The woman that President George W. Bush has nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Harriet E. Miers, has a record that leaves her about as close to being a blank slate as is possible to imagine for someone with as prominent a legal career as she has had. (More on her here.)
Obviously, she is a Republican who knows the President personally. But, neither the Texas Lottery Commission, nor the Dallas City Council, her only political posts, are particularly partisan. Her roles as President of the Dallas Bar Association and Texas Bar Association, as well as fairly prominent involvement in the American Bar Association put her within the mainstream of Texas lawyers, as does her leadership of a large Texas law firm. Unlike Chief Justice Roberts, she has not made a career of being a political hack, even though she has had some political involvement. She has not even clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, a post that could have shed some light on her judicial views. The fact that she was a mathematics major is a point in her favor as well. The fact that she once upon a time gave an occassional political contribution to a Democrat like Al Gore in 1988 (per geek with a 45) is also notable.
At about sixty years old, she is not exceptionally young or old for a Supreme Court Justice. As a corporate litigator for publicly held corporations, who has probably never tried a criminal case in her life and never served as a judge, she is a completely blank slate when it comes to half of the court's docket - she probably didn't even read the advance sheets from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas. (The only insight appears to come from her service on the Board of Exodus Ministeries, Inc., which appears to be a non-denominational Christian group helping ex-cons, not the anti-gay brainwashing group, hat tip to anti-strib). Her only involvement with the abortion issues appears to have been a failed effort to have the ABA take less of a position on the issue, which does not, in itself, say a great deal about her take on the jurisprudence of abortion. Most Republican lawyers express concern about an appearance of partisanship in the American Bar Association. It isn't even clear that she has ever been a member of the Federalist Society. The organization was in its infancy (if it existed at all) when she was in law school and her busy private practice and bar association focus could very well have kept her away from it later in her career.
Indeed, as a corporate lawyer, her experience suggests that she probably has only modest professional experience with the constitutional and public law issues which are the bread and butter of the non-criminal side of the docket in the court. Unlike Roberts, she doesn't even have a spouse or children who can shed light indirectly on her views. Has the Court ever had two never married jurists (Souter has also never married), in its entire history? I won't follow that line of reasoning any further, but Wonkette does have the only personal dirt and it is more like a light bit of Texas dust, on Miers which appears to be circulating.
I have a hard time imagining that she will not be confirmed, absent a remarkable new development. Liberals can hope that her experience breaking gender boundaries, and the reality based existence that private private attorneys have to live, will give her at least some balance in her experience. She has less of a hard core conservative public record than almost any conceivable Bush nominee, and is rumored to have the advanced O.K. of leading Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. She could very well be a Thomas/Scalia conservative deep down. Republican lawyers for big corporations in Texas are not known for their liberalism, and her elevation a couple of years ago to be a deputy advisor for policy in the White House suggest that her views must closely align with those of the President. But, the Senate will never prove it and will likely not even get any meaningful examples of her White House work product in the confirmation process. If the Senate can claim ignorance of Roberts' strong political biases, they won't find her's. The only way her biases could easily come out is if attorneys who practiced with her reveal them. Those who have worked with her, like David Frum, believe that there are no such skeltons in her closet.
The group of fourteen who signed the deal stating that they would only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances" are unlike to oppose her. And, absent a filibuster, a party line Republican vote, with some Democratic support as well, is virtually assured. In all likelihood she will receive even more votes in the Senate than the 78 that Chief Justice Roberts received.
I suspect that one of the attractions of Miers for Bush her keen loyalty to the executive branch. On issues of Presidential power, like the Enemy Combatant cases, I suspect she will be a sure vote in the President's favor. She is someone with a long history of representing those in power against those without it. While she encouraged "pro bono" work from bar positions (who in those posts doesn't?), she really has no experience at all standing up for the little guy. Also, while in principle, she has a political background, she does not have the experience with the kind of give and take that Sandra Day O'Connor undertook as a state legislator.
Choosing a stealth candidate is a dangerous move for the President and for those who would vote to approve her. But, from the perspective of Democratic strategists, someone entering the Court with a fairly open mind and a record for being self-directed may be the best that they can hope for out of this President. I didn't buy that argument when it was directed at Roberts, but I can see that argument far more plausibly directed at Miers.
The President's real risk with Miers is that he has never really seen her act on her own behalf in the partisan political sphere. Lawyers are fundamentally loyal servants. We have our own opinions, but in private practice, there is rarely an occasion to vocally express them. The same holds true in positions where she has been counsel to Bush. Yet, Supreme Court Justices more than any other position in our political system, report to no one. Any woman of her experience who can call George W. Bush the smartest man she has ever met (as NPR reports that she has) obviously knows how to lie about her own feelings. How she will act once she is free of an obligation of loyalty to him is not at all clear.
03 October 2005
200 Posts.
This is the 200th post on Wash Park Prophet. Today also marks the three month anniversary of the first post on this blog. The blog is still well in line with the mission statement set forth in the sidebar, and is still fun. Readership and incoming links are up. And, I'd like to think that post quality has not materially declined.
This is as good a point as any to announce a major change in the offing. As of Halloween, I will no longer be a professor at the College For Financial Planning, which has laid off a third of its full time rank and file faculty due to budget pressures from the Apollo Group, which owns both it and the University of Phoenix. In the short term, I will be returning to the private practice of law, although I will refrain from mentioning the details until the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. I haven't ruled out a return to academia at some point, although not many colleges and universities start their terms in November, so any actual return will happen, if ever, in the future, not now. I'd appreciate it if anyone with an inside track on tenure track teaching posts for attorneys not listed in the Chronicle of Higher Education or the Law Profs blogs send me an e-mail.
This blog will continue to be reguarly updated, but the pace of new posts may decline a bit starting in November.
This is as good a point as any to announce a major change in the offing. As of Halloween, I will no longer be a professor at the College For Financial Planning, which has laid off a third of its full time rank and file faculty due to budget pressures from the Apollo Group, which owns both it and the University of Phoenix. In the short term, I will be returning to the private practice of law, although I will refrain from mentioning the details until the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. I haven't ruled out a return to academia at some point, although not many colleges and universities start their terms in November, so any actual return will happen, if ever, in the future, not now. I'd appreciate it if anyone with an inside track on tenure track teaching posts for attorneys not listed in the Chronicle of Higher Education or the Law Profs blogs send me an e-mail.
This blog will continue to be reguarly updated, but the pace of new posts may decline a bit starting in November.
Obsolescence
The worst part of experiencing the digital age arrive first hand is the repeated waves of obsolescence. (Well, actually, it ranks about three or four, after seeing massive amounts of work inadvertantly deleted and battling computer viruses, and about on par with spam.)
The first personal copmuters came out twenty-five years ago, and since then, the wave of obsolescence has been relentless. The 8" floppy, the 5.25" floppy and in the near future, the 3.5" floppy, are all going the way of the 8 track, the vinyl record, and in the near future, the cassette tape. Dial up modems are now all but useless for using an internet designed for broadband speed access. Even broadcast television has disappeared from a majority of homes, replaced by cable and satellite programming. Film cameras are on the way out. So too are film videocameras, even at the high end for movie making. Even the venerable cathode ray tube is well on its way to being replaced by a variety of kinds of flat screen monitors and televisions. Internal computer memory has gone from 64 kilobytes to tens of megabytes and is well on its way to the gigabyte range, even for ordinary consumer level computers. Gigabyte sized hard drives are now not uncommon, and programs have bloated to match.
It will only be a matter of time before the popular compact disc and digital video disk (CD and DVD) formats are replaced by something new. Already, that are a huge variety of memory cards and fobs and portable hard drives on the market threatening to replace them, not to mention their cousin with built in I/O devices, the iPod. It is hard to tell the difference between a cell phone and a camera any longer. Satellite radio threatens to do to broadcast radio what cable and satellite TV have done to braodcast television.
If the movement to make Wi-Fi access universal in urban areas bears fruit, and it is certainly technologically possible and has precedents a variety of other urban services from libraries to electrical service, then broadband subscriptions may become a thing of the past, and the ultimate freeloader's medium, the internet, will become even less fee burdened.
Even books have become something of a niche market. I still own plenty of them, and I still buy them. But, the vast majority of my professional research and academic journal reading takes place on line. I also read a short story or novella installment a month on line from one of my favorite fiction authors, Kelley Armstrong. And, while I do subscribe to the newspaper and a number of magazines, I get most of my news on line. Indeed, I probably read as much of the Denver Post on line as I do in the copy that comes to my door each morning. A novel or a statute is better read in hard copy, but if something is either time dependent, or primarily a reference, an online format is more convenient. Indeed, Google and Wikipedia have almost entirely replaced my personal useage of encyclopedias.
I'd like to think that at some point, this will all settle down a little. Is it too much to dream that we might have only two more data storage revolutions before 2035? But, fortunately, at least, falling electronics prices have limited the price of progress. The only real question is when we will hit inherent engineering limitations that flow from the very laws of nature. We aren't there yet, but that horizon no longer seems impossibly distant.
The first personal copmuters came out twenty-five years ago, and since then, the wave of obsolescence has been relentless. The 8" floppy, the 5.25" floppy and in the near future, the 3.5" floppy, are all going the way of the 8 track, the vinyl record, and in the near future, the cassette tape. Dial up modems are now all but useless for using an internet designed for broadband speed access. Even broadcast television has disappeared from a majority of homes, replaced by cable and satellite programming. Film cameras are on the way out. So too are film videocameras, even at the high end for movie making. Even the venerable cathode ray tube is well on its way to being replaced by a variety of kinds of flat screen monitors and televisions. Internal computer memory has gone from 64 kilobytes to tens of megabytes and is well on its way to the gigabyte range, even for ordinary consumer level computers. Gigabyte sized hard drives are now not uncommon, and programs have bloated to match.
It will only be a matter of time before the popular compact disc and digital video disk (CD and DVD) formats are replaced by something new. Already, that are a huge variety of memory cards and fobs and portable hard drives on the market threatening to replace them, not to mention their cousin with built in I/O devices, the iPod. It is hard to tell the difference between a cell phone and a camera any longer. Satellite radio threatens to do to broadcast radio what cable and satellite TV have done to braodcast television.
If the movement to make Wi-Fi access universal in urban areas bears fruit, and it is certainly technologically possible and has precedents a variety of other urban services from libraries to electrical service, then broadband subscriptions may become a thing of the past, and the ultimate freeloader's medium, the internet, will become even less fee burdened.
Even books have become something of a niche market. I still own plenty of them, and I still buy them. But, the vast majority of my professional research and academic journal reading takes place on line. I also read a short story or novella installment a month on line from one of my favorite fiction authors, Kelley Armstrong. And, while I do subscribe to the newspaper and a number of magazines, I get most of my news on line. Indeed, I probably read as much of the Denver Post on line as I do in the copy that comes to my door each morning. A novel or a statute is better read in hard copy, but if something is either time dependent, or primarily a reference, an online format is more convenient. Indeed, Google and Wikipedia have almost entirely replaced my personal useage of encyclopedias.
I'd like to think that at some point, this will all settle down a little. Is it too much to dream that we might have only two more data storage revolutions before 2035? But, fortunately, at least, falling electronics prices have limited the price of progress. The only real question is when we will hit inherent engineering limitations that flow from the very laws of nature. We aren't there yet, but that horizon no longer seems impossibly distant.
Aspen DA to Face Recall Election.
It's official and it couldn't happen to a nicer person:
Truden has done just about everything one could possibly do wrong in the office of District Attorney. She has alienated almost the entire staff, including almost all prosecutors with experience trying felonies. She has let serious criminals go free due to her office's incompetence. She has spent far more than her office's budget should permit on frivilous and self-indulgent expenses, including an expense to pay her husband for consulting work that she lied to the county commissioners who provide funds for her office about. She is prosecuting a fourteen year old kid who killed another kid in a confused gun incident for 1st degree murder.
Voter and candidate apathy destroys democracy. But, in this case, a recall is well justified and will likely prevail.
Enough valid signatures have been gathered to trigger the first recall vote of a Colorado district attorney in nearly 30 years.
State election officials said Thursday they have certified 6,626 of the 9,032 signatures submitted in a recall drive targeting 9th Judicial District Attorney Colleen Truden, the top prosecutor for Garfield, Pitkin and Rio Blanco counties.
. . .
That's 1,171 more than the 5,455 names required to force a vote.
. . .
Truden, who has never been a criminal prosecutor but emphasized to voters her management and administrative skills, has been assailed by critics for her performance in precisely those areas.
Seven prosecutors have quit since she was sworn in Jan. 11.
The two most recent deputy district attorneys to quit were her own hires. Several who have left cited a hostile work environment and were offended when they were escorted from their offices short of their planned final workdays.
. . .
No district attorney has ever been recalled in Colorado. The only attempted recall to go to voters was a bid to oust Pueblo District Attorney Joe Losavio in 1978. He survived that vote.
Truden topped her Republican primary opponent, Lawson Wills, 2,537 to 2,081. And because she had no opponent in the Nov. 2 general election - where she garnered 21,819 votes - the primary vote three months earlier ensured the job was hers.
Truden has done just about everything one could possibly do wrong in the office of District Attorney. She has alienated almost the entire staff, including almost all prosecutors with experience trying felonies. She has let serious criminals go free due to her office's incompetence. She has spent far more than her office's budget should permit on frivilous and self-indulgent expenses, including an expense to pay her husband for consulting work that she lied to the county commissioners who provide funds for her office about. She is prosecuting a fourteen year old kid who killed another kid in a confused gun incident for 1st degree murder.
Voter and candidate apathy destroys democracy. But, in this case, a recall is well justified and will likely prevail.
02 October 2005
More on C & D.
One of my distinct disadvantages in trying to gauge the political climate in Colorado, however much it helps me to view the issues independently, is that I watch very, very little television and listen to more non-commercial than commercial radio. Well, tonight was an exception. I was expecting house guests (who were delayed en route due to bad weather), and as a result was up unexpectedly late. I didn't feel like working or blogging, so on went the TV for a once a season splurge.
The ads for Referendums C and D, previously discussed here, were on in force, and they were not contadicted by any anti-C and D ads. Big deal, you say. There are ads on every issue in every election cycle. But, the difference was that these ads were highly effective. The AARP, American Cancer Society, and a host of other organizations shown to endorse the referenda were not your usual political hacks you'd never heard of before in your life. The idea of selling C and D as a property tax reduction for seniors was brilliant. I could go on, but the bottom line is that these are some of the most effective political ads, on what is at first blush a pure policy wonk issue, that I have ever seen. And, the fact that it is such an obscure issue until you realize its impacts on government services, means that most people don't have deeply held preconceived notions about it. This isn't like advertising for a parental notification to obtain an abortion measure, where almost everyone has deeply held opinions in advance about the larger issue of abortion. As a result, these ads look to me like they could significantly sway public opinion in the month to come before the November election. Given that most of the newspaper coverage involves the Independence Institute being outed for telling fibs, I can't imagine that the anti-campaign is doing a whole lot better in the free publicity area.
Issue 3A, for more funding for Denver Public Schools, also had an ad, not a moment too late either. I wasn't even aware that there were any school funding or board issues on the ballot until this week. Political groupies like to obsess over what is going on months or even years before elections, but in races like these, a few weeks make all the difference. If it isn't on the radar screen of political bloggers until October, it isn't on he radar screen of 99% of the voting public either.
The ads for Referendums C and D, previously discussed here, were on in force, and they were not contadicted by any anti-C and D ads. Big deal, you say. There are ads on every issue in every election cycle. But, the difference was that these ads were highly effective. The AARP, American Cancer Society, and a host of other organizations shown to endorse the referenda were not your usual political hacks you'd never heard of before in your life. The idea of selling C and D as a property tax reduction for seniors was brilliant. I could go on, but the bottom line is that these are some of the most effective political ads, on what is at first blush a pure policy wonk issue, that I have ever seen. And, the fact that it is such an obscure issue until you realize its impacts on government services, means that most people don't have deeply held preconceived notions about it. This isn't like advertising for a parental notification to obtain an abortion measure, where almost everyone has deeply held opinions in advance about the larger issue of abortion. As a result, these ads look to me like they could significantly sway public opinion in the month to come before the November election. Given that most of the newspaper coverage involves the Independence Institute being outed for telling fibs, I can't imagine that the anti-campaign is doing a whole lot better in the free publicity area.
Issue 3A, for more funding for Denver Public Schools, also had an ad, not a moment too late either. I wasn't even aware that there were any school funding or board issues on the ballot until this week. Political groupies like to obsess over what is going on months or even years before elections, but in races like these, a few weeks make all the difference. If it isn't on the radar screen of political bloggers until October, it isn't on he radar screen of 99% of the voting public either.
Don't Turn Off The Lights.
A USA Today report states that a government plan, apparently voluntary, in response to a damaged oil and gas infrastructure in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita which may be out of commission for six months will be to:
Two observations.
1. If conservation is such a good idea, why did this administration fight so hard to keep conservation provisions out of the energy bill?
2. Unless you have gas lighting in your house, and I don't know of anyone who does that who doesn't live in a campsite, turning off your lights will not make an appreciable dent in the problems caused by a reduced supply of oil and natural gas. The only places where a significant share of electricity comes from oil are Hawaii and Alaska (neither of which is particularly reliant of Gulf Coast supplies in a direct way in any case). Nationwide, only about 10% of electricity generation is powered by natural gas and only about 3% is powered with oil.
Also, in a typical house, even if you want to save electricity, the government should be recommending that you upgrade your light bulbs with fluorescents and halogens, which produce the same illumination level for far fewer watts. Many fixtures in my home sport 15 watt bulbs that produce the same amount of light as an ordinary 100 watt bulb. In contrast, not many of us can reduce the electricity we need for lighting by 85% by simply turning off the lights more vigilantly.
If you are going to make a symbolic call for voluntary conservation, you may as well at least call for something that actually works. For that matter, people would probably save more oil and gas resources by discontinuing lawn mowing for the year on the early side, and cooking on your electric stove rather than your gas barbecue, than they would by turning off lights.
The government conservation plan will ask Americans to turn off lights, change thermostat settings, drive slower, insulate homes and take other steps.
Two observations.
1. If conservation is such a good idea, why did this administration fight so hard to keep conservation provisions out of the energy bill?
2. Unless you have gas lighting in your house, and I don't know of anyone who does that who doesn't live in a campsite, turning off your lights will not make an appreciable dent in the problems caused by a reduced supply of oil and natural gas. The only places where a significant share of electricity comes from oil are Hawaii and Alaska (neither of which is particularly reliant of Gulf Coast supplies in a direct way in any case). Nationwide, only about 10% of electricity generation is powered by natural gas and only about 3% is powered with oil.
Also, in a typical house, even if you want to save electricity, the government should be recommending that you upgrade your light bulbs with fluorescents and halogens, which produce the same illumination level for far fewer watts. Many fixtures in my home sport 15 watt bulbs that produce the same amount of light as an ordinary 100 watt bulb. In contrast, not many of us can reduce the electricity we need for lighting by 85% by simply turning off the lights more vigilantly.
If you are going to make a symbolic call for voluntary conservation, you may as well at least call for something that actually works. For that matter, people would probably save more oil and gas resources by discontinuing lawn mowing for the year on the early side, and cooking on your electric stove rather than your gas barbecue, than they would by turning off lights.
Embarrassing Fame.
The little icon at the bottom of this page monitors which websites refer you to this page and reports to me on its findings from time to time. Sometimes the results are interesting; sometimes they are embarrassing. As you might have guessed, I don't have an editor. And, while this has the virtue of letting me get my ideas out to you uncensored, it also allows an occasional typo or misspelling or awkward turn of phrase to make its way into this blog.
On one hand, every blogger's dream is to be the number one search engine result for something you are writing about. It isn't quite the same as saying that you are the definitive source on the subject, but it still feels nice to know that you are the first person some random person half way around the world may end up consulting on a topic.
On the other hand, one real easy way to get at the top of a search engine search is to be the most prominent blog to have misspelled a key word which the person making the search also misspelled. Not all fame is welcome, especially when it shows that you can't spell something right.
On one hand, every blogger's dream is to be the number one search engine result for something you are writing about. It isn't quite the same as saying that you are the definitive source on the subject, but it still feels nice to know that you are the first person some random person half way around the world may end up consulting on a topic.
On the other hand, one real easy way to get at the top of a search engine search is to be the most prominent blog to have misspelled a key word which the person making the search also misspelled. Not all fame is welcome, especially when it shows that you can't spell something right.
01 October 2005
House Guests and Big Cars.
It's fall cleaning time. House guests are arriving this weekend, so the dust and clutter must be banished in our less often used spaces to make room for them. As usual, this brings a familiar line of thinking to mind, which I'll recount below.
When I lived in the law club, dorms for law students in the law quadrangle at the University of Michigan Law School, they had a wonderful feature (well more than one actually, they also served steak in the law club dining hall every Friday and had wonderfully ornate architecture, and were on the route on the annual nude run through campus, but anyway . . .). Dorm rooms were too small to accomodate guests, but the law club had several guest rooms on the premises when people came to visit.
This is not a feature that most modern housing has available to it. When the kids move out of the house to go to college and then start their own lives, their parents, rather than downsizing to accomodate their reduced household size, usually either stay in their now oversized house, as my parents did, or actually move into some place larger, as my inlaws did. Why? Because parents who can afford it tend to evaluate their housing needs based on peak useage. They long for that 4,000 square foot house so that they can accomodate their married children and their grandchildren when they come to visit once or twice a year, in comfort. Of course, this means that most of the space in their house is wasted the fifty weeks of the year when there are no houseguests.
This isn't the only major purchase often made based on a fairly rare peak use. I don't know how many people I've heard justify their purchase of a large SUV or extended cab pickup truck with the line that they'll need it when they go camping in the mountains, or when they have to haul their gardening purchases in the spring. Like the extra guest rooms in an empty nest home, these needs arise predictably and only for a few days a year. The rest of the year, a more fuel efficient sedan would probably be perfectly adequate.
There is, of course, an obvious alternative in each case -- leasing. I've done it myself. When the entire family came for Thanksgiving to Denver one year, rather than trying to host the entire clan in my two bedroom bungalow, we rented a house in Brekenridge for a few days, leaving plenty of room for everyone. Likewise, if I really need a big vehicle for a trip, as I will with this particular group of house guests, one can do what we are doing, which is renting a van while they are here. One could similarly rent a pickup to carry the supplies purchased on a once a year spring gardening run, or a big load of lumber, or apartment to apartment move. Our local Home Depot, in Glendale, has a pickup available on a rental basis for just that purpose. My father sometimes remembers fondly the motor pools that the Army used when he was in the service. You got the vehicle you needed for the activities you planned on that day, and they were available for someone else when they needed it on another day.
Some people will never be convinced, but a rental market that functions well can eliminate a lot of waste in society by reducing the pressure to buy based on a rare, predictable, peak use. For example, many zoning codes buttressed by long standing corporate practice, locate rental car offices largely in areas adjacent to airports and central business districts, catering primarily to people who travel by air. But, as a handful of car rental companies are learning (including one whom I will not mention because I'm annoyed that they gave me a lemon when I rented a car while mine was in the shop the last time I had to do so), there are other times someone might want to rent a car as well.
Likewise, easing up zoning and other regulations of bed and breakfasts and guesthouses could be a great service to places like Washington Park and other older neighborhoods that have few places where you can put up out of town guests close to your own home that have more charm than a Motel 6 or generic "suite hotel". Particularly as insane housing prices persist in markets like Denver, Seattle, almost all of California, and much of the Northeast Corridor, the availability of guest houses close to home could make people more comfortable with buying a smaller, and hence more affordable home, knowing that their rare peak needs to put up guests can still be met. The exclusion of gain on the sale of a residence up to $500,000 for a married couple, under Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code, which replaced a previous provision that allowed for tax free trade ups of a residence, but taxed cash out downsizing as a capital gain, has also taken away some of the pressure to continue a never ending quest for a larger house, even after it stops making sense for fifty weeks of the year.
None of this is terribly revolutionary or difficult to implement. But, unless you are thinking about issues like zoning from the perspective of how it will impact some seemingly unrelated issues like what kind of house people will think they need, and fuel efficiency, these issues could easily be overlooked in the process of establishing these policies on a local basis, to the deteriment of society as a whole.
When I lived in the law club, dorms for law students in the law quadrangle at the University of Michigan Law School, they had a wonderful feature (well more than one actually, they also served steak in the law club dining hall every Friday and had wonderfully ornate architecture, and were on the route on the annual nude run through campus, but anyway . . .). Dorm rooms were too small to accomodate guests, but the law club had several guest rooms on the premises when people came to visit.
This is not a feature that most modern housing has available to it. When the kids move out of the house to go to college and then start their own lives, their parents, rather than downsizing to accomodate their reduced household size, usually either stay in their now oversized house, as my parents did, or actually move into some place larger, as my inlaws did. Why? Because parents who can afford it tend to evaluate their housing needs based on peak useage. They long for that 4,000 square foot house so that they can accomodate their married children and their grandchildren when they come to visit once or twice a year, in comfort. Of course, this means that most of the space in their house is wasted the fifty weeks of the year when there are no houseguests.
This isn't the only major purchase often made based on a fairly rare peak use. I don't know how many people I've heard justify their purchase of a large SUV or extended cab pickup truck with the line that they'll need it when they go camping in the mountains, or when they have to haul their gardening purchases in the spring. Like the extra guest rooms in an empty nest home, these needs arise predictably and only for a few days a year. The rest of the year, a more fuel efficient sedan would probably be perfectly adequate.
There is, of course, an obvious alternative in each case -- leasing. I've done it myself. When the entire family came for Thanksgiving to Denver one year, rather than trying to host the entire clan in my two bedroom bungalow, we rented a house in Brekenridge for a few days, leaving plenty of room for everyone. Likewise, if I really need a big vehicle for a trip, as I will with this particular group of house guests, one can do what we are doing, which is renting a van while they are here. One could similarly rent a pickup to carry the supplies purchased on a once a year spring gardening run, or a big load of lumber, or apartment to apartment move. Our local Home Depot, in Glendale, has a pickup available on a rental basis for just that purpose. My father sometimes remembers fondly the motor pools that the Army used when he was in the service. You got the vehicle you needed for the activities you planned on that day, and they were available for someone else when they needed it on another day.
Some people will never be convinced, but a rental market that functions well can eliminate a lot of waste in society by reducing the pressure to buy based on a rare, predictable, peak use. For example, many zoning codes buttressed by long standing corporate practice, locate rental car offices largely in areas adjacent to airports and central business districts, catering primarily to people who travel by air. But, as a handful of car rental companies are learning (including one whom I will not mention because I'm annoyed that they gave me a lemon when I rented a car while mine was in the shop the last time I had to do so), there are other times someone might want to rent a car as well.
Likewise, easing up zoning and other regulations of bed and breakfasts and guesthouses could be a great service to places like Washington Park and other older neighborhoods that have few places where you can put up out of town guests close to your own home that have more charm than a Motel 6 or generic "suite hotel". Particularly as insane housing prices persist in markets like Denver, Seattle, almost all of California, and much of the Northeast Corridor, the availability of guest houses close to home could make people more comfortable with buying a smaller, and hence more affordable home, knowing that their rare peak needs to put up guests can still be met. The exclusion of gain on the sale of a residence up to $500,000 for a married couple, under Section 121 of the Internal Revenue Code, which replaced a previous provision that allowed for tax free trade ups of a residence, but taxed cash out downsizing as a capital gain, has also taken away some of the pressure to continue a never ending quest for a larger house, even after it stops making sense for fifty weeks of the year.
None of this is terribly revolutionary or difficult to implement. But, unless you are thinking about issues like zoning from the perspective of how it will impact some seemingly unrelated issues like what kind of house people will think they need, and fuel efficiency, these issues could easily be overlooked in the process of establishing these policies on a local basis, to the deteriment of society as a whole.
The Meaning of the American Flag.
One of the stories of the post-9-11 era is the resurgence of the American flag as a potent political symbol and the evolving meaning of that symbol. I'm not a Harvard symbologist, but you don't always have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Vesta Vespa has a good take on that evolving story today, along with the prouder and less proud moments that come with being an American, as she discusses the meaning of an "American flag hanging in the rear window of a semi with no trailer attached." It is worth your time to read it.
Vesta Vespa has a good take on that evolving story today, along with the prouder and less proud moments that come with being an American, as she discusses the meaning of an "American flag hanging in the rear window of a semi with no trailer attached." It is worth your time to read it.
The Cost Of War.
The Rocky Mountain News has a detailed profile on the sole survivor of a squad of Marines whose other members were killed by a massive roadside bomb in Anbar Province in Iraq. It puts face to face the mission that they died for and the costs that were paid in pursuit of that mission. This one particularly caught my eye because of a paragraph at the very end of the story.
This is where I grew up. I know his professors personally. My mother earned her PhD in the same education school at Miami University. It hits home. The deaths in Iraq are not just statistics. Of course, neither are the Iraqi lives that may be cut short if a full scale civil war goes on for decades. The choices aren't easy.
Of Cifuentes, 25, from Oxford, Ohio. He was enrolled in graduate school in mathematics education and had been working as a substitute teacher when he was deployed.
This is where I grew up. I know his professors personally. My mother earned her PhD in the same education school at Miami University. It hits home. The deaths in Iraq are not just statistics. Of course, neither are the Iraqi lives that may be cut short if a full scale civil war goes on for decades. The choices aren't easy.
30 September 2005
Asset Protection and Fraud
As an estate planning attorney and professor, I am familiar with how one can protect one's assets from creditors. Some approaches are state sanctioned, like using a homestead exemption to protect equity in a residence, or saving for retirement. Other approaches are tolerated because they appear to flow from general principles in the law, even though they have less direct justification. For example, it is standard practice to place assets which are unlikely to lead to legal liability, like mutual funds or real estate, in one entity, and assets which are likely to generate legal liabilities, like an operating business which may lease or borrow those very "cold assets" for use in the business, in another.
One of the main tools used to prevent abuse efforts to hide one's assets from creditor's claims is the fradulent transfers act. It provides that creditors may ignore transfers made with an actual intent to hinder or defraud creditors, often with no statute of limitations on the date of the actual transfer.
Promoters of asset protection tools like self-settled domestic and foreign asset protection trusts argue that you can't have an intent to hinder or defraud creditors, if you are solvent immediately after a trust is funded. This is simply wrong. The marketing of the trusts, both to clients and to attorneys, makes clear that the primary purpose of such trusts is to hinder the efforts of future, as yet unknown, creditors to collect their claims. Just about the only other purpose of entities in jurisdictions known to be asset protection friendly is to evade taxes, although much as that side of the business is illegal and not handled by legitimate attorneys. Most asset protection trusts for individuals have few, if any, legitimate tax benefits.
Why do governments in the United States not take a strong stand against this form of subtle fraud? It is certainly not for lack of an ability to do so, as I'll outline in a moment. It is primarily due to lack of political will. Asset protection trusts are tools used primarily by the wealthy, who can also fund political campaigns. The laws are also carefully drafted so that the victims are faceless at the time the frauds are committed, which makes developing an organized opposition more difficult. But, it would certainly be possible to take a stronger stance. For example:
* Anyone who is a beneficiary of a trust could be denied the right to have their debts discharged in bankruptcy.
* Anyone with a self-settled asset protection trust, domestic or foreign, could be imprisoned in contempt of court at any time they have a judgment outstanding, until their debts were paid, with asset protection trust assets conclusively presumed to be available to the settlor, with a failure to provide verifiable information regarding the assets of an asset protection trust which is proved to exist deemed rebuttable proof of the funds available in the trust.
* Any asset held in the United States by an asset protection trust, or an entity which holds assets for one or more asset protection trusts, could be made available for seizure by any creditor of a person with assets in that country. Currently, asset protection trusts and similar devices hold trillions of dollars of U.S. assets.
* A national law could be enacted declaring any self-settled trust, or any trust created by a debtor for the benefit of a member of settlors family for whom the debtor has a duty of support, to be null and void.
* A tax of say 10% of principal per annum could be imposed on any assets of a U.S. citizen held in a self-settled foreign trust outside the reach of the U.S. courts.
* Asset protection and tax havens could be threatened with military force if they failed to comply, a threat that could be backed up with a relatively trivial show of military force, since most are small islands with little other economic base.
* Tax laws concerning U.S. controlled foreign assets could be tightened.
If we are going to have a civil law system that enable people to use the courts to vindicate their rights, we ought to have the courage of our convictions to make those judgments enforcable against people who do, or could have but for efforts to hinder and defraud creditors, have an ability to pay their creditors. The bankruptcy law enacted last year went part way, increasing the statute of limitations for fraudulent transfer claims against asset protection trusts in bankrutpcy, but it didn't go far enough.
One of the main tools used to prevent abuse efforts to hide one's assets from creditor's claims is the fradulent transfers act. It provides that creditors may ignore transfers made with an actual intent to hinder or defraud creditors, often with no statute of limitations on the date of the actual transfer.
Promoters of asset protection tools like self-settled domestic and foreign asset protection trusts argue that you can't have an intent to hinder or defraud creditors, if you are solvent immediately after a trust is funded. This is simply wrong. The marketing of the trusts, both to clients and to attorneys, makes clear that the primary purpose of such trusts is to hinder the efforts of future, as yet unknown, creditors to collect their claims. Just about the only other purpose of entities in jurisdictions known to be asset protection friendly is to evade taxes, although much as that side of the business is illegal and not handled by legitimate attorneys. Most asset protection trusts for individuals have few, if any, legitimate tax benefits.
Why do governments in the United States not take a strong stand against this form of subtle fraud? It is certainly not for lack of an ability to do so, as I'll outline in a moment. It is primarily due to lack of political will. Asset protection trusts are tools used primarily by the wealthy, who can also fund political campaigns. The laws are also carefully drafted so that the victims are faceless at the time the frauds are committed, which makes developing an organized opposition more difficult. But, it would certainly be possible to take a stronger stance. For example:
* Anyone who is a beneficiary of a trust could be denied the right to have their debts discharged in bankruptcy.
* Anyone with a self-settled asset protection trust, domestic or foreign, could be imprisoned in contempt of court at any time they have a judgment outstanding, until their debts were paid, with asset protection trust assets conclusively presumed to be available to the settlor, with a failure to provide verifiable information regarding the assets of an asset protection trust which is proved to exist deemed rebuttable proof of the funds available in the trust.
* Any asset held in the United States by an asset protection trust, or an entity which holds assets for one or more asset protection trusts, could be made available for seizure by any creditor of a person with assets in that country. Currently, asset protection trusts and similar devices hold trillions of dollars of U.S. assets.
* A national law could be enacted declaring any self-settled trust, or any trust created by a debtor for the benefit of a member of settlors family for whom the debtor has a duty of support, to be null and void.
* A tax of say 10% of principal per annum could be imposed on any assets of a U.S. citizen held in a self-settled foreign trust outside the reach of the U.S. courts.
* Asset protection and tax havens could be threatened with military force if they failed to comply, a threat that could be backed up with a relatively trivial show of military force, since most are small islands with little other economic base.
* Tax laws concerning U.S. controlled foreign assets could be tightened.
If we are going to have a civil law system that enable people to use the courts to vindicate their rights, we ought to have the courage of our convictions to make those judgments enforcable against people who do, or could have but for efforts to hinder and defraud creditors, have an ability to pay their creditors. The bankruptcy law enacted last year went part way, increasing the statute of limitations for fraudulent transfer claims against asset protection trusts in bankrutpcy, but it didn't go far enough.
Programming Note.
I'll be away from the computer today, teaching an all day class. Take a look at the achives and check the blogroll. There's good stuff in there. I particularly recommend Talk Left, which will probably be abuzz with the big corruption and Supreme Court news today, if there is any. Also, Talk Left put this humble site on their blog roll and for that I am very grateful. One rating service thinks that it is one of the 100 most popular blogs in the nation. Go TL!
29 September 2005
The Neighborhood Association.
Denver has these creatures called neighborhood associations. Most neighborhoods in the city have one. Unlike homeowner's associations in the suburbs (also usually a bad thing, in my opinion), they cannot compel anyone to pay dues and have a voluntary membership. Basically, the only privilege that they receive that differs from any other non-profit organization is that they receive notice of pending activity in the neighborhood from the city planning department, and due to their regular participation in the community input process of various city agencies tend to develop some respect with the staffs there.
My local neighborhood association is the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. I am not a member. I don't pay dues. In point of fact, I can't think of a single occasion where I have ever agreed with a stance it has taken with the city, although I'm sure that there have been one or two. The WWPNA is fundamentally a conservative organization, not in the sense of Republican Party conservativism, but in the sense of being opposed to just about any change in the neighborhood.
They made a tremendous fuss over a neighborhood coffee shop that moved in to replace some other decepit business in an existing building, and wanted to use a patio to serve customers. They are seeking historic district status for the neighborhood, although it is such an amalgam of different architectural styles over such a broad span of time (including the present), that I'd be hard pressed to characterize its historic character. They are anti-pop top. They are anti-scrape. And, they absolutely abhor the notion that the neighborhood might get any more liquor licenses (hyperbole, yes, but not far from the truth). They are terrified that our neighborhood might end up looking like the Cherry Creek neighborhood -- where hundreds of acres as somewhat nasty, small postwar single family homes were scraped, lot by lot, to replace them with high end townhouses and duplexes. They are the sort of people who are convinced that they have a legitimate interest in meddling in their neighbors' business because it might affect their property values.
My attitude towards the issues they address is quite different. I see developments like pop tops (i.e. added another floor to an existing home) and scrapes (i.e. removing an existing building to replace it with another) as a natural part of the life of a growing city. I had a scrape take place immediately next door to me. The construction was noisy. There was a boundary dispute that had to be resolved. It has reduced the access to light I have in my own windows. But, fundamentally, I don't have a problem with that. The duplex that was put there has allowed to families to live in large residences, where one family could live in a smallish residence before the scrape. It took place on property that didn't belong to me. This is where we should be putting more people, in neighborhoods that have seen a decline in school aged children, in neighborhoods that already have infrastructure in place to support residents, in neighborhoods close to workplaces with good access to clean, safe bus lines. It is better to have infill development in my urban neighborhood, than to cause sprawl to extend even further into the area surrounding the city. If some of the change can include commercial uses or multi-family uses, so much the better. Yes, businesses should provide their own parking where most of their customers and employees are likely to come by car, and yes, buildings should be built in accordance with sound building codes. But, ultimately, I think that zoning regulations (except to the extent that they directly address and are narrowly tailored to specific externalities caused by a property) are a bad idea. I also don't fear having a few more establishments that serve alcohol in the neighborhood. I fear the mediocracy that comes from giving people who minimal interests in a project a potential veto over it and stifles bold ideas, far more than I fear the risk that an occasional bold idea, taken by someone who bears the financial risk involved in implementing that idea, might go bust.
If I thought I could make a difference in the WWPNA, I might show up to meetings, run for an office on its board, and try to change it from within. But, realistically, given the self-perpetuating reputation it has taken on for itself, it would take a large movement of people working together to achieve that, and I don't have the inclination to make that kind of effort, and don't want to help an organization that works against polices that I favor in the meantime. So, instead, I am not a member, and would be happy if the organization simply folded. But, I simply make public comment from time to time on isolated issues where I feel I can make a difference and I care. Given the opportunity, however, I'd like to see the zoning codes changed to reduce the influence that groups like the WWPNA have in the infill, renovation and development process.
My local neighborhood association is the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. I am not a member. I don't pay dues. In point of fact, I can't think of a single occasion where I have ever agreed with a stance it has taken with the city, although I'm sure that there have been one or two. The WWPNA is fundamentally a conservative organization, not in the sense of Republican Party conservativism, but in the sense of being opposed to just about any change in the neighborhood.
They made a tremendous fuss over a neighborhood coffee shop that moved in to replace some other decepit business in an existing building, and wanted to use a patio to serve customers. They are seeking historic district status for the neighborhood, although it is such an amalgam of different architectural styles over such a broad span of time (including the present), that I'd be hard pressed to characterize its historic character. They are anti-pop top. They are anti-scrape. And, they absolutely abhor the notion that the neighborhood might get any more liquor licenses (hyperbole, yes, but not far from the truth). They are terrified that our neighborhood might end up looking like the Cherry Creek neighborhood -- where hundreds of acres as somewhat nasty, small postwar single family homes were scraped, lot by lot, to replace them with high end townhouses and duplexes. They are the sort of people who are convinced that they have a legitimate interest in meddling in their neighbors' business because it might affect their property values.
My attitude towards the issues they address is quite different. I see developments like pop tops (i.e. added another floor to an existing home) and scrapes (i.e. removing an existing building to replace it with another) as a natural part of the life of a growing city. I had a scrape take place immediately next door to me. The construction was noisy. There was a boundary dispute that had to be resolved. It has reduced the access to light I have in my own windows. But, fundamentally, I don't have a problem with that. The duplex that was put there has allowed to families to live in large residences, where one family could live in a smallish residence before the scrape. It took place on property that didn't belong to me. This is where we should be putting more people, in neighborhoods that have seen a decline in school aged children, in neighborhoods that already have infrastructure in place to support residents, in neighborhoods close to workplaces with good access to clean, safe bus lines. It is better to have infill development in my urban neighborhood, than to cause sprawl to extend even further into the area surrounding the city. If some of the change can include commercial uses or multi-family uses, so much the better. Yes, businesses should provide their own parking where most of their customers and employees are likely to come by car, and yes, buildings should be built in accordance with sound building codes. But, ultimately, I think that zoning regulations (except to the extent that they directly address and are narrowly tailored to specific externalities caused by a property) are a bad idea. I also don't fear having a few more establishments that serve alcohol in the neighborhood. I fear the mediocracy that comes from giving people who minimal interests in a project a potential veto over it and stifles bold ideas, far more than I fear the risk that an occasional bold idea, taken by someone who bears the financial risk involved in implementing that idea, might go bust.
If I thought I could make a difference in the WWPNA, I might show up to meetings, run for an office on its board, and try to change it from within. But, realistically, given the self-perpetuating reputation it has taken on for itself, it would take a large movement of people working together to achieve that, and I don't have the inclination to make that kind of effort, and don't want to help an organization that works against polices that I favor in the meantime. So, instead, I am not a member, and would be happy if the organization simply folded. But, I simply make public comment from time to time on isolated issues where I feel I can make a difference and I care. Given the opportunity, however, I'd like to see the zoning codes changed to reduce the influence that groups like the WWPNA have in the infill, renovation and development process.
The Soccer Generation
Far more children and young adults play soccer than American football in the United States. Soccer in the United States has for almost a decade had a fairly thoughtfully designed league known as Major League Soccer. The Colorado Rapids is the local franchise and dates to 1996. Until now, it had played at the 76,125 seat Invesco Field at Mile High (and its predecessor Mile High Stadium), which while large enough for all the fans, hurt the franchise's morale as games were almost always played to mostly empty bleachers (except for the annual 4th of July game). Average attendance at home games is 16,262. Now, the team has broken ground on a new stadium in Commerce City (as yet unnnamed) which will have an 18,000 seat capacity. This should allow the team to come into its own in a change that reflects the changing culture of the nation. All we need now are soccer hooligans. :)
Perhaps in a decade or two, the Denver Broncos and the Colorado Rapids can simply trade stadiums as their attendance numbers reverse. Hey, I can dream, can't I?.
Perhaps in a decade or two, the Denver Broncos and the Colorado Rapids can simply trade stadiums as their attendance numbers reverse. Hey, I can dream, can't I?.
Robert Confirmed As Chief Justice.
John Roberts, Jr. was confirmed as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States by a vote of 78-22. He was a bad choice. My thanks to the 22 Democrats with enough principles to vote against this nomination. They are:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY) and
Stabenow (D-MI).
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY) and
Stabenow (D-MI).
Pardons.
Bush issued 14 new pardons this week. All involved people who already had been convicted and served their time, often decades ago. As usual, the President didn't even attempt to provide any meaningful justification for his actions.
Only a handful of people in his Presidency have actually had their sentences commuted.
We would be better off if every one with a clean slate for ten or twenty years received a clean slate, than relying on the seemingly random pardon process to rehabilitate people who have already served their time.
It is also notable that:
For a "Compassionate Conservative", our President doesn't seem to understand mercy very well.
Only a handful of people in his Presidency have actually had their sentences commuted.
We would be better off if every one with a clean slate for ten or twenty years received a clean slate, than relying on the seemingly random pardon process to rehabilitate people who have already served their time.
It is also notable that:
Perhaps most significant for your audience, there is no indication that this president plans to use his pardon power in any systematic fashion to cut short prison sentences: the beneficiaries of his only two commutations were both old and sick and within six months of release in the ordinary course.
For a "Compassionate Conservative", our President doesn't seem to understand mercy very well.
Being Reality Based.
The term "reality based" has become a battle cry for progressives ever since an exchange between a White House lackey and a reporter, in which the White House fellow tried to make the point that they shaped their own reality, instead of responding to the one in the outside world like reporters do, came to light.
It sums up everything that is right about liberals. We do care about the evidence. We do care about the facts. It isn't just politics. We listen to scientists opinions, rather than ignoring them. We look at social statistics. We would argue that it is no coincidence that the people who make their living gather facts about social issues, academics and reporters, tend to be liberals. We want policies that work, not policies supported by the Bible or any other myth.
Being "reality based" provides a direction for resolving disputes. Disagreements over the facts can be resolved by presenting evidence. If you are reality based, it is your obligation to concede to someone who disagees with you when the facts show that the other fellow is right, and you are wrong. It also implies that you reject the idea that the press or science or academia has some mass conspiracy to lie to the world.
Of course, not all disputes can be resolved strictly with the facts. Facts can be relevant to what you think about, for example, the abortion issue, but they don't ultimately resolve the definitional question of when life begins for moral purposes. Instead, they inform, without deciding, the process of going about choosing a definition that makes moral sense. For example, choosing a "life begins at conception" definition of life can have different moral desirability if 99% of conceived eggs produce live births in the absence of a decision to abort for reasons unrelated to the viability of the fetus, than it does if only 50% of conceived eggs produce life births in the absence of that intervention. Definitions should have some connection to the reason you need to define a word or concept, but ultimately, they are matters of preference and not matters of fact.
One of the frustrating things about this administration is that facts no longer matter, at least, they don't seem to matter. For example, one administration proposed Endangered Species Act rule (whose fate may be tied up in a vote on the act taking place in Congress today), would call for classification decisions to be made on 1970s science, ignoring everything that has been learned since then. How idiotic!
The other frustrating thing about the political scene in this country, is that it is increasingly no longer sufficient to reach agreement on the facts to reach a decision, but the moral landscape of conservatives has changed so profoundly in the past several decades (far more than that of liberals). Once upon a time, Americans agreed that our nation should protect human rights and civil liberties. Now, you will increasingly hear conservatives say things like: "Even if we are torturing people or sending them to be tortured, what is so bad about that?", or "We don't care if the guy can prove himself innocent of enemy combatant charges, we're so afraid that we are willing to give the President power even if he can absue it." Civil political debate is basically about persuading people about the facts so that common ground can be reached. But, when there is no common moral ground, and that is increasingly where we stand today, debate inevitably disintegrates and dissolves into name calling, vitrol, and hard ball political tactics.
It sums up everything that is right about liberals. We do care about the evidence. We do care about the facts. It isn't just politics. We listen to scientists opinions, rather than ignoring them. We look at social statistics. We would argue that it is no coincidence that the people who make their living gather facts about social issues, academics and reporters, tend to be liberals. We want policies that work, not policies supported by the Bible or any other myth.
Being "reality based" provides a direction for resolving disputes. Disagreements over the facts can be resolved by presenting evidence. If you are reality based, it is your obligation to concede to someone who disagees with you when the facts show that the other fellow is right, and you are wrong. It also implies that you reject the idea that the press or science or academia has some mass conspiracy to lie to the world.
Of course, not all disputes can be resolved strictly with the facts. Facts can be relevant to what you think about, for example, the abortion issue, but they don't ultimately resolve the definitional question of when life begins for moral purposes. Instead, they inform, without deciding, the process of going about choosing a definition that makes moral sense. For example, choosing a "life begins at conception" definition of life can have different moral desirability if 99% of conceived eggs produce live births in the absence of a decision to abort for reasons unrelated to the viability of the fetus, than it does if only 50% of conceived eggs produce life births in the absence of that intervention. Definitions should have some connection to the reason you need to define a word or concept, but ultimately, they are matters of preference and not matters of fact.
One of the frustrating things about this administration is that facts no longer matter, at least, they don't seem to matter. For example, one administration proposed Endangered Species Act rule (whose fate may be tied up in a vote on the act taking place in Congress today), would call for classification decisions to be made on 1970s science, ignoring everything that has been learned since then. How idiotic!
The other frustrating thing about the political scene in this country, is that it is increasingly no longer sufficient to reach agreement on the facts to reach a decision, but the moral landscape of conservatives has changed so profoundly in the past several decades (far more than that of liberals). Once upon a time, Americans agreed that our nation should protect human rights and civil liberties. Now, you will increasingly hear conservatives say things like: "Even if we are torturing people or sending them to be tortured, what is so bad about that?", or "We don't care if the guy can prove himself innocent of enemy combatant charges, we're so afraid that we are willing to give the President power even if he can absue it." Civil political debate is basically about persuading people about the facts so that common ground can be reached. But, when there is no common moral ground, and that is increasingly where we stand today, debate inevitably disintegrates and dissolves into name calling, vitrol, and hard ball political tactics.
How Does Imprisonment Affect Crime?
Thirty two year lows in violent crime have been accompanied by a six fold increase in prison populations. The obvious question is, to what extent did the increase in imprisonment drive the decrease in crime? This question, indeed even minor nuances in the answer to this question, is far more important, from a practical perspective, than the debate over the death penalty in general, and far, far more important in my mind, at least, than nuances of the death penalty debate like the manner in which the death penalty is carried out.
Driven largely by increased prison sentences enacted as part of the "war on drugs" (there has been an eleven fold increase in the number of people imprisoned in drug cases since 1980) incarceration rates are far higher than they were a deacde ago. In 2005, there are 20,228 adults in prison in Colorado. In 1992, that number was 8,474. The prison population in Colorado has gone up 7% per year on average since 1992. Colorado is typical of the national trend.
No country in the world imprisons people at the rate that the United States does. Our incarceration rates are 5-8 times those of Canada and Western Europe, and much of the difference is due to much harsher prison sentences for drug crimes and property crimes. Those nations have frequently taken the stance that keeping people connnected to their communities and punishing them outside of prison is more effective than the benefical effects of short prison sentences that disrupt offenders lives without really being long enough to change the person, producing recidivism.
The trend towards long prison sentences is particularly pronounced for black men. One in eight black men aged 25-29 are currently in jail or prison. Nationally, about 29% of black men will do time at some point in their lives, and in Washington D.C., like most inner city neighborhoods, the rates are far higher: 75% of black men will eventually spend some time incarcerated.
Overall U.S. property crime rates are neither particularly high or particularly low, although the U.S. murder rate is very high, it violent crime rates are high, and according to the 2005 World Almanac (at page 164) almost 10% of people in prison are serving life sentences, many for murder. There are 35 people serving life sentences for each one on death row in the United States.
One of the better studies (cited at page 6 in the linked document) in the field finds that 12% of the increase in prison populations is due to an increase in the number of crimes committed (partially a product of increased population), 51% comes from felons who would previously not have gone to prison at all serving prison sentences, and 37% is due to longer sentences.
More to the point, about 25% of the drop in crime (see the references at page 12) has been attributed to increased incaceration, while the remainder has been attributed to a healthy economy, reduced crack use, and better policing and youth attitudes. Moreover, it isn't clear that all incarceration has been equally valuable. Which sentences do and do not prevent future crimes?
A Florida Study ranked the relative importance of different factors in the likelihood that a released offender will commit another crime. Not surprisingly, a poor disciplinary record while in prison, serving prison time in a high security facility, and a history of prior recidivism are connected with future criminal acts. People who commit economicly motivated crimes (burglary, property offenses and drug offenses) are also more likely to commit crimes again, than violent criminals and sex offenders. Crimes are more likely to be committed again by released prisoners who are young, have served shorter sentences, and are less educated. Blacks are more likely to reoffend, Hispanics are less likely to reoffend. Close post-release supervision also lowers the reoffense rate.
Boil it all down and you see basically two forces at work. First, someone is more likely to reoffend is crime was a way of life for them, rather than an isolated incident (often driven by economic factors and often illustrated by a history of offending), and second, crime is predominantly something done by men of a certain age who tend to cease to reoffend once they age and mellow.
The high recidivism rate for people who commit non-violent crimes is discouraging for proponents of sentencing reform, although not insurmountable. Many sentencing reformers would like to thin prison ranks by toning down sentences for drug offenders and property crimes, while they see the long sentences for violent criminals as an appropriate way to keep dangerous people locked up. But, if anything, the recidivism rates would point in the opposite direction.
A violent individual who commited a crime in a fit of passion, but was never economically dependent on crime as an occupation, who is released after having served a fairly long term, is likely to have mellowed in prison and unlikely to reoffend. There may be relatively little risk in releasing a violent offender who has already served 15 years in prison from another ten or twenty years of his sentence.
In contrast, a young high school dropout, who made a living through crime before going to prison, is unlikely to have reformed after serving a relatively short prison term and will often reoffend as a result of a lack of better options. Far more effort ought to be devoted to prevent the twenty-two year old car thief or burglar who is a high school dropout from reoffending after having served a two or three year sentence.
A few examples of the relative importance of the factors is instructive. Two more years in prison, both because of the prison time itself and because it make the offender older at the time of release, has enough beneficial effect to match the negative effect of a prior recidivism incident. The difference between being in a low security v. high security prison is roughly equivalent to a effect of a prior recidivism incident. The effect of a prison disciplinary incident is about as significant as the reduction in reoffense rates due to two more months in prison. A burglar of a given age and prison term is as likely to reoffend as a similarly situated murderer with two prior incidents of recidivism. One year of education reduces recidivism about as much as a three months longer prison sentence. Close post-release supervision is as effective at preventing recidivism as twenty more months of incarceration.
Violent crimes scare us more, but are less likely to be a way of life. Most crime is fundamentally economic in nature, and until the poverty that drives people to commit crimes for economic reasons is addressed, criminals have little choice but to persist in commiting crimes. Likewise, in the case of people who deal drugs primarily to support their own substance abuse habit, they are going to reoffend unless they have broken their habit. But, simply having someone keep a close eye on you in the critical period after you are released has an effect as well. Close post-relief supervision, on average, is cost effective on average, even if its costs $50,000 per prisoner, compared to longer sentences.
This conclusion is supported by data from other sources. One study reports that: 12.2% of non-sexual violent offenders reoffend, 13.4% of sex offenders reoffend, and 36.9% of other offenders reoffend. This doesn't mean that more care with serious offenses isn't in order. A repeat sex offense or aggrevated assault is far worse for society than a repeat burglary or car theft. But, it does confirm the Florida statistics and the trend in national statistics. Texas statistics show a less marked distinction between different offenses, but similar trends except with regard to sex offenses, for which it found high recidivism rates.
Indeed, one trend which is consistent with current sentencing trends that focus on long sentences for repeat offenders, is that people who have committed serious crimes in the past are far, far more likely to commit crimes in the future than members of the general public, and people who have multiple prior crimes are particularly likely to reoffend.
This still doesn't necessarily mean that putting those individuals in prison and throwing away the key makes sense. Indeed, recidivism statistics for people who have served prison sentences don't even go to the crux of the European argument. Are the recidivism rates of people who have served short terms for non-violent crimes higher than the recidivism rates of people who were punished in a manner other than a prison sentence (such as a German style "day fine" where the fine amount is linked to how much the offender could have earned during the time period of the otherwise applicable prison sentence)? If the recidivism rate is the same for someone in the community who is paying fines that cover the cost of his supervision, provide full restitution to the victim, and result in a penalty over and above that, as it is for someone who is incarcerated at a $30,000 a year public expense that results in no restitution to the victim, isn't the fine a better way to go?
But, the numbers do show that putting people who commit serious offenses in prison for a few years and then tossing them out into the outside world with little guidance, supervision or support, is practically an invitation to future criminal activity. The revolving door approach to criminal punishment doesn't work. Put another way, if a burglar is going to end up spending nine years in prison in any case, wouldn't it be better for that time to be served all at once, instead of in three or four separate sentences broken up by a dozen cases of burglary (most never resulting in court convictions) in between those sentences?
This post doesn't offer a final answer to this big issue, but it does, at least, look at the facts and begin to grapple with their implications.
Driven largely by increased prison sentences enacted as part of the "war on drugs" (there has been an eleven fold increase in the number of people imprisoned in drug cases since 1980) incarceration rates are far higher than they were a deacde ago. In 2005, there are 20,228 adults in prison in Colorado. In 1992, that number was 8,474. The prison population in Colorado has gone up 7% per year on average since 1992. Colorado is typical of the national trend.
No country in the world imprisons people at the rate that the United States does. Our incarceration rates are 5-8 times those of Canada and Western Europe, and much of the difference is due to much harsher prison sentences for drug crimes and property crimes. Those nations have frequently taken the stance that keeping people connnected to their communities and punishing them outside of prison is more effective than the benefical effects of short prison sentences that disrupt offenders lives without really being long enough to change the person, producing recidivism.
The trend towards long prison sentences is particularly pronounced for black men. One in eight black men aged 25-29 are currently in jail or prison. Nationally, about 29% of black men will do time at some point in their lives, and in Washington D.C., like most inner city neighborhoods, the rates are far higher: 75% of black men will eventually spend some time incarcerated.
Overall U.S. property crime rates are neither particularly high or particularly low, although the U.S. murder rate is very high, it violent crime rates are high, and according to the 2005 World Almanac (at page 164) almost 10% of people in prison are serving life sentences, many for murder. There are 35 people serving life sentences for each one on death row in the United States.
One of the better studies (cited at page 6 in the linked document) in the field finds that 12% of the increase in prison populations is due to an increase in the number of crimes committed (partially a product of increased population), 51% comes from felons who would previously not have gone to prison at all serving prison sentences, and 37% is due to longer sentences.
More to the point, about 25% of the drop in crime (see the references at page 12) has been attributed to increased incaceration, while the remainder has been attributed to a healthy economy, reduced crack use, and better policing and youth attitudes. Moreover, it isn't clear that all incarceration has been equally valuable. Which sentences do and do not prevent future crimes?
A Florida Study ranked the relative importance of different factors in the likelihood that a released offender will commit another crime. Not surprisingly, a poor disciplinary record while in prison, serving prison time in a high security facility, and a history of prior recidivism are connected with future criminal acts. People who commit economicly motivated crimes (burglary, property offenses and drug offenses) are also more likely to commit crimes again, than violent criminals and sex offenders. Crimes are more likely to be committed again by released prisoners who are young, have served shorter sentences, and are less educated. Blacks are more likely to reoffend, Hispanics are less likely to reoffend. Close post-release supervision also lowers the reoffense rate.
Boil it all down and you see basically two forces at work. First, someone is more likely to reoffend is crime was a way of life for them, rather than an isolated incident (often driven by economic factors and often illustrated by a history of offending), and second, crime is predominantly something done by men of a certain age who tend to cease to reoffend once they age and mellow.
The high recidivism rate for people who commit non-violent crimes is discouraging for proponents of sentencing reform, although not insurmountable. Many sentencing reformers would like to thin prison ranks by toning down sentences for drug offenders and property crimes, while they see the long sentences for violent criminals as an appropriate way to keep dangerous people locked up. But, if anything, the recidivism rates would point in the opposite direction.
A violent individual who commited a crime in a fit of passion, but was never economically dependent on crime as an occupation, who is released after having served a fairly long term, is likely to have mellowed in prison and unlikely to reoffend. There may be relatively little risk in releasing a violent offender who has already served 15 years in prison from another ten or twenty years of his sentence.
In contrast, a young high school dropout, who made a living through crime before going to prison, is unlikely to have reformed after serving a relatively short prison term and will often reoffend as a result of a lack of better options. Far more effort ought to be devoted to prevent the twenty-two year old car thief or burglar who is a high school dropout from reoffending after having served a two or three year sentence.
A few examples of the relative importance of the factors is instructive. Two more years in prison, both because of the prison time itself and because it make the offender older at the time of release, has enough beneficial effect to match the negative effect of a prior recidivism incident. The difference between being in a low security v. high security prison is roughly equivalent to a effect of a prior recidivism incident. The effect of a prison disciplinary incident is about as significant as the reduction in reoffense rates due to two more months in prison. A burglar of a given age and prison term is as likely to reoffend as a similarly situated murderer with two prior incidents of recidivism. One year of education reduces recidivism about as much as a three months longer prison sentence. Close post-release supervision is as effective at preventing recidivism as twenty more months of incarceration.
Violent crimes scare us more, but are less likely to be a way of life. Most crime is fundamentally economic in nature, and until the poverty that drives people to commit crimes for economic reasons is addressed, criminals have little choice but to persist in commiting crimes. Likewise, in the case of people who deal drugs primarily to support their own substance abuse habit, they are going to reoffend unless they have broken their habit. But, simply having someone keep a close eye on you in the critical period after you are released has an effect as well. Close post-relief supervision, on average, is cost effective on average, even if its costs $50,000 per prisoner, compared to longer sentences.
This conclusion is supported by data from other sources. One study reports that: 12.2% of non-sexual violent offenders reoffend, 13.4% of sex offenders reoffend, and 36.9% of other offenders reoffend. This doesn't mean that more care with serious offenses isn't in order. A repeat sex offense or aggrevated assault is far worse for society than a repeat burglary or car theft. But, it does confirm the Florida statistics and the trend in national statistics. Texas statistics show a less marked distinction between different offenses, but similar trends except with regard to sex offenses, for which it found high recidivism rates.
Indeed, one trend which is consistent with current sentencing trends that focus on long sentences for repeat offenders, is that people who have committed serious crimes in the past are far, far more likely to commit crimes in the future than members of the general public, and people who have multiple prior crimes are particularly likely to reoffend.
This still doesn't necessarily mean that putting those individuals in prison and throwing away the key makes sense. Indeed, recidivism statistics for people who have served prison sentences don't even go to the crux of the European argument. Are the recidivism rates of people who have served short terms for non-violent crimes higher than the recidivism rates of people who were punished in a manner other than a prison sentence (such as a German style "day fine" where the fine amount is linked to how much the offender could have earned during the time period of the otherwise applicable prison sentence)? If the recidivism rate is the same for someone in the community who is paying fines that cover the cost of his supervision, provide full restitution to the victim, and result in a penalty over and above that, as it is for someone who is incarcerated at a $30,000 a year public expense that results in no restitution to the victim, isn't the fine a better way to go?
But, the numbers do show that putting people who commit serious offenses in prison for a few years and then tossing them out into the outside world with little guidance, supervision or support, is practically an invitation to future criminal activity. The revolving door approach to criminal punishment doesn't work. Put another way, if a burglar is going to end up spending nine years in prison in any case, wouldn't it be better for that time to be served all at once, instead of in three or four separate sentences broken up by a dozen cases of burglary (most never resulting in court convictions) in between those sentences?
This post doesn't offer a final answer to this big issue, but it does, at least, look at the facts and begin to grapple with their implications.
Denver's Jail and the Big Picture.
Denver voters last year passed a proposal to expand Denver's jails. It was not a moment too soon. Currently it has "2,583 inmates in facilities designed for 1,672." A downtown "justice center" for pre-trial detainees at the site of the Rocky Mountain News building is to be completed four years from now, in 2009. It will hold 1,500 inmates. An upgrade of the Smith Road facility, which will now house people who have been convicted of crimes, will house 1,000 inmates in 2010 with a design that could be expanded to 1,384 inmates if necessary. Fire up the addition. Denver is already 83 inmates over its design capacity for 2010, although alternative sentencing plans could reduce the number of inmates slights, and some of the recent surge in inmate roles, which has Denver far beyond planned levels, is due to one time changes in how jail sentences are calculated. Jail headcounts are up by 17%, but, most of that is due to longer sentences (in part due to the rule changes) rather than a lot more prisoners. Jail officials say that "For each day added to the average sentence . . . 123 more inmates are in the jail system."
Notably, at the same time that the jail is already bursting, arrests have actually dropped dramatically. Denver arrests are down 35% since 1998, despite an increasing population and increasing crime (crime is up 28% in Denver since 1998 according to FBI crime statistics). Traffic tickets are also down, 31%. DUI arrests are down 50%. Rape arrests (which tend to fluxuate randomly more from year to year because the base number is far smaller) are down 63%. The City's response so far, has been a plan to hire 87 more cops and implement the jail expansion.
Crime reports are up in the city in 2005, particularly in Denver's wealthier neighborhoods and for assaults (although Denver has had half as many murders as last year). But, crimes reported to the police are not an ideal measure.
As someone who has had his car broken into in front of his house twice this summer I can tell you that it is true. It is the policy of the Denver Police to not even investigate break ins like that. They simply do not have the resources to do so.
Charlie Brown is the City Councilman who represents the East side of Washington Park and parts of the City beyond it. Here's what he's doing:
Now, to put this all in perspective, Denver, indeed, even the worst parts of Denver, is not really all that crime ridden by national standards. The most crime ridden neighborhoods in Denver, like Sun Valley and Five Points, have not hit bottom to the extent of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Baltimore, the District of Columbia, Detroit, Buffalo, or Los Angeles. Women in my neighborhood feel safe walking their dogs alone after dark. Downtown Denver is vibrant day and night, it is a place where feelings of fun predominant over fear. The crime levels in the neighborhoods that are seeing big percentage increases in crimes reported to police are also the ones where the crime level remains very low. And, some of the drop in DUI and rape arrests is due to a genuine decline in DUI offenses and rapes in the City. No, not 50% and 63% respectively, but that is part of the decline. Some of this is a matter of growing pains. Not many central cities are growing at the rate that Denver is these days. More people means more crime, and it takes time for the City to catch up.
But, there is cause for concern. The Denver economy may not be running on all cylinders, but unemployment for August in the metro area was down to 4.9%, which is fairly healthy. Housing prices are stumbling at the moment (single family house prices fell slightly in September for the first time in a long time), rents fell some months ago, and foreclosures in the area are high, but Denver also hasn't seen a true housing crash. In short, nothing in Denver is so horrible that crime should be getting out of control.
If Denver is straining at a time when crime is at record lows nationally, how will it manage when the economy takes a turn for the worse? What if crime doubled over the course of a decade (an increase on average of just 7% per year)? What if arrests and convictions increased in lock step with that? Our planned jail and police forces are sufficient to stuggle with the existing problems, but there is no room for growth (not to blame political leaders in Denver for that, they probably couldn't have gotten the people to vote in the funding if they hadn't cut the project down to current levels).
I'll save an even bigger picture, the rise of incarceration and overall crime rate trends, for another post.
Notably, at the same time that the jail is already bursting, arrests have actually dropped dramatically. Denver arrests are down 35% since 1998, despite an increasing population and increasing crime (crime is up 28% in Denver since 1998 according to FBI crime statistics). Traffic tickets are also down, 31%. DUI arrests are down 50%. Rape arrests (which tend to fluxuate randomly more from year to year because the base number is far smaller) are down 63%. The City's response so far, has been a plan to hire 87 more cops and implement the jail expansion.
Crime reports are up in the city in 2005, particularly in Denver's wealthier neighborhoods and for assaults (although Denver has had half as many murders as last year). But, crimes reported to the police are not an ideal measure.
"I would be in shock if I was the southeast district commander," said City Councilman Doug Linkhart.
That commander, Patrick Flynn, said property crime increased significantly in District 3 during the first half of 2005, particularly in the Washington Park, Cherry Creek and Congress Park neighborhoods.
Since then, he said, his detectives have made a series of key arrests that have tamped down the numbers.
Flynn also noted that his district has just five detectives - fewer than half the number it used to have. Last year, he said, only 26 percent of reported property crimes were even assigned to a detective for investigation.
As someone who has had his car broken into in front of his house twice this summer I can tell you that it is true. It is the policy of the Denver Police to not even investigate break ins like that. They simply do not have the resources to do so.
Charlie Brown is the City Councilman who represents the East side of Washington Park and parts of the City beyond it. Here's what he's doing:
City Councilman Charlie Brown, whose district includes part of District 3, said it is not news to him that crime is up.
Crime is "the No. 1 issue in my district," he said. He added that he is holding monthly meetings at District 3 headquarters with concerned residents.
The last one attracted about 60 people, he said.
Now, to put this all in perspective, Denver, indeed, even the worst parts of Denver, is not really all that crime ridden by national standards. The most crime ridden neighborhoods in Denver, like Sun Valley and Five Points, have not hit bottom to the extent of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Baltimore, the District of Columbia, Detroit, Buffalo, or Los Angeles. Women in my neighborhood feel safe walking their dogs alone after dark. Downtown Denver is vibrant day and night, it is a place where feelings of fun predominant over fear. The crime levels in the neighborhoods that are seeing big percentage increases in crimes reported to police are also the ones where the crime level remains very low. And, some of the drop in DUI and rape arrests is due to a genuine decline in DUI offenses and rapes in the City. No, not 50% and 63% respectively, but that is part of the decline. Some of this is a matter of growing pains. Not many central cities are growing at the rate that Denver is these days. More people means more crime, and it takes time for the City to catch up.
But, there is cause for concern. The Denver economy may not be running on all cylinders, but unemployment for August in the metro area was down to 4.9%, which is fairly healthy. Housing prices are stumbling at the moment (single family house prices fell slightly in September for the first time in a long time), rents fell some months ago, and foreclosures in the area are high, but Denver also hasn't seen a true housing crash. In short, nothing in Denver is so horrible that crime should be getting out of control.
If Denver is straining at a time when crime is at record lows nationally, how will it manage when the economy takes a turn for the worse? What if crime doubled over the course of a decade (an increase on average of just 7% per year)? What if arrests and convictions increased in lock step with that? Our planned jail and police forces are sufficient to stuggle with the existing problems, but there is no room for growth (not to blame political leaders in Denver for that, they probably couldn't have gotten the people to vote in the funding if they hadn't cut the project down to current levels).
I'll save an even bigger picture, the rise of incarceration and overall crime rate trends, for another post.
28 September 2005
Homeland Security Gone Nuts.
The Department of Homeland Security stopped a nun, for months, repeatedly, every time she tried to fly. The person whose name was flagging her was a man. Her attempts to get off the list were an abject failure for many months, until a Cardinal personally appealed to Karl Rove on her behalf.
If the Department of Homeland Security can't get people off the list, and can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, the list can't be very effective at keeping people who shouldn't be on airlines off them either. Also, why does it take three hours to figure she's safe to fly? A full body search takes maybe ten minutes. She's obviously not an Amazon warrior. If there's a warrant out for her arrest then can catch her when she lands.
The results, however, are predictable in an administration that cares only about people who have political connections.
If the Department of Homeland Security can't get people off the list, and can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, the list can't be very effective at keeping people who shouldn't be on airlines off them either. Also, why does it take three hours to figure she's safe to fly? A full body search takes maybe ten minutes. She's obviously not an Amazon warrior. If there's a warrant out for her arrest then can catch her when she lands.
The results, however, are predictable in an administration that cares only about people who have political connections.
A Military Blogging Meta-Musing.
I am not a veteran. I signed up for the Selective Service like every other law abiding male in the country who isn't a conscientious objector, updated my address as required by law (even though most people don't), and breathed a sigh of relief when, after about eight years, I was no longer obligated to register. As a lifelong civilian, I am in the majority of men my age. I don't even own a gun, never have, and don't plan to own one. I've fired one once or twice, at a target in a grandfather's backyard, and I've heard a couple of stories from the military experiences of my father, who was drafted for a couple of years during peacetime in the early days of the Cold War. I am just barely young enough that I could, in theory, sign up now, but I've been a third rate athlete all my life and a decade of sedentary employment preceeded by relatively sedentary college and graduate school days has not improved my physical prowess. I don't believe in the wars we are fighting now. As a result, I feel no moral duty to sign up to fight them.
There are plenty of people out there who would say that I have no credibilty to blog or opine at all about military matters. If someone like myself was a conservative blogger, I'd be called a "chickenhawk" or a member of the "101st keyboarders", by liberal bloggers. I've always felt that those terms are somewhat unfair, but have never actively taken a stand against using them either.
Never the less, I intend to continue military blogging and I think that I do have something worthwhile to say. This country needs some sort of military defense. We are too big to go the way of Costa Rica and simply dispense with having a military force. Indeed, on occassion, it is legitimate for the United States to intervene abroad militarily.
Military blogging, like the military officer corps, is dominanted by hard core conservatives. It is not healthy, in a democracy, for the people to cede military policy to a single political party or ideology. If progressives are serious about leading this country, they need to, collectively, at least, invest the time and effort needed to understand military issues and develop an affirmative agenda to address those issues, rather than merely responding in the negative to anything that conservatives suggest. Some military issues are non-partisan and technical in nature. Others, however, are blatantly political and military bloggers and policy makers can be horribly wrongminded about some of these issues. The guys at the Strategy Page do a great job of looking at less partisan staffing issues in the military and procurement issues, but they also have very frightening stances in areas like what they call "lawfare". Murdoc Online, another conservative military blog (run by a non-veteran like myself), also can have some pretty disturbing ideas about politics and civil liberties, even though he has enough worthwhile to say about military specific issues that I find it worthwhile to read his blog on a regular basis.
Fair enough, but shouldn't I then defer to military veterans on less partisan issues? I think that the answer there is again, no. As much as many of them would like to claim otherwise, almost every military veteran has relatively narrow personal experience. Almost all have spent their entire military careers (often for just four years or so) in one or two specialties in a single military service. Almost all know most of what they know about Pentagon level issues from their own personal research, or from classroom type instruction within the military itself that isn't any better. I'm perfectly willing to defer to someone whose driven a tank about how a better tank ought to be designed, or to a Marine about what does and does not work in terms of close fire support from ships. But, the tank driver isn't any better situated than I am to evaluate how many tanks the U.S. military needs, and the Marine is no better situated than I to evaluate how many F-22s the Air Force should buy.
In our American democracy, the military is subordinate to civilian authority. They report ultimately to federal elected officials and their appointees. In other words, our system of government makes soldiers subordinate to politicians. My goal in military blogging is not to tell an Army Captain how to run his company. My goal is to develop well researched opinions about the kind of decisions that the politicians to whom the soldiers report need to ultimately take responsibility for making. I've never been a general, but I have spent a fair amount of time in close proximity to the politicans who make those decisions. Indeed, I had a front row seat as a Congressional intern when Congress voted on whether or not to commence the First Gulf War. (My representative voted against that war and I continue to believe that he made the right call in that case.) And, while I may not be more knowledgeable about the military than a significant number of military strategists in the Pentagon, I most certainly am more knowledgeable about the issues than the vast majority of politicians in Congress and their staff members. There are a select few in the halls of Congress who are more knowledgeable than I, but not many, and it is the case that fewer progressives than conservatives have taken the time and effort to inform themselves about military affairs. Somebody with his heart in the right place needs to fill that knowledge gap in the public debate, and this is one area where I have chosen to devote my political interests and blogging time. Ultimately, war is foreign policy and politics by other means.
I do not share the fundamental tenant of identity politics that the messenger is the message, something that is particularly true on the Internet where even a cat is judged by what he has to say, instead of who he is. I always welcome comment from those who feel that they are better informed than I, or who have rational criticisms of a point of view that I have, and if you changed my mind, it wouldn't be the first time I'd changed my views on a military issue after having become more informed. But, I also have no patience for fools who have nothing more than ad hominem attacks with which to respond to otherwise sound analysis.
There are plenty of people out there who would say that I have no credibilty to blog or opine at all about military matters. If someone like myself was a conservative blogger, I'd be called a "chickenhawk" or a member of the "101st keyboarders", by liberal bloggers. I've always felt that those terms are somewhat unfair, but have never actively taken a stand against using them either.
Never the less, I intend to continue military blogging and I think that I do have something worthwhile to say. This country needs some sort of military defense. We are too big to go the way of Costa Rica and simply dispense with having a military force. Indeed, on occassion, it is legitimate for the United States to intervene abroad militarily.
Military blogging, like the military officer corps, is dominanted by hard core conservatives. It is not healthy, in a democracy, for the people to cede military policy to a single political party or ideology. If progressives are serious about leading this country, they need to, collectively, at least, invest the time and effort needed to understand military issues and develop an affirmative agenda to address those issues, rather than merely responding in the negative to anything that conservatives suggest. Some military issues are non-partisan and technical in nature. Others, however, are blatantly political and military bloggers and policy makers can be horribly wrongminded about some of these issues. The guys at the Strategy Page do a great job of looking at less partisan staffing issues in the military and procurement issues, but they also have very frightening stances in areas like what they call "lawfare". Murdoc Online, another conservative military blog (run by a non-veteran like myself), also can have some pretty disturbing ideas about politics and civil liberties, even though he has enough worthwhile to say about military specific issues that I find it worthwhile to read his blog on a regular basis.
Fair enough, but shouldn't I then defer to military veterans on less partisan issues? I think that the answer there is again, no. As much as many of them would like to claim otherwise, almost every military veteran has relatively narrow personal experience. Almost all have spent their entire military careers (often for just four years or so) in one or two specialties in a single military service. Almost all know most of what they know about Pentagon level issues from their own personal research, or from classroom type instruction within the military itself that isn't any better. I'm perfectly willing to defer to someone whose driven a tank about how a better tank ought to be designed, or to a Marine about what does and does not work in terms of close fire support from ships. But, the tank driver isn't any better situated than I am to evaluate how many tanks the U.S. military needs, and the Marine is no better situated than I to evaluate how many F-22s the Air Force should buy.
In our American democracy, the military is subordinate to civilian authority. They report ultimately to federal elected officials and their appointees. In other words, our system of government makes soldiers subordinate to politicians. My goal in military blogging is not to tell an Army Captain how to run his company. My goal is to develop well researched opinions about the kind of decisions that the politicians to whom the soldiers report need to ultimately take responsibility for making. I've never been a general, but I have spent a fair amount of time in close proximity to the politicans who make those decisions. Indeed, I had a front row seat as a Congressional intern when Congress voted on whether or not to commence the First Gulf War. (My representative voted against that war and I continue to believe that he made the right call in that case.) And, while I may not be more knowledgeable about the military than a significant number of military strategists in the Pentagon, I most certainly am more knowledgeable about the issues than the vast majority of politicians in Congress and their staff members. There are a select few in the halls of Congress who are more knowledgeable than I, but not many, and it is the case that fewer progressives than conservatives have taken the time and effort to inform themselves about military affairs. Somebody with his heart in the right place needs to fill that knowledge gap in the public debate, and this is one area where I have chosen to devote my political interests and blogging time. Ultimately, war is foreign policy and politics by other means.
I do not share the fundamental tenant of identity politics that the messenger is the message, something that is particularly true on the Internet where even a cat is judged by what he has to say, instead of who he is. I always welcome comment from those who feel that they are better informed than I, or who have rational criticisms of a point of view that I have, and if you changed my mind, it wouldn't be the first time I'd changed my views on a military issue after having become more informed. But, I also have no patience for fools who have nothing more than ad hominem attacks with which to respond to otherwise sound analysis.
Should Every Sailor and Airman Be A Rifleman?
One of the mottos of the Marines is that every Marine is a rifleman first, and any other specialty second. Until the early 1970s (hmm . . . can anyone recall a historical event involving the Department of Defense around that time?), every sailor in the Navy received infantry combat training. The Air Force, of course, didn't exist apart from the Army until after World War II, so pilots also received combat training. Now, the only pilots or aircrew who receive infantry training are those in the Marines.
One of the side effects of this development is that the United States military acts like a union shop with strict job classifications. With a handful of narrow exceptions, the Navy (the military service, not the Department), and the Air Force, don't do infantry combat and simply aren't available for ground war functions of any kind. They operate their very expensive armed vehicles and let someone else take most of the casualties. This is a good thing if you happen to be a crew member tooling around the seven seas with no one to fight, or a fighter pilot who can walk the streets of Italy and have a nice cup of expresso on his (or her) day off. It is not such a good thing if you are the Secretary of Defense trying to find soldiers to fight a couple of wars with, you can't resort to a draft, you've tapped out your supplies of Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops, your recruiting numbers aren't looking good, your allies are deserting you left and right, and 50% of your active duty force is off limits for anything you need to do. Donald Rumsfield has done a lot of things wrong in his tenure, and to a great extent he got himself into the mess that he is now in, but I can sympathize with the challenge he faces.
There is a part of me that is inclined to take a Grover Norquist starve the beast attitude to the problem. If you can't raise an Army to fight a pointless war, maybe you shouldn't be fighting it. But, I have to be honest with myself and recognize that part of that attitude is a product of my faith in this particular war, which was fought for no good reason, and with very little planning for how events after "major combat operations" would be handled. It is still irksome that despite the fact that the Department of State had drawn up contigency plans for just such an event, that those plans were ignored. I'm also well aware that one of the reasons that the United States is so pressed for troops, is because we have so little support from allies, and we have so little support from allies, because the war in Iraq is not a particularly worthy cause. Wars are more often won or lost based on who chooses to ally themselves with each side, than because of the valliant efforts of a country's own soldiers alone.
Still, if the current wars were being fought for a worthy cause (and I am not such a pacifist that I can't imagine one), and the United States was, as it is now, hard pressed for troops, and I were the Secretary of Defense, I would be infuriated to no end by the fact that we had half a million active duty military service members continuing their business as if there wasn't a war on. Every single one of those service members has already received the initiation into military culture that makes up much of basic training. Every single one of those service members is in acceptable physical condition. They are already on the payroll and sworn to act on their commander's lawful orders. And, their commander has more or less ordered them to twiddle their thumbs, and seems too hide bound by the bureacracy to do much else. Would it really be so unthinkable to send a couple of additional aircraft carrier groups to port, and give another dozen attack submarines some downtime, so that the military could redeploy those service members to a combat zone (or, at least, relieve Army soldiers who are tied up in less critical roles)? And, if it is unthinkable now, should that remain the status quo? Should every sailor and airman be a rifleman first, and a member of his or her particular service second?
There are real reasons for the current situation. We don't live in the world of Andrew Jackson where just about anyone was qualified to do just about any government job. The federal government, both military and civilian, is an organization made up of highly trained specialists and must be in order to function. It may not make sense for the organization as a whole to put pilots that it took millions of dollars to train in harm's way driving a truck in a convoy down a lonely Iraqi road. And, there are far more specialities than pilots that are hard to replace.
There are also issues of expectations and motivations. The Army, which is facing the worst recruiting woes, is facing the biggest shortages not in its frontline combat specialties, but in the ranks of its support troops. An infantryman signed up for the Army to get into firefights. A married electronic equipment repair specialist with three children may have been more motivated by the prospects of an afforable college education, extra pay for extra kids, and paid skills training. The electronics specialist signed up recognizing that he or she might be doing work in dangerous situations and might have to use a gun in self-defense. The electronics specialist may not have come on board with the expectation that he or she would be spending months manning a .50 caliber machine gun on the back of a Humvee patrolling a city where everyone speaks another language. An every soldier is a rifleman attitude, like the one that pervades the Marines, who have not have serious recruiting problems, solves that problem. But, it creates another. The supply of people qualified to learn how to fix electronic equipment is finite. Not everyone qualified to march and fire a rifle can do it. If you adjust the expectations of every soldier, you might find that specialty skills across the entire military grow scarce as a consequence of a policy that heaps effort into developing combat skills that many technical specialists will never have an occassion to use. Those are the calls we pay the military brass and civilian chiefs at the Pentagon to make. But, if you watch the politics surrounding the military for any length of time, it becomes pretty clear that autopilot, rather than reasoned decision making, is the order of the day.
It certainly seems clear that the U.S. military needs to have more flexibility to shift resources from service to service than it does now. It also seems clear that it almost never makes sense to transfer everyone from a service indiscriminately to another service, wasteing their skills entirely. This may simply be a case where the RIP principle ("rank has its privileges") works. Maybe every sailor and airman of rank E-4 and below ought to be available for reployment to another service on demand in times of military need, on the theory that they are likely to be the least skilled members of their respective services, and that they are also likely to be the youngest service members who are least set in their ways. This could free up tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of service members in times of need. It would be a bit like having a Marine reserve within the Navy and an Army reserve within the Air Force.
I'd welcome input explaining to me why this just can't work, but apparently, military planners had similar ideas until the Vietnam War came along.
One of the side effects of this development is that the United States military acts like a union shop with strict job classifications. With a handful of narrow exceptions, the Navy (the military service, not the Department), and the Air Force, don't do infantry combat and simply aren't available for ground war functions of any kind. They operate their very expensive armed vehicles and let someone else take most of the casualties. This is a good thing if you happen to be a crew member tooling around the seven seas with no one to fight, or a fighter pilot who can walk the streets of Italy and have a nice cup of expresso on his (or her) day off. It is not such a good thing if you are the Secretary of Defense trying to find soldiers to fight a couple of wars with, you can't resort to a draft, you've tapped out your supplies of Army National Guard and Army Reserve troops, your recruiting numbers aren't looking good, your allies are deserting you left and right, and 50% of your active duty force is off limits for anything you need to do. Donald Rumsfield has done a lot of things wrong in his tenure, and to a great extent he got himself into the mess that he is now in, but I can sympathize with the challenge he faces.
There is a part of me that is inclined to take a Grover Norquist starve the beast attitude to the problem. If you can't raise an Army to fight a pointless war, maybe you shouldn't be fighting it. But, I have to be honest with myself and recognize that part of that attitude is a product of my faith in this particular war, which was fought for no good reason, and with very little planning for how events after "major combat operations" would be handled. It is still irksome that despite the fact that the Department of State had drawn up contigency plans for just such an event, that those plans were ignored. I'm also well aware that one of the reasons that the United States is so pressed for troops, is because we have so little support from allies, and we have so little support from allies, because the war in Iraq is not a particularly worthy cause. Wars are more often won or lost based on who chooses to ally themselves with each side, than because of the valliant efforts of a country's own soldiers alone.
Still, if the current wars were being fought for a worthy cause (and I am not such a pacifist that I can't imagine one), and the United States was, as it is now, hard pressed for troops, and I were the Secretary of Defense, I would be infuriated to no end by the fact that we had half a million active duty military service members continuing their business as if there wasn't a war on. Every single one of those service members has already received the initiation into military culture that makes up much of basic training. Every single one of those service members is in acceptable physical condition. They are already on the payroll and sworn to act on their commander's lawful orders. And, their commander has more or less ordered them to twiddle their thumbs, and seems too hide bound by the bureacracy to do much else. Would it really be so unthinkable to send a couple of additional aircraft carrier groups to port, and give another dozen attack submarines some downtime, so that the military could redeploy those service members to a combat zone (or, at least, relieve Army soldiers who are tied up in less critical roles)? And, if it is unthinkable now, should that remain the status quo? Should every sailor and airman be a rifleman first, and a member of his or her particular service second?
There are real reasons for the current situation. We don't live in the world of Andrew Jackson where just about anyone was qualified to do just about any government job. The federal government, both military and civilian, is an organization made up of highly trained specialists and must be in order to function. It may not make sense for the organization as a whole to put pilots that it took millions of dollars to train in harm's way driving a truck in a convoy down a lonely Iraqi road. And, there are far more specialities than pilots that are hard to replace.
There are also issues of expectations and motivations. The Army, which is facing the worst recruiting woes, is facing the biggest shortages not in its frontline combat specialties, but in the ranks of its support troops. An infantryman signed up for the Army to get into firefights. A married electronic equipment repair specialist with three children may have been more motivated by the prospects of an afforable college education, extra pay for extra kids, and paid skills training. The electronics specialist signed up recognizing that he or she might be doing work in dangerous situations and might have to use a gun in self-defense. The electronics specialist may not have come on board with the expectation that he or she would be spending months manning a .50 caliber machine gun on the back of a Humvee patrolling a city where everyone speaks another language. An every soldier is a rifleman attitude, like the one that pervades the Marines, who have not have serious recruiting problems, solves that problem. But, it creates another. The supply of people qualified to learn how to fix electronic equipment is finite. Not everyone qualified to march and fire a rifle can do it. If you adjust the expectations of every soldier, you might find that specialty skills across the entire military grow scarce as a consequence of a policy that heaps effort into developing combat skills that many technical specialists will never have an occassion to use. Those are the calls we pay the military brass and civilian chiefs at the Pentagon to make. But, if you watch the politics surrounding the military for any length of time, it becomes pretty clear that autopilot, rather than reasoned decision making, is the order of the day.
It certainly seems clear that the U.S. military needs to have more flexibility to shift resources from service to service than it does now. It also seems clear that it almost never makes sense to transfer everyone from a service indiscriminately to another service, wasteing their skills entirely. This may simply be a case where the RIP principle ("rank has its privileges") works. Maybe every sailor and airman of rank E-4 and below ought to be available for reployment to another service on demand in times of military need, on the theory that they are likely to be the least skilled members of their respective services, and that they are also likely to be the youngest service members who are least set in their ways. This could free up tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of service members in times of need. It would be a bit like having a Marine reserve within the Navy and an Army reserve within the Air Force.
I'd welcome input explaining to me why this just can't work, but apparently, military planners had similar ideas until the Vietnam War came along.
Focus On T. Rex's Guide To Life.
Vesta Vespa pointed me in the direction of T. Rex's Guide to Life (a blog, not a highway construction project). Two points hit nerves and bear mention.
First: Americans are going to places like India, Thailand and Singapore to avoid long delays (like 6 months) and high prices ($35,000+) for high quality, quick surgery. The post has more. Historically, this has been a niche filled by American providers like Mayo Clinic. To see Americans leave the U.S. for this kind of care goes to one of the core arguments that has been advanced against universal health care.
Second: T-Rex notes that the recent chimp-human genome comparison did not just show that we have 96% of our genes in common. It also made some numerical predictions based on existing theories of mutation and saw them confirmed. When is the last time you saw any numerical predictions come out of Intelligent Design theory?
Vesta Vespa, meanwhile, has some worthwhile things to say about Greek drunkenness at CU over at SoapBlox.
First: Americans are going to places like India, Thailand and Singapore to avoid long delays (like 6 months) and high prices ($35,000+) for high quality, quick surgery. The post has more. Historically, this has been a niche filled by American providers like Mayo Clinic. To see Americans leave the U.S. for this kind of care goes to one of the core arguments that has been advanced against universal health care.
Second: T-Rex notes that the recent chimp-human genome comparison did not just show that we have 96% of our genes in common. It also made some numerical predictions based on existing theories of mutation and saw them confirmed. When is the last time you saw any numerical predictions come out of Intelligent Design theory?
Vesta Vespa, meanwhile, has some worthwhile things to say about Greek drunkenness at CU over at SoapBlox.
It's Not Exactly Modern Physics, But . . .
Pit of Babel does have a nice post, with well rendered equations, deriving the speed of light from Maxwell's Equations (which are definitely good T-shirt candidates -- even if you can't understand vector calculus, you should take a moment to wonder at how profoundly simple and beautiful the rules that govern much of electromagnetism are). This isn't anything new or revolutionary. It has been known for about a century. But, it does elegantly illustrate a few critical points.
One: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was already embedded into the structure of classical physics, although few people realized the full profundity of this fact initially.
Two: Classical Electomagnetic Theory requires a Minkowski background, not a Euclidian one (which is to say that time-space must have a geometry that accomodates special relativity wherein the speed of light is contant, while length and time may be distorted for observers moving relative to each other and the word "simultaneous" has only local meaning). It therefore follows that QED (quantum electrodynamics which is the quantum eletromagentic theory) must have a Minkowski background because QED must reduce to classical electromagentism at non-quantum scales.
Three: To the extent that Maxwell's equations are true at super-quantum scales, and we have no reason to doubt that they are based on voluminous experimental evidence, the speed of light can be measured indirectly with great precision by determining other more easily measured constants in Maxwell's Equations.
Again, none of this is revolutionary, but many people have trouble getting a comfort level with the idea that modern physics is real, and not just some crazy theory that may or may not be anywhere close to being true. Connecting mundane, classical physics like Maxwell's Equations, which you use to derive circuit equations, which electricians use every day in mundane applications, to modern physics concepts, can help provide that comfort level.
One: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was already embedded into the structure of classical physics, although few people realized the full profundity of this fact initially.
Two: Classical Electomagnetic Theory requires a Minkowski background, not a Euclidian one (which is to say that time-space must have a geometry that accomodates special relativity wherein the speed of light is contant, while length and time may be distorted for observers moving relative to each other and the word "simultaneous" has only local meaning). It therefore follows that QED (quantum electrodynamics which is the quantum eletromagentic theory) must have a Minkowski background because QED must reduce to classical electromagentism at non-quantum scales.
Three: To the extent that Maxwell's equations are true at super-quantum scales, and we have no reason to doubt that they are based on voluminous experimental evidence, the speed of light can be measured indirectly with great precision by determining other more easily measured constants in Maxwell's Equations.
Again, none of this is revolutionary, but many people have trouble getting a comfort level with the idea that modern physics is real, and not just some crazy theory that may or may not be anywhere close to being true. Connecting mundane, classical physics like Maxwell's Equations, which you use to derive circuit equations, which electricians use every day in mundane applications, to modern physics concepts, can help provide that comfort level.
27 September 2005
Coloradan Church Attendance.
When it rains (and delightfully, it is raining now, literally), it pours. One more religion story for today.
In Colorado, 38% of people surveyed never attend church, while 30% do so regularly.
In Colorado, 38% of people surveyed never attend church, while 30% do so regularly.
The Red Diamond.
The organization based in Switzerland which is the international headquarters of the Red Cross/Red Crescent organization has proposed a new religiously neutral symbol which could bring Israel's branch of the organization into the fold: The Red Diamond. Perhaps some day it will be the predominant symbol of the organization worldwide.
An Awkward Colorado Funeral
A Denver blogger relates the story of the funeral of a passing friend which was more about Jesus than the fellow who had died. I post it here because I relate. Hat tip to Coyote Gulch.
Religion Not Beneficial.
Prayer doesn't help heart patients.
More generally, religion is correlated with poor performance on a variety of social health indicators at the national level.
Source.
Correlation is not causation. But, you can't have causation without correlation. So, the claims that religion is generally a cause of societal health on any of the measures above simply cannot be squared with the facts. And, correlation is certainly a valid reason to consider the possibility that there are causal links involved.
More generally, religion is correlated with poor performance on a variety of social health indicators at the national level.
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies. . . .Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developing democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.
Source.
Correlation is not causation. But, you can't have causation without correlation. So, the claims that religion is generally a cause of societal health on any of the measures above simply cannot be squared with the facts. And, correlation is certainly a valid reason to consider the possibility that there are causal links involved.
What Coalition?
The United Kingdom will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq starting in May. Major coalition partners, like Italy and Spain, have already left or are on their way out. Many smaller members of the coalition are already gone. But, as the #2 source of troops in Iraq, the U.K.'s planned withdrawal has a far more significant impact.
Add to that the pressure of unmet recruiting targets for the Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserves, and the nearly exhausted ability of the President to tap national guard and reserve resources without further Congressional authorization, and a situation that seems to be heating up in the British supervised South of the nation, and you have a real bind for the administration in Iraq on the horizon. The administration has no exit strategy. Increasingly, Bush is looking like the last guy left at a restaurant, when all his friends have already left, stuck with the bill.
The fact that parliamentary elections have been held in Afghanistan and that the President of Afghanistan, Hamed Karzi is starting to make discontented noises about the U.S. presence in the country resulting in dead Afghani civilians, while al-Queda training bases in Pakistan are ignored, may allow the administration to shift some troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, as may efforts to draw down troops in Germany and South Korea, and to reorganize the Army to shift soldiers to specialties in greater demand. But, the President does not have the political clout he needs to call for a draft, or to break existing limitations on Guard and Reserve deployments. Thus, it is only a matter of time, and we are talking around the time of the 2006 elections here, before a draw down of U.S. forces, regardless of the consequences, becomes administration policy. This will happen not because the administration favors withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but because it has no other choice. With an impending British withdrawal, this may happen sooner rather than later.
Add to that the pressure of unmet recruiting targets for the Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserves, and the nearly exhausted ability of the President to tap national guard and reserve resources without further Congressional authorization, and a situation that seems to be heating up in the British supervised South of the nation, and you have a real bind for the administration in Iraq on the horizon. The administration has no exit strategy. Increasingly, Bush is looking like the last guy left at a restaurant, when all his friends have already left, stuck with the bill.
The fact that parliamentary elections have been held in Afghanistan and that the President of Afghanistan, Hamed Karzi is starting to make discontented noises about the U.S. presence in the country resulting in dead Afghani civilians, while al-Queda training bases in Pakistan are ignored, may allow the administration to shift some troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, as may efforts to draw down troops in Germany and South Korea, and to reorganize the Army to shift soldiers to specialties in greater demand. But, the President does not have the political clout he needs to call for a draft, or to break existing limitations on Guard and Reserve deployments. Thus, it is only a matter of time, and we are talking around the time of the 2006 elections here, before a draw down of U.S. forces, regardless of the consequences, becomes administration policy. This will happen not because the administration favors withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but because it has no other choice. With an impending British withdrawal, this may happen sooner rather than later.
Referrendums C and D status.
Mile High Delphi posted some stale polls last Thursday, from August and July respectively, both showing Referrendum C with a slight, within the margin of error lead (48-44 in August with a four point MOE; 43-42 in July). The July numbers also show that D (bonds, mostly for transportation) is less popular than C (TABOR spending limit relief). Other posts over there claim that the GOP rank and file is divided about 3-1 against C and D.
This is all cautiously good news for C & D supporters. As recently as last week, someone in my office, who I am certain will vote for C in the end, was reluctant to take sides because he wasn't sure what to make of a proposal favored by Owens but opposed by Holtzman. And, typically, in partisan races, GOP defection from the "party line" are less than 10%. On C & D, the Democrats are nearly unanimous in supporting the measure (as evidenced by the profusion of pro-C and pro-D signs in my Democratic stronghold neighborhood), while the Republicans, while predominant anti-C and D leaning, are more divided than usual. This has the effect of removing the benefits of a modest voter registration edge which Republicans normally have in Colorado, and placing the decision on C and D squarely in the hands of independent voters.
Admittedly, independent voters in Colorado tend to be strongly anti-tax. But, many are also aware of the accute fiscal crisis that the state is in (something that the more than 7,000 community groups that back C and D will inform them of, if they don't know already), and Republican sourced attacks on the main proponent of C & D, the Independence Institute, should further mitigate the effectiveness of anti-C free media.
Add in the fact that most observers believe that the pro-C & D campaign has been gaining ground, rather than losing it, and I think it is likely that September and October polls on C & D could actually show a beyond the margin of error lead for C & D which breaks the critical 50% mark (the ranks of undecided voters on this issue is already remarkably small). The referrenda are not headed for a landslide win, by any means, and anti-tax votes usually have an edge in off year elections, but there is no sign that C will experience the continual decline in support leading up to election day that so many initiatives and referrenda do. Indeed, it seems quite likely that C could pass, while D fails.
C & D is the only statewide issue on the ballot this November, so I expect that we'll be hearing a lot more in the month to come.
This is all cautiously good news for C & D supporters. As recently as last week, someone in my office, who I am certain will vote for C in the end, was reluctant to take sides because he wasn't sure what to make of a proposal favored by Owens but opposed by Holtzman. And, typically, in partisan races, GOP defection from the "party line" are less than 10%. On C & D, the Democrats are nearly unanimous in supporting the measure (as evidenced by the profusion of pro-C and pro-D signs in my Democratic stronghold neighborhood), while the Republicans, while predominant anti-C and D leaning, are more divided than usual. This has the effect of removing the benefits of a modest voter registration edge which Republicans normally have in Colorado, and placing the decision on C and D squarely in the hands of independent voters.
Admittedly, independent voters in Colorado tend to be strongly anti-tax. But, many are also aware of the accute fiscal crisis that the state is in (something that the more than 7,000 community groups that back C and D will inform them of, if they don't know already), and Republican sourced attacks on the main proponent of C & D, the Independence Institute, should further mitigate the effectiveness of anti-C free media.
Add in the fact that most observers believe that the pro-C & D campaign has been gaining ground, rather than losing it, and I think it is likely that September and October polls on C & D could actually show a beyond the margin of error lead for C & D which breaks the critical 50% mark (the ranks of undecided voters on this issue is already remarkably small). The referrenda are not headed for a landslide win, by any means, and anti-tax votes usually have an edge in off year elections, but there is no sign that C will experience the continual decline in support leading up to election day that so many initiatives and referrenda do. Indeed, it seems quite likely that C could pass, while D fails.
C & D is the only statewide issue on the ballot this November, so I expect that we'll be hearing a lot more in the month to come.
Local Government and the Third World.
The most striking differences between the undeveloped world (i.e the Third World), or the developing world on one hand, and the developed world, on the other hand, are matters which, in the United States, are the responsibility of local governments and public utilities.
For example, take clean drinking water. Almost every country in the undeveloped and developing world, from Mali to Mexico, does a poor job of supplying its people with clean running drinking water. This is something that state and federal governments in the United States play only a miniscule role in, and that role is almost entirely regulatory -- setting standards for water quality and monitoring compliance with those standards. Water supply systems and water treatment plants are almost universally constructed and operated by local governments, or small, highly regulated utilities.
There are other examples. Most countries outside the developed world have inadequate sewage systems. African cities are famous for having streets with no meaningful traffic law enforcement. Electricity service is unreliable in places from Baghdad to much of Latin America. Emergency medical and fire services are often poor or absent. Elementary and secondary education is often abysmal and widely underenrolled. Pot holes in roads quickly become ponds. Political parties like Hamas have made themselves dominant political players in part by providing such basics as neighborhood libraries and soccer leagues.
Look at Iraq. The complaints about a lack of reliable electrical service, about non-political street crime, about patchy garbage collection, and about water systems that two and a half years after the U.S. invasion are still not up and running rival concerns about suicide bombers.
By comparison, most countries in the developing and undeveloped world do a fairly credible job of providing many services associated with national governments. In most of the Third World, postal service is more reliable than electrical service. Almost every country has a somewhat functional military. West Africa and Central Africa, for all of their other problems, have managed to find a way to provide their citizens with a stable and functional currency (the CFA Franc). In many countries the higher educational institutions are one of the few little islands within the country where things generally seem to work. Tax collections are usually poor and the social safety net is usually weak, but part of this is a consequence of widespread poverty that has a lot to do with an underlying chaos at the local level that flows from a lack of well organized local governments.
Compared to many other functions of government, the services provided by local governments are not terribly expensive. The average American spends far more money on federal and state government functions like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense, interest on the federal debt, unemployment insurance, interstate highway maintenance, higher education, state prisons, and the like, than on the basics of local government.
While these functions can be provided locally, however, no amount of entrepreneurship can make them happen without governmental sponsorship and regulation. Almost no place in the entire developed world has a for profit, unregulated system for providing tap water, electricity, local streets, traffic patrols, elementary and secondary education, or sewage services. Notwithstanding myths about the powers of the market in a laissez faire economic system, every successful market economy rests on the foundation of a governmentally provided basic infrastructure. It was true way back in the days of the Roman Empire, and it remains true today.
Historically, foreign aid has been directed primarily at national governments and big projects. But, recognition of the fact that much of what is absent from these political economies is missing at the local government level does provide a window of hope. It is possible to put in place working local governments one city or village at a time, at a reasonable cost. And, a smattering of functional local governments can serve as models for whole countries and regions. Sure, you can encourage foreign direct investment with tax breaks and loan guarantees, but simply having cities where the water from the tap is safe to drink, the toilets work, the power doesn't go out several days a month, the garbage is collected on time, people pay attention to traffic signs, local libraries are well stocked with books, and the elementary schools are fully enrolled and have adequately trained teachers, would promote growth far better. Singapore and Hong Kong owe as much of their development success to having functional local government administrations as they do to laissez faire economic policies.
When you live in a developed country it is easy to get fixated on the relatively lower priority "advanced" economic issues that dominate your own country's political scenes, while ignoring the basics that have become non-partisan, uncontroversial and mostly ignored foundations for the rest of private and public sector activities. There is nothing exciting about a mosquito control district, unless you live in a place that doesn't have one and needs one. Problems like cholera and mosquito borne fevers, which were dire problems in places like New Orleans in the early 1800s until public health and sanitation measures swept the nation, are problems we have forgotten how to solve because we no longer have them. But, when hurricanes rumble in and disrupt those local government services for a few weeks or months, often requiring the entire local infrastructure to be rebuilt from scratch, we are reminded of how little stands between the modern and comfortable lifestyle we enjoy in the developed world, and the privation and suffering that much of the rest of the world endures. If we can rebuild from scratch in Mississippi and Louisiana in a matter of months, why shouldn't we able to do the same thing in the developing and undeveloped world in selected cities in just a few years?
For example, take clean drinking water. Almost every country in the undeveloped and developing world, from Mali to Mexico, does a poor job of supplying its people with clean running drinking water. This is something that state and federal governments in the United States play only a miniscule role in, and that role is almost entirely regulatory -- setting standards for water quality and monitoring compliance with those standards. Water supply systems and water treatment plants are almost universally constructed and operated by local governments, or small, highly regulated utilities.
There are other examples. Most countries outside the developed world have inadequate sewage systems. African cities are famous for having streets with no meaningful traffic law enforcement. Electricity service is unreliable in places from Baghdad to much of Latin America. Emergency medical and fire services are often poor or absent. Elementary and secondary education is often abysmal and widely underenrolled. Pot holes in roads quickly become ponds. Political parties like Hamas have made themselves dominant political players in part by providing such basics as neighborhood libraries and soccer leagues.
Look at Iraq. The complaints about a lack of reliable electrical service, about non-political street crime, about patchy garbage collection, and about water systems that two and a half years after the U.S. invasion are still not up and running rival concerns about suicide bombers.
By comparison, most countries in the developing and undeveloped world do a fairly credible job of providing many services associated with national governments. In most of the Third World, postal service is more reliable than electrical service. Almost every country has a somewhat functional military. West Africa and Central Africa, for all of their other problems, have managed to find a way to provide their citizens with a stable and functional currency (the CFA Franc). In many countries the higher educational institutions are one of the few little islands within the country where things generally seem to work. Tax collections are usually poor and the social safety net is usually weak, but part of this is a consequence of widespread poverty that has a lot to do with an underlying chaos at the local level that flows from a lack of well organized local governments.
Compared to many other functions of government, the services provided by local governments are not terribly expensive. The average American spends far more money on federal and state government functions like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, national defense, interest on the federal debt, unemployment insurance, interstate highway maintenance, higher education, state prisons, and the like, than on the basics of local government.
While these functions can be provided locally, however, no amount of entrepreneurship can make them happen without governmental sponsorship and regulation. Almost no place in the entire developed world has a for profit, unregulated system for providing tap water, electricity, local streets, traffic patrols, elementary and secondary education, or sewage services. Notwithstanding myths about the powers of the market in a laissez faire economic system, every successful market economy rests on the foundation of a governmentally provided basic infrastructure. It was true way back in the days of the Roman Empire, and it remains true today.
Historically, foreign aid has been directed primarily at national governments and big projects. But, recognition of the fact that much of what is absent from these political economies is missing at the local government level does provide a window of hope. It is possible to put in place working local governments one city or village at a time, at a reasonable cost. And, a smattering of functional local governments can serve as models for whole countries and regions. Sure, you can encourage foreign direct investment with tax breaks and loan guarantees, but simply having cities where the water from the tap is safe to drink, the toilets work, the power doesn't go out several days a month, the garbage is collected on time, people pay attention to traffic signs, local libraries are well stocked with books, and the elementary schools are fully enrolled and have adequately trained teachers, would promote growth far better. Singapore and Hong Kong owe as much of their development success to having functional local government administrations as they do to laissez faire economic policies.
When you live in a developed country it is easy to get fixated on the relatively lower priority "advanced" economic issues that dominate your own country's political scenes, while ignoring the basics that have become non-partisan, uncontroversial and mostly ignored foundations for the rest of private and public sector activities. There is nothing exciting about a mosquito control district, unless you live in a place that doesn't have one and needs one. Problems like cholera and mosquito borne fevers, which were dire problems in places like New Orleans in the early 1800s until public health and sanitation measures swept the nation, are problems we have forgotten how to solve because we no longer have them. But, when hurricanes rumble in and disrupt those local government services for a few weeks or months, often requiring the entire local infrastructure to be rebuilt from scratch, we are reminded of how little stands between the modern and comfortable lifestyle we enjoy in the developed world, and the privation and suffering that much of the rest of the world endures. If we can rebuild from scratch in Mississippi and Louisiana in a matter of months, why shouldn't we able to do the same thing in the developing and undeveloped world in selected cities in just a few years?
26 September 2005
Atrios On T-Rex.
Blogger Atrios asks today if the transit part of T-Rex can really make it possible for people to have one less car outside the central city. The answer is yes. There is a historical precedent, nationally and in Denver. It was called the "street car suburb." Cinderella City, in Englewood, is a contemporary example of the same concept.
The other benefit, which he doesn't address, but which is likely to be even more of an impact, is that transit can reduce how much you drive with the cars that you do have. Most people who take transit to work do what I did when I lived in Washington D.C., drive a mile or two to a local rail station, and take the rest of the trip via rail instead of a car. Park and ride, and the related kiss and ride concept (your loved one drops you off with a kiss at the station), rather than walk and ride, is where most of the driving miles avoided come from in an intracity rail system.
In addition to providing a way for suburbanites to get into the city, the T-Rex line will also provide a way for city residents to get to the Denver Tech Center and the Park Meadows mall in the suburbs. Good rail systems need not just sources, but destinations.
The other benefit, which he doesn't address, but which is likely to be even more of an impact, is that transit can reduce how much you drive with the cars that you do have. Most people who take transit to work do what I did when I lived in Washington D.C., drive a mile or two to a local rail station, and take the rest of the trip via rail instead of a car. Park and ride, and the related kiss and ride concept (your loved one drops you off with a kiss at the station), rather than walk and ride, is where most of the driving miles avoided come from in an intracity rail system.
In addition to providing a way for suburbanites to get into the city, the T-Rex line will also provide a way for city residents to get to the Denver Tech Center and the Park Meadows mall in the suburbs. Good rail systems need not just sources, but destinations.
Soj Offers Up GBCW
Someone decided to link Soj, the author of Flogging the Simian, a blog linked on this page and discussed previously at this site, to her real world self. In reaction, she has offered a GBCW diary (Goodbye Cruel World) as a benediction to her blogging run:
As someone who left a blog after he no longer felt comfortable in the space it provided, I can relate, although Soj is a far more impressive blog personality, and the compromise of her space was far more personal. Online or not, Soj is a smart cookie, and we're sure she will find a good direction for her creative and investigative talents. We wish her the best in her endeavors.
The truth is that someone decided to ruin all the fun for all of us and butt their nose into my private business. I've always had my two lives separated - my offline world and my online one. That's the way I wanted it and that's the way I set it up and I've got my own reasons for it. And someone decided to ruin all the fun and be a smug ass about it and go to incredibly great lengths to find out where I "live" online. And they managed to do it, and now they're all snide about it.
This happened on Tuesday I think, and I've been sitting here all week trying to figure out what to do about it. I love writing, I really do - it's not even about the money or the "job" of it, it's part of who I am. But I can't do it if I can't write in peace. Everyone else in my offline world knows this and respects this. But it just takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel I guess, right?
So what does this mean? It means it's over. It means it's finished. Kaput. FTS and everything I've worked on for the past two years is gone. I've spent all week trying to figure out a way I can do keep this place but I don't see how I can do it.
As someone who left a blog after he no longer felt comfortable in the space it provided, I can relate, although Soj is a far more impressive blog personality, and the compromise of her space was far more personal. Online or not, Soj is a smart cookie, and we're sure she will find a good direction for her creative and investigative talents. We wish her the best in her endeavors.
Kansas, Demons and Rapists.
One of the ten men Kansas used to use to determine whether people convicted of sex crimes will reoffend, who said that would far more often than his predecessors did, is also a demonologist. Fortunately, fear of backlash from jurors who don't share the crackpot demon possession theory of mental health has forced him out of the post. Why can't this stuff be left for the movies? Life has definitely begun to imitate art.
Violent Crime At A Thirty Two Year Low
The details:
Though no significant declines were observed between 2003 and 2004, the average annual violent crime rates for the period 2003- 2004 were lower than crime rates for the previous period 2001- 2002.
The rate of every major violent and property crime measured by the survey (rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, simple assault, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft) fell significantly between 1993 and 2004. Victimization rates for every major type of crime measured were unchanged from 2003 to 2004.
-- From 1993 through 2004, the violent crime rate fell 57 percent and the property crime rate declined by 50 percent.
-- The number of violent crimes decreased from an estimated 11 million in 1993 to 5.2 million in 2004.
-- Since 1993, a decline in violent crime victimization has occurred across every racial and ethnic group, and income level measured.
-- Preliminary murder estimates for 2004 from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports indicate the number of murders decreased 3.6 percent from 2003. This is about the same per capita rate as that of the mid-1960s.
Teaching Stupidity.
I'm not sure which is worse: The child abusing parents who send their children on tours designed to promote science illiteracy, or the religious nutcases who offer them? Yes, this is real. I know people who've encounted the tours in Denver. Religion can have some virtues. This is not one of them.
Musgrave Weak.
Marilyn Musgrave, the Republican Congresswoman from the 4th Congressional District of Colorado, has done remarkably poorly in what was a safe Republican District, encompassing most of the rural Front Range, when she took office. Her signature issue is anti-gay hate, in much the same way that Tom Tancredo is Mr. Anti-Immigration in Congress. Colorado Luis does a good job of pointing out many of the reasons she is a weakened candidate as a result of her single minded obsession. But, he leaves out another important one. She is one of the thirteen most corrupt politicans in Congress.
(This diary at Daily Kos ties the 4th CD experience to the large depopulation of the rural Great Plains.)
(This diary at Daily Kos ties the 4th CD experience to the large depopulation of the rural Great Plains.)
Democrats on the Roberts Nomination.
The word that best describes the Democratic response to the nomination of John Roberts, Jr. to serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is clusterf***. It involves large numbers of people on our side scr**ing each other.
Alas, Ken Salazar, our new Democratic Senator from Colorado, is among the Democratic Senators who are voting for a man who has made a career of being a political hack for the Republicans, whose most notable vote in his brief term as a judge was to side with an opinion that considers the Geneva Conventions worthless pieces of paper in the United States, who is at least as conservative as arch-conservative William Rehnquist, who just left the bench. In classic Salazar style, he listened to what Roberts said (very little) at his hearing and in an interview with Salazar, instead of his actions, which speak far louder than his words.
Until Democrats wake up and realize that giving in once makes you weaker the next time, and not stronger, they will continue to be ineffectual. Political will is not a scarce commodity to be expended. It is like a muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it gets. By conceding easily on Roberts, the Democrats have insured that the next nominee, the one who will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, will be far more conservative than Roberts, which insures that the Court will lurch far to the right.
There aren't more than one or two Democrats in the Senate who actually agree with the direction that Roberts wants to take the Court, but many Senators, in the name of comity, are engaged in the masochistic act of voting for a man who will do just that. Trust me. The Republicans will not return the favor when the shoe is on the other foot. By voting for Roberts, Democrats are denying themselves the option of even running against the conservative judges picked by the likes of George W. Bush in the next election. Roberts, as a Rehnquist clone, doesn't actually change the balance of power in the U.S. Supreme Court. But, this appointment does set the stage for a Kennedy Court, or worse, when O'Connor is replaced. And, since all judges are equal, it makes no sense to fight differently for one vacancy than for another.
Yes, it is better to have more Democrats in the Senate, and yes, Salazar does vote with Democrats more often than he does with Republicans (he is the 39th most liberal Senator in a chamber where there are 55 Republicans). But, it is hard to provide an enthusiastic endorsement to someone who doesn't provide even symbolic support to the Democratic base on core issues like judicial appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Alas, Ken Salazar, our new Democratic Senator from Colorado, is among the Democratic Senators who are voting for a man who has made a career of being a political hack for the Republicans, whose most notable vote in his brief term as a judge was to side with an opinion that considers the Geneva Conventions worthless pieces of paper in the United States, who is at least as conservative as arch-conservative William Rehnquist, who just left the bench. In classic Salazar style, he listened to what Roberts said (very little) at his hearing and in an interview with Salazar, instead of his actions, which speak far louder than his words.
Until Democrats wake up and realize that giving in once makes you weaker the next time, and not stronger, they will continue to be ineffectual. Political will is not a scarce commodity to be expended. It is like a muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it gets. By conceding easily on Roberts, the Democrats have insured that the next nominee, the one who will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, will be far more conservative than Roberts, which insures that the Court will lurch far to the right.
There aren't more than one or two Democrats in the Senate who actually agree with the direction that Roberts wants to take the Court, but many Senators, in the name of comity, are engaged in the masochistic act of voting for a man who will do just that. Trust me. The Republicans will not return the favor when the shoe is on the other foot. By voting for Roberts, Democrats are denying themselves the option of even running against the conservative judges picked by the likes of George W. Bush in the next election. Roberts, as a Rehnquist clone, doesn't actually change the balance of power in the U.S. Supreme Court. But, this appointment does set the stage for a Kennedy Court, or worse, when O'Connor is replaced. And, since all judges are equal, it makes no sense to fight differently for one vacancy than for another.
Yes, it is better to have more Democrats in the Senate, and yes, Salazar does vote with Democrats more often than he does with Republicans (he is the 39th most liberal Senator in a chamber where there are 55 Republicans). But, it is hard to provide an enthusiastic endorsement to someone who doesn't provide even symbolic support to the Democratic base on core issues like judicial appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.
25 September 2005
A High Profile Divorce.
Rene Zellweger made the cover of at least four different supermarket magazines this week, at least a couple of which claimed that they had the "exclusive" story, after ending a four month old marriage. Is this healthy? She, of course, had asked the media not to shine its glare to harshly on the stories, which, of course, produced the most intense and salicious coverage possible. (One laggard still had Britney Spears a few days before she gave birth to a son).
Why do people care so much? Hollywood star gets divorced. That's news? Sure, it helps that she was a relatively big star, and it was a very short marriage, even by Hollywood standards, but is there nothing else to report on in this nation? Is this really what the large majority of the grocery buying public (which includes just about every household in America the last time I checked) needs to know? Apparently so.
Why do people care so much? Hollywood star gets divorced. That's news? Sure, it helps that she was a relatively big star, and it was a very short marriage, even by Hollywood standards, but is there nothing else to report on in this nation? Is this really what the large majority of the grocery buying public (which includes just about every household in America the last time I checked) needs to know? Apparently so.
Same Story, Other Side of Town.
I would like to say that the story of Seho Park was unusual. But, it isn't. People leave a bar, this time the Mexico Lindo Nightclub, a hang out popular with many people not born in his country, which is a little North of Northwest Denver. It is right around closing time. A fight breaks out. Shots are fired. A man ends up dead. This time there is no name for us to attach to the crime. But, no one doubts that he had friends, parents, and others in life, that he had done something in his life worth mention. Again, the patrons probably have a good idea who committed the crime. Again, it is no sure thing that this crime will be solved. Stories like this will repeat indefinitely until we find the will to find ways to stop them from happening.
23 September 2005
Not Just A Few Bad Apples.
If you ever had any doubt that brutal prisoner abuse by the U.S. military for sport was due to more than just "a few bad apples", you should read this article in Time Magazine.
It shames me that my country commits war crimes. It makes me angry that the President and his men put into motion the forces that caused these war crimes to happen. How can the people who did this sleep at night? Do they really believe that this kind of brutality helps our cause? If they do, they are fools and just as guilty.
It shames me that my country commits war crimes. It makes me angry that the President and his men put into motion the forces that caused these war crimes to happen. How can the people who did this sleep at night? Do they really believe that this kind of brutality helps our cause? If they do, they are fools and just as guilty.
Who Gets A Trial?
Saddam Hussein gets a trial. Jose Padilla doesn't.
Shouldn't we treat a U.S. citizen arrested unarmed in the Chicago O'Hare airport by civilian authorities and placed under the jurisdiction of a civilian court before he was placed in military custody, who stands accused of plotting to set apartment buildings on fire, better than a foreign dictator captured in a hiding hole on the Iraqi battlefield?
Shouldn't we treat a U.S. citizen arrested unarmed in the Chicago O'Hare airport by civilian authorities and placed under the jurisdiction of a civilian court before he was placed in military custody, who stands accused of plotting to set apartment buildings on fire, better than a foreign dictator captured in a hiding hole on the Iraqi battlefield?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)