You're a cold one, Mr. Grinch

Here's a fine Happy Holidays from our fearless leader:

Capping more than 10 years of intense controversy over the fate of some of the nation's last remaining old-growth forest, the Bush administration yesterday finalized the opening of 300,000 acres of Alaska's Tongass National Forest for logging and other development.

"This is the end of a very long process," said Mark Rey, undersecretary for natural resources and the environment at the Department of Agriculture, which oversees the national forest system. "We used the best scientific information available to strike a balance between protecting as much as we could . . . while maintaining a small part of the Tongass for use and management to sustain the 72,000 people who live in southeastern Alaska."

This functions like a gut-shot to those of us who give a damn about the US's natural resources, and I'm guessing that's what it was intended to be. Bush plays his politics with bare knuckles. Nice to see that our last remaining substantial stand of old-growth will pay the price along with pesky liberals. What the hell--it's a decision that will take only five hundred years to reverse.

And Merry Chritsmas to you, too!

More "best of" posting. This one's from April 4th, 2003.

“Support the troops”—but why?

I’m feeling controversial today. So how about this: why support the troops? Okay, because you don’t want to be beaten to death on a public street. But besides that?

I may or may not speak for a group of people who, like me, regard the military with suspicion. On the one hand, the need for a professional military, particularly when you’re a superpower, is well-established. On the other, there’s a whole group of us who don’t necessarily share the values, politics, or worldview of soldiers. In pubs, for example, we scuttle back to the longhairs rather than tarry at the bar talking to the guy in the crew cut who’s advocating invading France. All right, maybe he’s not a marine, but who can say?

I understand the ambivalence: there are kids in Iraq right now who are scared to death they’re going to die. There are kids who have died and maybe even some who are dying. They’ve got families at home who are worried sick about them. Some of them just joined up to get an education. Others are middle-aged professionals away from their professions and spouses and kids. It’s hard to not feel supportive of people in tough situations like that. We’re human; we’re compassionate.

But let’s look at the other side of the coin. We have a volunteer military, and everyone who joins is clear-eyed about what it means. It means you not only agree that the use of military force is a necessity, but you’re so convinced of it, you’re willing to die for that point. It’s not an accidental position. It’s a martial view of geopolitics. A perfectly legitimate one—the predominant one, in fact—but does mean that sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe.

But most significantly, to serve in the military means you’re willing to go to war for causes with which you don’t agree. When duty calls, the military is ready. Serving in the military isn’t participation in a consensual process. It couldn’t be, obviously. But again, it’s a choice freely made.

And then at the end of it all, there is yet a final choice: serving in the US military isn’t like serving in the Iraqi military. If you don’t want to fight, you can choose not to. It’s a difficult choice, because it means shame and prison. But you won’t be shot. Many people have made a similar choice, and served their time. If a soldier believed a war was truly unjust, going to prison would be a noble alternative.

The hawks flog the doves with this crap about not supporting the troops. By which they mean to emphasize one's deeply treasonous nature. But it is crap. The hawks flog everyone (including each other) with accusations of disloyalty. For me, the truth is the war is unjust, it may well have enormously negative effects, and has certainly resulted in the lost lives of innocents. And the people who are conducting the war are the troops—citizens who have made any number of active decisions that reflect their conviction that this war is a good thing. Support them? No. They’re wrong. (Which obviously does not mean I wish a single one would die.) We're all citizens, we all make our calls, and we don't always agree.

I'm not really sure how I missed this, but a week ago, Diane Sawyer and the President had this exchange.

DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask — this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.

SAWYER: — an active —

BUSH: Yet.

SAWYER: Is it yet?

BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that — let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.

SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.

SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

BUSH: So what's the difference?

There's more, but let's just pause for a moment to consider that last comment. What's the difference. Indeed, one imagines this is not a rhetorical question. And that is what's shocking. (But it's Howard Dean who's a little slow on foreign policy.) The exchange continues:

SAWYER: Well —

BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de — dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.

SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.

BUSH: Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...

SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?

BUSH: What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.

SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —

BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America —
SAWYER: But-

BUSH: — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.

The administration of moral clarity

I assume this is all over the blogosphere (and not all over the corporate news).

As a special envoy for the Reagan administration in 1984, Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the defense secretary, traveled to Iraq to persuade officials there that the United States was eager to improve ties with President Saddam Hussein despite his use of chemical weapons, newly declassified documents show.

Mr. Rumsfeld, who ran a pharmaceutical company at the time, was tapped by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to reinforce a message that a recent move to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons was strictly in principle and that America's priority was to prevent an Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq war and to improve bilateral ties.

During that war, the United States secretly provided Iraq with combat planning assistance, even after Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons was widely known. The highly classified program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who shared intelligence on Iranian deployments, bomb-damage assessments and other crucial information with Iraq.

The disclosures round out a picture of American outreach to the Iraqi government, even as the United States professed to be neutral in the eight-year war, and suggests a private nonchalance toward Mr. Hussein's use of chemicals in warfare. Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have cited Iraq's use of poisonous gas as a main reason for ousting Mr. Hussein.

What we need next is a little excavation--finding quotes wherein the Bushies talked about their own moral clarity in dealing with Iraq, while in the meantime slagging France and others for their dealings with the dictator. Supporting quotes from the rah-rah crowd, praising the moral clarity, would also be nice. Anyone got anything handy?

Declassified Rummy documents here. now that I am more caffeinated and alert, I'm reminded of why Rummy's not such a nice guy.

Paul Krugman calls out Bill Buckley and George Will:

Last August, in a moment of supreme synergy, Mr. Perle, wearing his defense-insider hat, co-wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed praising the Pentagon's controversial Boeing tanker deal. He didn't disclose Boeing's $2.5 million investment in Trireme.

Sure enough, Hollinger also invested $2.5 million in Trireme, which is advised by Lord Black. In addition, Mr. Perle was paid more than $300,000 a year and received $2 million in bonuses as head of a Hollinger subsidiary. It's good to have friends.

The real surprise, though, is that two prominent journalists, William Buckley and George Will, were also regular paid advisors to Hollinger.

This is fascinating because, as many of you will recall, the right has long attacked Krugman for his "connections" to Enron. There wasn't anything in those slanders (but that's rarely germaine to a right-wing hit project), but now the question will be: is there anything to Krugman's charges? Time and again, the right has pointedly assaulted Krugman, assuming he'd respond the same way most other timid lefties responded in the PD era ("pre-Dean")--by "aw shucks"-ing an apology cum justification. Are they reaping more of what they've sown? No doubt Will and Buckley will fire back. I look forward to the sparring.

(Meanwhile, to give David Brooks his due props, today's article is right on the money. He's irritated that the other Dems aren't trying to demolish Dean--I wonder why?--but his analysis about the dynamic in the Democratic Party seems accurate. He has also (I think unwittingly) uncovered the reason the Dean campaign is very good for the party.)

All right, my little Sigmunds, pull out your Psych 101 and have a go at this dream. Last night, my sleeping mind manufactured a little drama with Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and me. We were sitting in one of those darkened rooms of the "West Wing's" White House--plush leather chairs and pools of dim radiance. Rummy was on my left, Wolfie on my right. We were apparently all parked there for separate reasons--it wasn't a joint meeting. (Probably we were waiting to see the President. I was likely about to receive the "Defender of the Republic" award for the close watch I've kept on the administration.)

Two things happened in the dream, but I can only clearly remember the second. In the first, Rummy had some issue with dead American soldiers--the PR problem was getting pretty bad. I offered a suggestion that now eludes me, and both Rummy and Wolfie were pleased. Rummy left.

Seizing the moment, I then turned to Wolfie and gave him some advice. I told him that it would be a lot cheaper and save a lot more soldiers lives if the US invested directly in local Iraqi businesses ala Bangladesh's Grameen Bank. Again, Wolfie was pleased. He nodded as if struck by pure revelation.

I remember them as nice fellows, decent enough to spend a few minutes with. It means, apparently, that I'm secretly a Republican and this Kucinich business is overcompensation. So forget everything I've said over the past year. Wolfie and Rummy are nice guys. Damn that liberal press.

Like many bloggers, the time I have for blogging is going to be a little short over the next few days. I thought I'd take the opportunity to flash back on the some of the better posts of the past year. Not only is it timely for the calendar year, but also in terms of this blog's life, which got started on January tenth. I am selecting them partly on quality, but mostly because they're interesting or relevant now. I'll try to get back to regular blogging after Thursday--

Originally posted March 18, 2003

American Nationalism

Nationalism (n) the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation. (Princeton)

Last night I watched I Am Cuba, a 1964 Soviet-produced anti-American movie about the Cuban revolution. (And not because—as the suspicious among you might imagine—I was in an anti-American pique after the President’s announcement of unilateral pre-emption. Actually it was because a friend had loaned us that DVD, left the country, and is due to return tomorrow: I couldn’t face the prospect of confessing I hadn’t watched it in the five months he was gone. I was, of course, caught in the throes of an anti-Bush pique as well.)

The film is a product of the socialist realism school, and it’s claim to fame is the extraordinary camerawork of director Mikhail Kalatozov. Deservedly so. But beyond that it’s a pretty lousy film, because the dogma is so obvious and cartoonish. It shows creepy American businessmen in the Batista era indulging their basest, capitalist-imperialist desires at the expense of hard-working Cubans. One narrative follows a prostitute whom we realize in 1.3 seconds is a metaphor for Cuba—prostituted to imperialists. And so it goes.

The film’s failure as art is revealed in 2003 much more obviously than it would have been 40 years ago. The hypotheses that saturate the film—that capitalism is the root of all evil, and assorted manifestations—seem silly and quaint at best. Film is most successful when it challenges the viewer to think. I Am Cuba doesn’t, because all the issues are settled in our mind: the result is an oddity from a lost age with bitchin’ camerawork.

Or maybe not. Watching a movie like I Am Cuba reminds us that so much of what we “know” is actually what we assume. It is instructive because we know that at one time, such a film—and films like it—were effective because people held different assumptions. Through the eyes of history, all nationalist rhetoric looks silly and quaint and often deadly dangerous. Nazi nationalism, particularly, fills me with dread because its so easy to see where it came from. Out of the desperation of WWI, Hitler fashioned a nationalism of pride and rage.

So it was interesting to watch that film on the day our own President (sort of) declared war. Over the coming days and weeks, Americans will be thrown into deep ambivalence: support for the troops on one hand, resentment and fear that the whole endeavor is a massive debacle on the other. Polls already show that the country is rallying around the President and the troops. Presumably, when the slightest events turn negative, those numbers will drop, reflecting the fear and resentment.

Standing on the edge of the abyss, I can’t help but think that the President’s arrogance is of the same, garden variety arrogance the world has seen so many times. I am willing to bet the farm that in 40 years, his nationalist rhetoric will look as quaint and silly as the Soviet Union’s does now. Americans are not patriots if they follow his blind arrogance—they’re nationalists. The commitment to the ideals of the Constitution are not embodied by a United States that invades countries pre-emptively and against the wishes of its allies. American nationalism is particularly alluring because we all participate in its manufacture—it doesn’t come from the propaganda ministry. But it’s still the same old nationalism. Real patriots question their leaders: patriotic leaders welcome the questions.

Oppose Bush's folly.

[Recap]

By the end of this year's congressional session, Republicans had tightened their already firm grip on the House and moved to marginalize Democrats' influence in both chambers by shutting them out of negotiations on the final version of major bills.

They excluded Democrats from endgame bargaining over legislation to spur energy production. They allowed only Democrats of their choosing to participate in negotiations over restructuring Medicare -- Democrats who, it turned out, were willing to support the GOP-drafted version. And, after a bipartisan start, they barred Democrats from final decisions on the $328 billion spending bill for nonmilitary activities of government....

"It's almost anything goes," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). "I think we're on the edge of something dangerous if we don't turn it around. . . . It's like the Middle East. You just keep ratcheting up the intensity of the conflict."

"It really is one-party, winner-take-all rule, almost like parliamentary government," with its top-down chain of command and strong party discipline, said James Thurber, a political science professor at American University.

"Now Republicans have established the principle: We can do it without them," said Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute.

That Bush, he really is a uniter, not a divider.

After the gallows humor of Friday Satire, here's a nice sentiment from Madison's Capitol Times.

When a federal appeals court in New York ruled that President Bush lacked the authority to detain indefinitely a United States citizen arrested on U.S. soil simply by declaring him an "enemy combatant," some of the headlines called the decision a setback for the Bush administration's war on terrorism....

For a president who takes seriously his oath to abide by the Constitution, such a ruling would not be a burden. If it proves to be a burden for Bush, whose familiarity with the Bill of Rights appears to be woefully limited, so be it. But this is not the news that mattered....

The news that matters is this: With these rulings, the courts have begun to reassert the primacy of the Constitution. They have reminded us that the intention of the founders remains the guiding principle of the land: The United States will be ruled by laws, not men. This simple precept, so cherished throughout our history, has been under serious assault since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft and much of the Congress lost sight of the most basic of their duties - to defend the Constitution. A few members of Congress, most notably Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., did their best to remind official Washington that the Bill of Rights still applies.

And now I'm off shopping ... for a couch (long story).

"PEACE PRESIDENT" MOVEMENT GAINS STEAM

Members of the Nobel Foundation are saying they've been innundated in the past weeks with petitions from supporters of George W. Bush to award the US President the Nobel Peace Prize. Founders of the "Peace President" movement say they wish to highlight the success of Bush's dual invasions. Forty-nine-year-old Jenna Thomson, a housewife from suburban Houston, organized the effort. "What kind of inconceivable harm might Saddam Hussein have done if not for the gentle humanity of this visionary leader?"

Thomson, who had never voted before 2000, said she organized the movement to emphasize the President's successful foreign policy in the face of "liberal lies." "People like Michael Moore disgust me. He'd rather see terrorists like Saddam Hussein bomb another building than stand up to them. When the President invaded Iraq, fewer than 100 soldiers died. And how many lives did they save? Now that Hussein has been discovered, we truly do live in an age of peace. It's all thanks to Bush."

Since the war ended, 321 US soldiers have died. Since the initial invasion, 460 have died.*

The Nobel Foundation has so far received over 100,000 signatures. Each petition is emblazoned with a dove perched on a Tomahawk missile. While this iconography might seem to work against the President, Thomson said it is at the heart of their argument. "War in and of itself isn't a peaceful act. But it isn't all that violent, either, what with today's surgical weaponry. We felt the use of the Tomahawk emphasized the kind of peace President Bush is bringing to the Mideast."

Critics of the movement called it "outrageous" and pointed out that between 4,000 and 10,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the US invasion.*

Asked to comment, the President referred questions to his spokesman, Scott McClellan. "But I will say this. One of the things you've seen about our foreign policy is that I'm reluctant to use military power. It's the last choice, it's not our first choice. A free country, a peaceful country in the heart of the Middle East is in the interest of all nations. This is a transforming event. The emergence of a peaceful Iraq will transform the region in a positive way, that will make it more likely that the world is peaceful."**

The Nobel Foundation said it would seriously consider the nomination.

____________________________
* Actual figures.
**Actual quotes, from Tuesday's press conference

Kerry's done. He's in such trouble that he's likely to raise less than Kucinich in the fourth quarter:

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) announced yesterday that he is putting $850,000 of his own money into his presidential campaign and will put more in as soon as he gets a mortgage on his home on Beacon Hill in Boston....

Sources said Kerry was close to running out of money to finance his campaign. After getting off to a fast start, raising more than $7 million in the first quarter of 2003, sources said he is likely to raise between $1 million and $2 million in the final three months of the year, just when demands for travel, staff and television advertising are escalating rapidly.

Between one and two million? That's shockingly low. Sometime after the first of the year, numbers will come out again, and the polling deficit in New Hampshire will narrow compared to the money deficit.

I suspect Kucinich will raise more than that--he did last quarter, and his campaign is looking more robust than Kerry's. Kucinich has done something Kerry and Lieberman never did manage--he found a grassroots base. Because he polls so badly, he's inevitably thrown in the Sharpton and Braun camp. But those candidates have no base--do they even have a network of supporter websites? Kucinich is out working, setting up broad support.

Part of the reason he hasn't gotten the press he needs to get the support in the polls (which will give him the press--that old vicious cycle) is because he hasn't raised that much money. Let's see what happens if he comes in as a credible second-tier candidate and finishes ahead of Kerry. Could be an important boost.

Josh points us to a survey Nader's running at his website wherein one may voice an opinion about his potential candidacy. Early this morning (I was inexplicably awake before five--blogspot was down, naturally) when I filled out the survey, it asked me to submit personal information before it tallied my "for-the-love-of-God,-Ralph,-don't run!" vote. I was about to go on a rant about how he has no intention of listening to voters--he just wants to build up a mailing list. Strangely, now you can just submit your opinion anonymously.

(Though actually, "no" is as robust an opinion as you're able to give. To add "for the love of God, Ralph, don't run!" you have to fill out the "comments" section. I urge you to do that, and particularly, mention if you voted for him in the past.)

OREGONIANS: GIVE DOUGH NOW

If you want to help the liberal cause, you need to pull out your pocketbooks. But here's the really good news for Oregon residents: you can deduct the first fifty bucks (or $100 for couples) from your 2003 Oregon tax bill.

The Oregon Bus Project describes the process:

Currently, Oregon allows its citizens a tax credit ($100 for couples, $50 for individuals) for donations to political action committees, also known as PACs. But this credit is only available until December 31, 2003. If you don't make your PAC donation by then, you'll lose the opportunity to claim this special credit forever.

It won't cost you anything - despite what you may have heard about getting something for nothing.

Here's how it works: You send your $100 or $50 donation before December 31, and next April 13 as you're madly filling out your tax returns, you'll be able to take a credit for that same amount. That means you'll owe the state $100 or $50 less than you would have without making the donation.

This works with any PAC, of course, not just the Bus Project. They're a pretty good choice, though, so I'll include information about them here. I'm happy to post a list of how to give to other worthy PACs if people send me along their contact info. This is a great opportunity, folks, so I hope you all take advantage of it.

BusPAC
PO Box 15132
Portland, OR 97293
503.233.3018
email info@busproject.org.

This is huge.

President Bush does not have power to detain American citizen Jose Padilla, the former gang member seized on U.S. soil, as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The decision could force the government to try Padilla, held in a so-called "dirty bomb" plot, in civilian courts.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Padilla's detention was not authorized by Congress and that Bush could not designate him as an enemy combatant without the authorization.

After rulings against the DOJ yesterday, the Bush administration must be starting to feel a little picked-on. No doubt this will fire them up to be that much more intent on placing ideological judges on federal benches.

(As a reminder, Talk Left has the last word on issues legal. Jeralyn has some nice stuff about the Ashcroft decisions. I expect her to begin posting on Padilla later today.)

You may wonder why I'm a Dennis Kucinich supporter. It's in the water, apparently:

The Ohio congressman boasts atrocious poll numbers in New Hampshire and Iowa but has struck a chord in Portland. Kucinich for President 2004 lays claim to the only local office for any presidential candidate (1420 SE 37th Ave.). This fervent following has a database of 600 volunteer names, including a core group of about 65 who have helped raise more than $150,000 with 2,000 individual donations in Oregon.

Two weighty economic declarations you might like to consider. First, Max Sawicky distinguishes between "liberal" and "leftist" economic views among bloggers (this in response to Matt Yglesias's meditation on whether the blogoshpere is itself slanted right or left). His description is fairly partisan, but his view holds water.

In general what should be called left v. liberal in economics comes down to market intervention. Liberals support tax and transfer policies and public spending but (relatively speaking) shy away from market regulation, especially in the realm of trade. Liberals think you should balance the budget over the business cycle, uphold a minimum wage, expand environmental protection, and absolutely leave trade alone. They also think you should let the Federal Reserve do whatever it likes, to preserve its "independence" (sic) from politics. For liberals, labor is just another "interest group" -- something to superintend and care for, given the limits implied by fiscal moderation, free trade, and Fed supremacy....

The constructive leftist is amenable to deficit finance, as long as debt does not grow too fast. She is more amenable to regulation and a European-style public sector (i.e., 40 percent of GDP, rather than less than 30% as in the US). She would like to incorporate social clauses on human and labor rights and environmental standards into trade agreements. She would like to restructure the Fed towards democratic norms. She looks to labor for industrial action in defense of economic justice, not obedience to Democratic Party orthodoxy....

The left is criticized for favoring "equality of result" rather than opportunity. The implication is that those so favored are undeserving, unqualified. This assumption is used to prove itself, in rebuttal to actual demographic data on qualifications. A fair selection process for jobs or other opportunities would roughly conform to demographics (including factors going to qualifications, such as education). When results are observed that diverge radically from what we could expect, there is a case for government intervention. Fairness or its lack derives from where the power to control selection is.

I don't want you to think this is a fair summation of Max's point--it's not. It is one of the best posts I've read there, so do yourself a favor and go read it.

Next we turn to Crooked Timber, where Dan Davies argues that econ ain't science, it's rhetoric. A hotly-contested point, as you might imagine.

The point is this; economics is, as Deirdre McCloskey points out regularly, a form of rhetoric. At its heart, it is and has always been about the construction of a certain kind of argument, which is meant to be persuasive over human action. I state this without argument, in the knowledge that many people at work in the field believe that they are involved in a project of genuine scientific enquiry. I feel no argument of mine is ever going to carry the day on this issue, so if anyone wants to make the case for economics as a science, I’ll simply respond thus: "Sir, I gracefully concede that you yourself and your department are engaged in a value-neutral quest for scientific facts about the allocation of resources under conditions of scarcity. I apologise for having suggested otherwise. But would you at least grant me that the description 'A form of rhetoric … the construction of arguments aimed to be persuasive over human action' is a decent description of what all those other bastards are up to?"

Brad DeLong, criticized in the article, rebuts.

Call me sentimental, but I can't help but see something symbolic in this Ashcroft news. All of it coming out on the same day that Lord of the Rings comes out. A flood of bad news, like the flood that swamped the Uruk-hai at Isengard...

Oh come on, like you didn't think of it, too.

Johnny Ashcroft's Bad Day
Part 1 - Moral Crusade

The leader of the US Department of Justice found himself on the wrong side of the law yesterday -- four times. (Good thing he's not subject to the three strikes law, eh?) What the news reveals is further evidence that Ashcroft's an idealogue who uses the power of office to abuse laws he doesn't like and ignore laws inconvenient to his ends. Helluva guy to have running the DOJ.

Let’s go to the big news first. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled yesterday that California's medical marijuana law is not subject to 1970's Controlled Substances Act. What's interesting is the basis for the ruling--interstate commerce:

The court on Tuesday ruled that prosecuting medicinal marijuana users under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional in states that allow such use under the advice of a doctor, if the cannabis isn't sold or transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.

"The intrastate, non-commercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician'' is different from drug trafficking, the court wrote in its majority opinion [the ruling was 2-1]. "Moreover, this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market.''

This effort was Ashcroft's attempt to subvert state law (upheld by the California Supreme Court) in his continuing crusade to bend the law in order to punish those he finds immoral. He has a similar effort pending to use drug laws to punish doctors in Oregon who participate in the voter-passed and state-supreme-court-upheld Death with Dignity Act.

Johnny Ashcroft's Bad Day
Part 2 - Political Corruption

Also yesterday, Ashcroft was fined for violating campaign finance reform laws in 2000, when, as an incumbent, he was so unpopular that he lost his senate seat to the deceased Mel Carnahan. Apparently even breaking the law wasn’t enough to woo Missourians (?) to his cause.

The Federal Election Commission has determined that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's unsuccessful 2000 Senate reelection campaign violated election laws by accepting $110,000 in illegal contributions from a committee Ashcroft had established to explore running for president.

In documents released yesterday by the FEC, Garrett M. Lott, treasurer for the two Ashcroft committees, the Spirit of America PAC and Ashcroft 2000, agreed to pay a $37,000 fine for at least four violations of federal campaign law. Lott agreed "not to contest" the charges.

Johnny Ashcroft's Bad Day
Part 3 - Violating Defendants’ Rights

It just gets better and better. Not only has the DOJ done a woeful job of capturing and prosecuting terror suspects, but in prosecutorial zeal, Ashcroft violates the rights of the suspects it does apprehend.

U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was sanctioned by a federal judge on Tuesday for twice violating a court-imposed gag order in the Detroit terror trial….
"Two serious transgressions committed in this case are simply one too many for the court to abide with no response," U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen wrote in an 83-page opinion. "More than a warning is necessary here."

Rosen criticized comments Ashcroft made at two press conferences -- the first on Oct. 31, 2001, and the second on April 17 -- in which Ashcroft praised a government witness during the trial of four Arab immigrants in Detroit….

In a Nov. 26 letter to Rosen that was made public Tuesday, Ashcroft apologized for what he said was an inadvertent violation of the judge's order.

Johnny Ashcroft's Bad Day
Part 4 - Violating Immigrants’ Rights

And as a final bonus, NPR is reporting that the DOJ is being sued for targeting illegal immigrants, a civil (not criminal) violation.

Immigration advocates file a suit charging that it is unlawful to use police crime databases to target illegal immigrants. The Justice Department began adding the names of immigration violators to the databases about two years ago as part of post-Sept. 11 reforms.

Audio here.

All of this is ripe for inclusion in the Dossiers. So it shall be.