Right Side of the Rainbow

Cox & Forkum:

February 2, 2005, marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand.

Today it's often taken for granted that "freedom" is an obvious good. But not everyone longs for and values freedom. Some consider it a moral duty to subjugate others for the sake of some "higher" good, whether for the sake of Allah in the Middle East or for the sake of the "common good" in the West. Freedom cannot be spread abroad nor protected here at home without a moral defense of individualism and capitalism. Ayn Rand provided that defense and many other ideas in her philosophy of Objectivism.

Posted by Paul at 11:29 PM | Permalink

In an essay for the Washington Post in which he argues against ending filibusters of judicial nominations, blogger Kevin Drum gets this wrong:

In other words, if Democrats don't play ball, [Majority Leader Bill] Frist reserves the right to invoke the "nuclear option": a parliamentary ruling that eliminates judicial filibusters by fiat, without a vote of the Senate.

The Senate will vote. But rather than voting directly on a change in Senate rules, which would require a supermajority to prevail, here's how will it happen, if it happens.

When the Democrats begin filibustering a judicial nomination, a Republican member -- presumably, Sen. Frist -- will rise to make a point of order, namely that the filibustering of judicial nominations is unconstitutional. The chair -- normally a freshman Republican senator, but on this occasion Vice President Cheney, who is president of the Senate -- will agree that such a filibuster is unconstitutional and rule it out of order. That's the "nuke."

A Democrat member -- presumably Sen. Reid, the minority leader -- will appeal from the decision of the chair. The question will then be put to the senators, "Should the decision of the chair be sustained?" A decision of the chair is sustained if a simple majority of the senators vote to sustain it.

The Republicans can't muster the supermajority needed to change the Senate rules to end filibusters of judicial nominations. But they can muster the simple majority needed to uphold a decision of the chair. It's a parliamentary maneuver, made possible by one party holding a majority of the Senate seats and the White House.

But, contrary to what Kevin Drum wrote, the Senate will vote.

Posted by Paul at 7:36 PM | Permalink

The trouble started Saturday, and got worse yesterday. By this afternoon, my MT software wasn't working at all.

Michael is working on it and I've filed a help ticket with the MT staff. But my technical difficulties explain why posting was light yesterday and why it will be again today. I hope to be back to full-bore tomorrow.

Posted by Paul at 7:28 PM | Permalink

Today was one for the history books, wasn't it?

For the first time in more than 50 years, Iraqis cast ballots in democratic elections Sunday and took the first steps to declaring how they wanted Iraq to be governed.

As estimated 8 million people — 60 percent of eligible voters — braved violence and calls for a boycott to vote in Iraq.

[...]

Women in black abayas whispered prayers at the sound of a nearby explosion as they waited to vote at one Baghdad polling station. But the mood for many was upbeat: Civilians and policemen danced with joy at one of the five polling stations where photographers were allowed, and some streets were packed with voters walking shoulder-to-shoulder to vote. The elderly made their way, hobbling on canes or riding wheelchairs; one elderly woman was pushed along on a wooden cart, another man carried a disabled 80-year-old on his back.

"This is democracy," said Karfia Abbasi, holding up a thumb stained with purple ink to prove she had voted.

[...]

Casting his vote, Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi called it "the first time the Iraqis will determine their destiny."

"We have defeated the terrorists today," Ahmad Chalabi, a secular Shiite who is running for the National Assembly on the United Iraqi Alliance list, told FOX News. "The winds of freedom are sweeping across Iraq."

Indeed.

The usual but ironically named suspects are of course pooh-poohing the vote in Iraq. But the rest of us know that the cause of human freedom took a step forward today, and you and I ought to be proud of our country's role in it.

Posted by Paul at 8:22 PM | Permalink

It's 5 a.m. You're awakened by shouting and other commotion from the first floor of your home. Suddenly, two men open the door to your bedroom. You're armed. What would you do?

In the early hours Friday, the quiet neighborhood of Gray Haven awoke to gunfire and the booming sounds of a police raid that resulted in the death of a woman well known in the community.

Just before 5 a.m., officers from the Baltimore County Police Tactical Unit were serving a search and seizure warrant related to a narcotics investigation at a home in the 8100 block of Del Haven Road when two officers approached the bedroom door on the second floor, according to police spokesman Ofc. Shawn Vinson.

When they opened the door, the officers allegedly were met by Cheryl Noel, 44, who was pointing a handgun at them, Vinson said.

Yes, of course she was pointing a gun at them. And her home isn't the only one in America where you'll be looking at the business end of a handgun if you open a bedroom door at 5 a.m.

Fearing for his life, one officer fired three shots, according to Vinson, striking and killing Noel.

I bet the officer did fear for his life. But he wasn't the only -- or the first -- fearful person in that house, was he?

Ms. Noel died so that police could charge her husband, her son and her son's girlfriend each with a single count of possession of marijuana. All were released on their own recognizance.

In commenting on this story, Pete Guither of Drug War Rant writes:

What then would be the reason to storm the house in the early morning? To prevent flushing. The standard reason for this kind of drug raid -- they're afraid someone's going to destroy the evidence. That's why they use this extremely dangerous assault technique.

And you know what that means...

To the drug warrior, evidence has a higher value than people's lives.

And evidence of marijuana, no less. Marijuana. A substance ubiquitous in every city in America.

Although the term "drug war" misappropriates the word war, it is accurate in one respect. People die in war. We can justify their deaths if they serve a large and noble cause.

What cause was served by Ms. Noel's death? Democracy? Freedom? In the wake of her killing, is there even any less pot on our streets?

Posted by Paul at 1:30 PM | Permalink

File this under bogus theories of the law:

An official in a small tourist town sued his colleagues Friday, saying they're unfairly targeting him for recall over his refusal to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at board meetings.

Estes Park town trustee David Habecker, who describes himself as agnostic, says the words "under God" in the pledge violate his religious beliefs and are at odds with the separation of church and state, according to his lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver.

The lawsuit says Habecker exercises his First Amendment right to religious freedom and sits during Town Board meetings while other members recite the pledge.

Habecker's recall election is scheduled for Feb. 15.

Mr. Habecker is suing the town, the recall committee and the board of trustees, and has asked a federal judge to stop the recall. There's just one problem: the basis of his suit is a non-justiciable political question. He does indeed have a First Amendment right to refrain from reciting any or all of the Pledge. But citizens, acting in their capacity as voters, have no obligation to honor that right when evaluating the service of public officials. The First Amendment binds the Government; it doesn't bind your neighbors.

If the recall is an infringement of Mr. Habecker's constitutional rights, why wouldn't his defeat at the next regularly scheduled election also be an infrigement?

Posted by Paul at 11:41 AM | Permalink

The administration is floating details of the president's plan for Social Security reform. From the Washington Post:

President Bush's advisers have settled on a proposal for structuring the personal accounts they hope to create in Social Security ...

Under a plan recommended to Bush, the private accounts would resemble many company-sponsored retirement plans, with just a handful of investment options.

By default, workers would be enrolled in a "life cycle" account, in which investments become more conservative as investors age, if they do not choose one of the other options, according to two officials speaking on condition of anonymity.

[...]

Yet to be decided are several big questions, including how large the private accounts should be, how much guaranteed benefits would be cut and how to pay as much as $2 trillion needed in the first 10 years to effect the transition to a new system.

In devising a structure for the private accounts, the Bush administration is modeling its proposal after the Thrift Savings Plan, a tax-deferred retirement investment plan similar to a 401(k). The idea is to minimize risk for people at the outset by offering as few as three to five diversified investment funds.

[...]

Under the Thrift Savings Plan, federal workers have five investment options, including government and corporate bond funds, a stock fund that tracks the S&P 500, an international fund and other stock funds.

Under the emerging Bush plan for Social Security, the default investment would be a "life cycle" account. It would begin with investments that have greater potential for both risk and reward and shift to safer bonds as a worker ages, officials in and outside the administration said.

The government would be responsible for keeping track of how much money is in each worker's account and give the lump sums to a financial services company to invest, a mechanism aimed at keeping administrative fees low, they said.

That would mean only a limited profit potential for Wall Street.

[emphasis added]

Posted by Paul at 5:30 PM | Permalink

Another instance of the "war" on drugs corrupting our police:

Four Chicago cops, including one who was already demoted to desk duty, used their badges and guns to shake down drug dealers for guns, cash and crack cocaine in a six-month South Side conspiracy, federal prosecutors alleged in a complaint filed Thursday.

(Thanks to Talk Left.)

Posted by Paul at 5:18 PM | Permalink

You've heard the old joke about the woman who calls the police complaining that a neighbor is exposing himself. The officer arrives, looks out her window and informs the woman that he can see nothing. To which she replies, "Well, you can if you stand up on this box."

You might think that woman exists only as a figment of tacky humor. But in fact she's alive and well and living in Canada:

The woman said she spotted Clark while she was watching television with her two young daughters in their family room.

She alerted her husband, and the couple observed Clark from their darkened bedroom for 10 or 15 minutes -- also using binoculars and a telescope -- before summoning the police ...

The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday overturned Mr. Clark's conviction for indecency.

By the way, having had his member disparaged by the suggestion that it's viewable only by telescope, I wonder if Mr. Clark can now sue for slander.

Posted by Paul at 4:17 PM | Permalink

Oh, I like this:

[Delaware legislators] passed a bill Wednesday that declares "null and void" a state Supreme Court ruling that could lead to the immediate release from prison of nearly 200 rapists, killers and kidnappers.

The bill passed both houses of the legislature unanimously and now waits for the governor's signature.

One of the bloggers at the liberal TalkLeft writes:

The notion that a legislature can pass a law that nullifies any court decision it doesn't like is antithetical to a political system that relies on the checks and balances afforded by coequal branches of government. Legislatures have the power to change the law; they don't have the power to change (or ignore) court decisions, even decisions that are politically unpopular.

Well, a legislature may have the power to change (or ignore) a court's decisions if it says it has that power. After all, that's how we got the practice of "judicial review." The Supreme Court simply announced itself as the final arbiter of the law. (Marbury v. Madison, 1803.) Perhaps we've come full circle, and now it's time for the legislatures (and Congress) to announce the practice of "legislative review" of judicial rulings.

If you think about it, there's really very little to stop them, especially if the political executives go along with it. Whether in law, government, religion or even office politics, that's how bloodless revolutions occur. There comes a moment when somebody with a spine and credibility says, "Uh, no. Actually, I've got the power," and then he waits for the other guy to blink.

Here's one of the animals the Delaware Legislature is trying to keep in prison:

Before Wednesday's vote, senators listened as Byrd Whaley urged them to keep the man who killed his parents some 40 years ago behind bars.

"He killed my mother, he raped her, he left her lying on the floor for 10 hours waiting for my father to come home, murdered him, robbed him," Whaley told lawmakers as he choked back tears.

Who do you think the people of Delaware will side with? The court or the legislature?

Stand your ground, guys. You may be on the verge of something.

Posted by Paul at 6:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Senate Democrats:

On behalf of partisan Republicans everywhere, thank you!

Posted by Paul at 9:42 AM | Permalink

You are by now aware of the story, but here's the recap:

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

[...]

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal.

In her own defense, Ms. Gallagher wrote today:

To me, this is an extremely serious charge. It is also completely false. I was not paid to promote the President’s marriage proposal. In 2001 I was approached by HHS to do research and writing, not on the President’s $300 million marriage initiative, but on marriage: specifically four brochures on the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for populations serviced by HHS (such as unwed parents), a draft of an essay for Wade Horn, and a training presentation on the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for regional HHS managers.

Anybody who's familiar with her work knows that Ms. Gallagher has been writing for years about marriage and families. Here's a piece she authored in 1997 -- well before the Bush administration came to town -- calling for an end to no-fault divorce.

She's a writer, a social scientist and a policy expert. She didn't go to the Government; it came to her. And she wasn't paid to write in favor of a particular program or piece of legislation. She was paid to write broadly about the benefits of marriage.

But Ms. Gallagher does have a syndicated column -- wherein, to my knowledge, she's never written about anything other than marriage and families -- and so I suppose that makes her a "journalist," broadly defined, which means she should have disclosed when she got a Government contract. But as she notes:

It is not uncommon for researchers, scholars, or experts to get paid by the government to do work relating to their field of expertise. Nor is it considered unethical or shady: if anything, government funded work is considered a mark of an expert’s respectability. Until today, researchers and scholars have not generally been expected to disclose a government-funded research project in the past, when they later wrote about their field of expertise in the popular press or in scholarly journals.

For these reasons, it simply never occurred to me there was a need to disclose this information. I certainly had no intention or motive to hide my work from anyone. As a journalist, however, when the question is raised "Should you have disclosed?" the answer is always, yes. It was a mistake on my part not to have disclosed any government contract. It will not happen again.

I believe that it just never occurred to her to disclose, and I believe she won't make the same "mistake" again. I hope we let that be the end of it.

Posted by Paul at 9:54 PM | Permalink

Social Security's troubles are coming. Medicaid's troubles are now:

Medicaid spending grew about one-third from 2000 to 2003 as job losses and other economic woes made more people eligible for the government-run health insurance program for the poor, a new study said on Wednesday.

Costs rose from $205.7 billion in 2000 to $275.5 billion in 2003, researchers from the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center wrote in the journal "Health Affairs."

"Medicaid played its role as a safety net ... but the result was a sharp increase in program costs," researchers John Holahan and Arunabh Ghosh wrote.

[...]

Researchers said the number of older and disabled Americans also grew as the population aged and life-saving technologies and medicines boosted lifespans. That growth "is likely to continue during most of the decade," they added.

But the alternative to more Medicaid patients would be another financial burden -- more uninsured Americans. "There would have been strong pressure on local hospitals and clinics to increase the amount of free care provided," they wrote.

Despite state efforts to curb enrollment by limiting eligibility, higher spending "placed heavy burdens on state budgets and has contributed to the federal budget deficit," the report found.

Medicaid, which covers one in nine Americans, is already the second largest item in most state budgets. (Link in PDF format.)

Posted by Paul at 5:28 PM | Permalink

Associated Press:

Three gay couples Tuesday dropped their lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying they do not want to risk having a conservative U.S. Supreme Court set precedent by rejecting their case.

The lawsuits were brought by gay couples who were wedded in Massachusetts and Canada and wanted Florida to recognize their marriages.

Since the Court isn't likely to get any less conservative anytime soon, I gather that these three couples have suspended indefinitely their effort to win by judicial fiat what they have not won democratically. That's a good thing. Americans are habituated to the notion that the Government requires the consent of the governed, and these litigious same-sex couples are threatening to do for gay marriage what Roe did for abortion.

Patience, Grasshoppers. Opposition to same-sex marriage is deeply generational, which means our day is coming. It may not come on your timetable, but it is coming. Your divorced neighbors might be flustered by gay marriage. But their kids, having seen firsthand that marriage now has more to do with the happiness of adults than it does with the interests of children, won't be. And when our victory comes, if we've won it in democratic fora, it will have political legitimacy.

Religious conservatives can make a potent case against judicial activism. They'll have a harder time making the case against democracy.

Posted by Paul at 4:26 PM | Permalink

The Senate has voted 85-13 to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

Of the 12 Democrats and 1 independent who voted "no," the Washington Post writes:

Some of the Democrats who opposed Rice were centrists from states in which President Bush won or ran strongly in November, including Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Sen. Byrd is, of course, the former Ku Klux Klansman who lead opposition to the appointment of the first black woman as secretary of state.

Posted by Paul at 12:03 PM | Permalink

Good grief:

Two boys were arrested for making pencil-and-crayon stick figure drawings depicting a 10-year-old classmate being stabbed and hung, police said. The children, charged with a felony, were taken from school in handcuffs.

The 9- and 10-year-old boys were arrested Monday and charged with making a written threat to kill or harm another person. They were also suspended from school.

One drawing showed the two boys standing on either side of the other boy and "holding knives pointed through" his body, according to a police report. The figures were identified by written names or initials.

A felony? For stick figure drawings by 10 year-old boys?

Please people. Get off the sauce and get help. Please.

Posted by Paul at 9:16 AM | Permalink

Populist headbangers are in the news today:

A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.

But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

If it will satisfy the party's religious conservatives, I say bring the FMA to a vote -- for a second time. Here's the result of the first time. The November elections brought a few new faces to the Senate, but not enough to change the outcome of this vote.

In the absence of mischief by the federal courts, the numbers just aren't there to pass the amendment. Rail at the president if you want, guys. But give the man a little credit: he can count.

Posted by Paul at 4:19 PM | Permalink

Reuters:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police do not violate the constitutional right to privacy when a dog sniff of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop turns up contraband.

The justices by a 6-2 vote, in a majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, set aside an Illinois Supreme Court ruling that such searches required reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

[...]

"A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment" protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, Stevens concluded.

Sigh.

In other words, even if the police have no reason to suspect the presence of drugs, they can still use a dog to stiff for them, the text of the 4th Amendment notwithstanding.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in his opinion for the Court, assures us that only the interests of the guilty are implicated here:

Official conduct that does not “compromise any legitimate interest in privacy” is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. [citation omitted] We have held that any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed “legitimate,” and thus, governmental conduct that only reveals the possession of contraband “compromises no legitimate privacy interest.”

But as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes in dissent:

Fourth Amendment protection, reserved for the innocent only, would have little force in regulating police behavior toward either the innocent or the guilty. Under today’'s decision, every traffic stop could become an occasion to call in the dogs, to the distress and embarrassment of the law-abiding population. [punctuation omitted]

And having decided that these suspicionless searches are justified by the nature of the information rather than the manner of its acquisition, where do they stop? Today, your car. Tomorrow, your crotch?

Posted by Paul at 6:43 PM | Permalink

Houston Chronicle:

Nonetheless, the issue [allowing cops to get naked to make arrests for prostitution] has been divisive in many communities, particularly in cases in which officers have allowed prostitutes to touch their genitals or have engaged in sex acts with prostitutes.

Houston police, who are now disrobing to get prostitutes to negotiate a sale price, insist they will not bone the ones they arrest. But I say if you bake a pie, somebody is going to have a slice.

Posted by Paul at 12:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Yesterday marked the 32nd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. That decision was an abomination, lacking any basis in our Constitution's text, history or design. It was, as Justice Bryon White wrote in dissent, "an exercise of raw judicial power." Depending on how many appointments Mr. Bush ends up making to the Court, Roe may yet be overruled and the question of abortion's legality returned to the states, where it belongs.

You can believe, as I do, that Roe was wrongly decided and still believe that abortion ought to be legal. I think it should be legal during the first trimester. After the first trimester, I'd proscribe it in most circumstances, but not because I think I'd be preventing mid or late term abortions. We're talking here about criminal law, and I'm very skeptical of the law's ability to shape conduct where people are determined to do what they want to do. My own observations of human nature lead to me conclude that, at least in liberal democratic societies where punishments are usually not draconian, people obey the law only when it does not vary significantly from their own wishes.

As it relates to, say, gun control, I think most of my fellow conservatives share this view. The old adage "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" tells us that some people will insist on having guns, laws to the contrary notwithstanding. Speeding, although a relatively minor infraction of criminal law, is another example. Hordes of American drivers routinely speed, having calculated that the risk of a fine is outweighed by the inconvenience of their delay. But the law also often fails to prevent even the most serious of crimes with the most serious of penalties; the threat of capital punishment does not stop all capital crime.

So in deciding what conduct to subject to criminal statute, we ought to ask ourselves not what we're going to prevent but rather what we want to punish. In other words, after a particular act has been discovered, do we want to fine or incarcerate the offender? (You were already speeding at the time the officer stopped you. He didn't keep you from speeding; he just dinged you for it. And after the initial chastening wore off, you resumed speeding somewhere down the road, didn't you? The law was too much at odds with your wishes.)

Just as liberals have trouble accepting the limits of criminal law when it comes to gun control, conservatives have trouble accepting it when it comes to abortion. They write about the overturning of Roe as if it were the first step in the passing of laws to prohibit to abortions and therefore prevent them. For example, Ed Morrisey of Captain's Quarters wrote yesterday that Roe "paved the way for the destruction of 43 million fetuses," which implies that none of those abortions would have occurred in the absence of Roe. But that's false, isn't it?

In the first place, at the time of the Court's decision, some states had already liberalized their laws, so that women were having legal abortions even without a constitutional guarantee. And in any event, regardless of what the law says, some of those 43 million abortions -- exactly how many is impossible to say -- would have occurred anyway. The question conservatives must answer is whether they want to punish those women, their doctors or both. And if so, how? By fining them? By putting them in jail?

Lest we undermine respect for the rule of law, we ought not to pass a law unless we're willing to stand by as violators are caught and punished. If a woman has an abortion late in her pregnancy, I'm willing to say she should go to jail for it. But in the first few weeks of the pregnancy? Egad.

Posted by Paul at 3:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (6)

In whining about how outnumbered Democrats and progressives were in cable coverage of the inauguration -- a exception to the MSM's general left-wing bias -- Media Matters for America counts Andrew Sullivan among "Republican or conservative commentators."

For the record, Mr. Sullivan is not a Republican or a conservative. Even he would agree that he's not a Republican, and anybody who backs a presidential candidate as liberal as John Kerry cannot be credibly labeled a conservative.

Posted by Paul at 2:48 PM | Permalink

Buoyed by the success of Arizona's Proposition 200, the campaign to deny public benefits to illegal aliens is spreading. (Link requires registration.)

Posted by Paul at 11:50 AM | Permalink

Over the objections of religious conservatives, private developers are planning a "neighborhood of gay-oriented homes, businesses and nightlife" in Spokane, Washington.

"A gay mecca is not what we'd like to see Spokane marketed as," said Penny Lancaster, director of Community Impact Spokane, a network of evangelical Christians.

Spokane as "gay mecca"? That doesn't seem likely. In Houston, fourth largest city in America, Montrose is the gay neighborhood. But even in Montrose, where the gay community's presence is undeniably palpable, the large majority of our neighbors are heterosexuals. And the gay business district, home to a couple dozen clubs, restaurants and shops, is really very small, comprising only a few blocks. This in a city that covers 617 square miles, half the size of Rhode Island.

San Francisco is the only city in America that is even arguably close to being a gay mecca. But that city, where you can't walk more than a few feet without being panhandled, is also a moonbat mecca, an exceptionalism Spokane is unlikely to replicate.

Posted by Paul at 10:18 AM | Permalink

NPR interviews Karl Rove, chief political adviser to the president, on the challenges of implementing Bush II.

Posted by Paul at 6:47 PM | Permalink

Here's a sick bastard who makes the case for the juvenile death penalty:

A 12-year-old accused of raping and murdering a 3-year-old boy bragged that he "could do anything he wanted" to the terrified tot, a prosecutor said Friday.

The older child's mother, Marisol Alverio, "knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it," Assistant District Attorney Brett Vottero said at Alverio's bail hearing. Instead, she left little Jeremy Rosario Milan with the older boy while she went to a Christmas party with a friend, Vottero said.

Judge W. Michael Ryan ordered Alverio held on $200,000 bail on charges of murder and reckless endangerment of a child. She has pleaded innocent to the charges.

Her son, who has not been identified because of his age, is charged with murder and rape in the death of the 3-year-old, who was left in Alverio's care while his own mother traveled to Puerto Rico. Jeremy died on Dec. 19 after enduring seven days of abuse at the hands of the older boy, according to prosecutors.

Vottero said other children who lived in Alverio's house told authorities that the 12-year-old repeatedly struck Jeremy and threatened to hit him "so hard he wouldn't remember where he was born" if he cried or told.

Jeremy was also raped at least twice and allegedly forced to perform other sexual acts on the boy during the week he stayed with the family, Vottero said.

I'd jacked up that mother, too.

Posted by Paul at 6:22 PM | Permalink

ABC News:

The tip came in fast, telegraph-terse, and discreet. Maj. Mohammed Salman Abass Ali al-Zobaidi of the Iraqi National Guard scrolled down to read it: "Black four-door Excalibur. Behind cinema."

From cell phone screen to local authorities: Acting on the recent text message tip to the Iraqi National Guard commander, police in a nearby town tracked down a black car behind the theater, and arrested the driver for suspected links to insurgent attacks.

In the volatile Shiite-Sunni towns south of Baghdad known as the "triangle of death," Iraqi civilians increasingly are letting their thumbs do the talking, via Arabic text messages sent from the safety of their homes, Iraqi security forces and U.S. Marines say.

At a time when U.S. and Iraqi security forces are desperate for information on attacks preferably in advance mobile phone text messages allow civilians to pass on information from a discreet distance, their identities shielded from security forces and their neighbors.

[...]

"Many, many people tell us about the terrorists with this," al-Zobaidi said, tapping his black cell phone and thumbing down to show more messages.

"All the time, I hear his phone beep beep beep beep, beep beep beep beep," said Sgt. Eddie Risner of Ocala, Fla., part of a Marine contingent working with guardsmen to try to block attacks and put a credible Iraqi security force on the street.

Posted by Paul at 6:15 PM | Permalink

A U.S. district court in Pennsylvania has invalidated the federal obscenity statutes:

The Justice Department today lost the first major test case of the federal obscenity laws when a judge in Pittsburgh threw out an indictment of Extreme Associates, a California company that makes films of women being gang-raped, defecated on and having their throats slit.

The court's opinion, in PDF format, is here.

(Thanks to How Appealing.)

Posted by Paul at 4:01 PM | Permalink

From the opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals, affirming decision by a lower court to dismiss -- for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted -- complaint of three same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses:

One of the State’s key interests in supporting opposite-sex marriage is not necessarily to encourage and promote “natural” procreation across the board and at the expense of other forms of becoming parents, such as by adoption and assisted reproduction; rather, it encourages opposite-sex couples who, by definition, are the only type of couples that can reproduce on their own by engaging in sex with little or no contemplation of the consequences that might result, i.e. a child, to procreate responsibly.

The State recognized this during oral argument when it identified the protection of unintended children resulting from heterosexual intercourse as one of the key interests in opposite-sex marriage. The institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly.

The recognition of same-sex marriage would not further this interest in heterosexual “responsible procreation.” Therefore, the legislative classification of extending marriage benefits to opposite-sex couples but not same-sex couples is reasonably related to a clearly identifiable, inherent characteristic that distinguishes the two classes: the ability or inability to procreate by “natural” means.

Justice Cordy of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has aptly described the connection between marriage, heterosexual reproduction, and childrearing in a way that emphasizes our point regarding “responsible procreation” and the fundamental difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples:

"Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.

Admittedly, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined . . ., but an orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism."

The court's opinion, in PDF format, is here.

(Thanks to How Appealing.)

Posted by Paul at 6:43 PM | Permalink

Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal:

Whatever one thinks of its policies, the Democratic Party surely made a difference during its 20th-century heyday. Set aside its last, corrupted years in power. When liberalism was ascendant, from the 1930s through the 1970s, Democrats permanently altered the face of government.

They ended poverty for the elderly with cross-generational entitlement programs, broke Jim Crow's hold in the South with civil-rights laws, built the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that bedevil American business every day, turned our courts into quasi-legislative bodies, and planted the seeds of government-run health care that continue to grow today. As the party of government, they built institutions and processes that have consistently expanded its scope.

What, in the decade since they've retaken the House, have Republicans done that is consequential in the same way? If the GOP majorities vanished tomorrow, what couldn't Democrats easily repeal?

Mr. Gigot suggests a Republican agenda, including

• regulatory reform that requires cost-benefit analysis;
• market-based health care reform;
• tort reform and a stop to the redistribution of wealth to the lawyer class by litigation;
• an end to the filibustering of judicial nominees;
• and, of course, partial privatization of Social Security.

To these goals I would add:

• abolition of the income tax. It should be replaced with a revenue-neutral national sales tax, which would encourage productivity and savings while discouraging consumption.

• immigration reform. In the post-9/11 world, failure to secure our borders is morally inexcusable. We need a national immigration policy that protects the homeland, meets the needs of the U.S. economy, opens the door to would-be Americans who share our Nation's values and restores respect for the rule of law.

• aggressive expansion of, and support for, faith-based initiatives. As President Bush put it: "The indispensable and transforming work of faith-based and other charitable service groups must be encouraged. Government cannot be replaced by charities, but it can and should welcome them as partners. We must heed the growing consensus across America that successful government social programs work in fruitful partnership with community-serving and faith-based organizations."

If Republicans can do even a few of these things, we will indeed alter the face of our Government -- and the American people's relationship to it.

Posted by Paul at 5:04 PM | Permalink

I worked today and therefore did not see Mr. Bush's inaugural address live, nor have I yet watched the video of it. But I have read the text; it's clear, morally coherent and inspiring. I especially liked these passages:

We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

[...]

From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?

Congratulations, Mr. President. I'm proud of you, and proud of my vote for you. Yours is a historically consequential presidency; as it has before, the cause of human freedom again depends on America. And now America depends on you. May God bless you, sir.

Posted by Paul at 4:22 PM | Permalink

Rehnquist swears in Bush despite illness
Associated Press

Looking frail but determined, his voice strained from thyroid cancer, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist emerged from months of seclusion to swear in President Bush.

The 80-year-old Rehnquist managed a weak smile as he walked with a cane and took his place on the podium. A scarf around his neck appeared to slip, exposing a tracheotomy tube that helps him breathe.

Rehnquist has been shrouded in mystery since October, when he issued a statement saying he had cancer and dropped out of sight as he underwent treatment.

Many were skeptical that he would be well enough to administer the oath, but after Bush and other leaders took their place on the Capitol stage, the chief justice emerged and walked gingerly down a flight of stairs to join them.

His first public appearance in three months was brief. He administered the oath in a clear but raspy voice - very different from his usual deep-pitched speech. It was the fifth and very likely last time he will swear in a president.

Posted by Paul at 3:49 PM | Permalink

Comes word today that, in addition to the United States, there are exactly four countries in the world where the people have good sense. Congratulations to Poland, India, the Philippines and Israel.

Posted by Paul at 5:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Reuters:

Ken Mehlman, President Bush's re-election campaign manager, took over on Wednesday as chairman of the Republican National Committee with the aim to now build a "durable Republican majority."

On the eve of Bush's inauguration for a second four-year term, RNC members accepted the president's recommendation and unanimously elected the 38-year-old grass-roots strategist as their chair.

"We stand at a moment of tremendous opportunity," Mehlman told about 160 national committee members after outgoing Chairman Ed Gillespie handed him the gavel.

Noting Bush was the first president since Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 to be re-elected while his party expanded its majorities in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, Mehlman said, "Our president has, for this historic moment, a bold agenda."

Mr. Mehlman is one of the sharpest political tacks in America. His election as RNC chairman should thrill GOP partisans. Meanwhile, defeated presidential candidate and renown screamer Howard Dean is reportedly the front-runner for the job of DNC chairman.

Mr. Mehlman selected a pro-choice woman, Jo Ann Davidson of Ohio, as his vice chair; she was confirmed unanimously by the Republican National Committee. Whoever becomes DNC chair, what are the odds of the "diversity" obsessed Democrats installing a pro-life man or woman as their vice chair?

Posted by Paul at 5:21 PM | Permalink

Washington Post:

President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives yesterday for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.

Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. "Clearly there is concern" among conservatives, Perkins said. "I believe there is no more important issue for the president's second term than the preservation of marriage."

[...]

In the Post interview, Bush, for the first time, said senators have made it clear to him the amendment has no chance of passing unless courts strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states from recognizing same-sex marriages conducted elsewhere. Challenges to the act are pending in state courts from California to Florida.

[...]

"Remember, in the Senate, you have to have 67 votes to move a constitutional amendment forward," [White House spokesman Scott] McClellan added. "And there are a number of members of the Senate that have said that they're not open to it until the Defense of Marriage Act faces a serious legal challenge. So that's just talking about the legislative reality."

My advice to religious conservatives? Lay off the president and wait for the courts to show their ass. If that happens, the FMA will, I predict, pass with dizzying speed.

Posted by Paul at 4:49 PM | Permalink

Associated Press:

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia, three Saudi princes and several Saudi financial institutions were dismissed Tuesday as defendants in six civil lawsuits accusing them of providing support to al-Qaida before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Judge Richard Casey said the president, not the courts, has the authority to label a foreign nation a terrorist, though he said he understood the "desire to find a legal remedy for the horrible wrongs committed on Sept. 11, 2001."

The lawsuits alleged more than 200 defendants provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Defendants included al-Qaida, its members and associates, charities, banks, front organizations, terrorist organizations and financiers who allegedly supported al-Qaida.

The judge said the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient facts to overcome the kingdom of Saudi Arabia's immunity. He said Saudi Arabia maintains it has worked with the United States to share information in the fight against terrorism.

[...]

"The court has reviewed the complaints in their entirety and finds no allegations from which it can infer that the princes knew the charities to which they donated were fronts for al-Qaida," Casey said. "Here, there are no such factual bases presented, there are only conclusions."

The court's opinion, in PDF format, is here.

(Thanks to Jurist.)

Posted by Paul at 4:36 PM | Permalink

Associated Press:

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously reinstated an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters in September.

The high court reversed a ruling by a state district judge, who struck down the "defense of marriage" amendment in October on the grounds that the measure dealt with more than one subject, in violation of the Louisiana Constitution.

But the Supreme Court said: "Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage."

The amendment was put on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by 78 percent of the voters. Eleven other states adopted similar amendments in the fall elections.

Posted by Paul at 4:19 PM | Permalink

From the always-lucid Melanie Phillips:

That, of course, is precisely why the violence is being ratcheted up -- because the stakes for the corrupt merchants of death are so enormous. For them, it is imperative that Iraq does not become a free and stable society, because their hold not only over Iraqis but over the rest of the Arab world will be undermined.

Unlike the appeaseniks, who appear so disgustingly to exult every time Iraqis are murdered because this enables them to crow about 'quagmires', I think that every bomb that goes off shows how desperately important this struggle is and how vital it was that it was waged in the first place. And I also think how utterly heroic are the Iraqi people; how, unlike those in the west who would rather have had the 'stability' of Saddam's terrorist-sponsoring police state, the Iraqis are determined to achieve freedom from tyranny and are prepared to fight for it, no matter what cost they have to pay in their own blood.

By the way, if you don't already have her blog bookmarked, do it now.

Posted by Paul at 6:59 PM | Permalink

Editorial cartoon courtesy of Cox & Forkum.

Actually, Brendan Miniter makes a good case today that if Social Security reform leads to an intraparty split, it won't be among Republicans.

Posted by Paul at 6:49 PM | Permalink

USA Today:

The firms that produced exit polls of voters last November this week told the news organizations that paid them what, if anything, they think went wrong with those surveys.

Tuesday, a representative of the news companies pledged that the public will get a look at the conclusions.

The polls of voters as they left polling places led to widespread speculation on Election Day that Sen. John Kerry was sweeping President Bush out of office.

Tom Hannon, political director at CNN and a member of the steering committee for the six-member media consortium that paid for the exit polls, says representatives from ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC and the Associated Press want to review the report before releasing it later this week.

Mark Blumenthal of the blog Mystery Pollster comments here.

I wish I hadn't lost my archives when I upgraded to MT 3.14. On Election Day, when word came that the exit polls were overweighted with women, I wrote then that Mr. Kerry's supporters would be in for a disappointing night.

Posted by Paul at 6:26 PM | Permalink

This president deserves a lot of credit for the political legacy he'll leave to his fellow Republicans. Among other things, Mr. Bush has laid the groundwork for the GOP to make big gains among black Americans:

Bush political strategist Matthew Dowd says that as early as 2006, Republican Senate and House candidates could win a quarter of the African American vote. The long-term goals, he said, are even more ambitious.

That would be a dramatic rise from the 11% of the national black electorate that went for Bush last year — a projection that even some of the most enthusiastic Republicans, such as former Rep. J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, caution could be overly optimistic.

Yet even a modest shift in the voting patterns of the minority group traditionally the most loyal to Democrats could transform the dynamics of American politics, giving Republicans an edge for decades.

Posted by Paul at 6:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Associated Press:

Six people were shot to death on Baltimore streets in a two-day period that began Friday morning, bringing the number of homicides in the first two weeks of 2005 to 19, police said.

The last killing occurred shortly after police called a news conference to discuss the wave of slayings that is close to matching the 23 deaths recorded in all of January 2003.

In 2000, police recorded 14 homicides in the first 17 days of the new year.

Acting Police Commissioner Leonard D. Hamm said pressure from police to cut down on drug trafficking has dealers trying to collect debts and resorting to violence in the process.

"We are keeping with the same game plan [of] . . . putting pressure on drug dealers," Hamm said Saturday at a news conference.

As Dave Borden notes:

Isn't violence the foremost reason above all for pressure to act against drug dealing? Baltimore's police are responding to the woes associated with inner-city drug dealing with a plan that increases those woes, and instead of rethinking what they are doing are instead promising more of the same.

Yes, but that's the drug war: repeating the same behavior again and again, getting the same results but expecting something new.

Posted by Paul at 6:24 PM | Permalink

This is bizarre:

The U.S. military rejected a 1994 proposal to develop an "aphrodisiac" to spur homosexual activity among enemy troops but is hard at work on other less-than-lethal weapons, defense officials said Sunday.

The idea of fostering homosexuality among the enemy figured in a declassified six-year, $7.5 million request from a laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio for funding of non-lethal chemical weapon research.

The proposal, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request, called for developing chemicals affecting human behavior "so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected."

"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior," said the document, obtained by the Sunshine Project. The watchdog group posted the partly blacked-out, three-page document on its Web site.

Reportedly, the suggestion of a homosexuality-inducing aphrodisiac arose from a brainstorming session -- what quality of brain was being stormed? -- where it was rejected outright.

We're never told the identity of the person making this suggestion. But what made him think it was possible to even develop such a chemical? How did he think it would work? And most importantly, how did he imagine the relationship between the chemical and an enemy's military defeat?

Even if you believe that homosexual conduct undermines an army's morale and cohesion, that's presumably true only in a military culture with an aversion to homosexuality. But an aphrodisiac elicits desire, not aversion, and you might get the "Epaminondas effect:"

While in Thebes, the general Epaminondas commanded a regiment composed of 150 pairs of lovers. This 'Band of Lovers' became a formidable fighting force, with lover defending lover until death.

Posted by Paul at 5:25 PM | Permalink

Harris County, Texas, of which Houston is the seat, is going after foreign nationals who vote in our elections:

Officials are investigating how at least 35 foreign citizens, and possibly dozens more, were allowed to vote in elections in Harris county.

One of those illegal voters was a 73-year-old Brazilian woman whose registration was canceled in 1996 after she acknowledged on a jury summons that she was not a U.S. citizen.

But the following year she was again given a new voter card, which wasn't discovered until recently. Records show that since 1997 the woman voted at least four times in general and Democratic primary elections, most recently in November.

Last year, at least 35 foreign citizens either applied for or received voter cards by checking a box on the application saying they were U.S. citizens, said Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt, who also is the county's voter registrar.

"If they check yes and they're not a citizen, there is no database that is open to the public that I know of that you can check against," he said.

Bettencourt is investigating at least 70 other possible violators and will send a list of suspected offenders to the Harris County district attorney.

Posted by Paul at 7:04 PM | Permalink

Given a choice between tracking down pedophiles and tracking down pot smokers, which would you choose?

[Police Chief Richard] Darling said he regrets the [pedophile] investigations will halt for now, but the town's drug problems are "an emergency that requires our immediate attention."

Evidently, in Hollis, NH, fourteen arrests for possession of pot constitute an "emergency," but the arrests of 15 suspected child molesters does not.

Sometimes I wonder what planet the prohibitionists are from.

Posted by Paul at 6:41 PM | Permalink

Steve Miller of Culture Watch on the post-election "unity statement" from gay political groups:

But while most gays may support these goals, many libertarian and conservative-minded gays don't, believing that equal treatment is all gays should demand from the state; that violent acts, not violent thoughts, should be criminalized; and that private employers have a right to hire and fire whomever they please. But gay libertarians and conservatives are outside the framework of this unity.

The statement also follows the litany of proclaiming we're all part of a "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community," leading to a call, for instance, to end "the military's discriminatory anti-LGBT ban," meaning that cross-dressers, too, be allowed to enlist. But demanding a transgender-inclusive military (no discharge for Corporal Klinger) will set back efforts to let gays serve openly and honorably.

Also problematic, the statement declares, "We must continue to expose the radical right's efforts to advance a culture of prejudice and intolerance, and we must fight their attempts to enshrine anti-gay bigotry in our state and federal laws and constitutions." The problem here? While many anti-gay activists are bigots, not all are. Many misguidedly fear that same-sex matrimony will destabilize, rather than strengthen, marriage. They're wrong, but labeling them "bigots" who are part of the "radical right," when they are neither, does nothing to bring them around.

Posted by Paul at 4:35 PM | Permalink

Time:

The personal investment account concept garners the most support from those with $100,000 or more in household income. About 3 in 5 (61%) favor the concept of Social Security personal investment accounts compared to about one-third (35%) of those with income below $35,000.

This is just another way of saying that households with incomes above $100,000 know more about making money that households with incomes below $35,000. I'll take my financial advice from the well-to-do.

The one omen: " ... support among all income groups sinks when informed of the transitional price tag."

Posted by Paul at 1:44 PM | Permalink

In a piece on Social Security reform, Jonathan Rauch engages in much analysis with which proponents of reform would take issue. But he's right about this:

Conservatives need to frame Social Security reform as a dollars-and-cents issue, but that is not really why they are excited. What they really hope to change is not the American economy but the American psyche.

Conservatives used to speak derisively of liberal social engineering. The attempt to create private Social Security accounts is, so to speak, conservative social counter-engineering. Government should help provide for unforeseeable contingencies: tsunamis, unemployment, open-heart surgery. But if there is one event in all of human life that is wholly foreseeable, it is the advent of old age. Why, then, shouldn't people save for their own retirement, instead of relying on welfare from the government -- which is what Social Security, as currently constituted, really is?

Tanner argues that people who own assets behave differently and see their place in society in a different light. Private accounts, he says, would encourage a culture of saving and personal responsibility; they would discourage political class warfare; they may, he argues, improve work habits, and even reduce crime and other social pathologies. Create private Social Security accounts, and millions of low-income Americans will be stockholders and bondholders. Republican political activists look at the way portfolio investors vote -- and salivate at the prospect of millions more of them.

The 2004 exit polls suggested, to many conservatives, that "moral values" won the election for Bush. It may seem odd, then, that his boldest post-election priority is not abortion or gay marriage or schools, but Social Security. The key to the paradox is that Social Security reform is not, at bottom, an economic issue with moral overtones. It is a moral issue with economic overtones.

The drive to reform Social Security is, in part, about shoring up the system's long-term fiscal health. But more importantly, it's about providing the common man with an opportunity to accumulate real wealth and thereby altering his relationship to the Government.

Democrats, who are the merchants of Government, know this, which is why they're terrified. If given the option of investing even part of your Social Security taxes in a private account, your self-sufficiency may threaten the Democrats and their dependence-inducing policies.

For Democrats, the fight isn't about Social Security reform per se. It's about their political survival. Of course, a fight of this nature is not without danger for Republicans. This is why Mr. Rauch can write:

The magnitude of the political risk is staggering. On Capitol Hill, many Republicans wonder if they are being led off a cliff. What does President Bush think he's doing?

What indeed? A president should never risk lightly the political health of his party. But what if ... What if he does it in the service of inspiring, history-changing ideas? What then?

Battle stations, please.

Posted by Paul at 4:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Chris Suellentrop in Slate:

Political campaigns and consultants are becoming increasingly skillful at manipulating the mainstream press by planting stories in the blogosphere. Despite this, the mainstream press remains credulous about blogging. During South Dakota's U.S. Senate race between Tom Daschle and John Thune, the Thune campaign put two local political bloggers on its payroll. One got $27,000, the other $8,000. Their anti-Daschle reports trickled up into South Dakota newspapers.

The lesson for a campaign is obvious: Got a story you can't convince a mainstream reporter to run? Leak it anonymously to a blog on your payroll. Then get a local reporter to write a story on the controversial, gossipy, local political blog. Soon everyone in town will be talking about the story you leaked to the blog. Voila! Eventually a mainstream news organization will run a story on the rumor that "everyone is talking about." Or they'll do a "what people are buzzing about on the Internet" piece. And no one will know that the blog post was a paid placement until after the election.

A little humility lets people know their place, which is a good thing, and I don't imagine anyone ever offering me money to influence my political postings.

But in the interests of disclosure as an ethical norm in the blogsophere, maybe every political blogger, big or small, should announce whether he receives cash and if so from whom and how much.

I have never received any money for anything I've written here. In fact, I've been offered money only once, and the offer had nothing to do with politics. (A marketing company approached me about accepting advertisements from a gay Internet site that promotes online hook-ups. I said no.)

If you have the software for it and a creative impulse, do the blogosphere a favor. Develop a graphic that says "No payola was used in the purchase of these pajamas!" and distribute it freely for payola-less bloggers to paste in their sidebars.

You may not always agree with them. But everything you read from most bloggers is honest, unbought opinion. There was a time when you could have just assumed that. No more.

Posted by Paul at 2:42 PM | Permalink

Washington Times:

Yesterday, Judge Bates said Mr. Newdow's suit "faces numerous and considerable obstacles to prevailing on his claims."

Injunction denied.

Posted by Paul at 12:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Attention singles: you may now legally fornicate in Virginia.

Posted by Paul at 12:23 AM | Permalink

The media are all over it, as is the law-oriented side of the blogosphere.

I refer here to the decision issued Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court. It's taken me hours of reading to grasp what the Court has done, and I think I do now, finally, understand it. This is my longest post ever, and I invite you to stay with me while I inspect what the Court hath wrought. The cases decided Wednesday implicate our constitutional rights, the powers of Congress and the role of the judiciary.

Constitutional and federal statutory law are often thought to be the province of lawyers, and I'm not a lawyer. But I believe the law belongs to all of us -- it applies to all of us -- and that it behooves us as a free people to understand what our courts are doing with it. I have labored mightily in this entry to be clear and detailed, and to take complex issues and make them understandable. When I write to explain something, I write to explain it to myself. But I trust the explanation here will be serviceable to other laymen. (If you're a lawyer and find where I've misstated any point of fact or law, please send e-mail so that I can correct the error promptly.)

Let's start with the text of the Sixth Amendment, which provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

First in the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and then again in Blakely v. Washington (2003), an unusual alliance of liberals and conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Sixth Amendment to stand for, among other things, this simple proposition:

... any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Apprendi, a jury convicted the defendant of the unlawful possession of a firearm, an offense for which the law provided 5 to 10 years in prison. But following the return of the jury's verdict, the trial judge found the defendant to have been motivated by racial animus and sentenced him to 12 years -- two years more than the law allowed for the firearms offense. The factual basis for this enhanced penalty had not been submitted to the jury for its consideration. The New Supreme Court affirmed.

But on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court reversed:

... the Sixth Amendment's notice and jury trial guarantees require that any fact other than prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Blakely, the defendant plead guilty to kidnaping his estranged wife, an offense for which the law allowed a maximum sentence of 53 months. But the judge concluded the defendant had acted with deliberate cruelty and enhanced the sentence to 90 months. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed.

Again, on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court reversed:

Because the facts supporting petitioner’s exceptional sentence were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury, the sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

In other words, under Apprendi and Blakely, any fact, save for the fact of a prior conviction, used in determining penalty must either be admitted to by the defendant or else submitted to a jury for its consideration.

So far, so good, yes? After all, isn't that the very meaning of a right to trial by jury? As three of the Court's liberals and two of its conservatives have noted:

... [t]he Framers would not have thought it too much to demand that, before depriving a man of ... more years of his liberty, the State should suffer the modest inconvenience of submitting its accusation to ‘the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours,’ rather than a lone employee of the state.

Apprendi and Blakely involved the sentencing practices of states (New Jersey and Washington, respectively). In the two cases decided Wednesday, federal sentencing practices were at issue.

In affixing th