctrine of promissory estoppel is a “law of general applicability” and that “[t]he First Amendment does not forbid its application to the press.”

Using the generally accepted principle that the press can use information lawfully obtained, the Court found further ground for ruling against the newspapers. “It is not at all clear that respondents obtained Cohen’s name ‘lawfully’ in this case, at least for purposes of publishing it … respondents obtained Cohen’s name only by making a promise that they did not honor. The dissenting opinions suggest that the press should not be subject to any law … which in any fashion or to any degree limits or restricts the press’ right to report truthful information. The First Amendment does not grant the press such limitless protection.”

On the one hand, the Supreme Court wanted to make it clear that the First Amendment does not exempt the press from so-called “laws of general applicability” – that is, it did not want to create a special immunity for the press. On the other hand, the Supreme Court made it clear that information provided to the press under the condition of anonymity, where promissory estoppel doctrine applies, requires that the press honor that condition, and protect the source. In other words, the First Amendment does not act as a shield in either direction – if a reporter has information about a crime that is relevant to a grand jury inquiry, he or she must divulge the source; if a reporter has information lawfully obtained under condition of anonymity, and it only remains lawful if the condition is honored, he or she must not divulge the source.

This could create a quandary for the reporter who, in a jurisdiction applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel, promises confidentiality to a source in exchange for information about a criminal act or acts. A grand jury could subpoena the reporter and compel his testimony about the methods of obtaining information about the criminal activity, including the source. Once the grand jury hands down indictments and the record becomes public, the journalist’s newspaper could hardly resist covering the trial and its outcomes. If it chooses to then disclose the name of the source, reasoning that the information is now a matter of public record and newsworthiness, and since the first story for which the promise was made (and that caused the reporter to be haled into court) was already published, the source could conceivably sue the reporter and newspaper publisher. It is likely under the circumstances just described that a newspaper would not be found liable, but the cost of such litigation, with or without grand jury investigations, would cause a reporter (and his or her editor) to think more than twice before making such a promise.

Credibility, verifiability, transparency are values held dear by democratic institutions, not least among them, the press. The so-called Fourth Estate has an obligation to report not only the facts, but to do so in a timely and relevant fashion. This often pushes them to try to “scoop” their competition, to get information before it’s been made official, and to reveal it to their readers or viewers in the name of the public’s right to know. Sometimes the race to the headline yields tenuous results – corrections are a commonplace, and new standards for attributions and writing credits are coming into vogue as the press comes under scrutiny for its practices. Robert Novak is not alone in this scrutiny. But they are frequently put between a rock and a hard place: report the news that’s “fit to print,” honor promises of anonymity to sources with whom you have an ongoing relationship or who would be terribly damaged by being “outed,” and run the risk of being forced to disregard the promise in the name of a grand jury investigation.

Often the difference between a source who remains confidential and a source who is “outed” is the degree to which the source was involved with or responsible for illegal activity. The cases discussed here in which the courts did not believe that the obligation to keep a source confidential should stand involved sources engaged in illegal activities at the heart of ongoing criminal investigations or crime prevention programs, most notably, drug offenses. Where an obligation to protect a source has been found, the source was not engaged in illegal activity, merely unethical activity. The information he provided was already a matter of public record – the journalists involved could have obtained that information on their own. The courts are unconcerned with the newsworthiness of a story; they are concerned only with the impact the information provided could have on law enforcement, or the effect disclosing the source’s identity could have on his livelihood.

Ultimately, it’s a gamble.

Is Wonkette the feminine form of the noun Blogger?

2004-12-01T18:06:00.000-05:00

I was having a conversation at Murph's in Sag Harbor on Friday night, about bloggers that are influential. Nick Denton was (of course) mentioned - Gawker being what Gawker is. Denton had recommended Wonkette (of course), I'm sure in no small part because Ms. Cox has been on the cover of the Sunday Times Magazine and is widely ogled via web browsers of would-be Mr. Wonkette's (though as her avid readers know, there already is a Mr. Wonkette, and he doesn't mind the anal sex jokes, or perhaps, the act itself). We tossed about TalkingPointsMemo's Joshua Micah Marshall, the infamous Atrios, Kos, Kaus, Andrew Sullivan, and various and sundry others.

There were two things I noticed: despite the balanced list I just provided, most of the bloggers who came to mind were generally conservative, and all, excepting Ms. Cox, were men.

Where are the female bloggers (I don't count myself on the list, on account of being completely uninfluential)? Post and tell me.

A Day of Thanksgiving

2004-11-24T11:31:00.000-05:00

tomorrow is a day of national thanksgiving. 384 years ago, pilgrims came to the new world to get away from Old Europe, to worship freely, to make a new life, to cultivate the land, to build a 'city on a hill' (sure, and to spread disease, fight with native americans, and persecute one another in the spirit of Puritanism, but let's keep our eyes on the ball).

nearly four centuries later, we live in a world in flux - and some of us are feeling pessimistic about the future. i think, if only in comparison to today, better days are ahead of us. but i won't go into politics or the other crap we all usually talk about. instead, i'm going to tell you something really amazing.

scientists from 70 countries, in cooperation with one another in a project called "Census of Marine Life", have discovered 178 new species of marine life, including a "gold-speckled and red-striped goby fish, found in Guam's waters, that somehow lives in partnership with a snapping shrimp at its tail. While the goby stands sentinel, the shrimps dig a burrow that both use for shelter."

these scientists believe they will eventually find 20,000 species of fish, and up to 1.98 million species of animals and plants. the price tag thus far has been $125 million, but is expected to reach a billion over the ten years the project will take; most of the money is being provided by participating governments.

i don't know about you, but i find discovery to be incredibly uplifting. now we know about 178 more species that were there and we didn't see them - what else is there? at this point you're thinking - what the hell is she talking about? i'm talking about discovery. i'm talking about the human need to understand the world around us, to describe it, to list it and name it, to know where it came from, to see it and touch it, to marvel at it, to take note of it before it's gone. and then to ask, what's next?

this is one of those things for which we should give thanks. that despite political upheavals the world over, there are some people who are still hard at work on discovery.

and if you want to check out the Census, go to http://www.coml.org.

happy thanksgiving everyone.

Morality is a Four Letter Word

2004-11-21T23:01:00.000-05:00

Okay, no it's not. But you know what I mean.

So the other night, I'm having a perfectly reasonable conversation about nothing in particular on a roof deck looking north up the island of Manhattan. Suddenly, the conversation shifted.

"The real place that you liberals go wrong is on school prayer," he said.

This, as it was intended to, led the conversation down a rabbit hole. Somehow, abortion was being used as an analogy to school prayer. I walked out on the conversation, quite shaken by how quickly two things on which there is actually widespread public agreement (against school-sponsored prayer and for mostly legal abortion) was used to paint me as an out-of-touch liberal.

I have nothing against the word "liberal." In fact, I believe that it is wrong for liberals to run from the word; I think we should defend language as fiercely as ideology, and not flee from words that conservatives turn into "bad" words. But as he understands the word, I bear little resemblance to one. I am not a Communist, for starters, and I don't particularly want to sacrifice Christians in Madison Square Garden, though I am beginning to change my mind.

Today, in the light of both sobriety and distance from my moral assailant, I realized something that all Democrats should take to heart.

At this stage of the game, Republicans control the "morals" debate. They own the word "moral." So the second the conversation turns to "morals" and Democrats do not immediately accuse them of changing the debate, condescending to religious people by implying that they have and deserve no civic life beyond their churches, and using a false moral high ground to personally attack the Democrat with which they are speaking ("You"), we lose the match.

Until we can as subtly shift back the subject of morality to include broader themes of ethics, loyalty, and respect as they shifted it to gays, God and guns, we should simply walk away from the "morals" conversation, and stop invoking it in our own discussions about what's next for both America and for the Democratic Party. When we say "morals" it doesn't mean what we want it to mean; it means what they want it to mean. The first thing we need is control. We get it by refusing to fall prey to their tactics.

Let's replay the other night, then:

"The real place that you liberals go wrong is on school prayer," he said.

"I'm quite certain that our conversation had nothing to do with school prayer. I'm also quite certain that Americans, Christian or not, have far more important concerns with respect to their children, their children's education, and for that matter, their nation, than whether or not school prayer should be permitted. Furthermore, I will not submit to being lectured to by someone so willing to go on a personal attack aimed at the simple fact that you attend a church to worship your God, and I do not. I find nothing so insulting as your diversion, condescension, and derision, and I won't continue this conversation," I said.

No, I didn't say it. But next time (and there's always a next time), I will.

The New Partisanship

2004-11-15T08:44:00.000-05:00

A lot of the disenchanted Blue voters I talk to believe that the country is deeply divided and may never be made whole. A lot of the triumphant Red voters I talk to are bewildered by the defiant talk of Blue voters who aren't just falling in line, converting to Falwellian Christianity, and getting behind the President. To them the country is deeply divided, but they won, after all, and the defeated must convert or go away. It's the political Rapture.

Or is it? Despite these bleak visions of America's next four years (and I, too, think these are bleak times), the country seems to have settled into a comfortable center from an ideological, and dare I say it, moral perspective. Most Americans think abortion should remain legal (though they vary over restrictions); most Americans support civil unions or even marriage for homosexuals; and most Americans think that the right to bear arms is not absolute. The voters in 2004 reflect these mores; but there are interesting demographic notes in the exit polls.

The majority of voters turned out to be from the South and Midwest. Only 22 percent of the vote was from the Northeast, and only 20 percent from the West. This seems slightly out of whack with population concentration. Suburban voters made up 45 percent of the vote, 30 percent were from urban areas; only 25 percent were from rural areas. Voters were divided on whether the country was going in the right direction, but perhaps more importantly, they were divided on whether government could or should do more to solve our problems. And of course, the percentage of voters who approved of George Bush's performance on the job was the same as the percentage who ultimately voted for him.

So what does that really tell us? Look, there's a lot about Moral Majority turn-out here. And the convenient narrative that people said "moral values" so Bush is gonna give 'em moral values, is helping only one group - and that's what TalkingPointsMemo.com is now calling the "radical clerics," Falwell, Dobson, Robertson.

But here's what may have happened: Blue voters didn't get out the vote the way they should've. The Northeast and West didn't turn out enough voters to swing the popular vote (which might not have changed anything electorally but would've stalled a second Bush term). So who voted? Strangely, suburban folks who aren't so sure government can do anything about our problems anyway. And here's the hypothesis about the psychology of the vote:

There are people in the country who are deeply divided - I'll call them the Far Right v. Everyone Else. The trouble is, while Everyone Else is neatly and closely divided, there are two issues that emerged as something we could all agree on. 70+ percent of us are seriously concerned about the state of health care in this country; and 70+ percent of us are seriously concerned about terrorism. But it's easier to believe that government can fight terrorists than that they can solve the problem of health care. Defending the country from terrorist attack seems like a basic obligation of the federal government; making health care affordable and accessible seems like a pipe dream.

The average, Red State vote, then, was about what we think we can do, versus what we think we can't. Kerry's litany of policies represented all the things we wish government can do, but that we just don't believe it can or will do. Bush's posturing and war-making represented a sense of action. And Americans are nothing if not dedicated to action.

To be fair, it's not John Kerry's fault that his policies seemed to reflect something impossible. That's years and years of political gridlock on the most important social and economic issues in America; that's decades of talk that there's no meaningful difference between the two parties; that's administration after administration of talk and no action on the policies that affect Americans' daily lives. Ever the optimists, Americans decided to go for what we can do over what we can't.

And as an additional note about the Red versus Blue staters, and this is purely anecdotal: Blue voters lose a few times and give up, convinced that the rest of the country's gone mad and that nothing can be done; Red voters lose a few times and grow ever stronger and more convinced that they are right. Blue voters aren't sure their votes count; Red voters are sure theirs do.

I propose that Democrats get serious about the Giuliani Way - or what I like to call "Doing the Obvious Things First". Let's figure out what government can do to help people and improve our way of life, and let's do that. And then let's be realistic about how we're doing on the other stuff - no parsing, just plain talk. As John Avlon of the New York Sun, and author of Independent Nation: How Centrism is Changing American Politics, recently pointed out - the country isn't deeply divided, just closely divided. A few points swing and it would've been a different election. We've got to stop pouting, get up off the mat, and get to work on the problem of gridlock, inaction and malaise that defines the realm of domestic politics. We've got to fight the good fight, and get something done.

Kick Her to The Curb: Donna Brazile as DNC Chair? No.

2004-11-08T23:01:00.000-05:00

Donna Brazile's name is in the hat for the next DNC Chair. Why should we oppose her? I count two presidential elections she didn't win or help to win as the biggest reasons, but the continued lackluster support for Party's hand-picked candidates will only serve to prolong Democratic losses.

Donna Brazile is very smart, and very tough; but she is solely self-interested. She has her own battles to fight, and is better off doing them in private practice as a grassroots consultant. Let her do fake battle with Bay Buchanan on Inside Politics, and leave guiding a flagging Democratic National Committee to someone more interested in the American people than her book sales.

That's as nice as I can be. I remember standing at the kitchen counter each weekend in 2000, reading the LA Times. The sheer number of times I read nagging complaints about Gore and the campaign cited to "sources close to the campaign" made me want to scream. When Brazile became a talking head on CNN, I realized she, Chris Lehane, and others were the likely traitors. Perhaps "traitor" is too strong a word, but when no less than the United States Presidency is on the line, you learn to fake loyalty and keep you mouth shut.

Since then, Brazile has served alternately as a self-interested agent acting on her own behalf and as an advisor to the Kerry campaign. Her "help" may have done more harm than good. At least weekly, she appears opposite Pat Buchanan's sister, Bay, on Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics to debate some issue of the day. It's a clever feint, three middle aged women sitting down for a civil chat about American politics. But what it really displays is Judy's lack of expertise, Bay's cruel conservatism, and Donna's smug superiority.

She can't lead a campaign to victory, she can't learn to dance with them that brung her, she can't lead a party in need of serious ideological reinvigoration. Let her join forces with the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition or the NAACP, two organizations who share her core passions: racial intolerance and poverty. I'm sure she would serve those organizations well. But her selfishness and self-interest will only serve to marginalize further the minority party in Washington.

Contact the DNC at www.democrats.org to let them know you disapprove of her as a candidate for McAuliffe's post. This has to be a major overhaul, not just in voter outreach and education, but in all levels of the party. The Chairperson gets picked in January. Act now.

Here's a few words from the horse's mouth:

On Race

"If the past is indeed prologue, this message has been lost on Sen. John Kerry's (Mass.) campaign, which has failed to understand how to navigate one of the most important issues in American politics: race relations and diversity. For those of us who were part of Jackson's historic journey, the lesson can boil down to two words: respect and inclusion." Roll Call, 5/4/04

On Al Gore

"Al Gore's image is robotic in many Americans' minds, but there is also a livid side to him, according to a new memoir by his former presidential campaign manager, Donna Brazile. The book, "Cooking With Grease," recounts a moment in May 2000 when Gore pulled Brazile and Tony Coelho, then the campaign's chairman, out of a fundraising party. Angry over news reports of campaign disarray and quarrels between the two, Brazile writes, Gore "said, 'Tony, you have a bad attitude and can't get along with people.' He beat up on Tony so bad and I finally looked at him and said, 'Sir, with all due respect, Tony has a great attitude. . . . Who are you to beat up on Tony?' " Brazile writes: Gore "was angry, nearly red in the face in response to what I was saying, but I continued, telling him, 'I'm not afraid of you.' . . . He was coming on so strong, really overbearing, like he wanted to kill the world, and Tony and I were his prime targets." The next month, Coelho resigned." The Washington Post, 5/16/04

"Even during the campaign, Gore was surrounded mainly by paid professionals, not loyalists. And, afterward, his circle, such as it was, fractured and went its own way. Unlike Clinton, who could draw on a huge pool of friends for advice, Gore lacked the gift, or the patience, for showing gratitude, for keeping in close touch. Donna Brazile complained that she had never got so much as a thank-you note for her service in 2000, and many who had worked for Gore or who had given serious money to the campaign felt the same." New Yorker, 9/13/04

On Bob Shrum

"Shrum's alliance with the so-called "Massachusetts Mafia" has yielded fantastic results. Over the course of the campaign, the biggest threats to his power have acrimoniously left the campaign. Lehane quit in September, Jordan was fired in November, celebrated adman Jim Margolis unhappily departed in April, and speechwriter Andrei Cherny followed soon after. There are explanations for each of these departures that have nothing to do with Shrum. But the pattern is suspicious. Donna Brazile, a good friend of Shrum's who also tangled with him during the Gore campaign, told me, "Bob is a tenacious fighter. I've been with him. He's a dirty, nasty street fighter. Actually, he's the kind that we desperately need in the Democratic Party. We have so many peace-loving Kumbaya people. Bob doesn't have a problem hitting." The New Republic, 8/2/04

"Shrum's friends are both loyal to him and cognizant of his flaws. They admire, above all, his liberal fervor, his savvy and his unyielding commitment to what he believes. They say he makes too easy a target. "He gets too much blame when things go wrong and never enough credit," says Donna Brazile, who ran Gore's campaign in 2000. "You hear all these stories, but I think Bob is misunderstood. This is a very powerful person. He has a lot of powerful friends and a very powerful personality. And he's had to fight hard to get his seat at the table. . . . And I thank God he's out there fighting on my side." Washington Post, 9/10/04

On Her Own Self Interest

"To those on his side, Lehane was invaluable. During the 2000 primaries, Donna Brazile, then Gore's campaign manager, was quoted as saying that Republicans would "rather take pictures with black children than feed them." Republicans wanted Gore to fire her. Brazile's first call for help: Not to Gore. To Lehane. Within hours, he put her in touch with retired Gen. Colin Powell to explain what happened. By being able to foresee the lifespan of a bad story, like this, colleagues marvel at Lehane's ability to short-circuit a five-day bomb into one. "I knew he'd have my back, and he'd spin it right," Brazile, now a CNN commentator, said. "He is so smart, so knowledgeable, and if you want to bend the ear of one of the top reporters, he can do it." 10/24/04, San Francisco Chronicle Magazine

On Bush v. Kerry

"Sept. 11 was the defining moment when Bush not only solidified his place in history but also bonded with the American people," said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. "For voters who are still unsure about John Kerry, it reminds them that it was George Bush who gave them comfort and stood strong." Baltimore Sun, 9/11/04

An Open Letter to Congressman David Wu

2004-11-08T17:56:00.000-05:00

I am a third year law student at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, a brand consultant, and a citizen of the State of Oregon and the 1st Congressional District. I voted for you this year, as did my entire family. My parents helped to cosponsor fundraisers for you, and walked precincts and parade routes with you to help get out the vote. Their support goes back to your first run for Congress, when a friend of mine brought us to a house party for you with Gloria Steinem and Elizabeth Furst.

You shop at the same Costco as my parents; you live in the same city, you believe in the same principles. They have voted for you every time, given you their money, their support, their sweat and their belief. While you have delivered for the State of Oregon, and for the 1st Congressional District, sadly, the Democratic Party has fallen short.

My parents have always taught my brother and I to be politically informed and active citizens. They are not mere hangers-on. They have spoken with passion and acted with confidence in the public sphere to reform public education in Oregon, register voters in the 1960s South, and to promote long-held principles of social justice.

Both sides of my family have been on this continent for more than 300 years, fighting in the French and Indian, Revolutionary and Civil Wars, as well as World War II. They have been members of the Daughters of the American Revolution; they have donated supplies to the Lewis & Clarke Expedition; they have moved West with each wave of Manifest Destiny; they have worked in public service and civil service as postmen, phone operators, teachers, school district superintendents. They have built and believed in this country.

Today, like many Democratic voters, their passion and confidence have been severely damaged. My father has cancelled subscriptions, thrown out books, and deleted emails he sent to his friends and colleagues promoting Democratic ideals, your candidacy and the candidacy of Senator John Kerry. My mother is no longer interested in discussing politics. They are convinced that the culture war has been fought and lost, and they are angry. So am I.

I spent the summer traveling around talking to people in focus groups in Atlanta, Chicago and San Diego about USA Network, and about that name “USA” and all that it stood for. We spoke to people who were fiercely patriotic, be they conservative, liberal, or moderate. We spoke to people who were sad and scared and uncertain. We spoke to people with teenage children who are terrified of a draft. We spoke to African-Americans in Atlanta who do not believe in the American Dream anymore. We spoke to Christians who were ashamed of the flag. We spoke to Americans who felt that America’s best attributes are hope, diversity and peace.

We didn’t screen them for these beliefs. We screened them for watching 35 hours a week of television. These were average Americans, good people, many of whom were recent immigrants, members of the Armed Services, parents, people of faith, members of racial and sexual minorities, and all of whom were doing the best they can. I respect these people. These people live in red counties, in red states. They want to know that they are safe, that they have an opportunity to be equal, to prosper, to be free.

My parents are no different.

It is the Democratic Party’s job to remind Americans of their beliefs in those values: security, equality, prosperity and freedom. It is the Democratic Party’s job to deliver for women, and racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities rather than merely expecting their vote while rolling over on welfare reform, entitlement reform, crime legislation, environmental regulations, judicial nominees, minimum wage increases, fair labor standards, health care and health costs, homeland security and military readiness.

I know that Democrats in Congress are the minority party, and that it is a Sisyphean battle to roll the Republican monolith uphill, but it is a fight worth winning. Winning requires a winning strategy; so far the Democrats have exceptional tactics but lack the vision and inspiration necessary to remind people that our party embodies all that is great about America.

My parents frequently lamented that your campaign was run by kids with no experience, and little connection to the community; I do not know if that was a fair assessment, but I do know that you will always benefit from the help of passionate citizens who lived and raised children in your district, who have the gravitas of maturity combined with the optimism of a generation.

I have two pleas, then, that I offer to you: First, reach out to my parents and to people like them. It will be the worst thing to happen to democracy to lose these kinds of voters and citizens. Second, send out people like me to understand the divisions and the common ground between so-called Red States and Blue States. Listen to our recommendations, collaborate with us on strategy, bring people back to the Democratic fold.

My family wants to help. We are going to stay and fight. Will you, and your brethren in Congress, help us help you?

"Moral Values" v. "Terrorism"

2004-11-06T16:08:00.000-05:00

The exit polls are in much dispute. Some one in five people captured by the exit polls (which we already know are terribly erroneous), cited "Moral Values" as the most important issue in the election; a nearly equal number cited "Terrorism."

We think we know what that means. Blue Staters assume "moral values" mean gay haters and anti-choice/anti-women voters. Red Staters could mean any number of things, though. They could mean morality in that religious sense that means they were concerned about school prayer, abortion and gay marriage; it could mean something much more subtle. It could mean "trust."

Perhaps we were missing the code: "flip-flopper" meant lacking in conviction, weak; "you can run but you can't hide" meant cowardly; mocking the use of the word "sensitive" with respect to conducting foreign policy meant "effeminate"; "Massachussetts liberal" meant out-of-touch, elite, Ivy League, superior.

And maybe after 8 years of conflating "character" with "morality" and insisting that an affair disqualified someone from being able to hold the office of the President, "moral values" came to mean "character".

But what about "Terrorism"? Maybe "terrorism" means "fear" or "revenge". I've been speaking to people here in New York who are far more concerned about avenging the deaths of 3,000 people in Lower Manhattan than they are about spending the lives of thousands more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and likely, elsewhere. There is a taste for vengeance, for retribution, that courses through the veins of every New Yorker; what has been fascinating to me in the years after 9/11, is that when I travel outside New York, 9/11 is so top of mind to Americans everywhere - they feel strongly that it's "their day, too."

There is no question that it was an incredibly sad and terrifying day; I sat 3000 miles away and can tell you that my life changed that day - things crystallized, became clear, I knew where I was supposed to be, what I was supposed to do.

Blue Staters shouldn't be so dismissive of these terms, "moral values" and "terrorism." They should take the time to acknowledge that character was part of their consideration of George W. Bush as much as anything else; for liberals, Bush began his first term as a liar and a thief and a moron. You can't say that's not a question of character, and even of morality. And as we railed against the War in Iraq, it was because we were far more concerned about Al Qaeda and the terrorist threat. We came late to the party, we figured; but better late than never. And as Americans, we know that we can defeat any foe.

When I look at the exit polls, I'm struck by something - people who voted for Bush thought about him in overwhelmingly positive ways, and while those who voted for Kerry thought highly of him, they thought slightly less highly of him than their Bush-supporting counterparts. We weren't sold on Kerry; we wanted to be, but we weren't.

It's time to get out in the field to find out why people voted the way they did - not with more quantitative data that could mean so many things; but with a good qualitative study to get to the heart of what it means to be an American today. Some things to find out would include:

Why we vote

What we think of elections and political campaigns

Brand attributes of the two parties

Why we register with one party or another

What we expect from a president

What terrorism is

What character is

What morality's place in politics is

The best/worst things about America

The best/worst things about Americans

What "liberal" and "conservative" and "independent" and "moderate" mean

What people think about news coverage

And so on.

It'd take about $300,000 to do a comprehensive study, talking to 450 to 600 people in depth about this stuff. If anyone has any thoughts on where to get the dough, let me know.

And if there are other things we should find out, tell me by posting a comment below.

And Now - The Blue List

2004-11-05T16:50:00.000-05:00

And now for something slightly different - states in which Republicans should be defeated because they belong to Democrats! Ah, what hubris...

Blue State Republican Governors Up For Reelection in 2006

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California

M. Jodi Bell, Connecticut

Linda Lingle, Hawaii

Robert Ehrlich, Maryland

Mitt Romney, Massachusetts

Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota

George Pataki, New York

Don Carcieri, Rhode Island

Blue State Republican Senators Up For Reelection in 2006

Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania

Olympia Snowe, Maine

Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island [Though he's threatening to leave the party.]

Blue State Democratic Governors Up For Reelection in 2006 (Who face Republican encroachment)

Bill Richardson, New Mexico

Ted Kulongoski, Oregon

Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania

John Baldacci, Maine

Let's stick up for our friends, and make some more.

As Promised - The Red List

2004-11-05T16:46:00.000-05:00

I said I'd compile a list of soft Red States, of Republican Senators up for reelection in 2006, and Democratic Incumbent Senators also up for reelection in 2006 in need of protection.

I've defined soft red states in the following ways:

Quasi-Blue - Democratic Governor, Both Senators, Some Congressmen: West Virginia

Mushy - Democratic Senators, Some Democratic Congressmen: Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota

Soft - Democratic Governor, One Senator: Louisiana and Montana

Flexible - Either a Democratic Senator or a Democratic Governor, and Some Democratic Congressmen: Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia.

In these soft red states, there are Republican Senators up for reelection:

Conrad Burns (R-MT)

Richard Lugar (R-IN)

John Ensign (R-NV)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Bill Frist (R-TN)

George Allen (R-VA)

And there are Democrat Senators in need of protection in Red States:

Robert Byrd (D-WV) [Though in fairness I don't expect him to run again; he's older than God.]

Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Also, there are some Democrat Governors in need of protection in Red States:

Janet Napolitano, Arizona

Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas

Brad Henry, Oklahoma

Phil Bredesen, Tennessee

Mark Warner, Virginia

David Freudenthal, Wyoming

So, let's get started. Contact your state party chairs.
Arkansas Democratic Party

Phone: 501-374-2361

Fax: 501-376-8409
Arizona Democratic Party

Phone: 602-257-9136

Fax: 602-257-8268
Colorado Democratic Party

Phone: 303-830-8989

Fax: 303-830-2743
Florida Democratic Party

Phone: 904-222-3411

Fax: 904-222-0916
Indiana Democratic Party

Phone: 317-231-7100

Fax: 317-231-7129

Email: amyiop@aol.com
Kansas Democratic Party

Phone: 913-234-0425

Fax: 913-234-8420
Louisiana Democratic Party

Phone: 504-336-4155

Fax: 504-336-0046

Email: 74147.2516@compuserve.com
Montana Democratic Party

Phone: 406-442-9520

Fax: 406-442-9534
Nebraska Democratic Party

Phone: 402-475-4584

Fax: 402-475-4639

Email: nebrdems@inetnebr.com
Nevada Democratic Party

Phone: 702-735-1600

Fax: 702-256-0652

Email: nvdems@aol.com
North Carolina Democratic Party

Phone: 919-821-2777

Fax: 919-821-4778
North Dakota Democratic Party

Phone:701-255-0460

Fax: 701-255-7823

Email: people@ndparty.org
Oklahoma Democratic Party

Phone: 405-239-2700

Fax: 405-236-8009

Email: Okdem2@ionet.net
South Dakota Democratic Party

Phone: 605-335-7337

Fax: 605-335-7401
Tennessee Democratic Party

Phone: 615-327-9779

Fax: 615-327-9759

Email: tdp1997@aol.com
Virginia Democratic Party

Phone: 804-644-1966

Fax: 804-343-3642
West Virginia Democratic Party

Phone: 304-342-8121

Fax: 304-342-8122
Wyoming Democratic Party

Phone: 307-637-8940

Fax: 307-637-8947

Happy Hunting.

Game On

2004-11-03T12:10:00.000-05:00

Maybe you're too young to remember 1968. Maybe you didn't notice the build up of institutions like the Project for an American Century, the Heritage Institute, the American Enterprise Institute. Maybe the 1994 mid-term Congressional elections didn't make a dent. Maybe 2000 seemed like one of those wacky electoral college flukes.

But this - this is war.

What you didn't notice in 1968, or the 1970s, or 1994 or 2000 is that the far right elements of this country - people who do not believe in a rule of law, only a rule of God, people who do not believe in equal protection and due process, only retribution and bigotry, people who would sacrifice essential freedom for a little false sense of safety - have declared war on moderates and liberals, on enlightenment principles of reason and equality. They don't merely want us politically irrelevant, they want us converted or burning in Hell.

And they will not rest. Last night proved that. We now know that 11 states with a wedge issue ballot measure can shift the focus and makeup of voters away from an amoral President who lies at will and refuses to acknowledge or apologize for his mistakes toward some fantasy-land version of immoral, filthy liberals.

But we can't afford to relax, to chill out, to stop feeling the anger we are or should be feeling. It is time to rumble.

Hunter Thompson wrote in 1992 that "It's time to kick the rat bastards out of the Temple; we must rumble." For ten years I've thought the rat bastards were on the other side of the aisle, but they're not. The Democratic party, while now modernized and out of debt, is in serious need of what is called a "repositioning." And the first step is to embody the name of the party and abandon the unholy cabal of celebrities and insiders that run the show without making a difference.

There are mid-term elections on the horizon. Later today I will post the names of all the Republican Congressmen and Senators who will be seeking reelection in 2006. Any who have been accused already of ethics violations or criminal wrongdoing should undergo impeachment proceedings. A new Democratic minority in Congress should seek the same for the President who has, again as Thompson wrote in 1992 about 41, "committed more High Crimes and Misdemeanors in and around the Oval Office than Nixon would have been impeached for if he hadn't resigned."

It is time to rumble; but a fight can not exist on anger alone. Anger is the fuel; an articulation of principles is the vehicle. We must decide what we stand for, and we must stand for it. We must have an answer for every question that people can understand, that draws a line in the sand, that emphasizes the difference between Us and Them.

We need to peel off moderates from the right-wing, expose them as the traitors that they are - to principles of republican democracy, to the Constitution, to the American people - and isolate the right-wing in a small cell of irrelevance.

Our long national nightmare has just begun.

This president will appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices. Democrats in Congress must block them; Americans must campaign against them, expose their weaknesses and criminality.

This president will continue to lie and war his way through the Middle East. Democrats must make this impossible through blocking appropriations and authorizations, exposing failures, and finally dealing with the haunting specter of a draft.

Most importantly, this president thinks of the Constitution as a nuisance and as something that allows deviants, miscreants and atheists to flourish; it is not the source of his wisdom as a politician or a president - some hackneyed notion of God is.

This president is emblematic of the terrorist threat - an oligarch with fundamentalist tendencies who wishes to take by force and destroy those who disagree with him.

We must end the Republican reign. We must take it seriously, we must hang on to the anger, we must Rumble.