Wampum

Is Turnabout Fair Play?

One tactic of the right has been to use selective and creative editing of remarks by John Kerry to twist his meaning. The issue of John Kerry's call for a more "sensitive war" is only one example.

I have not yet seen condemnation of that tactic by the right. The absence of such condemnation could be taken as agreement that such tactics are fair. If so, there should be no outrage if Kerry or groups unsympathetic to President Bush use a little creative editing of their own.

It would not be difficult to create an ad that suggests that Mr. Bush's policies have resulted in a war on terror that, in Mr. Bush's words, "I don’t think you can win."

Similarly, it should not be too difficult to craft an ad that suggests that Mr. Bush's Iraq policy has been, once again using Mr. Bush's own description, "catastrophic."

If those ads run, what are the chances that the right will think that turnabout is fair play?

Update:

Just to be clear, I am not in favor of selective or creative editing by either side. I prefer a more straightforward approach. For instance, I see nothing wrong with an ad that runs a clip of Mr. Bush calling the war in Iraq a "catastrophic success, " and then noting that Mr. Bush is half right.

Reaching in, the modern face of the Seizers

Maria Jacobsen is a member of the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians, one of the Chumash tribes. In 2002 the Santa Ynez Band adopted a resolution declaring that the custom and tradition of the tribe is that resources of the Band held by enrolled members of the Band should not be provided, distributed or allocated to nonmember spouses of Tribal members or nonmember ex-spouses of Tribal members in the form of spousal support awards. Her ex-spouse has obtained a support order from a California family court. Ms. Jacobsen appealed the support order, joined by the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians and several other Indian tribes which filed a supporting amicus brief, arguing that tribal customs and resolutions are appropriate equitable factors to be considered in setting spousal support. Federal law requires States to accord full force and effect to tribal ordinance or custom unless the ordinace or custom is inconsistent with applicable civil law.

The Chumash Indian population was decimated in the 1700s and 1800s by the Spanish mission system, which seized the 7,000 square mile Chumash territory from Malibu to Paso Robles inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. After mission secularization in 1834, lands formerly under mission control were given to Spanish families loyal to the Mexican government. No lands were returned to the Chumash. During the Anglo period up until the very recent present, the Chumash economy was defined by menial work-for-hire on area farms and ranches, distinguishable from the Chinese and the later Japanese work-for-hire populations only by having even less social status than immigrants, even from Asia.

At no point, from the mission period, through secularization to the end of the Mexican period, the early Anglo period to the present, until this case, In re Marriage of Jacobsen, 04 S.O.S. 4738, has a claim been made to alienate the remaining land or wealth of members of the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians, as the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians had, like all California Indian Bands, little land and even less wealth to alienate. At no point during each of these legal regimes -- Spanish, Mexican, and American, did a Chumash Indian ever recover alienated Chumash land through marriage to a non-Indian.

Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert, writing for the Court of Appeal, wrote that the Santa Ynez Band resolution was "inconsistent with public policy", citing "a mutual duty of support inherent in marriage" ... "that continues after separation, subject to the family court's broad discretion and the supporting spouse's ability to pay."

Maria Jacobsen's per-capita payment from the tribal gaming operation is $300,000/yr. Judge Gilbert argued that the distributed funds were deposited by Jacobsen in personal bank or investment accounts, so there are no issues of tribal immunity involved, and upheld the Family Court support order of more than $7,400 monthly in temporary spousal support to her former husband.

If a tribal resource is under the control of a member indian, it can be alienated. Where have you heard that before?

Happy Birthday Net

15' of grey cable

Link established on this date, 1969. First end-to-end test data flowed over the link on 2 September, 1969.

The North American Wall

Free Climbing

Since coverage appears to be wanting, here's another image. Two annotated arrows. Truth points one way, Bush points the other. The climbers were arrested. About 250 of the 5,000 or so eco-cyclists were picked off for arrest, in addition to the dozen HIV/AIDS protestors. The real North American Wall is a section of the west face of El Capitan in Yosemite Valley, but I thought the name added sense to the subject.

Elsewhere in Alliance of the Psychotic, John Howard asks, with a perfectly straight face:

Who do you trust to keep the economy strong and protect family living standards? Who do you trust to lead the fight, on Australia's behalf, against international terrorism?"

He's calling for early elections on October 9th. The Bushies have already tried to manipulate the Aussie media with Labor-are-Traitors messaging. John Howard isn't asking which platform is the better, but which of the two, and not both mind you, do you trust. Labor-are-Traitors is as simple as it gets.

Go read Juan Cole today

Do read Juan Cole today. He writes on the subject of (to borrow from an unfortunate turn of phrase by Atrios -- the singular) "the Iranian Opposition" and the Bush Administration. I've been writing about this as well, both in the context of the elections for the 7th Majlis last Spring, and the uranium casus belli many people are stroking. He also writes about the Niger "yellow cake" affair and the uranium casus belli. I'm pleased to see Juan cover this. Atrios does as well.

OK. One self-referential link. Read the comments. For the larger context there is my series on the 7th Majlis, "Return of the ... One True King", which you can google, or you can google +wampum +iran and +wampum +uranium just to be catholic, er, all inclusive.

Updates: Self-referential link added, and reference to Duncan Black's post in Escheton.

Friday Prayers

Militia commanders captured or surrendered at the end of US military operations at the Shrine of Ali in Najaf: 0

Militia men captured or surrendered at the end of US military operations at the Shrine of Ali in Najaf: 0

Heavy weapons captured or surrendered at the end of US military operations at the Shrine of Ali in Najaf: 0

It appears to me that the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr were successfully extracted from encirclement by vastly superior forces. The Abizaid-Sanchez-Kimmitt line since Bremmer decided to arrest-or-assassinate al-Sadr and triggered the May-June shoot-out in Fallujah which is still the balance-of-forces issue, is that the Sadrist movement, reconstituted as an armed militia and operationalized as a defensive force in some urban areas, was using the local population as "human shields".

It appears to me that the thousands of marchers that accompanied Sayeed Ali Sistani from Basra to Najaf inserted themselves into the front edge of the battle area, after taking casualties from US forces or their Iraqi surrogates (Diwaniyyah group, Hilla group, Kufa group), forcing the abandonment of Paul Bremmer's policy (arrest or assassination) by the Alawi regime, and the Abizaid-Sanchez-Kimmitt policy (unlimited collateral damages in the execution of the Bremer policy).

The Battle of Najef was not "won" by the US or its surrogates, in military or political terms. It was "won" by a group of actors, some of whom facilitated Ali Sistani's extraction from, and re-insertion to, Najaf, primarily Ali Sistani himself, and a broad community of interest that wants the US out of Iraq, or at least out of the urban areas where foreign troops operating as an army of occupation must result in perpetual urban conflict at the squad level, and even above.

The NeoCon reading is that taking an abandoned fixed point defended section of a city and some assault rifles and RPGs is a victory of American and Allied Arms. It wasn't. A whole bunch more regular Army and reservists got killed or wounded for several weeks of meaningless ballet around a contemporary Porkchop Hill. A lot of munitions, including 2,000 lbs "guided" bombs, were expended on graves and hotels, with the obvious "hearts and minds" consequences graveyard vandalism and civilian targeted aerial bombing always has.

Finally, there are the texts offered in Friday Prayers all across Iraq, and abroad.

How the Abenakis greated Verrazano

As all protest is illegal and the Republic has been dead since 12/14/00, this is as good or better than anything since the reproductive rights rally at the Mall. In Le Monde this is reported straight, above the fold and in depth Premières manifestations anti-Bush à New York. Let me know (comments) how this was covered chez vous.

It was like this when Verrazano's ship coasted southern Maine in 1524.

In memory of Frank Sanache

Frank Sanache

Frank Sanache, a Meskwaki (Fox) was sent to North Africa, where five months later he was captured by the German Army and spent the next 28 months as a POW. He died Saturday at the age of 86. He was the last living Meskwaki Code Talker. He is remembered as a humble man, reluctant to talk about his war experience and his years as a POW. He is shown in the photo on the right. Eight Meskwakis were trained by the Army Signal Corps to use code during World War II. They were not recognized for this, and kept their collective secret for almost 60 years. Recently, the State of Iowa recognized Sanchez for his service, and Senators. Charles Grassley (R) and Tom Harkin (D) are working to have the Meskwaki and other Code Talkers recognized with Congressional medals.

The Meskwaki, based in Tama County, were one of 18 Nations that contributed code talkers to the Allies during the war. The Meskwakis Code Talker veterans went largely unnoticed because the code was classified until 1968.

The other Meskwaki code talkers were Sanache's brother, Willard, Dewey Youngbear, Edward Benson, Judy Wayne Wabaunasee, Mike Wayne Wabaunasee, Dewey Roberts and Mike Twin. They were among 27 Meskwakis who enlisted in the Iowa National Guard in 1941 and were activated in the Army's 34th Division. After his return to Iowa, Sanache worked for 38 years at a paper mill in Tama. He and his wife, Bernice raised four daughters. He also is survived by four adopted sons. He was buried today with military honors.

A Busy Afternoon

School has been back in session for a few weeks now. In our county, Mother's Day was August 9. While we had a great time last summer, both my wife and I are relieved to have Bobby back in school.

Bobby loves to discover new objects. Upon finding something new, he will immediately subject it to a number of tests. He holds it in his hand, fingers it, turns, twirls and spins it, all to guage its shape and texture. He will drop it from one hand to another to assess its weight. He tosses it in the air to see if light will shine through it. He smells it. He tastes it. His taste test is infallible. Finding something new, he will carefully place just the tip of his tongue on it. If it is food, he discards it. If it is not food, he eats it.

Dirt, pebbles, tree bark, grass, soaps of all kinds, silver polish, pencils (he eats the erasers first), checkers, playing cards, books, candles, and many, many other things have been subjected to standard Bobby testing. If the testing finds the item acceptable, it becomes a treasure. If not, he throws it to the ground and moves on to something else.

Bobby's propensity for eating non-food items, as well as his habit of makking a mess by throwing stuff onto the floor, requires us to supervise him constantly. That constant supervision wears on us after a couple of months of summer. Let me explain more fully by way of an example.

About a month ago, Deb had some errands to run and our older son was elsewhere. I was on Bobby supervision duty for the afternoon. Bobby and I were having fun when the phone rang. The call was from my office and I really needed to take it.

Now, Bobby is autistic but he is not stupid. He knows that if I am upstairs on the phone, I am not able to supervise him downstairs. As I said hello, Bobby headed in the direction of his room, but soon I heard his footsteps on the way downstairs.

After five minutes on the phone, I knew I was pushing my luck. After ten minutes, I heard the sounds of far too much glee coming from downstairs. I began to extricate myself from the conversation. By the fifteen minute mark, I knew I had make a serious mistake in taking the call. I promised to call them back, hung up, and headed downstairs.

While on the steps, I noticed a strange odor coming from the kitchen. The smell was not unpleasant but I could not quite place it. As I turned the corner, I found that the odor was a mixture of spices.

Bobby, giggling with delight, was holding an open bottle of lemmon pepper. He was pouring it out onto his hand. He sniffed it and tasted it. Finding it food, he flung the spice it into the air, tossed the bottle to the floor, and grabbed another full bottle of spice.

He had emptied our spice rack. About 20 empty bottles littered the kitchen and Bobby was sitting on the floor in a mound of mixed spices.

I took the bottle from him, returned the four remaining full spice bottles to the rack, deposited the empties n the trash, and reached for a broom.

It quickly became apparent that clean up would be impossible while Bobby was in the kitchen. He was having far too much fun playing in the spilled spices for me to be able to sweep. I hustled Bobby off to his room and returned to the kitchen to finish cleaning up.

Now, I mentioned before that Bobby may be autistic but he is not stupid. When he heard me coming down the stairs, he figured that his time playing with the spices was limited. To prepare for the future, he hid a bottle of ground cinnamon in his pocket.

After sweeping the kitchen, I went to Bobby's room. Bobby was sitting on his bed in a pile of cinnamon. He liked the taste and had licked his hands, run his fingers across his face, through his hair, and all over his clothes. His bed, the floor, and most surfaces in his room were smeared with cinnamon. On the bright side, Bobby's room had never smelled better.

I took Bobby to the bathroom and put him in the shower. Returning to his room, I stripped the bed, vacummed the floor, and wiped down the surfaces.

When I got back to the bathroom to get Bobby out of the shower, I found that I had not noticed that someone had left a bottle of shampoo in the tub area. That is strictly against house rules. As was completely predictable, Bobby had emptied the shampoo into the tub (no doubt sampling the taste along the way).

At least the mess was in the tub. The shampoo created a slip hazard, so being careful to keep Bobby in the room and out of mischief, I cleaned the tub.

Who left the shampoo in the bathroom remains a mystery. My wife remembers that I had used that very bottle the night before while giving Bobby a bath. My older son notes that no one ordered him to take a bath the previous night and argues that the chances of a 10 year old boy taking a bath without a direct parental order are minimal. You may think that is suggestive of a culprit, but I think the evidence is far from conclusive. The Swift Boaters claim that John Kerry could not have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, because he was actually sneaking a bottle of shampoo into our kids' bathroom. I find that highly credible.

Finally having paid the full price for my 15 minutes of inattention, I got Bobby dressed and resumed our play. About that time, my wife returned.

"How was Bobby this afternoon?" she asked. I really did not want to recount the events, so I evaded her question. "He is fine."

"Good, I am going to start dinner, make sure to watch Bobby, ok?"

A little while later, she returned to ask, "honey, where are the spices?"

"I think we are out."

"We ran out of all of the spices at the same time?"

I still did not want to detail my afternoon. "I guess so."

Deb gave me a hard look, then softened her eyes. "Well, dinner may be kinda bland."

The rest of the evening was uneventful, and eventually the kids were in bed and we could relax.

I was in bed, reading newspapers on the laptop, when I heard Deb turn on the shower. A moment later, she stuck her head out of the bathroom. "Where is the shampoo?"

"I think we are out."

She gave me a very long look then shrugged her shoulders. "Yu'all had a busy afternoon, didn't you?"

Oh yes, we are very glad school has started again.

Second Thoughts

As some of you may know, my wife and I are planning to move from Atlanta to the Chapel Hill, North Carolina area next summer. One reason we wanted to live near Chapel Hill is the reputation it has for providing very good educational programs for autistic kids.

As a result, it was a bit distressing to read the following in today's Durham Morning Herald:

Police charged an award-winning former Chapel Hill teacher Tuesday with assault and other offenses that allegedly took place in her classroom for autistic children during the 2003-04 school year.

Supporters, including parents and a former principal, called the charges a "travesty" and praised the teacher's work with the students.

Kathleen Yasui-Der, 49, of 101 Fieldstone Court, Chapel Hill, turned herself in at the Chapel Hill Police Department on Tuesday afternoon to have five warrants served, police spokeswoman Jane Cousins said Tuesday...

The charges relate to two students: a 9-year-old boy and a 12-year-old boy, who were students of Yasui-Der. School officials reported the alleged offenses that occurred during the last school year at Frank Porter Graham Elementary School, Cousins said...

The assaults, according to the warrants, consisted of allegedly bending a student's finger back and slapping a student around the head, Cousins said.

The count of alleged child abuse occurred on March 12, when the teacher allegedly twisted a student's arm, Cousins said.

I do not know what to think. A number of parents who have had kids in Yasui-Der's class have come to her defense as has the principle of the school. I generally trust POA's opinion of teachers.

If the complaints are true, Yasui-Der deserves to be prosecuted. There is no excuse, reason, or justification for a teacher to intentionally strike a nine year-old autistic boy on or about the head.

I will await court proceedings before passing judgment on Yasui-Der. Perhaps it was an accident. Perhaps it was mistaken identity. I do not know.

In my experience, teachers who choose to make educating autistic kids their life's work are kind, caring, professionals who deserve nothing but our thanks and admiration. I consider one of Bobby's former teachers to be "an angel descended from heaven at God’s instructions to help save my son."

Nonetheless, I can not help but have some second thoughts about the move creep into my head.

In the Interest of Science

A group of parents recently staged a protest in Washington calling for the Institute of Medicine to release all data concerning adverse events resulting from vaccines. The parents, and some researchers, think that the release of such data may shed light on the issue of whether or not the inclusion of mercury in childhood vaccines causes autism.

At least one study of the data, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, concluded that such link exists.

The Instiute of Medicine disagrees, claiming that no link between mercury in vaccines and autism exists.

The article linked above concludes with the statement that:

This week the Institute of Medicine is holding meetings, trying to decide just how to share the data.

Now, it is my sincere hope that those meetings will involve a heated debate about the relative merits of publishing the data in HTML versus a PDF format, but I have my doubts.

Good science is promoted when information, including the underlying vaccine data, is distributed as widely as possible so that any number of researchers can see it, test many possible hypotheses against the data, and draw conclusions from the tests.

On what possible basis would the IOM decide that it is not in the best interests of science (as opposed to the best interests of the IOM, the drug companies, the administration, or the public health system) to make the complete database widely available?

Heat Death of Universe Internet predicted, film at 11

Some news sites that are reporting that Aleksandr Gostev from Kapersky Labs in Russia has predicted that a large chunk of the net will be shut down tomorrow. The "news" is already substantially refuted and qualified where elements of truth or high liklihood exist, see the extended article for the current thread on the NANOG list, however, just like the SBVfT nonsense, false reports have true consequences. A similar non-event took place while I was still at SRI, and that non-event caused a lot of the then-ARPA net to partition "off-core" for more than 24 hours.

The cynic in me appreciates Valdis Kletnieks' comment: that the *real* reason why the Internet will fail tomorrow is that XP2 SP2 goes on AU (automatic updater) tomorrow...

We at Wampum would like to go out on a limb and predict that the Internet will not vaporize into a cloud of nothingness this Thursday, but if it does, it's been our pleasure to have annotated its final years of existence. A google search for "imminent death of the net predicted, film at 11" yeilds about 9,250 hits. This is clearly not enough.

[update: I've put a link on the sidebar for stream-of-attack status messages.]

There's more: Continue reading this post...

Exactly

Digby writes:

Although the details differ, essentially we are once again engaged in a misbegotten war in which the goal is amorphous and for which the public feels ambigious. It is the result of a foolish grand geopolitical strategy not self defense and it has American troops embroiled in a complicated foreign battlefield in which we are viewed by all sides with suspicion if not outright hatred. People are dying everyday and nobody quite understands why. The pressure is building.

That at the hands of the Vietnam generation itself, we have found ourselves in this situation again is mind-boggling. And it is a testament to the "suspended in amber" nature of the hawkish mindset that it has happened.

The baby boom generation is incapable of governing if we don't choose among them people who have grappled honestly with the crucible of their lives. And that crucible was Vietnam. George W. Bush and his cronies have never done this. Neither have the Swift Boaters. These people have not faced up to what our country did in that war and as a result we are looking at another war based upon similarly bad assumptions and we are in the process of repeating many of the same mistakes...

This is unfolding before our very eyes in Iraq. It isn't some abstract argument about war stories and faux heroism and who admitted to war crimes a generation ago. This is now.

If there was ever a time that a decorated Vietnam veteran who came home with the knowlege that the war was wrong and fought to end it, was called for to lead this country, it is now. This is not a distraction and it is not beside the point. It is the very essence of the debate in this election.

EPA: lakes and rivers mercury polluted

"It's about trout, not tuna." It sure is. Mike Leavitt, the EPA's administrator has got the issue into a sound-bite.

Most of the new fishing advisories issued last year were due to mercury pollution from coal-fired utilities. There are 1,100 coal-burning utility plants, which emit about 48 tons of mercury annually, these are the largest unregulated source of mercury.

The number of river miles under fishing advisories was up 9 percent in 2003, to 24% of the total river miles in the US. The lake acerage was up 2 percent, to 35% of the total lake acres in the US. The Bush plan of record calls for utilities to cut mercury emissions 29 percent by 2010 and by 70 percent by 2018, at which time, projecting from the current rate of fishing advisories, and assuming mercury emissions are the primary factor in future fishing advisories, 159% of all river miles, and 65% of all lake acres will be so mercury polluted that eating the fish will cause neurological damage. Correcting for the linear and single causation assumptions, the Bush plan of record is that approximately half of all inland commercial and recreational fisheries in the US close over the next 15 years. The technology is available now to reduce emissions by 90 percent by 2008, consistent with the Clean Air Act.

At the press conference Mr. Leavitt also provided a chart showing the level of mercury emission from human causes fell 45 percent in 1999 from 1990. He said that was the most recent data the EPA had available, which is curious on two counts. First, the idea that the EPA ceased data colllection, or has not processed any data collected, or has not released processed data collected sequenct to 1999, is credible only when the absence of the Clinton administration, and the presence of the Bush administration, is taken into account. Secondly, "human causes" includes regulated as well as unregulated waste streams, and the utility waste stream is doubly remarkable for being both the largest single industry sector contributing to the destruction of American fisheries and neurological damage to children, and for being unregulated. Again, the idea that the EPA data colllection, data processing and released reports, cannot distinguish between utilities emissions and other sources of mercury emission, is credible only when the absence of the Clinton administration, and the presence of the Bush administration, is taken into account.

Bring back the Clinton administration.

Note Bene: Alaska has no fishing advisories. I haven't adjusted the percentages to show only lower 48 river miles or lower 48 lake acerage. I also haven't correlated the equivalent summary for Canada, and the Ohio plume doesn't respect the Medicine Line -- Atlantic Canada shares New England's downwind fate.

Colorado Amendment 36-- Can They DO that?

In a previous post, I failed to answer three questions about Colorado Amendment 36. That ballot inititive is designed to allocate Colorado's nine electoral votes by the popular vote rather than on a winner take all basis. I left the fourth question -- can they DO that?-- for later. Later has become now.

In comments to my previous post, Susan writes:

Nebraska and Maine don't have a winner take all presidential election system. Of course they can do it

In one sense, Susan is surely correct. States are free to allocate their electoral votes in any manner they see fit.

Maine and Nebraska choose to excercise that power by allocating two electoral votes to the popular vote winner and one electoral vote for the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional District.

If Maine and Nebraska can choose that allocation, is there any reason Colorado should be not be permitted to allocate all of its electoral votes according to the popular vote? Of course not.

The problem is that what is objectionable is not the chosen allocation but rather the method of making that choice.

The Constitution of the United States in Article II Section 1, Clause 2 provides:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...

The Constitution plainly grants the power to make the allocation of electoral votes to each state legislature. Colorado is attempting to make that choice by ballot initiative. Does that make any difference? I think that it does both as a matter of both law and politics.

As a matter of law, the Constitutional delegation of power to the various State Legislatures can not be lightly dismissed. Take a different constitutional delegation of power to the state legislatures for example. Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constition provides:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature there.

That provision prevented the direct election of Senators untl the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Given that it took an Amendment to the Constitution to take the power of electing Senators away from the state legislatures in favor of election by popular vote, why should the allocation of electoral votes require anything less?

If Colorado voters have a sufficient desire to allocate Colorado's electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote, they will make that an important factor in casting their votes for a State Legislature. If the voters of Colorado fail to elect such a Legislature, then an insufficient public consensus exists on the issue to warrant upsetting the winner take all allocation. The current winner take all allocation arises from an act of the Colorado legislature.

Colorado Revised Statute 1-4-304 (5) provides:

Each presidential elector shall vote for the presidential candidate and, by separate ballot, vice-presidential candidate who received the highest number of votes at the preceding general election in this state.

In 2001, a bill was introduced in the Colorado legislature to change the way Colorado apportioned its electoral votes. The bill, known as SB 51 would have apportioned seven of Colorado's electoral votes by Congressional district with two electoral votes going to the winner state wide (like Maine and Nebraska). SB 51 passed the Colorado Senate but failed to be enacted into law.

The State Legislature enacted a winner take all method of allocating Colorado's electoral votes. The Colorado Legislature reecently considered a measure to change that allocation but could not muster sufficient votes to do so. Having failed to change the allocation by act of the legislature, the proponents of Amendment 36 are now trying to do so by ballot initiative.

The plain language of Constitution grants the power to allocate elecdtoral votes to the State Legislature. It makes no provision for changing that allocation by referendum. Amendment 36, being a balot intitiative, is the act of the voters of Colorado not an act of the Colorado Legislature. Thus, the amendment is constitutionally ineffective to change the Legislature's choice of a winner take all allocation.

If that seems sort of open and shut, please first consider the argument for the constitutionality of the amendment.

The proponents of the Amendment recognize that the Constitution assigns the power over electoral vote allocation to the State Legislature. They also recognize that only the State Legislature has the power to change the current winner take all method. Their argument to uphold the constitutionality of Amendment 36 is that the voting public isthe State Legislature. The following language is included in the Amendment (pdf):

The Colorado Constitution reserves to the People of this State the right to act in the place of the State Legislature in any legislative matter, and through the enactment of this section, the people do hereby act as the Legislature of Colorado for the purpose of changing the manner of electing Presidential electors..

That is an interesting argument. If a state chose to have each registered voter as a member of a (very large) Legislature and essentially conduct its business by referendum (perhaps with heavy use of information technologies), that would seem to be a legitimate, if unwise, choice. I have little doubt that, in such an event, a referendum of the (very large) State Legislature would be effective to change the allocation of elecotral votes.

Colorado has not done that. There is, in fact, a duly elected state legislature in Colorado. It is no argument that the Colorado Constitution permits the voters to overide the Legislature by referendum. The United States Constitution trumps the State Constitution. Colorado can not, either by legislation or amendment to the State Constitution, change the constitutional grant of power to the Legislature.

In addition, the provision of the Colorado Constitution apparently relied on by the proponents of the Amendment does not really allow the voters to act as the State Legislature.

The Colorado Constitution clearly distinguishes between the power of the legislature and the power of the people.

Article V of the Colorado Constitution provides, in part, as follows:

Section 1. General assembly ­ initiative and referendum. (1) The legislative power of the state shall be vested in the general assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, both to be elected by the people, but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the general assembly and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act or item, section, or part of any act of the general assembly.

(2) The first power hereby reserved by the people is the initiative ....

Amenedment 36 is an effort to exercise the power reserved to the people by the Constitution of Colorado. It is not, under Colorado law, the exercise of the power of the State Legislature. As the Constitution of the United States requires that the allocation of electoral votes be decided by the Legislature and not by a vote of the people, it is hard to see how Amendment 36 would be constitutionally effective to change the current winner take all method of allocation.

Can they DO that? I think the answer is no, they can not do it by ballot initiative. Changing the allocation of Colorado's electoral votes requires the act of the Colorado Legislature.

After the debacle of the 2000 election, I do not wish to see the 2004 Presidential election decided by the Courts. If the Colorado ballot initiative passes, and if the allocation of electoral votes under that Amendment proves decisive in the Presidential race (either way), I fear the repercusions of having a second consecutive Presidential election decided by the courts.

Paris liberated!

APPEL AUX BARRICADES (22 AOUT 1944)

ORDRE POUR LA DEFENSE DE LA POPULATION PARISIENNE

LES FFI ET LA POPULATION ONT ENGAGE LA BATAILLE POUR PARIS. CHAQUE FOIS QUE NOS SOLDATS ONT RESPECTE LA TACTIQUE MOBILE, ILS ONT ECRASE L'ADVERSAIRE. CEPENDANT UN DANGER SUBSISTE : LES MOUVEMENT RAPIDES DES CHARS ENNEMIS.

CE DANGER EST FACILE A CONJURER

IL SUFFIT D'EMPECHER LES BOCHES DE ROULER

POUR CELA, IL FAUT QUE TOUTE LA POPULATION PARISIENNE, HOMMES, FEMMES, ENFANTS, CONSTRUIRE DES BARRICADES, QUE TOUS ABBATENT DES ARBRES SUR LES AVENUES, BOULEVARDS ET GRANDES RUES. QUE TOUTES LES PETITES RUES SOIT PARTICULIEREMENT OBSTRUEES PAR DES BARRICADES EN CHICANE. ORGANISEZ VOUS PAR MAISON ET PAR RUE POUR GARANTIR VOTRE DEFENSE CONTRE TOUTE ATTAQUE ENNEMIE.


DANS CES CONDITIONS, LE BOCHE SERA ISOLE ET CERNE DANS QUELQUES CENTRES. IL NE POURRA PLUS EXERCER DE REPRESAILLES.

TOUS AUX BARRICADES !

LE COLONEL COMMANDANT DU GRAND PARIS

ROL

Hopefully the liberation of Washington will require only "tous aux urnes" (everyone to the polls), and not "tous aux barricades". Then again, 48% of the French electorate weren't pro-Vichy, and just about that percentage of the US electorate are still comfortable under Crawford Dictatorship. We may be further from 1944 than just the length of 60 calendars. Sixty years ago today the LeClerc Division entered Paris.

Sri Lanka submarine cable cut

From NANOG

The vessel State of Nagaland severed the SEA-ME-WE-III cable yesterday, and Sri Lanka vanished from the connected universe, except for a few VSAT uplinks. Sri Lanka Telecom's connectivity to the outside world is through the Mount Lavinia landing point of the undersea SEA-ME-WE-III (SMW-III, South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe) fibre optic cable link managed by French and Singapore telecom. SMW-III consists of two fiber pairs (SDH/WDM) with a 40Gbps bandwidth, covering 41 landing points in 35 countries. SLT has filed a $5 million claim against the Shipping Corporation of India, owner of the SO/Nagaland, and a Sri Lankan court has ordered the vessel seized.

For data on SO/Nagaland, click on the following link.

Kathryn Cramer has a nice piece on the GTS Katie incident, and what I think of as the "total ownership cost" of privitization. I'd no idea that a third of Canada's force structure vanished for several weeks. Her piece can be found here. The GTS Katie incident came up on the follow-up discussion on NANOG in the context of asset seizure. Sometimes the cargo is worth more than the vessel.

SME-III

In June I considered posting about a new undersea cable landing in India, and the technical details of how several thousand jobs, whether to voice-circuit-terminating customer-service call-centers, or to data-circuit-terminating "IT" shops, are out-sourced. Eventually I decided not to post about the esoterica of outsourcing. I've changed my mind.

Its not a molehill, if your Aunties are inside it

From Triballaw.

Sean Pickett represents the Sac and Fox Nation, which we last wrote about in June, when the Nation proudly endorsed Kalyn Free (Choctaw) for Congress, she lost her primary race to a privileged White man. The Sac & Fox Nation has sued the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for failure to consult the tribe before excavating a burial mound under the Clarksville Sky Lift. The Nation isn't making a title claim to the land, but a NAGPRA claim to graves buried in the mound. Sean filed for a temporary restraining order in Pike County to halt any activity that would disturb the remains.

"The tribe isn't opposed to anyone protecting the mound, but they're opposed to people doing something without consultation," he said. "Same reason you wouldn't want anyone disturbing your father's or your grandfather's grave."

This pits a tourist trap that has been closed for six years, and its new-as-of-two-years-ago-owner, who admits to a pecunary interest as well as boosterism, against an indigenous burial complex and its dislocated cultural group. This kind of conflict is a litmus test in Indian Country. It cost Howard Dean all Indian votes everywhere (except for a couple of "big name" careerists looking for sweet spots in the next BIA SES turnover). The surprising thing about this case is that thus far no Whites have tried to spin this as a latent casino access issue, as if Indians would put a casino (or a skylift and restaurant) atop a temple mound.

National Academy of Science voted off the island

Here's a turn of phrase you don't see every day.

This turn of events can largely be blamed on Congress, which in a 1992 law told the E.P.A. to set standards for Yucca Mountain "based upon and consistent with" the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, an unusual delegation of authority to a nongovernmental agency.

The OpEd page of the NYT contains this (unsigned) gem. Fortunately, somewhere within the branches of government there is an agency that is in charge of science, and which can reduce the half-lives of reactor waste-stream isotopes to the required span of years. I just can't recall the name of the agency. Was it the Agency on Aging? The Bureau of Indian Affairs? The Consular Office in Nuie? The Department of Defense? The Embassy in England? Please help me remember where we put our science policy.

Primary Ethics in Florida

Peter Deutsch is spending a cool quarter mil to buy 500 ratings points in the Tampa and Orlando media markets, enough for the typical viewer in those markets to see an ad at least five times in the coming week. What's the ad? Well, it can't be "negative" since Deutsch signed a no-going-negative pledge, right?

Wrong. Deutsch's ad is a whisper campaign about a faculty member at UFL who was indited on terrorism charges, which somehow is supposed to make Betty Castor less "electable".

Other than the scale, and the substitution of "terrorist" for "bad parent", I can't tell the difference between this and what MB's primary opponent used.

Please reward the good Dees, and punish rotten the Dees. Put money in Betty Castor's coffers. Write to your friends and family in Florida, ethics is an issue, and so is gender.

In memorium -- Dave Guindon

Moisan, Young, Guindon and Steer

Dave Guindon made it back from Iraq, back from driving a gun truck for six months protecting fuel trucks running the Sunni Triangle. Back to Merrimack. He's shown here in a photo with Staff Sgt. Chris Moisan of Dover, Tech. Sgt. Nancy Young of Auburn and Staff Sgt. Mike Steer of Kingston who posed for a group photo before leaving Manchester Airport with their families Monday afternoon. He is between Nancy and Mike. Dave had served in the Navy, the Naval Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air Force Reserve and the N.H. Army National Guard for 23 years prior to joining the N.H. Air National Guard in 1997, was employed by Raytheon Co. in electronics and communications for the DoD, and had been sent to Bosnia for six months as a civilian contractor.

It feels fantastic. It’s hard to explain it, it feels so good,” Guindon said about being home, shortly after he arrived at Manchester Airport. “I’m just going to take today slow, wake up tomorrow, and see what it’s like to be back in a normal place.”

In addition to his wife and family, Guindon said he missed having a real bed, a real bath and real milk while overseas. He also said that in Iraq, peace and quiet — along with privacy — were in short supply.

“It was not a nice place — let’s put it that way. But you have to go and you have to do your duty. So we did,” Guindon said.

This isn't easy to write. He woke up the following day and before the day was done he took his own life. He is survived by his wife Sharon and their daughter.

---

The approved line is that integrating airmen from 157th Air Refueling Wing (Pease AFB) into the 2632nd Air Expeditionary Force Truck Company (Army combat operations) is a "first", and something picked up uncritically by every media outlet covering one man's surprising, and tragic choice. I suggest that the better reading is that to staff-up the logistical tail of the Expeditionary Force on the ground in Iraq, the Administration found it expedient to put air refueling specialists in gun trucks providing force protection. I'm sorry there is no "better reading" for Sharon and her daughter. Dave was sent where he was sent because the Administration lied about the necessity for war, and the Administration lied about the number of active duty combat-ready units prosecution of the war would require. A few months ago Lawrence Roukey, a Portlander, was sent on a WMD snipe hunt that took his life. He too was survived by a wife and son, and their lifes too were sacrificed to maintain the series of lies that has the US tied down again in another land war in Asia.

Unscrambling Bush's huevos rancheros

Got Life?

The "Mexico City Policy" was introduced in 1984 by the Reagan administration and stated that the United States would not fund any organization that performed abortions or counseled women about abortions.

On January 22nd, 1993 Bill Clinton overturned the "Mexico City Policy".

On January 19th, 2001George W. Bush ordered closed the White House Women's Initiatives and Outreach office.

On January 22nd, 2001 George W. Bush re-instated the "Mexico City Policy".

The image will take you to the just released 2004 World Population Data Sheet, which just happens to mention that nearly 99% of all population increase takes place in poor countries. Something to think about in the shower, neh?

But what comes after January 22nd? What should be filling the Kerry-Edwards Transition Team binders? There is a whole laundry list of EOs to void, the apparatus of political appointees to replace, and, unique to this transition, a whole W-and-his-Party-insisted department of non-civil service jobs (Homeland Security) to fill.

This is an activity that the whole blogosphere could participate in. Erasing Bush is not a small job, and the sooner it is "in the can", the sooner a legitimate government can start thinking about its own policies.

Colorado's Amendment 36

The Colorado Secretary of State has certified a ballot measure to apportion Colorado's nine electoral votes by popular vote rather than the current, winner take all method.

USA Today reports:

A plan to scrap the winner-take-all system of allocating electoral votes in Colorado is heading to the ballot in November.

If passed, Amendment 36 would make Colorado the first state to allocate electoral votes proportionately according to the popular vote, rather than giving a winner all of the state's electoral votes.

Secretary of State Donetta Davidson said Friday that supporters have gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.

When I first read about the initiative, four questions popped into my head. Those questions were:

1) Will the ballot measure pass?

2) Would it apply this year?

3) Does the measure help or hurt Kerry? and

4) Can they DO that?

The first question is easy to address. I do not have a clue about whether or not the measure is likely to pass. I do plan to frequently visit Colorado Luis in the hope of finding out.

The second question is not that simple. It appears that proponents of the measure want it to apply this year. The amendment itself (available from here in pdf) says "in the strongest possible terms" that the voters of Colorado "understand, desire, and expect" the allocation by poplular vote to apply in 2004 should the measure be enacted.

Whether that understanding, desire and expectation has the force of law is left unclear. I suspect that a court challenge would be required to answer that question defintively. In short, the answer to the second question is the same as the first, I do not know.

That said, application of the amendment to this year's election is a bad idea, regardless of any theoretical merit of the proposal and regardless of who it helps or hurts.

It is very unfair to have an election in which the candidates are not informed of the rules until after the votes are cast. The Bush and Kerry campaigns must decide on allocation of resources for the campaigns. Are they competing for 9 electoral votes in Colorado or are they both going to get about half and are fighting for one or maybe two electoral votes? If I were scheduling one of the candidates or allocating the advertising budget for one of the candidates, I would sure like to know the answer to that question before the polls close on election day.

If Amendment 36 results apply to this year's election, the asnwer is not knowable until the results of the initiative are known. Those results will be known to a certainty only after the polls close and the votes are counted.

Last minute changes to the way an election is run promote political chicanery. For that reason alone, Amendment 36 should not apply to this year's election.

The third question is whether, assuming Amendment 36 wins and applies this year, it would help or hurt John Kerry. Before addressing that issue, let me say that it is a terrible thing for Democrats even if it helps John Kerry.

Please understand that if the allocation of electoral votes by popular vote can be accomplished by referendum in Colorado, it can also be done elsewhere. I am sure that Governor Schwarzenegger would be happy to promote such a referendum in California. Had California been using Colorado's proposed allocation method in 2000, Al Gore would have gotten 29 California electoral votes, instead of the 54 he actually received, while Mr. Bush would have gotten 23 instead of zero. Get out your electoral map and try to get a Democrat to 270 electoral votes if California apportions its electoral votes by the popular vote while Texas remains winner take all. Not an easy task.

As to whether application of the provision would help John Kerry, the prevailing view seems to be that it would. In the article linked to above, it seems that all quoted Republicans oppose the measure.

Talk Left, a Colorado voter with a Democratic bent, writes:

Since George Bush is favored to win Colorado, it makes sense to vote for the change, so Kerry at least gets some votes. I think it's a fairer system. If Bush takes all the Colorado votes, it's like my vote didn't count. Under the new plan, my vote will morph into permanent Kerry electoral votes and increase his national total. It's a big difference.

I do not think it is that simple. Colorado is a red state but its demographics have changed with a large increase in the Democratic-leaning Hispanic population. Current polling has Kerry and Bush tied in Colorado. It is less than clear to me that George W. Bush is a lock to carry Colorado.

I suppose that if forced to predict, I would say that Bush is more likely than not to beat Kerry in Colorado. Does that mean that the ballot measure would be good for Kerry and bad for Bush? It does not.

Whether the proposal helps or hurts Kerry depends on the results from other states.

Assume, for instance, that going into election day Colorado is sufficiently close for the outcome to remain in doubt. Victory or defeat in Colorado rests on certain unknowable factors such as turnout. Each campaign's best guess is that President Bush has a 55% chance of winning Colorado while Kerry has a 45% chance. In that situation, would apportionment by popular vote be favorable to Kerry?

It is impossible to say without knowing the electoral votes totals from the rest of the country. Assume, for example, that Kerry will win all of the Gore states and adds the Bush state of New Hampshire. That gives Kerry 264 electoral votes. If he also wins Colorado in a close election, he would have 273 electoral votes and the White House under a winner take all provision.

Under Amendment 36, the close win would give him only 5 Colorado electoral votes for a total of 269, one short of victory. You can be sure that under that scenario, John Kerry would spend election night hoping Amendment 36 loses.

Now assume that Kerry will win all of the Gore states plus New Hampshire and West Virginia. That would give him 269 electoral votes outside Colorado.

Apportionment by popular vote in Colorado would guarantee his election regardless of the exact vote count. Winner take all would require him to carry Colorado in addition. In that scenario, Kerry will be rooting hard for Amendment 36 to win.

In sum, if Kerry has fewer than 261 or more than 269 electoral votes outside Colorado, Colorado becomes irrelvant. If Kerry has 261 through and including 265 electoral votes outside of Colorado, he is better off with a winner take all system. Kerry benefits from the proposal only if he has 266-269 electoral votes outside of Colorado.

Is Mr. Kerry more likely to have 266-269 electoral votes going into Colorado or 261-265 such votes? It is hard to say. The answer to the third question, like the first two, is "I do not know."

The fourth question ("can they DO that?") is harder yet. I have been doing some research on that subject and if I can arrive at an answer more definitive than the first three questions, I may post about it.

Samurai Spy

This morning's Samurai Saturday feature is the 1965 work by Mashahiro Shinoba "Ibun sarutobi sasuke". Sasuke Sarutobi tracks Nojiri in the ambiguous war of spies between Edo and Osaka, in the months leading up to the Winter War of Osaka, 14 years after the Battle of Sekigahara of 1600. I'm fairly confused 70 minutes into the film, Gracie is utterly lost, and that is the point. Who spies for whom, and how is that known? The last minutes are fog and betrayal upon betrayal.

In todays' Le Monde there is a must-read on the evolution of al Qaida. Why is Les polices occidentales découvrent les nouvelles formes d'Al-Qaida a "must-read"? Because either one believes that the better response to 9/11 was investigatory, followed by arrests, the legal response within the international law framework, or one believes that the better response to 9/11 was retaliatory, followed by pursuits, the military response within the force structure framework. The intelligence product of the two approaches can be distinguished, and the point of the article in Le Monde is that European law enforcement and intelligence services have reached conclusions different from the American military and intelligence services.

Let's read the summary together:

Les services européens engagés dans la lutte antiterroriste sont revenus de leur scepticisme initial sur la réalité de la menace ayant conduit les Etats-Unis à relever le niveau d'alerte sur leur territoire le 1er août. Après trois semaines d'examen des renseignements recueillis à la faveur des dernières arrestations, au Pakistan et en Grande-Bretagne, ils constatent une évolution des réseaux décidés à commettre des attaques de grande ampleur. Si la cellule de tête d'Al-Qaida existe toujours sous une forme "historique", la structure des réseaux semble s'être décentralisée par souci d'"efficacité". Des groupes d'activistes autonomes tentent d'enrôler des membres moins suspects, aux yeux des polices, que des personnes d'origine arabe, comme l'indiquent les arrestations, à Londres, de Pakistanais naturalisés britanniques.

How could the military model, retaliate and pursue, acquire the knowledge that autonomous cells, operating outside the area of offensive operations, were evolving, attempting to modify their demographic signature, attempting to evade targeting, and like the Internet, "routing around damage"? Forensic intelligence can be gathered only from the targeted and successfully engaged. Those that escape targeting aren't engaged, and no forensic, or intercept intelligence can be developed. That is the first thing that stands out from this summary. European anti-terrorist services, primarily law enforcement, not military in their force structure modality, have a catagorically different view of Al-Qaida than the US has, and not because the US offically "sees" Al-Qaida through W-colored glasses.

The second thing that stands out from this summary is that after three weeks of a review of the data available to them, the Europeans reached a profoundly different conclusion from the Americans. The US concluded that attack was an immediate possibility. The Europeans concluded that Al-Qaida itself is self-modifying, taking a phrase from the Marines -- Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome!

Please read the entire article, and the accompanying ones as well.

News to make one smile

The AP reports that Andy Card was in town yesterday, stumping for the utterly-beyond-hope Charlie Summers, who is faking an attempt for the 1st CD. Today Andy was on to the less fictional 2nd CD leg of his tour here in Blueberry Land, raising money in Bangor for Brian Hamel, who the RNCC hopes is competitive against Michael Michaud.

So, what's to smile about?

Its what Andy didn't campaign for. The campaign that we know will pull thousands of votes, and one we think may carry the 1st CD. Andy didn't campaign for a local property tax cap ballot initiative that is more likely to deliver the 1st CD, and possibly even the Balance of State, to his boss, than Charlie Summers and Brian Hamel, combined. Andy could have run the lower cost, touting tax cuts, federal and local, working the November turnout problem. Instead, he did a meet-n-greet with a handfull of R ones. What a dolt.

And that is what is to smile about. On the ground, a surrogate as important as the Chief of Staff, is wasted by the BC04 campaign. Instead, Andy let the local "coordinated campaign" collection of interests -- Charlie Summers' dream of winning the contested Republican primary and attempt a competitive general election campaign, when Tom Allen decides to run for Olympia Snowe's seat in the Senate and leaves an open seat in the 1st CD -- in 2006 -- override the BC04's interest -- some or all of Maine's electoral votes, in 2004. That's what to smile about. Up close, BCO4's ground-game consists of putting a stick in its own spokes and then pressing down hard on the pedals.

The second half of the smile is that Charlie Summers may not be competitive in two years time with someone who really works the Palesky campaign in the 1st CD. Even an unenrolled dogcatcher. From Saco.