Kimchi Linked To Cancer

According to a source linked at Boing Boing:

The researchers, all South Korean, report that kimchi and other spicy and fermented foods could be linked to the most common cancer among Koreans. Rates of gastric cancer among Koreans and Japanese are 10 times higher than in the United States.

"We found that if you were a very, very heavy eater of kimchi, you had a 50% higher risk of getting stomach cancer," said Kim Heon of the department of preventive medicine at Chungbuk National University and one of the authors.

Most Americans needn't worry, however, as in South Korea, almost everybody eats kimchi daily, and heavy eaters are having large portions with every meal.

Judicial Liability In Texas

Probate judges in Texas do not enjoy the absolute judicial immunity common elsewhere.

Section 36 of the Texas Probate Code provides that:

[I]n Texas, “should damage or loss result to estates” through the “gross negligence of the judge,” then he or she may be liable to those damaged by the neglect.

Amazingly, despite the remote possibility of liability for gross negligence, Texas somehow manages to find people to serve as probate judges.

Judicial Discipline Opinion Cites Wikipedia

Wikipedia was cited in a judicial discipline opinion which admonished a Texas Supreme Court justices improper endorsement of Harriest Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court.

ERISA Too Powerful?

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act pre-empts state law more broadly than almost any other statute in the books. Sometimes, when this pre-empts laws specific to the regulations of pensions, contrary to its policy to create a national pension market, this is sensible. But, when it pre-empts generally applicable state laws it can get ridiculous. For example, why should ERISA pre-empt laws that automatically invalidate beneficiary designations in favor of an ex-spouse upon a divorce? And, why should the slayer rule, that revokes beneficiary designations in favor of murderers, often found in the same statutory section, get different treatment?

Another case where the pre-emption is dubious is ERISA's bar on the garnishment of payments made to inmates at a non-institutional address. While spendthrift effect of protecting payments prior to the point at which they are made serves valid social purposes, even at the expense of creditors, the same policy should not apply to distributions once they have already been made when they become the sole property of the recipient. Yet, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has held, in light of the expansion nature of ERISA pre-emption, that ERISA pre-empts state efforts to garnish the income of prison inmates (normally to the tune of 90% towards their crime related debts.

Couldn't the tough on crime folks take some time out from putting street level pot dealers and peverts to download child porn for free from the Internet in prison for the rest of their lives to prevent ERISA from pre-empting crime related garnishments of pension payments once they become the property of the beneficiary? Interestingly, in this case, the divorcees have the upper hand, as Congressionally authorized qualified domestic relations orders allow ex-spouses to get the funds, even though criminal victims cannot.

Denver's August Election

In an effort to torment us, the Denver City Council seems poised to put the Xcel Energy franchise agreement on the ballot for the August primary.

This means that I have to figure out the new vote center system in August when I go to vote. There are no other ballot issues in August, and I otherwise wouldn't have any contested issues to consider, as my home isn't in any jurisdiction with a contested primary.

Early indicatations, by the way, are that the November ballot will be the longest in Colorado history, due to a large number of statewide ballot issues this year.

Better Than Holtzman, But Only A Little

Marc Holtzman's campaign manager admitted under oath to making up poll results out of whole cloth and then providing them to the press. Apparently, backers of Colorado 7th Congressional District candidate Peggy Lamm have been citing a "Lake Poll" to show that she is doing well. It does exist, but supporters have not been telling the whole story.

What does the pollster say about that poll (emphasis added):

It has been brought to our attention that findings from our recent statewide survey have been misinterpreted and misused as a barometer on the current primary involving former State Senate President Pro Tem Ed Perlmutter and former State Representative Peggy Lamm. First, the information being reported revolves around an oversample of 75 registered voters in the 7th Congressional District. The margin of error on a sample of that size is 11.4 percentage points. Secondly, the question at issue was asked of all survey respondents - not just Democratic primary voters. Finally, and most importantly, the survey sample (the voters we spoke with) was specifically designed to include registered voters who DO NOT vote in off-year elections, meaning those surveyed voters had a history of voting only in Presidential Elections and certainly not in primaries. So taken together, the small sample size and the fact that none of the voters are likely primary voters, the most logical conclusion is that the survey tells us nothing about the Democratic primary between Perlmutter and Lamm.

Short version: This poll is total crap, even though it was quoted by DC insider paper The Hill.

Lamm does have high name recognition (due largely to relations Dottie Lamm and Richard Lamm who were high profile political figures in Colorado), and will almost certainly appear on the ballot. Herb Rubenstein is also likely to make it onto the ballot if his press releases are to be believed, and will, at least, muddy the waters. This is bad news for Perlumutter. But, the evidence that legitimate polling puts Perlmutter in third place in the race, or that Lamm is a favorite in an August primary, is premature.

Lamm has made some early mistakes in this race, although they aren't terribly mendacious ones, more political stupidity than any sign that she would do a bad job if elected. Perlmutter has worked quitely to line up endorsers and a nomination through the caucus process, but it has all been a bit too quiet for someone who needs to build name recognition. Rubenstein isn't going to win, but he may very well act as a spoiler in the primary, although it isn't clear who benefits if that is the case.

Profeta del parque de la colada

The title of this post appears to be a Google translation of the name of this blog. Something tells me that the "de la colada" part is a bit too literal a translation, but I'd welcome expert input on the question. Also, while the language of translation of Romantic, but I'm not sure which one language in particular is involved.

I suspect that it means the same thing as this French translation:

"Prophète de parc de lavage", which I do understand. I suppose that a park where you wash isn't a horrible thing. I wonder if the natural sense of the phrase is laundry or bathing?

Punishing The Victim

Islamic law is well known for its tendency to punish victims in rape cases. But, the U.S. court system isn't immune, as shown in the case of a 14 year old Akron, Ohio girl who spent the last 12 days in an adult jail as a material witness. The trial of Galo Sanchez-Pesantes, 20, the man accused of having sex with her last January is set for May 31, 2006.

[T]he teen's stay behind bars, triggered by a judge when she ran away instead of testifying against her alleged molester, ended Monday . . . .

She won her freedom when the Ohio 9th District Court of Appeals ruled Monday that her incarceration without a hearing, plus her detention in an adult jail, violated the law. . . .

Prosecutors . . . had asked the appeals court to allow another hearing that would have extended her jail stay. . . .

The girl was ordered to jail May 10 as a material witness by Common Pleas Judge James Murphy. When she was not accepted at the juvenile detention center because another judge said incarceration would be illegal, Murphy placed her in the county jail.

The girl was isolated from adult inmates and essentially held in isolation 23 hours a day. She had limited phone use and prosecutors chose who could speak to her. . . .

The girl's mother said she supported Murphy's decision to jail her daughter.

But, 'if it was illegal and she's coming home, I'm supporting that also,' the 31-year-old said. 'I hope she's learned her lesson. But I will be there for her, support her and love her.'

Way to be supportive mom, who claimed that "the teen was a chronic runaway who used alcohol and drugs in the company of men." I wonder how your daughter ended up behaving like that.

Kudos to Akron attorney Eddie Sipplen, who represented the girl, pro bono, after reading her story in the newspaper. One of the serious deficiencies of our current system is the lack of a clear right to an attorney in a civil contempt case.

Deadly Disputes Between Friends

Greece and Turkey are both members of NATO. Turkey is also doing its best to join the European Union, of which Greece is already a member (and a member of its Eurozone). But, this isn't enough to quell the long standing territorial disputes between the nations, not only in Cyprus, but over the extent of Greek and Turkish airspace. Two F-16s collided, possibly killing one of the pilots, as airmen sparred over that territorial dispute yesterday.

The State Economic Freedom Index

Colorado ranks number two among U.S. states on the Pacific Research Institute's "economic freedom index". The study gave Colorado five stars in "regulatory", "government size" and "welfare" categories, and four stars in "fiscal" and "judicial" categories.

The Wall Street Journal reaction shows just how out of touch its editors are with what is going on here in Colorado:

[T]he states that embraced supply-side tax cuts are not only financially more sound and enjoy stronger economies, but they are draining residents away from the states that opted for high taxes.

Apparantly the WSJ isn't familiar with the fact that Colorado's supply-side tax cuts have brought a fiscal crisis with the state with it, that its universities are shedding Nobel Laureates like Carl Wieman to better endowed institutions, that its foreclosure rate is the highest in the nation and that a quarter of the families in the state aren't able to pay their utility bills on time.

Never Complain About Your Water And Sewer Bill

You pay your water and sewer bill so that you don't experience this:

Angola's cholera epidemic appears to have reached a deadly plateau . . . . the World Health Organization (WHO) on Tuesday put the death toll since mid-February at 1,230 out of a total of 34,418 cases, with 588 new cases and 10 deaths reported in the last 24 hours alone. . . .

Health workers said heavy rains had left large, stagnant puddles dotted across Angola's many slums, increasing the danger of a disease which spreads primarily through overcrowding and poor hygiene.

Similar outbreaks used to be common in the United States, particularly in places like New Orleans. Even earlier, waves of cholera frequently struck London. Now, they don't. You water and sewer bill is what makes the difference.

Hat Tip to Anne Zook.

NEPA Style Defense Appropriations

The National Environmental Policy Act is one of the most effective toothless laws ever written. It doesn't mandate any substantive outcome: There are no pollution thresholds, no land use requirements, and it creates no actions for money damages. Instead, it is a process oriented law. Any major federal action has to have an environmental impact statement before it can go forward, and that information, in turn, may influence policy. Environmental impacts must be considered, and because they are, at least around the edges, projects are often adjusted to reduce their environmental impacts. Citizens can bring suits to force agencies to carry out the environmental impact study process in good faith, even though they can't, by virtue of the act itself, compel any governmental action.

This legislative model was adopted in the House version of the 2007 fiscal year defense appropriations bill in at least two areas.

One mandate called for the Navy to evaluate nuclear propulsion in all new ships is considers building, noting the pressures of increasing oil prices and the logistics virtues of having ships, particularly those that operate in support of nuclear powered aircraft carriers, that aren't dependent upon oil.

The other mandate called for the Department of Defense to evaluate robotic options for all new major systems.

Neither proposal mandated what it supported. The proponents believe that if robotic and nuclear options are placed on the table, that they are likely to be adopted in many cases where they are appropriate, even without a Congressional mandate. But, located in an appropriations bill, an area where Congress really is supreme over the executive branch when it chooses to act, the suggestions may carry a great deal of weight.

What could this mean in practical terms?

It means that the CG(X), the new cruiser based on the DD(X) now repurposed with a missile defense role, will likely have a nuclear fueled option considered, and so will the replacement for the existing destroyer fleet which the DD(X) was so dismally designed to fill. It also means that proponents of diesel submarines for the U.S. Navy will face an even more daunting challenge than they already did.

If this mandate had come sooner, it might have favored UAVs like the Predator as an Army replacement to the Kiowa, rather than the ARH-70 helicopter, although this procurement battle may already be over. The push for more robots is also likely to influence looming procurement decisions in the areas of anti-land mine, and anti-water mine warfare, and perhaps in encouraging unmanned patrol boats, such as those now in used by the Navy of Singapore, and unmanned anti-submarine warfare platforms, perhaps in connection with the Littoral Combat Ship.

Of course, the biggest benefit of a mandate like this is not for systems we can already foresee, but systems for which a nuclear or robotic system hadn't been considered at all, but turns out to be quite useful -- perhaps moving supplies in a warehouse or logistics ship hold, for example.

Also, the law of unintended consequences can work in funny ways.

One reason that there is so much political support for buying Virginia Class submarines, is that there is a felt need to keep the nuclear propulsion expertise used to build them employed, so that the U.S. can keep that option open, and so that other nations don't steal them from the U.S. for their own ends. While some members of Congress believe that the submarine itself has virtue, I've heard the "corporate welfare" justification for that program more than once.

If those nuclear propulsion experts were employed building the CG(X), this might ease the pressure to keep building nuclear attack submarines, which might actually boost efforts to have the United States build small diesel submarines, which are sufficiently small that Navy procurement officials could say in good faith are not appropriate to outfit with nuclear propulsion.

On their face, these appropriations requirements have no real effect. The don't mandate anything, but a part of the process. But, it probably won't do much harm, and could do a lot of good.

More Than Plain Meaning.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 was poorly written. It said that a particular filing must be made "not less than 7 days", after a specific point in an appeal, but meant "not more than 7 days" after that point. The Courts, correctly interpreting Congressional intent, held that in this case, less meant more. Some idiot of the capital simply drafted it wrong and it was clearly apparent that this was the case.

Dissenters were appalled, the courts were interpreting the statute to mean the opposite of what its plain language said. The majority's answer is worth saving for future reference:

The dissent does not even acknowledge the primary purpose of statutory interpretation -- to ascertain and effecuate the intent of Congress -- other than to scoff at it. Dissent at 5590 ("If Congress intended something different, let Congress fix it.") The dissent would woodenly apply the plain meaning rule to the exclusion of all other rules of statutory interpretation. But the dissent's unduly narrow view of the office of statutory interpretation comports with neither the teaching of the Supreme Court nor the law of our Circuit.

Our problem in this country is not activist judges, but small minded ones like Judge Bybee, who drafted the dissent in this case, who lose sight of the forest for the trees. As a professor, I always extorted my students to look at their final result before turning it in to me and ask, at a big picture level, if it made any sense. Judges need to do the same.

Montenegro Independent

Voters in Montenegro this weekend supported independence from Serbia by more than the 55% majority required to approve the decision. Former Yugoslavian Republicans Macadeonia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia & Herzogovina had already left.

Despite the division of Yugoslavia into its six constituent Republicans, the Balkans remain truth to their name and are still in the process of balkanizing. Bosnia is a country in name only, almost completely divided between a Serb Republic in the North, and a Muslim-Croat Federation in the South. Serbia lacks control of Kosovo in its South, which has a large population of ethnic Albania Muslims, and is under U.N. supervision patroled by troops from the United States and elsewhere.

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was formed in 1918 from the wreckage of World War I's dismantling of the Astro-Hungarian Empire, and renamed Yugoslavia in 1929, but the regime associated with that Kingdom was dismantled and replaced with a new constitution after World War II. This most recent incarnation of Yugoslavia was created in 1946, under Soviet influence, and by 1991 the breakup was in place. Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia left at that time, while in 1992, Serbia and Montengro proclaimed a new Federal Republican of Yugoslavia with just the two of them.

International recognition of Macadenia's independenc was held up until 1994, in the face of Greek concerns about a new nation on its border with the same name as one of its provinces. Macedonia has also faced an influx of refugees from Kosovo during the 1999 air war between U.S. led forces and Yugoslavia (then only Serbia and Montenegro), but the vast majority have now returned to Kosovo, and a 2001 insurgency of ethnic Albanians was quelled with a political deal in 2002 that expanded their rights.

The war in Bosnia between the Serbians on one hand, and the Croats and Muslims on the other, raged from 1991-1995, when the Dayton Accords essentially ratified the boundaries on the ground which left previously ethnically integrated Bosnia segregated by the "ethnic cleansing" of the Bosnia forces during the war, incidents that have lead to ongoing war crimes trials in Europe. The Serbian forces at their peak held 70% of the country, but were forced back to about 25% of the country by the time that dayton Accords were reached in 1995. There is a nominal central government, but with a three person collective Presidency, but without the 7,000 member European Union peacekeeping force that presides there, it would cease to exist. The Croat-Muslim Federation itself has ten cantons with considerable autonomy.

Montenegro's late departure, 15 years later, does not end Serbia's struggles. Montenegro, which was an independent nations from 1839 (when it left the Ottoman Empire) until the 1918 Kingdom was formed, is a tiny mountainous country. It has 485,000 eligible voters, and a total population of around 600,000. For it, independence means departing theinternational reputation of its much larger neighbor tainted by war crimes, Serbia has about 10.2 million people exclusive of Montenegro, and a much more nimble bureacracy since it is so much smaller, allowing for the easier integration of this new coastal nation into the international community and world commerce.

Serbia itself is the other unresolved territorial dispute left from the breakup of Yugoslavia, in addition to that in Bosnia. About four million of the ten million people of Serbia live in autonomous provinces. The two million people of Vojvodina, in the North, have little incentive to leave, as it is, like Serbias ordinary provinces, predominantly ethnic Serbian. But, the two million people of Kosovo, in the South are a different story. This mostly ethnic Albania Muslim territory had its autonomy revoked by the central government in 1989. The province proclaimed its independence in 1990, before Yugoslavia split. For a while, this was carried out peacefully as Kosovars operated a parallel government and tried simply to ignore the ruling Serbian regime. But, by 1997 a Kosovar insurgency developed and Serbian military forces attempted to put it down. In the wake of another impending Bosnia War type scenario, NATO intervened as President Clinton led an air war from March to June 1999 that sent Kosovar refugees to neighboring countries and resulting in Serbia loosing de facto control of the territory as a peacekeeping force, initially of about 50,000 troops, and now a third of that, took control and remains there. A mechanism is in place for Kosovo, like Macadeonia did last weekend, to attain independence in due course, with a referrendum on Kosovo's final status (likely an overwhelming vote for independence) to be held as soon as this year.

The war in Kosovo was also important in many ways for military policy in the U.S. The delay in deploying Apache helicopters to the conflict was a serious black eye for that weapon system, rightly or wrongly, and focused attention already pointed there by the first Gulf War, to deficiencies in U.S. logistics. The war cemented U.S. policy of beginning conflicts with massive air bombardments before moving in ground troops. The war showed that stealth fighers were not absolutely invulnerable, one was shot down by Serbian forces, and tests U.S. military rescue efforts when a downed pilot was brought home. It also showed that air power was not alone enough, as Serbian forces didn't give in until a ground force loomed.

The peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Kosovo also provided the groundwork for U.S. counterinsurgency actions in Iraq. They provided testing grounds for the armored humvee, highlighted the limitations of the Abrams Tank in that capacity, and led to increased discussion of the relatively standoffish approach of U.S. troops in the role who patroled in a mode obsessed with force protection and retreated to relatively plush forward operating bases, while other countries interacted more with local populations.

The New Organized Political Party

For decades, whenever confronted with the ditzy snafus that haunt all volunteer political organizations, Democrats recalled Will Rogers' quip: "I'm not a member of an organized political party, I'm a Democrat!" Indeed, a recently as this past weekend, at the Democrat's state convention in Greeley, Colorado, I heard people wondering aloud why we couldn't be organized like the Republicans were, despite the fact that the business of importance went off with only minor hitches.

The tables are turned now.

Colorado Republicans are probably wishing now that they'd taken up Democratic candidate for Colorado Secretrary of State Ken Gordon's offer to count their ballots for them. On Friday, one election had 400 more ballots cast than there were delegates. Yesterday, Republicans spent an embarassing eight hours trying to cast a single vote in their Governor's race, many Republican delegates left in disgust before casting a vote, and the loser, Marc Holtzman, is still crying foul. My understanding is that almost every single delegate's credentials were challenged, although that is only heresay, I wasn't there.

Democrats, in contrast, cast two sets of votes for contested candidates, on verifable paper ballots, in about an hour, including four ten minute presentations from candidates, and there was no dispute over the results. No one had to wait in line for more than a few seconds. Yet, no one not authorized to vote got a ballot, and every ballot had two proofs against fraud, one at its delivery and another when it was cast. The credentials process was likewise transparent and uncontentious. Not a single challenge was filed to any delegate's credentials, although, in fairness, about 0.01% of the 4,000 or so certified delegates did have a disrepancy in voter registration that had to be resolved by our own administrative processes, in the absence of any candidate contests, and the issue was referred to the Rules committee so that we could do better next time. Nothing less than perfection is good enough for us, when it comes to counting ballots.

If the last six years have taught us anything, it is that Republicans do not excel a vote counting. Apparently, Democrats have become the organized political party now.

State Convention Wrap Up

First, the results of the Colorado Democratic Party's two contested races today. Fern O'Brien is the Democratic nominee for attorney general and Steve Ludwig is the CU Board of Regents At Large candidate for the Democrats. There will be no primary elections in Colorado for Democrats at the state level. The only primary election at the Congressional District level will be in the 7th Congressional District, and it may be a three way race with Ed Perlumutter, Peggy Lamm and Herb Rubenstein all likely to end up on the ballot. There will only be a handful of Democratic primaries for State Senate and State House races, and for county level races.

Colorado Democrats are playing up their blue collar roots and their compassion.

This year in Colorado is a year of fighting dems (i.e. veterans), Joe Rice (State House), Jay Fawcett (5th CD), Bill Winter (6th CD), Milt Rodgers (CU Regent At Large), and Democrats who have Horatio Alger stories, Bill Ritter (Governor), Angie Paccione (4th CD), and Steve Ludwig (CU Regent At Large).

In answer to "God, Gays and Guns" the Democrats at the state convention have answered with "Hope, Opportunity and Tolerance."

The Republicans have helped by giving Coloradans low expectations. By simply averting fiscal crisis and improving funding for key programs from miserable to merely blow average by national standards, Democrats can come out looking like heros. When Democrats pass legislation like Clean Air Bills and bills to increase access to emergency contraception, and a Republican Governor vetos the bills, it is the Democrats who look like they are accomplishing something and the Republicans who look like obstructionists.

Ideologically, the dominant theme in the Colorado Democratic party is compassionate communitarianism. As Bill Ritter put it, Democrats understand that we are all in this together. Our military and Horatio Alger candidates illustrate dramatically that if you don't give up on people, if you are there to offer a helping hand, to give someone a real chance, that people can succeed extraordinarily. We aren't a party of state ownership of enterprise. We are a party of investing in people instead of throwing them away.

Now, we are rolling up our sleeves. In November, we'll see if the enthusiasm of May comes to fruition.

Introducing Bill Ritter

Colorado Democrats have decided that they want to win.

Bill Ritter is the man they have chosen to do so, and he represents a more realistic take about what that involves. In nominating him by acclaimation today, the Democratic Party has come to terms with the notion that simply being right is not enough.

Bill Ritter is a man with a compelling personal story. The middle child of twelve, raised by a single mother, and paying his way through college and law school as a union pipe layer, the man is the message. He is a decent man. He is a common sense, practical, non-ideological, tough on crime, and a moderate Democrat.

His moderation manifests itself in his priorities. While he background is as a prosecutor, he is not the sort of person who belongs on a legislative justice committee. He isn't focused on controversial social issues. His well known anti-abortion views are the source of almost all dissent against him in the party, but he has compensated, in characteristic fashion, by shifting focus from the divisive issue of abortion to the consensus issue of keeping birth control (including emergency contraception) available to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place and went on the record saying that he doesn't want to put women and their doctors in jail. His rhetoric on immigration was likewise counseling in favor of care and practicality, over hysteria.

He is running on improving Colorado's public schools, on providing health care for more Coloradans, promoting economic development, and focusing the state's efforts on developing renewable energy. He is a man in the political image of Bill Clinton, but in better shape with a less tawdry reputation. He wants to use government to meet the material needs of Coloradans.

Ultimately, Bill Ritter is symbol of a Democratic Party that wants to win, by choosing a man who can communicate emotionally, not just with reason, a man who has broad appeal as a common sense moderate as opposed to a hard core progressive in our purple state.

Neither Marc Holtzman, nor Bob Beauprez can offer what Ritter does to the people of Colorado, and he can win, unless the winds of political sentiment turn dramatically against the Democrats this fall.

State Convention Live Blogging 11:30 AM

I'm here in Greeley, Colorado, live blogging the Democratic Party State Convention.

* * * * *

This morning, over pancakes provided by "Be The Change," I caught up with Pacified, the organizer of Colorado Soapblox, and Drinking Liberally organizer John. Elswhere among the pancake eaters, much of the buzz was about Denver's prospect for getting the Democratic Party National Convention in 2008. Two live donkeys roam in front of the convention hall set the scene.

* * * * *

Angie Paccione's campaign, Angie is the Democratic candidate in the 4th Congressional District against Marilyn Musgrave, has made a particular effort to stay connected to Colorado bloggers.

My main job at the convention, besides voting, has been to handle credentials (i.e. checking people in and making sure that only the people sent here by their counties vote). As it happened, I ended up registering delegates from Mesa County, next to delegations from Lincoln County, Logan County and a few other rural Colorado countires. What I heard from them, talking among themselves, is how hard Angie has been working the grass roots. She's been going to every little town and hamlet, from Kiowa County, to the town of Akron, to a dozen other places most people know only from maps. They recognize that those aren't the population centers of the district, but that this isn't the point. The point is than Paccione cares about the entire districts.

She hopes to repeat John Salazar and Ken Salazar's feat of connecting with rural Colorado, even if not always to win a majority, but to not be blow away there, as so many urban candidates have, and this has been highlighted this morning in a lengthy speech from John Salazar emphasizing how Democrats are serving rural Colorado. This followed, not much later, with her being given pride of place and a standing ovation as candidates were intorduced.

With the winds blowing the way of Democrats, incumbents Mark Udall, Diana DeGette, John Salazar have faded into the background, and even the 7th Congressional District race, while crucial, has not been center stage (in part because the intra-party fight has not yet been resolved). Angie, in contrast, opened up with an entire brass band introducing her and serving as her benediction.

Angie's own speech reminded us that she went to college on a basketball player, school teacher, and that she is a Fort Collins state representative. She is running as a common sense, bread and butter, candidate opposed to the corruption of the Republican and Marilyn Musgrave's focus on nothing (in both the Colorado legislature and in Congress) on other people's bedrooms. She may be a Stanford University graduate born in New York City, but the rhythm of her speech on the podium is all working class.

Stan Matsunaka's race against Marilyn Musgrave in 2004 was close. Democrats can taste the possibility of winning the 4th CD this year, with the wind blowing their way and a continuing lackluster performance from Musgrave. Diana DeGette caught the mood of the Assembly when she asked it: "Do you smell blood?"

* * * * *

A state convention, especially in a year like this one, is not simply a meeting to conduct business. It is an opportunity to meet and greet. To connect with candidates and their supporters, to make things happen behind the scenes. As in the legislature, much of the real action is in the lobby.

Honestly, this year's convention has been a subdued one. The networking is deliberate, rather than frantic. Most of the thousands of delegates at the event are simply soaking it in.

* * * * *

The four cases of beer I mentioned yesterday was duly delivered to the proper person, after a pidgeonholed the rightful owner coming off the main stage.

* * * * *

The BS of my own credential's committee's report, the permanent organization committee report, introductions, the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem, and the like were dispensed with relatively quickly (for Democrats). The issues with the party platform has been spun well, and more importantly, honestly, by acknowleding that they didn't have a quorum to run the platform committee meeting, and taking a great deal of time to set forth their process and decision to justify their decisions.

The resulting platform, in this case a more openly acknowledged jumble of grass roots expressions of concern that most, is not work of art, and isn't that important, but it does serve as a resource to what the grass roots are thinking.

* * * * *

More next post.

State Convention -- Friday Recap

The Colorado Democratic Party’s State Convention (it is really correctly called a State Assembly, but few people bother to make the distinction), is in Greeley this year. I’m here in Greeley at Margie’s Java Joint (at 931 16th Street), across the street from the University of Northern Colorado. Getting the Wi-Fi to work has been something of a problem. The casual themed store has ironic Bigfoot photos lining its walls, a predominantly student crowd, and a surplus of baristas on a Friday afternoon.

Snafu City

I am contemplating the usual, bumbling state of the Democratic Party machine.

I arrived here, at the cost of considerable disruption to my work week, at the 2:00 p.m. time at the place in the University Center. This is misnamed on the convention call sheet as the “University of Northern Colorado Student Center”, and shown on 11th Avenue rather than 10th Avenue on the provided map, to the consternation some delegates wandering around confused trying to find their meetings. But, they needn’t have worried. My meeting, set for 2:00 p.m. on the day before the main convention, and requiring me to find accommodations for the evening in Greeley, has been rescheduled to a different room three hours later without advanced notice to anyone who is supposed to come. Oh, and I’ve also learned that this meeting will last just 15 minutes and address no issues of consequence. It just makes you feel so special.

These are, of course, not isolated snafus. It appears that, while a working group put together a nice little party platform document, the platform committee itself, scheduled to convene at 11 a.m. this morning, had not in fact convened as a committee and approved a platform to present to the convention.

And, then, there are the four cases of beer sitting in my trunk, destined for a function which, I have heard indirectly, might have been cancelled with the pickup having fallen through when my meeting was rescheduled. It might take a beer or two to resolve that issue.

Raging Against The Machine (Or, At Least Pouting)

Of course, even if everything were humming along the way it was supposed to, things wouldn’t be much different. Every single jurisdiction in the state of Colorado, from Precinct to House District to County to Senate District to Congressional District to the State itself feels some odd compulsion to have its own “permanent organization” committee at which it adopts boiler plate rules for its once every couple of years meeting, a separate credentials committee, in many cases permanent officers, and a boilerplate form vacancy committee composition resolution.

In addition, caucuses pass policy resolutions to work their way up to county platform committees which work their way up to a state platform committee, which realizes that the panoply of contrary, isolated, lovingly drafted caucus resolutions further digested by counties can never be drafted into anything approaching a coherent party platform and instead spend a couple of afternoons trying to put together a document which approaches minimal standards of coherence, which sometimes happens and sometimes does not, so that the state can ratify it and ignore it for another two years. Candidates, because they aren’t invested in a platform that they didn’t draft, almost never run on the basis of it, so it has no practical effect on policy except to inform some clueless elected officials of the odd issue or two that lobbyists and interested citizens had failed to inform them that they were concerned about (i.e. almost never).

The Unofficial Nominations Process Rules

Of course, there is an important function served by all of this useless parliamentary procedure make work which the party wastes the time of its most valuable and influential volunteers on every couple of years. This, of course, is the process of nominating candidates.

Most of the time, there is an unchallenged incumbent, the jurisdiction is in an off year which doesn’t call for the nomination of a candidate, or the plight of a Democratic candidate seeking to run for the office in question is so overwhelmingly doomed to failure as a result of the party registration balance in that jurisdiction that finding even one credible candidate to be ratified by the caucus process that ends in the state convention is a mere formality.

The general rule is that incumbents of your own party are not to be challenged, in the absence of a real problem.

Near the top of the ticket, the highest profile incumbents are Mark Udall, Diana DeGette and John Salazar, and all are uncontested in their bids to run again.

In the fourth, fifth and sixth Congressional Districts, Paccione, Fawcett, and Winter have all come forth as very credible candidates in heavily Republican leaning races, and everyone has been happy to urge them to take their best shots, rather than muddying the waters by seeking their shot to be candidates in these difficult races instead.

Even in a theoretically open race, the vacancy committee appointee normally receives considerable respect in the process. For example, this cycle, Deanna Hanna resigned in the face of a campaign finance controversy, and a vacancy committee appointed Betty Boyd to replace her, and as heir apparent to the seat now, with the support of the party rank and file demonstrated by the unanimous vote of the vacancy committee, no one has chosen to contest her from within this party at this election. Likewise, when Andy Kerr was selected by a vacancy committee to replace Betty Boyd in House District 26, the support shown by the vacancy committee was enough to dissuade anyone else from contesting him in the caucus process or by attempting to petition onto the primary ballot in the next election.

Also, even when there is a genuine intra-party contest in a jurisdiction, it isn’t unheard of for one or more of the candidates to choose to try to get on the ballot via petition, rather than via the party caucus process, as happened in the 7th Congressional District this year, where Ed Perlmutter was the only candidate running via the caucus process, but both Peggy Lamm and Herb Rubenstein now appear likely to make it onto the primary ballot by petition. Thus, even in contested races, the caucus process part of the nomination process is often a mere formality.

In other words, the only time the party’s informal norms really welcome, is when the seat is held by a member of the opposing party (so that there is no incumbent or vacancy committee appointee), is viable enough to give a Democrat a real shot at winning (so the pressure not to spread resources too thin does not arise) which often means that the other party’s incumbent is not running again due to the benefits of incumbency, and the people who could potentially run do not clearly acknowledge that one is a stronger candidate than another.

This Year’s Contests

The only contested race at the state convention fits the rules, except for the fact that a clearly weaker candidate is not acknowledging defeat, which sometimes happens.

This year, at the state convention, there is only one contested nomination to resolve. Fern O’Brien will face a Mr. Johnson in the race for attorney general. O’Brien is almost sure to make it onto the ballot with at least 30% of the convention ballot, but it isn’t absolutely impossible that Mr. Johnson will make it onto the ballot as well, as O’Brien has ruffled some feathers by refusing to acknowledge that she actually has an opponent in the race. While she is the front runner, her overconfidence and refusal to respect the process may win some backlash. For instance, unlike some of the other candidates, she hasn’t been working the county assemblies and Congressional District assemblies leading up to the state convention very hard in order to win rank and file loyalty, which may prevent her from winning the unanimous approval she expects.

The rest of the process will be a coronation. There is just one Democratic Party candidate in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Congressional District races, for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, for Secretary of State, for State Treasurer and for State School Board. The only other contested race of which I am aware is CU Regent at Large, in which two little known, good quality candidates with very similar views will make their case to the Assembly on Saturday.

The reality is that viable candidates need to have their hats in the ring before the caucus process even starts, and that for the most part, in the interests of party harmony, nominations are worked out informally at that stage in the game, as they were this year. Like gorillas, each candidate beats his chest about his candidacy, looks into the eyes of the tribe to judge their reactions, and a fight over who will be the alpha only actually takes place when the outcome isn’t a foregone conclusion.

For example, while many candidates put their hat in the ring to run for Governor on the Democratic Party ticket, each of the candidates, in turn, withdrew their bid or declined to formally announce a run before the first caucus was held.

Prospects For Winning

Now, all of this pessimism about the process has to be balanced, to some extent, by the quality of the results it produces. One of the reasons that the majority of the party machine doesn’t work very well is because it, most of the time, isn’t very important. Parties have been deliberately in the back seat to the candidates who really do matter, for a long time. And, this is not a “no holds barred” fight. Everyone involved in the process knows that the name of the game is a win for the party and not just a personal win. The state party officials, Pat Waak among them, have been spending months recruiting strong candidates, the net roots and grass roots have been boosting those candidates, and Democrats with the smell of victory so close are playing fair and behaving like adults.

The slate of candidates at the top of the ticket, for Congress, for Governor, for Secretary of State and for Treasurer is about as strong as it has ever been for the Democrats, striking a good balance between the need for candidates to have their hearts in the right place, the need for them to be competent people, and the need to pick candidates who have the best possible chance of actually getting elected. This trend has largely continued further down the ticket. Many of them will need a real wave of Democratic support to be swept into office in the fall, but that isn’t entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Fern O’Brien, our likely candidate for attorney general, has a tougher road to hoe. Incumbent Colorado Attorney General Suthers has the distinct advantage of having been appointed by Governor Owens with what amounts of an endorsement of his professionalism and abilities by Democratic Senator Ken Salazar, and this has probably done immeasurable damage to the Democrat’s shot at reclaiming the post. While Suthers has ticked off many Democrats by refusing to pursue criminal liable charges against Republicans who also happen to be his own campaign supporters in Bernie Buscher’s race in Grand Junction, this may actual improve his standing with independent voters and he hasn’t made any big obvious screwups that are on the mind of voters this year.

In contrast, Bill Ritter has enjoyed several months of Marc Holtzman and Bob Beauprez, the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor, covering each other in mud so thick that it may stick well into the general election campaign, which at this point seems like a slam dunk for Beauprez over Holtzman, an issue that the Republicans may resolve for us this weekend at their state convention, although a threatened petition campaign could take the issue to the voters if Republicans refuse to put both men on the primary ballot.

More state convention ruminations will follow tomorrow.

Judicial Cowardice

A U.S. District Court has denied a remedy to a man whose rights were violated by the CIA not because his rights weren't violated, but because the CIA did it.

A federal judge yesterday threw out the case of a German citizen who says he was wrongfully imprisoned by the CIA, ruling that Khaled al-Masri's lawsuit poses a "grave risk" of damage to national security by exposing government secrets.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III in Alexandria acknowledged that Masri "has suffered injuries" if his allegations are true and that he "deserves a remedy." Sources have said Masri was held by the CIA for five months in Afghanistan because of mistaken identity. Masri says he was beaten, sodomized and repeatedly questioned about alleged terrorist ties.

But Ellis said the remedy cannot be found in the courts. Masri's "private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets,'' the judge wrote in dismissing the lawsuit filed last year against former CIA director George J. Tenet and 10 unnamed CIA officials.

In all likelihood, the allegations are true.

German investigators have confirmed most of Masri's allegations . . . . In December, a senior Bush administration official traveling with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said U.S. officials had told the Germans that Masri was released because the intelligence was insufficient to justify his detention.

I don't recall any anti-snitching exceptions in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Court's didn't acknowledge any such government immunity until the 1950s.

Created in the 1950s, [the State Secrets Privilege] allows the government to urge courts to dismiss cases on the grounds of damage to foreign policy or national security. . . . Last year, for example, the government won dismissal of a lawsuit by a Canadian citizen who claimed that he was taken to Syria by U.S. officials for detention and was tortured.

If our judicial system won't remedy cases of torture committed by our own government, our system of government is a criminal enterprise.

UPDATE:

From Slate:

[W]hile the government asserted the privilege approximately 55 times in total between 1954 (the privilege was first recognized in 1953) and 2001, it's asserted it 23 times in the four years after Sept. 11. . . .

Traditionally, this privilege was most often used to prevent plaintiffs from getting a hold of very specific, sensitive evidence in an ongoing lawsuit; it was seldom invoked to dismiss entire cases. . . .

[I]n el-Masri and other similar lawsuits—almost all of which involve important challenges to the government's conduct since Sept. 11—the administration has been routinely asserting the privilege to dismiss the suits in their entirety. . . . the administration is now well on its way to transforming it from a narrow evidentiary privilege into something that looks like a doctrine of broad government immunity. . . . courts have examined the documents' underlying claims of state secrecy fewer than one-third of the times it has been invoked. And . . . courts have only actually rejected the assertion of the privilege four times since 1953.

It is one thing to say that a case must be brought under seal and with proceedings closed when national security is at stake. It is another to use state secrets doctrines to deny a plaintiff a remedy entirely. The reality is that the government can not be trusted to invoke it responsibly.

Indeed, United States v. Reynolds, the Supreme Court decision first recognizing the legitimacy of a state secrets privilege, is also apparently an object lesson in how the privilege can be misused. Decided in 1953 at the height of the Cold War, Reynolds was brought by the widows of three civilians who died when the Air Force plane they were on crashed. The widows sued the Air Force for negligently maintaining the aircraft and tried to obtain accident reports from the government to further their suit. Unfortunately for the widows, in addition to their husbands, the plane was also carrying secret electronic equipment. Citing the presence of this top-secret equipment, the government refused to turn over the documents, claiming that doing so would jeopardize national security. The Supreme Court upheld the government's refusal, and the state secrets privilege was born.

As it turns out, the documents didn't really back up the Air Force's claims. In 2000, the children of the original plaintiffs got hold of the reports their mothers had sought when the documents became declassified. Nothing in these documents appeared to bear at all on national security. They were, however, filled with evidence of negligence, all of which was nicely summarized by the Air Force's straightforward conclusion that "the aircraft is not considered to have been safe for flight."

Democrats need to craft a better solution to the state secrets problem than the Courts have when they take power.

The example used in the Slate story was of a janitor who slipped and fell over uranium at the Manhatten Project and was denied discovery of the contents of what he fell over, or perhaps even had his case dismissed. Does it really make sense to leave a legitimately aggrieved person, who very likely was privy to all sorts of confidential information unrelated to his case, out there with every reason to blab what he knows? If you are going to keep secrets, you have to be prepared to treat people who encounter them fairly, or you won't have secrets very long.