Last Week in Charleston

The day after Thanksgiving was our second wedding anniversary, and Mary and I decided to celebrate both at our place in Charleston, SC. I took a few pictures, but I really need to remember to have the camera ready at hand more often.

Air Power

Seymour Hersh zeros in on the real significance of the administration's latest Iraq War policy zig-zag — we may soon have fewer boots on ground, but we'll have a lot more in the air, and that's not really a good thing.

Within the military, the prospect of using airpower as a substitute for American troops on the ground has caused great unease. For one thing, Air Force commanders, in particular, have deep-seated objections to the possibility that Iraqis eventually will be responsible for target selection. "Will the Iraqis call in air strikes in order to snuff rivals, or other warlords, or to snuff members of your own sect and blame someone else?" another senior military planner now on assignment in the Pentagon asked. "Will some Iraqis be targeting on behalf of Al Qaeda, or the insurgency, or the Iranians?"

It's interesting that Hersh continues to produce must-read investigative pieces, while Bob Woodward, his contemporary, is becoming part of the kind of government conspiracies he used to unmask. In the end, it's just the difference between stenography and reporting. And reporting as such is an increasingly scarce resource.

Tax Cuts That Benefit Nobody

Via Big Picture comes an interesting take from Cornell economist Robert Frank on the impact that Bush's tax cuts have had on the rich. While it's clear that those tax cuts have added dollars to the pockets of the best off, in the grander scheme, they lose along with everybody else. Apart from the financial instabilities caused by the growing deficit, which impact the rich disproportionately, there are some other matters to consider:

For example, deficits have led to cuts in federal financing for basic scientific research, even as the United States' share of global patents granted continues to decline. Such cuts threaten the very basis of our long-term economic prosperity. As Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, said: "We thought we'd keep the high-end jobs, and others would take the low-end jobs. We're now on track to a second-rate economy and a second-rate country."

Large deficits also threaten our public health. Thus, despite the increasing threat from micro-organisms like E. coli 0157, the government inspects beef processing plants at only a quarter the rate it did in the early 1980's. Poor people have died from eating contaminated beef but so have rich people.

Citing revenue shortfalls, the nation postpones maintenance of its streets and highways, even though doing so means having to spend two to five times as much on repairs in the long run. In the short run, bad roads cause thousands of accidents each year, many of them fatal. Poor people die in these accidents but so do rich people. When a pothole destroys a tire and wheel, replacements cost only $63 for a Ford Escort but $1,569 for a Porsche 911.

Deficits have also compromised the nation's security. In 2004, for example, the Bush administration reduced financing for the Energy Department's program to secure loosely guarded nuclear stockpiles in the former Soviet Union by 8 percent. Sam Nunn, the former United States senator, now heads a private foundation whose mission is to raise private donations to expedite this effort. And despite the rational fear that terrorists may try to detonate a nuclear bomb in an American city, most cargo containers continue to enter the nation's ports without inspection.

So maybe the question isn't just, "what's wrong with Kansas?" Maybe it's also, "what's wrong with rich people?"

Brownie's Got a Heck of a New Job

It's hard to believe, but Former FEMA Director Michael Brown is has a new job — as a disaster preparedness consultant. I don't imagine that he will get a lot of business from people serious about actually preparing for disasters, but he should do OK with those who would want to reward him for loyally echoing the administration's "blame the locals" talking points in Katrina's aftermath.

I do, however, hope that Brown publishes a list of any cities or states that sign up with his new company, so I can stay as far away from those places as possible.

College Football Update

Oh, USC, why do you break my heart so? After a thrilling five-game winning streak, the Gamecocks lost the only game that really mattered. Final score: Clemson 13, USC 9. It was a messy game with a total of eight turnovers, but that just means there were a lot of chances to win. Oh well, at least the game didn't end in a fight. USC ends the year 7-4; bowl bid TBD.

UMass also ended its season 7-4, losing to Hofstra 21-10. With the loss, the Minutemen also gave up any hope of winning the Atlantic Ten crown, which went to New Hampshire. Oh well, wait until next year.

The one bright spot this final week of the regular season was Cornell, which came from behind of beat Pennsylvania 16-7. No Ivy League title for the Big Red, but oh well, 6-4 ain't half bad.

Friday Cat Blogging

Sometime I like to jump up on the chair and attack Mary's hand. She's quick, but I'll get her next time.

Hacks on Drugs

Food and drug safety is serious business, and it would be wrong to staff the FDA with a bunch of ideologically-motivated political hacks. Surely even this administration wouldn't play political games with something so important, would they? Yeah, right…

Top federal drug officials decided to reject an application to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill months before a government scientific review of the application was completed, according to accounts given to Congressional investigators.

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, concluded in a report released Monday that the Food and Drug Administration's May 2004 rejection of the morning-after pill, or emergency contraceptive, application was unusual in several respects.

Top agency officials were deeply involved in the decision, which was "very, very rare," a top F.D.A. review official told investigators. The officials' decision to ignore the recommendation of an independent advisory committee as well as the agency's own scientific review staff was unprecedented, the report found. And a top official's "novel" rationale for rejecting the application contradicted past agency practices, it concluded.

The full GAO report is here.

College Football Update

Color me a little surprised, but the Gamecocks came through on Saturday and did what hasn't been done in over 60 years: they beat Florida 30-22. And what's more, if Georgia suffers a complete collapse and loses it's last two games, USC becomes SEC East champs. Wow.

Of course, as every diehard USC fan knows, it doesn't really matter what you do in your first 10 games (and 7-3 ain't half bad) if you lose the last to Clemson. So fingers crossed for next week.

UMass didn't do so well, losing to Division I-A Army 34-27. Not much to say about this rather ugly game, except — why doesn't Army pick on someone in their own division? The Minutemen slip to 7-3 on the year.

With its 45-7 win over Columbia, Cornell has insured that it won't have a losing season. The Big Red plays Pennsylvania, also 5-4, so there's a good chance Cornell could get six wins this year.

Still Lying

On Friday, President Bush said that:

…more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate — who had access to the same intelligence — voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Set aside for the moment that the vote in question didn't address the issue of Iraqi regime change. For me, the claim that Congress had the "same intelligence" always sounded like a bit of bullshit. So how nice of the Washington Post to confirm this for me:

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

Pretty clear, isn't it? Bush lied then, and he's still lying now. And so are the rest of the Republican shills who keep repeating this bogus talking point.

Friday Cat Blogging

Sometimes I like to guard the laundry.

Good, But Not Great

In the key races yesterday, things worked out just fine for Democrats: Kaine won in Virginia, Corzine won in New Jersey, and the Governator lost in California.

I'm especially happy with the Kaine win, and not only because he ran a good race and I used to live in the state. I'm also glad because this race gives us a preview of the serious problems Bush might have mobilizing voters in the mid-term elections next year. His much publicized, last minute visit to Virginia didn't effect the outcome, and his appeal was crucial for GOP candidates in 2002.

In Charlotte, however, the results were decidedly mixed. While Democrats maintained their 7-4 advantage on City Council, Republican Pat McCrory won his sixth term as Mayor. As Republicans go, McCrory isn't bad, but I'd still like to see a (D) next to the mayor's name two years from now.

Most disappointing, though, was the defeat of the school bond issue. In hindsight, it appears that the proposal was a compromise which pleased nobody — not the voters in suburban areas that need more new schools, nor the voters in urban areas that need existing facilities renovated. The need for both expansion and renovation is clear, but what comes next is anyone's guess.

The school board got two new members, Tom Tate and Ken Gjertsen. Here's how Tate answered the local paper's question of whether intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution:

No. "I don't see it simply as an alternative theory to Darwin. I know people have attempted to say it is really not a religious theory, but it does not appear to me to be a scientific theory, either."

And here's how Gjertsen answered the same question:

"Sure. It's true, isn't it? I just don't see how what exists here could be done by chance."

Tate's a Presbyterian Pastor, too. These should be some interesting meetings.

RTFM

I'm a little disappointed that it won't be in bookstores by the time that pagan gift-giving holiday rolls around in seven weeks or so, but Valentine's Day is still a good choice for a release date. After all, Pastafarianism is all about love (well, love of beer and strippers, at least).

Bye Bye Charlotte101

When I moved to Charlotte 6 months ago, I was happy to find Charlotte101, a community blog modeled after Greensboro101 just up I-85. I added a link to it on my blogroll, and used to check it out every couple of days or so to see what was going on in the neighborhood.

I stayed patient when it stopped being updated this summer, but now that the front page is little more than a series of links about asbestos-related cancer, I'm taking it off my blogroll. Nothing against people looking for information on that particular subject, but the site has clearly been hijacked, and if the other admins don't care enough to do anything about it, I don't need to be promoting it on my blog. Too bad, too — the original site was a good idea.

I Just Want an Intelligent School Board

It's election day in Charlotte, so this morning I started doing my due diligence on the school board races. Normally I vote straight ticket, but the school board is non-partisan, so there are no helpful letters next to each name on the ballot.

Reading a Q&A of the candidates in my district, I was depressed to find that all four answered "yes" to the question of whether intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution.

[Jaye Maxx Alexander] "They need to both be taught equally, and it's up to the parents to expand what they want their children to believe in."

[Dwayne Collins] Initially said he would be "highly reluctant" because it's such an emotional issue, but later said it would be wise to teach both. Students should be exposed to all ideas so families can decide "which ideology they will embrace."

[George Dunlap] "We ought to educate people on all facets of what's going on in the world, and you leave it up to people to make up their minds."

[Lucille Puckett] Of course. "We are all here because of a higher being. It's not about a particular religion. It's a way of letting children know who they are and where they come from."

Look, I know that this is the Bible Belt, but the fundamental issue here really comes down to this: should science classes teach science, or not? I'm really disappointed that I can't vote for someone who believes they should.

P.S. While the Charlotte Observer is a really crappy paper with an even crappier website, I was surprised to find that they had quite a comprehensive and well-organized election section, linked this morning from the top of their front page. Good job!

Cheerleaders Gone Bad

Usually, I try to keep this blog out of the gutter, but this story forces me to dive right in:

Two Carolina Panthers cheerleaders were arrested early Sunday morning at a Tampa nightclub.

According to a police report the two cheerleaders were arrested after an incident at Banana Joe's in the city's Channelside district at 2:10 a.m. One cheerleader was charged with battery, the other with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

There's more to this story, but you'll have to read the whole thing to find out what else these two were up to last night.

Update: More sordid details, and mug shots!

College Football Update

Oops, missed a week. Let's catch up.

Who would have thunk it? After starting the season 2-3, the Gamecocks have won their last four in a row. Last week, they came from behind to beat Tennessee 16-15. And this week, the hung on to beat Arkansas 14-10. That winning streak probably ends next Saturday when USC plays Florida, but they've guaranteed themselves a winning season, and thus bowl eligibility. Not bad at all.

UMass saw their own five game winning streak come to an end last week, losing to New Hampshire 34-28. But they bounced back, manhandling Delaware 35-7. The Minutemen are now 7-2, and tied with New Hampshire atop the Atlantic 10.

Cornell also had a split record the last two weeks, losing a close one to Princeton 20-17, and then beating Dartmouth this Saturday 21-10 in a very sloppy game with a combined 26 penalties for over 200 yards. But hey, a win's a win, and the Big Red is now 4-4.

The Right's Making Up Rights

This is Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, on Monday:

When President Bush was re-elected last fall, no promise he made to the 62 million Americans who voted for him was more central to his campaign than his call for judges who respect the original intent of the framers of our Constitution, who will interpret the law, and not seek to legislate from the bench. There is every indication the President has kept those promises in his selection of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

And this is Tony Perkins on Thursday, criticizing a US Court of Appeals decision allowing a local school board to survey elementary school students about sex:

It is hard to imagine that any of those sitting judges who issued this infamous ruling ever had a seven-year-old child. This outrageous and offensive result must be overturned. It is one more horrible example of what happens to parents' rights when liberal judicial activists are unchecked. Whatever happened to the child's right to be a child?

Now, where exactly does Perkins think a "child's right to be a child" is to be found in the Constitution? And upon which article does he base his claim that "outrageous and offensive" results should be deemed unconstitutional? And why is Perkins suggesting that judges should have "legislated from the bench" and overruled the actions of a democratically elected body?

Tony Perkins manages to encapsulate the logical incoherence of the social conservative movement's approach to judicial issues. It claims to be against judicial activism, and points to some version of originalism or strict constructionism as validating that position. What's not explained, though, is how the latter has anything to do with the former. Indeed, looking at the record, it is the conservatives on the Supreme Court who are most willing to overturn federal statutes. In particular, Scalia's vaunted originalism is no safeguard against activism here. And there is also good reason to believe that the kind of close reading of the Constitution long associated with conservatives can in fact lead to some very liberal outcomes.

But this isn't just about logic, it's about winning. And conservatives have gotten very good at winning these arguments — so good, in fact, that they are able to frame most issues in the way that best serves their agenda. So when conservative judges overturn acts of our democratically elected Congress, they are said to be simply following the founders' intent. And when a liberal judge lets stand a local school board policy, that's judicial activism. The phrases used lose any consistency of meaning, but that's part of what winning means — it's being able to define the terms of the debate however you want without anyone really noticing.

It would be interesting if we could actually have a real debate about Alito based on the criteria that both sides tacitly acknowledge — it's about outcomes, not process. Do we want to live in our America, or do we want to live in theirs? But we're not going to get that debate, only another series of ponderous and deeply dishonest lectures from the right about the vitues of the founders and the need to avoid judges who will legislate from the bench. How depressing.