It's Bolton - what else would you expect?

Of course George W. Bush will appoint John R. Bolton to represent the US at the United Nations: Neither man has any use for the UN, and Bush is more than happy to make that clear to the pesky rest of the world.

Bork in sheep's clothing?

The revelations this week of John Roberts's gift for sarcasm may serve to bolster the impression of a very smart and quite likeable fellow, but must not conceal the underlying beliefs so amusingly packaged; no doubt his supporters (of whom I had tentatively been one, given the odds) will protest that the zingers in his past writings offer nothing more than the promise of clever levity and good fellowship in future Supreme Court deliberations.

At this point it appears unlikely — as in, a snowball's chance — that the Senate will disapprove this nomination, so Democrats had best save their political capital, to the extent it may exist, for battles they can win, lest the good ol' "obstructionist" charge be given credibility. But don't let's roll over, my friends. After all, we may at least retain some "I warned you!" value if this guy turns out to be a disaster for America.

Go to NPR.org and listen to Nina Totenberg's list of Robertsisms, broadcast on Morning Edition today. Here's one sample, also cited in today's New York Times:

Responding to a letter from the American Jewish Committee in 1981, he asked a supervisor, "Is this draft response O.K. - i.e., does it succeed in saying nothing at all?"

Doesn't bode well for the upcoming hearings . . .

Repondering Hillary - UPDATED

I've been convinced for months that Hillary Clinton would be the worst possible candidate the Democrats could field, as "too polarizing, she can't win" and even "too politically calculating."

I was a big fan during the 90s, but had heard so much, so often, about her "calculated move to the center" — promulgated by her enemies and echoed ad nauseum by the talking heads on cable — while paying only casual attention since 2008 is so far away, that I kind of accepted that conventional "wisdom" as truth.

Any effort on her part to work with a Republican — even when the proposed legislation is something the Democratic party should and will support — is viewed, not as a demonstration of a true "uniter," but rather as a crass "move to the center."

Shame on me. I caught the C-Span broadcast of her speech last week to the Aspen Ideas Festival (July 24, 2005) and thought: My god, she is so absolutely right! What the hell is going on here? And would it be possible — and what would it take to get her elected?

Go to C-Span.org and hear for yourself. In the box for video search, type in "Hillary Clinton Aspen." This is a must!

She may still not be electable. She should not even be nominated unless she early and clearly separates herself from the Democratic Leadership Council. The center-moving approach of the DLC worked once, when Bill Clinton caught the Republicans by surprise, stole their issues, and won the election. It won't work again.

Hillary would be up against the utter and unscrupulous despicability of her opponents on the right, anyway, but they would have a field day with the Republican-lite positions still and again advocated by Al From & Co. and make us all look like fools.

If she can distance herself from the real center/right movers, I do believe she's at least entitled to honesty — and honest evaluation — on the part of Democrats and their supporters.

NYPD to the rescue

Before 9/11, the N.Y.P.D. had fewer than two dozen officers working the terrorism beat full time. Today, there are about a thousand. Crime-fighting is still the N.Y.P.D.’s primary mission, but counterterrorism has really expanded the operational and conceptual boundaries of traditional police work. There are N.Y.P.D. detectives permanently stationed overseas, for instance, in half a dozen different countries. Ray Kelly, the Commissioner, has gone way outside of the traditional police-recruitment channels, looking for people with military, intelligence, and diplomatic backgrounds, people with deep knowledge of international terrorist organizations. What’s more, he has comprehensively persuaded the entire department to think of counterterrorism as a fundamental part of what cops call the Job.

In the July 25, 2005 issue of The New Yorker, William Finnegan wrote a breath-catching report called "The Terrorism Beat," describing how the NYPD has stepped into the huge gap in Homeland Security as applied to New York City -- to the benefit of all of us.

The excerpt above is from an interview with Finnegan about the piece; the interview is still available online and touches on many of the important points. But you've got to read the original article, about 20 pages.

Let me know if you can't find it . . .

Barton is a disgrace to Texas

The New York Times has taken editorial note of the Congressman's latest antics, unbelievably taking on the entire concept of global warming in a challenge to the acknowledged scientific experts to prove to HIM (an engineer, not a scientist) the worth of their research.

It's going to be hard enough to find common political ground on global warming without the likes of Representative Joe Barton harassing reputable scientists who helped alert the world to the problem in the first place.

Read the whole editorial here.

After reading this report in the Washington Post I conjured up a vision of Barton in an eye mask, a veritable Lone Ranger in this ridiculous quest, so transparently friendly to his oil and gas supporters.

Look at this testimony by Ralph Cicerone, a climate scientist and head of the National Academy of Sciences. Link

Then see for yourself the letters Barton sent to the National Science Foundation and top climate scientists, unashamedly published by Barton on his very own web page: Link

Interesting priorities

How many aspiring jihadis do you suppose have travelled freely back and forth between America and Pakistan during these many years that travel to Cuba has been forbidden?

Hullabaloo

Watching on TV all the hullabaloo about the Supreme Court nominee, all the comments, all the prognisticators of dissension, all the spinners, all the opinionators; though I listen in considerable dispair, worrying about the outcome -- what will we be in 2030, for heaven's sake! -- hating what I hear, loving what I hear: It all comes home: My god, how I love this country!

The sleeper sell ...

At first blush the nomination of John Roberts may seem like a good, decent candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, a man with no particular record that might worry us, a nominee that (at last!) might help soothe the contentious Senate and clear the way for the business of legislation.

But maybe it's time to bone up on the Federalist Society and The Constitution in Exile.

And now read this by E. J. Dionne.

How to spot "liberal bias"

Whenever facts are offered without the Republican spin right alongside them, there is almost certain to be a charge of "liberal bias."

Think about it . . .

al Qaeda, redefined

A great piece in the Washington Post today, by Steve Coll and Susan B. Glasser, helped me finally get it; I especially like this morsel:

Now more a brand than a tight-knit group, al Qaeda has responded to four years of intense pressure from the United States and its allies by dispersing its surviving operatives, distributing its ideology and techniques for mass-casualty attacks to a wide audience on the Internet, and encouraging new adherents to act spontaneously in its name.

An article well worth reading. Link

An elegant idea for Social Security

Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who writes for the Washington Post and Boston Globe, has reported on a stunningly simple and appropriate proposal I hadn't heard of before. There's no way of abbreviating what she said without losing substance, so here it is, with emphasis added:

One of the best-kept secrets is that we have already raised the age of full retirement to 65 1/2. It's increasing gradually until 2027, when it will be 67. Raising the retirement age further is nothing but an attempt, in economist Alicia Munnell's phrase "to find a socially acceptable way of cutting benefits." Before this gets out of hand, we have to ask whether this is the best reform. We also have to ask why it's becoming more socially acceptable to target older Americans than richer Americans.

Want to talk about age and class? Try two other proposals for Social Security reform. The first is to raise the ceiling on earnings over $90,000. The second and most elegant idea comes from nonagenarian and former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball: designate the estate tax to shore up Social Security.

Under current law, the tax will only apply to estates worth more than $3.5 million by 2009. But two months ago, the House voted to permanently repeal the entire estate tax and the Senate is fiddling with compromise efforts.

A tax repeal on the richest 2 percent of Americans would cost $745 billion in the first 10 years. Using that money to support Social Security instead of an oligarchy would make up a third of the shortfall.

As she says, an elegant idea.

The Way I Read It

We, the people of the United States,

• in the Preamble it’s written “united States,” small “u,” so there’s no doubt the founders were talking about a federation of separate States; yet they intended that every one of us “people of” those States should be as bound by it and to it as if we had each personally signed it.

in order to form a more perfect Union,

• from the Latin “to shape,” “form” means to create a whole from the separate States; the founders felt that the collective activities of the separate States still needed improvement. It was intended all along that the States work together toward the goals set forth in the Constitution.

establish justice,

• the drafters of the Constitution had more than a little experience with abuses of power under King George; they intended to have certain protections and minimum standards of public and official conduct apply equally and reliably throughout the several States.

insure domestic tranquility

• one of the purposes of uniting the States in a federation was to protect against chaos and anarchy; clearly the founders believed that a cohesive whole was preferable in this respect to a gaggle of separate parts each acting without regard to the others.

• The successful campaign over the last quarter-century by the Republicans to “shrink government” by abdicating to the separate States some matters (usually the ones that require funding) that will deeply affect the quality of life for citizens, while seeking to override existing State laws in other matters (usually regulating personal conduct) will inevitably — and probably soon — lead to disorder, discontent and more anarchy. Some States will care more, some less; some will have more money to spend, some less; we see evidence of that already. Different priorities will create wide disparities of opportunity, and we may see the stability of life in America threatened by a new class of nomads as, rich and poor alike, citizens move from State to State in search of the best deal.

provide for the common defense,

• believing that “in unity there is strength,” the founders intended to set up and provide for the regulation of such “land and naval forces” as might be reasonably kept on hand to defend the new Union against external threat. There is provision, too, for each State to keep a standing militia (the National Guard), to be called out in the event of a need to “suppress insurrections” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of our Constitution). Good thing.

• The question we have now, of course, is whether those very forces have been deployed to such an extent in Iraq as to diminish their ability to maintain order in the face of any anarchy and chaos that might arise at home.

promote the general welfare,

• it would appear that, contrary to what some folks would have us believe, it was in fact the intention of the founders to have the federal government concern itself with such matters as education, employment, medical care, the environment, and the quality of life. How else can their inclusion of this clause be interpreted?

and secure the blessings of liberty

• the founders knew that the advantages of the liberty that followed upon the war for independence from England were not to be taken for granted, and that if they were to be preserved . . .

to ourselves and our posterity

• . . . for our children, our grandchildren, indeed for all the generations we can imagine to come, we must have a plan that will survive.

do ordain and establish this Constitution

• this is the necessary master plan for America, and this is phrase that starts the heartbeat

for the United States of America.