December 11, 2003, Twist and Shout
The Gang that Can't Shoot Straight strikes again! The timing was propitious: the President called world leaders (such as from... France, Germany and Russia) to beg for their loan forgiveness of Iraqi foreign debt, just as almost simultaneously, the Pentagon was announcing its vindictive policy of excluding "non-coalition" countries from bidding on Iraqi reconstruction projects. Supposedly, the President was most unhappy about having to do this-- but say what you will about George W. Bush-- this is a man with an ability to keep a straight face; I daresay I don't think he embarasses easily. I'm sure the timing of the request did help assure the inevitable "non", nein or "nyet" to the request, but from my point of view, you just can't make this shit up! The four year old in chief tells the world he wants what he wants-- and if you don't like it... WAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Assuming, BTW, that a French, German or Russian contractor could do an Iraqi reconstruction project cheaper and faster than its American counterpart (you know-- by submitting... a lower bid), the policy of advancing Bush personal pique at being dissed over going into the war will have the effect of... increasing costs to the American taxpayer.
But, its a worthwhile endeavor to show n'er do well countries like... the rest of the fucking world, come to think of it... that they're either with us, or against us, and if they're not with us, then fuck them. Sound basis for policy, eh?
BTW-- happy 60th birthday to Presidential candidate John Kerry.
December 10, 2003, Keep Your Hands Off My Baby
In a move that comes as a surprise to exactly no one, the broad-minded Bush Administration has made good on its promise to be petty about letting Iraq reconstruction contracts only to companies that have given generously to the Bush-Cheney team... er, from countries that supported the war effort. Specifically, while 63 countries are apparently eligible for Iraq reconstruction contracts, countries that opposed the rush to the Iraq war are not. German and French officials are "studying" the dictat, and will determine if they have other means of leverage in response (such as, presumably, trade sanctions).
Well, in some sense, this was always out there: the Bush Administration had made it clear since before the Iraq war that it intended to be mean-spirited, and certainly, it planned on holding these reconstruction contracts as a reward or punishment for support or opposition to the war. And now, here it is...
Nothing like mending fences with countries like France (largest Moslem population in Europe) or Germany (home of the Al Qaeda cell that launched 9-11) (and both of whose help and cooperation we will need in the War on Terror TM) or even Russia and China (needed to deal with North Korea)... not when a more important principle like the Bush Family Honor TM is at stake!
December 10, 2003, Leave My Kitten Alone
Part of the price of having chosen Iraq as the single most important issue in the history of the world and committing all of America's military and financial might to avenging the great wrong done to the Bush family in 1992 is that the nation boasting the mightiest military force the world has ever known must now rely on the help of less than fully savory regimes to achieve its other policy ends. Such is the case of the apparent policy change in "strategic ambiguity" regarding PRC-Taiwan relations, as best enumerated by Arthur Silber in this here rant. (link via Norbizness) Might we be selling out our longstanding friend, free and democratic Taiwan, on the altar of other interests? Its starting to look that way... (By way of background, during a visit by China's state premier Wen Jibao, President Bush has apparently done double back flips to advise Wen just how much he opposes Taiwan's machinations about having a possible referendum on "independence", and apparently, the President has conveyed a "re-thinking" of "strategic ambiguity" toward American military response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan.)
Aside from amen-ing Arthur with a "yeah, what he said", I think we should all remember how effectively the President has dealt with China before, such as the unfortunate spy-plane downing incident in the year 1 (B.9-11.) where Bush, in consultation with Colin Powell and others, agonized over the correct wording of an apology for our having our aircraft and its crew downed in international airspace and held hostage by a tyrannical regime that the President couldn't decide then was a strategic "competitor" or "ally". This was all part of the pre-9-11 package that led most people to believe that the Dauphin was not, in fact, chosen by God to lead the nation in crisis, but rather was chosen by political cronies who should have thought better about their front man. (All that changed later, of course, when we all saw the light, in the form of igniting jet fuel crashing into office buildings).
Thanks to various intelligent policies, we find ourselves "leveraged". In the financial realm, deficit generation as far as the eye can see requires someone to buy our bonds to finance our free-spending Republican controlled government; that someone has been the People's Republic of China's Central Bank, even as we berate that nation for its exchange rate that seems to favor its own exports, making our trade deficit worse as well-- another problem. Part of our not running (as in the late the Clinton era) a surplus (or at least a much lighter deficit) is that somebody else owns our ass: in this case, the Chinese own hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in American government debt.
And of course, by shooting the wad on Iraq, we need help-- tremendous diplomatic help, if not conceivably military help-- in dealing with the North Koreans. China has hosted variuos multilateral talks, and is deemed North Korea's closest "ally". I don't think its a misstatement to say we really need their help in that department as well-- to possibly de-fuse a potential nuclear war, or certainly the threat of one, from the volatile North Korean regime.
Oh-- thanks to the exchange rates and really cheap labor, China makes an awful lot of the stuff we use in our daily lives each day-- and is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, so we have huge business investment there as well. It does this all while still being a highly repressive dictatorship, with few if any active dissidents, maintaining communism's iron grip even while dismantling some of its benefits like guaranteed employment and universal healthcare.
So... thanks to Bush's two most disastrous policies-- the irresponsible deficit spending and the irresponsible and unnecessary Iraq campaign, we are forced to go hat in hand to the world's largest dictatorship and beg their indulgence not to invade our longstanding free and democratic ally across the Taiwan Straits. Got it? We must now assure the PRC leadership that we are absolutely opposed to Taiwan's expressions of its desires for de jure
independence to go allowing with its over 50 years of de facto independence-- and indeed, now make the "strategic ambiguity" not so much a matter of making China guess how vicious an American military response to Chinese aggression towards Taiwan would be, but a matter of making Taiwan guess whether there would be any such response at all. (The worst part is that China's stance toward its "renegade province" is probably just bluster, as well: most Taiwanese have no interest in pissing off the mainland that much, where Taiwan is heavily invested, and the PRC has no interest in destroying a key source of its own investment capital!)
But... this, ladies and gentlemen, is where your strong, tough-talking leader has now brought the United States. We apparently must now kowtow to dictatorships and sell out the aspirations of a free people, because we are both militarily and financially leveraged to the point were we have little choice. Just imagine how far this President and Administration can take us if given four more years.
December 9, 2003, Here Comes The Sun (II)
In its biggest deployment since World War II, Japan has announced its intentions to send a contingent of troops to Iraq. The Greater Southwest Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Or perhaps a tacit recognition that Japan has been a free-rider in international security long enough, most or all of those responsible for WWII are now dead or too old to matter, etc.
The 1,000 Japanese non-combat troops will probably make little more than a symbolic difference (though they may lend key logisitcal support). Coupled with German participation in the force in Afghanistan, perhaps with the Cold War long gone, we have finally arrived at the future-- where the United States leads as the hegemon, but "free riding" is discouraged.
Japan's participation-- as it reduces American duties and burdens, even a little-- should be welcomed.
Of course, even today another car bomb injured dozens of troops in Iraq...
Hopefully, in conjunction with Prime Minister Koizumi, Chancellor Schroeder, and others, President Dean will clean up this Iraq mess that, like me, he opposed in the first instance.
December 8, 2003, Memphis, Tennessee
Nashville, Memphis, Carthage... whatever-- wherever the hell he is or is from, former Vice President Albert Gore is reported to be about to endorse Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination.
This, says former Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile, is huge. And she's right. Former President Bill Clinton and his seeming favorite candidate, New York's junior senator, have more or less held off from making an endorsement of anyone, and I wouldn't expect them to do so.
But Mr. Gore seems to be assessing which way the wind is blowing, and is making a decisive move to throw his clout behind a Democratic frontrunner, in the hope that the race for the nomination, with Gore's imprimatur, will now quickly go to Howard Dean, and most of 2004 can be devoted to constructing an appropriate campaign to unseat the incumbent. Its showing some of the balls we all wish Gore had shown in 2000, when, in an attempt to shore up "the base", he tried to run to the left of... himself. (Also, thanks to Clinton's personal "issues", he had to distance himself from an otherwise popular agenda.)
Gore is making a move, then, to distance himself from Clinton, and taking quite a chance on Dean at this stage. If he fails at being a kingmaker now, he may leave the Clintons as effectively the only national leaders of the Democratic Party. Ah, but if he succeeds...
Let's see how this plays out. Dean has picked up key union endorsements, and is still running a vibrant, creative campaign (and will these stupid debates end already?), he is flush with millions of dollars from small scale contributions, and he's polling well. And yet, not a single primary or caucus has taken place. Dean, without question, is at least not business as usual for the Democrats (see Dick Gephardt, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman). We'll see if Gore's endorsement is as decisive as Gore thinks it might be.
This just got interesting.
December 8, 2003, Kansas City - Hey - Hey- Hey- Hey
What you might ask does Kansas City have to do with the Bowl Championship Series of American College Football, which in its infinite wisdom scheduled a national champtionship game in the Nokia Sugar Bowl between Oklahoma and Louisiana State Universities, while screwing the more popular University of Southern California Trojans? Loyal reader Brian from Vegas writes in to note that if we can't even fairly decide on a football champion, what possible business is it of ours to try to fairly set up democracy in Iraq? Yeah-- what he said.
Oh-- Kansas City is where they announce the NCAA basketball seedings from, so I assume it must have something to do with football too, and I figured, when else am I gonna use it? (Also, far more people will attend the dozens of college bowl games than we have troops stationed in Iraq.)
Once again, a simple tournament-- simply a semi-final using two designated bowls and a championship game after-- say, in Hawaii every year-- would end controversial nonsense like this. Every other sport has a definitive ending-- an unequivocal championship. Its often impossible to pick the best two teams in the nation-- as this year-- but at least the best four teams at least doubles the chance to be wrong about it. I don't know-- in a world where it is becoming clear that the goodies are given out on a progressively more and more corrupt and crony basis, and the Supreme Court decides that arbitrary deadlines are more important than counting votes, it would be nice to see sports relatively free and pure of that. Point shaving? Sure. Doping? Absolutely. But damn-- these bogus computer football rankings have to STOP!
December 8, 2003, For You Blue
Loyal reader Steve from Indiana sends me this N.Y. Times piece from over the weekend outlining the latest charming tactic employed by the American occupation forces in Iraq: surrounding the villages (of suspected miscreants, I suppose) with barbed wire and shoot to kill orders of anyone who comes out without the appropriate (English language) identification card. Another tactic we can include with plowing orchards and kidnapping families of suspects and of course dropping daisy cutter bombs in attempts to "get" suspects. This should make us even more popular, going into the plans to start cutting off food and water (don't want to encourage socialism) that I understand are in the works. Even more hearts and minds will be won.
"They've got to be protected, all their rights respected, until someone we like can be elected."
Barbed wire around villages and arbitrary check-points. Of course, a lot of Israeli troops actually speak and understand Arabic-- so they can trade insults with their involuntary houseguests in their own language-- an advantage not widely shared in the current American version of the West Bank and Gaza on the Tigris.
So-- a mission to protect America from Saddam's (non-existent) weapons of mass-destruction, which might be turned over to Al Qaeda because of Saddam's (non-existent) ties to Al Qaeda-- has creeped into "liberating the Iraqi people" and then into latest incarnation of barbed wired villages, where we protect the Iraqi people from themselves by incarcerating them.
Mission creep? Or just creepy mission?
December 7, 2003, Little Child
How to categorize the tragic American air attack on an Afghan village that left 10 dead, including nine children? A tragedy? An accident? An intelligence failure? A bad break? A war crime? There seems to be a discrepency, btw, as to whether or not we "got our man", that being former Taliban militant Mullah Wazir in a remote village in Ghazni province; the locals seem to think he left ten days earlier.
It seems that nothing will deter the United States from its post-9-11 obsession with using air strikes to carry out individual assassinations, even if the practice has a remarkable history of (1) mercilessly killing large numbers of non-combatant civilians and (2) failing to actually kill the target. But, as they say, when all you have is a hammer, everything else looks like a nail. The fact that these expensive tactics have failed to get bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, but have managed to kill thousands of others (a couple of Afghan wedding parties come immediately to mind) does not seem to change anything. Not that I blame our military planners and the men and women in the field-- sending unsupported ground troops would be madness, of course, and there aren't that many options. But something has to give-- somewhere, somehow. Our continuing arrogance of power cannot be a good thing in winning the hearts and minds of people we would like not to embrace Islamist fundamentalism (again, that's just me).
The United States has focused on super-high-tech weaponry at the expense of on-the-ground knowhow and footpower, heavily focused in the naval and air power realms, and hence, we got the aircraft-- that's what we're gonna use, damn the collateral damage. Worse, we have a Government that has made a key point of its foreign policy the using of this force, simply because we have it (I recall Dick Cheney say in a debate in which the catatonic Joe Lieberman just let him say it that the principal purpose of our military was fighting and winning wars -- not defending our nation, preferably by deterring such wars in the first place-- but actually having such wars. And wars mean casualties-- even if those casualties are, ahem, non-combatant civilians.
But on the whole, if the goal is ultimately the total defeat of Islamist fundamentalists like Al Qaeda, one wonders if the full panoply of U.S. policy-- the now well-established-as-entirely-unjustified (at least for the reasons publicly stated) attack and occupation of the most prominent secular Arab state, the nastiness of that occupation, the brazen flouting of international law as we detain Moslems at Gitmo, etc.-- are almost designed to make things worse in that department.
I continue to wonder if the Bush Administration might not prefer a major terrorist incident on American soil prior to the presidential election. Wonder indeed...
December 6, 2003, The White Album
Yes, its snowing hard here in Brooklyn. Several inches on the ground, several more to come. Relatively early for a New York area blizzard, but hey-- we live in the North-- it snows here.
Speaking of snow, I seem to be polling badly in WizBang's "Best Blog" poll, where somehow this blog has been nominated in the "best liberal blog" category, and is being massacred by blogs that have dozens if not hundreds of times its traffic (as well as actually being really good blogs-- but don't let that stop you; vote early, vote often). To those of you who have already voted for this blog, God bless you! We already may have more votes than the talking dog-Bruce Moomaw ticket expects to garner in the New Hampshire primary...
On a snowy Saturday reminiscent of Russian weather, this week's visit to Pravda gives us this story of a nation whose leader says its course as a democratic state will not be hijacked by the spectre of terrorism-- Vladimir Putin's Russia. Putin made a relatively defiant statement particularly directed at Russia's upcoming elections in light of a probable Chechen terror assault suicide bombing on a commuter train at Yassentuki, Russia (near Chechnya) that left 42 dead and hundreds injured.
My understanding is that at this point, after all of the various terror assaults on them, the Russian people would prefer a negotiated settlement with the Chechens separatist (some sort of autonomy deal presumably) rather than attempting to crush them militarily, which is Putin's favored course. Its the same paradox Israel faces in the West Bank and Gaza, or of course, the US of A faces in Iraq these days. You want to respond to acts of brutality... brutally. But it ends up just making things worse.
"Terror" is just a method of warfare-- a nasty one, to be sure, but tactically inevitable where one side is grossly outmatched in a head to head confrontation but still wants to achieve military and/or political objectives. One man's freedom fighter is another man's war criminal, though as technology advances, as 9-11-01 if nothing else taught us, guerrilla tactics can now do incredibly extensive damage invariably aimed at civilians ill-prepared for the onslaught. Hence, a "war on terror" is not likely, by itself, to be effective, though it is the perfect platform from which to launch irrelevant sideshows for perceived political benefit (such as the Iraq adventure). My point, from the Russian context, is that the nastier Putin tries to be with respect to the Chechens, the harder they dig in, and the more Russian opinion favors some negotiated way out. Kind of like the American experience in Iraq-- both American and Russian parents wonder why their sons and daughters must be sacrificed in the name of a questionable and arguably ineffective policy prerogative.
But Russia continues to suffer these Chechen terror strikes, unlike the US of A, which has not suffered direct internal assaults since 11 September 2001 itself (which, perhaps we should refer to as 2001, a Pander to the Base Odyssey). As such, Russian nastiness is a bit more understandable at this point than American nastiness.
Its hard to deal with disagreeable people, particularly zealous and/or crazy people who want to blow themselves up. But brutality seems only to beget further brutality-- as the weaponry of the world gets technologically better and able to inflict ever more savage results, the need to "engage", if not settle outside of combat, becomes even more critical. Is Al Qaeda a different story? Don't know-- that is a group, like its fascist precursors, that probably must be destroyed outright (and that may require the ultimate destruction of its Saudi Royal sponsors via two more regime changes-- one in Washington and one in Riyadh); but certainly in the Iraqi campaign (which diverts us from the critical business of destroying Al Qaeda) as we kidnap families of suspects, plow over orchards, withhold distribution of food and water and other charming measures designed to consolidate our control, we should not be the least bit surprised as we incite stronger popular opposition to our actions.
Then again, what do I know?
December 5, 2003, I'll Cry Instead
What to make of this bizarre and tragic story of the stabbing death of Baltimore federal prosecutor Jonathan Luna whose body was found in Lancaster County, PA, some 70 miles from Baltimore, on a day the prosecutor missed the sentencing hearing on a rapper and another man on drug charges. You got me. Hopefully, this strange case will be solved, and soon. Luna leaves a wife and two small kids, and made it out of the Mott Haven section of the Bronx to graduate college, law school and become a high-powered federal prosecutor. I understand he spent some time working in the Brooklyn federal prosecutor's office for then U.S. Attorney Zachary Carter, prior to the Baltimore service. Oh man, what a waste this is.
Luna seems to have left his house around midnight, never to return. Hopefully, investigators will be able to sort this out. The men whose case he was working on had already agreed to plea bargains. Of course, a federal prosecutor has an opportunity to make many enemies in the course of their work. The linked story notes the murder of another federal prosecutor in the Seattle area around three years ago, and an incident around 20 years ago involving a murder for hire plot by a CIA agent against a DC federal prosecutor who is named in the article (and happens to be someone I know professionally).
Not much else to say about this case, I'm afraid. As we watch the President surround himself with security measures designed to insulate him from spontaneous encounters of any kind that I'm sure that even Hitler or Stalin would have found impressive, its nice to know that the guys and gals who do the sometimes down and dirty business of government work on a day to day basis are, in general, on their own. I'm reminded of a story told by my then colleagues during my own brief tenure at the Justice Department, of a colleague traveling to Idaho, who found her rental car shot up (I don't recall if she was in it; my recollection is the headlights were shot out). What did she do? Why... she turned the car back into Avis... went to the airport and left Idaho, of course!
Well, not much else to say I'm afraid...
December 4, 2003, P.S. I Love You
What to make of the Bush Administration's sudden decision to allow alleged unlawful combatant U.S. citizen Yasser Hamdi (now incarcerated in the naval brig at Charleston, S.C.) to meet with counsel. Well, this New York Times analysis by Neil Lewis is, more or less consistent with what I would anticipate: a cynical ploy by the Bush Administration to look more reasonable going into the judicial reviews of its detention policies, both the citizens held as unlawful combatants, and the furriners held at Gitmo.
It may be my training as an attorney (one who at one time worked for the very same United States Department of Justice who now seems charged with defending the personal whims of the President and his attorney general, which as I recall were not mentioned in my oath of office, rather than the laws and constitution of the United States, which as I recall, were so mentioned), but I regard these detentions (especially of citizens) as by far the most ominous thing the Bush Administration has done-- and to be honest, more ominous than anything any President has done in my lifetime. Why is that, you say, TD?
Well, say what you will about Bush's other policies, be they tax cuts, or environmental policy, or minimum wage changes, or tariffs (which it now seems clear at least on steel that the President will retreat with tail between legs), no matter how ill-advised such policies are, at least there appears to be some accountability somewhere, be it in Congressional modification, or ultimately, judicial review, if not ultimately the voters. But in the unlawful detentions-- er, unlawful combatant detentions-- the Bush Adminsitration simply argues "we're at war-- I said so-- and as such, I can do whatever I want-- regardless of any showing that I'm holding the right people, or showing that I am affording them their rights". No accountability. Bush (or his designee, these days DepSecDef Wolfowitz) is judge, jury, jailer, and possibly executioner. That works well in authoritarian shitholes-- but we have a constitution and rule of law-- hell, we had a damned revolution-- to prevent just such arbitrary authority-- no matter how egregious the alleged offenders are. Even if its about alleged "national security".
I've previously noted that Article I of the Constitution (not any amendment) specifically provides that habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of civil insurrection; the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (I think that's the case) rejected President Lincoln's executive order to more or less execute someone he didn't like, finding that as long as the federal courts were open and doing business, the great writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended. Period. I remain perplexed that Bush has gotten away with this so far, just because of a one-off terrorist attack that I was a hell of a lot closer to then he (or 99 plus percent of the country) was. I don't know about you, but I'd rather take my chances with more terrorist attacks (we are anyway, of course, as there's no showing that holding unlawful combatant detainees without charge, counsel or trial enhances our national or personal security better than comparable measures that have been permitted in similar cases in the federal courts) than with an arbitrary police state.
Let me just say I hope the courts don't fall for this bullshit: the entire concept of a special prisoner held without constitutional rights (indictment, arraignment, counsel, trial, appeal, etc.) should be of sufficient offense to most Americans as to make them cringe.
They that would sacrifice their precious liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin He also said that its better to hold one's tongue and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt, so I'll stop here.
December 3, 2003, Not Guilty (II)
Hey everybody-- in an absolute legal shocker (not), Scott Peterson entered his plea of "not guilty" in a California court for the murder of his then 8-month pregnant wife, Laci (and the unborn child, of course). Do I have an opinion here? Well, hiring Mark Geragos usually means you have some money to burn, and that you may well be guilty (even though he'll probably get you off-- somehow). This means you, Jacko. Actually, I have no idea. The circumstantial evidence seems compelling, though I understand the physical evidence may be weaker than portrayed by prosecutors. Who knows? Why this particular gruesome event has become a cause celebre is anybody's guess-- but it has. As such, I now suppose "Scott Peterson" and "talking dog" should provide just a cornucopia of google-bombing.
Which, since its a media event, and the segue is google-bombing, the Unseen Editor has wanted me to mention the words "Paris Hilton Sex Video" for some time. I guess we should also provide this link , assuming anyone cares to find the Paris Hilton Sex Video through The Talking Dog. Just wanted to make sure I got in a mention of the Paris Hilton Sex Video, BTW. And that other cultural phenomenon that has precious little appeal to me, Punk'd.
Anyway, I would suggest reading Jeralyn of TalkLeft for actual meaningful commentary about the Scott Peterson case; Jeralyn merritt, a nationally noted criminal defense attorney, has at various times pointed out flaws or at least gaps in the evidence against Peterson, at least as presented in the media.
Why do some cases get to be causes celebres, and others are, well, less media inspiring? You got me. I note that my own cases have, by my count, appeared on the front page of New York's Law Journal four times, though my name never got mentioned. Why those cases? Who knows? And I don't do high profile murder cases, either.
Anyway-- the reason you read this-- how can I tie in the Scott Peterson case with an excuse to bash George W. Bush? Other than noting that if you are accused of murdering your wife (and unborn child), you still get to have charge, counsel and trial, whereas if the President decides he doesn't like you (that's literally the standard suggested by the Government in its legal position) then you can be incarcerated at whim, "I got nothing". As to Peterson, the truth is out there. I hope it comes out at the trial.
December 2, 2003, How Do You Do It
Well, I had an interesting e-mail exchange recently with MadKane , not only about her new song parody "Oh What a Miserable Failure", but about how, no matter how much events should make George W. Bush hide in the White House (or in Crawford) and never ever come out, just iddy biddy bits of good news (a Medicare "reform" here, a good quarter's growth there) and suddenly "he's unbeatable". Why does Dubya seem to rise like a phoenix, no matter how discredited or even scorned he should be (see millions of lost jobs, record deficits, national existential angst, war where rate of American troop casualties is accelerating)? Just one little thing-- such as a two hour chicken shit appearance to "raise the morale" of a group of already gung ho soldiers in Baghdad-- and, ahem, Bush is unbeatable.
Well, it seems, its not just politicos themselves that seem to have this characteristic, but ideas as well. Dave Johnson of Seeing The Forest e-mails to send me his article on this phenomenon , most directly applied to the current issue of "tort reform" (and the concomitant attack on "trial lawyers", perceived as a key funding source for Democrats). It has been pointed by me (and others) that many of the "factual" bases for "tort reform" are, in fact, nonsense. Some of the recent developments, such as a national bill to cap medical malpractice "pain and suffering" awards to $250,000, regardless of how egregious the injury or the malpractice, bear no relation to reality. Most malpractice cases settle, and most settle for a lot less than $250,000. Of those that go to trial or verdict, doctors win the majority of cases.
The brilliant-p.r.-though-an-absolute-lie notion that somehow medical malpractice awards are the reason that the cost of health insurance continues to increase astronomically has, as Dave notes, become "conventional wisdom", even though ostensibly false. (For example, this study of health care costs notes that there are lots of reasons for the cost acceleration-- of which "litigation" driven factors are very minor when compared to the real reasons health care costs have gone up so dramatically: 1) the shift to managed care, 2) new technology, 3) the rise of new “blockbuster drugs”, 4) increasing consumer demand and rising incomes, 5) the aging population, and 6) increasing mandates and litigation. Litigation is, ahem, last-- hardly worthy of primary mention by the President of the United States in a State of the Union Speech as to what he'll do to reform health care, eh?).
Dave's article jumps out of just the issue of "tort reform" to note that the good old right wing has developed a well-organized set of policy and public relations shops that use various methods to get the word out (i.e. a few simple phrases) be it in straight advertising or in newscasters and commentators mouths to keep otherwise unpopular issues (such as... tort reform) alive and well (as well as well-funded). One example is school vouchers (full disclosure-- I actually favor vouchers myself, insofar as many African-American parents also favor them as a means of breaking out of an otherwise rigid and uncaring system). However, even in areas where vouchers have been voted down handily, the issue seems to live on. Another area addressed is the environmental movement, where the right just seems better organized, and in that case, frequently manages to push through otherwise wildly unpopular environmental law changes (usually relaxation of restrictions on polluters).
Dave's suggestion is that lefties develop our own network of think-tanks and public-relations and issue-driving shops, to combat the right's use of the same. To some extent, of course, such organizations already exist, and its a matter of focusing the right skills and energies to put out a coherent, popular message. (Well, the Unseen Editor has quipped that such a left-wing think-tank and policy shop already exists at the national level: its called The New York Times.) Either way, these days, the left is clearly being out-dueled in the battle for hearts and minds. See above re: blatant lies being accepted as absolute truth.
Well, its a fine idea. Certainly, there should be plenty of money around to do it- as many of the bigger philanthropists often lean left. I tend to agree- given how crass and uncompromising the Bushistas and the de Lays and the Frists are becoming, it seems that there is a full frontal ideological and political war going on out there, and maybe all angles-- including the "psy-ops" proposed by Dave should be explored, especially in the contexts of "political truth squads" on issues. With apologies to clothing merchant Sy Syms, perhaps, in the marketplace of ideas, the educated consumer is the best customer. Then again...
December 1, 2003, When I Get Home
First, its time to wish Happy Birthday to the Loquacious Pup.
And now... it appears that American authorities are negotiating for the release (or at least transfer) of over 100 detainees at Camp X-Ray, Guantanimo Bay, Cuba. This is certainly a welcome development after nearly two years of complete legal limbo (including denial of charge, counsel or trial) for the prisoners there. It seems that many of the detainees may have been turned in for aggressive bounties offered for Al Qaeda members and others at the time in Afghanistan, and may actually have had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The fact that acknowledging this has taken two years in some cases is precisely why the Government should not have unfettered discretion to hold such prisoners in the first place, without seemingly abiding by either treaty obligations or American law. Even assuming the primary purpose of the detentions is "intelligence gathering", at some point, a competent interrogator should realize when he has some unlucky shlub who otherwise knows nothing. You would think so, anyway...
If, as some kind of a face-saving measure by the Bush Administration, Camp X-Ray is emptied of its prisoners as they are returned to their home countries, I'd probably be o.k. with it. The precedent is awful, but at least the ongoing abomination of the United States acting in a completely arbitrary and lawless manner would come to an end. I'm not holding my breath. It is interesting also that this (negotiating of prisoner transfer) activity seems to have been jump started when the Supreme Court agreed to hear review of the entire detentions policy. Perhaps the Government will also reconsider the status of "unlawful combatants", which include U.S. citizens.
We'll see how this turns out, of course. I'm betting that the Bush Administration will handle this in whatever manner is most politically expedient. Anything else, and the terrorists will have won...
November 29, 2003, I've Just Seen a Fence... er, Face
Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei has announced that he will (probably) not have the first summit between a Palestinian Prime Minister and an Israeli Prime Minister (that would be Ariel Sharon, of course) unless Israel halts construction of its lengthy security fence. I consider it fortunate that I haven't had too much to say about matters Israel of late, because it signifies both that acts of terror against Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists and acts that are often just a little too damned similar (in effect, if not intent) against Palestinian civilians seem to be relatively quiet of late.
Further, we're not hearing nonsense about American and "Quartet" sponsored "road maps" that are really just drawings of paths through minefields anyway. Sharon talking to Qurei at all (after having effectively undermined his predecessor Abu Mazen) seems a positive step. Hosni Mubarak is standing by hoping to be able to broker some kind of Israeli-Palestinian arrangement; the road map itself seems to have some blood on it, and may be illegible.
And so, on to the fence. Its a nice move: many if not most Israelis favor the fence as yet another barrier against Palestinian terror incursions, noting famously that almost no (fatal) terror assaults originate in pretty much walled in Gaza, but rather come from the more porous West Bank (and hotspots like Hebron and Jenin). In fact, if built along the pre-1967 Israeli border, it would be hard to construe the fence as (externally) provocative, though settlers on the far side of the fence might want to consider moving a bit to the West. This being the Sharon government (in coalition with some hard righties), the fence is going a tad inside the Green Line, indeed, incorporating not just settlements, but some large Palestinian population centers (said populations which may or may not be moved a tad to the East).
Well, the argument goes that Israel is trying to change the facts on the ground, by making the fence its de facto border, and grabbing land in the process. This neglects the fact that at a cost of maybe $100 -200 million, the entire cost of fence construction is comparable to that of a single nice sized settlement (when you count the roads and the sewers and the utilities and the security and all). In short-- its an issue-- but not a major one. But Palestinian strongmen (Qurei seems to be the personal choice of Arafat) need something to grasp onto-- and the fence is there, and God knows, Sharon is making it easy to make it an issue.
In a stretch, I just finished (more or less) reading Joseph Ellis' Pulitzer Prize winning "The Founding Brothers", which of course, relates to the progenitors of the American revolution, notably Washington, Adams (John and Abigail) , Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Burr noting that in the early days of the American Republic, one's revolutionary criteria were what mattered in getting elected-- hence, the first president could only be Washington.
Well, in the Palestinian context, that means only those perceived as having Intifada street creds have any legitimacy among the Palestinians, even while the Israelis might regard them as criminals or worse (BTW-- the reason the American Revolution succeeded was because of men whose integrity was beyond reproach-- a man such as Washington who voluntarily ceded his military command and later his Presidency, rather than insist on ruling for life, like, say... Arafat.) However, there must be some deference paid to the Palestinian side (such as Qurei) if anything other than (continuing) disaster will result. Its too bad about Abu Mazen, who Israel dissed and undermined at every turn-- he was trying to improve things IMHO.
Sharon's recent pronouncement that land concessions by Israel will be necessary was good. When he actually does something constructive about it in real terms-- that will be better. Here's hoping...
