TIME: Man of the Year -- George Walker Bush

TIME has announced it's Man of the Year for 2004.

“For sticking to his guns (literally and figuratively), for reshaping the rules of politics to fit his ten-gallon-hat leadership style and for persuading a majority of voters this time around that he deserved to be in the White House for another four years, we name George W. Bush as TIME’s Person of the Year for 2004,” writes managing editor Jim Kelly in a letter to readers.

The link in the headline above links to the press release. The actual article is here.

Here we go again...

Ala. Judge Wears Ten Commandments on Robe

Wednesday December 15, 2004 4:31 AM
By BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - A judge refused to delay a trial Tuesday when an attorney objected to his wearing a judicial robe with the Ten Commandments embroidered on the front in gold.

Circuit Judge Ashley McKathan showed up Monday at his Covington County courtroom in southern Alabama wearing the robe.

Attorneys who try cases at the courthouse said they had not seen him wearing it before. The commandments were described as being big enough to read by anyone near the judge.
...
McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ... The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong."

[For more information, read the rest of the article.]

Recall that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was involved in a similar situation. He was later ousted by a judicial ethics panel.

ERODING THE PUBLIC'S ACCESS TO INFORMATION!

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Judges as Plumbers

By WILLIAM SAFIRE Published: December 13, 2004

Washington — Activist federal judges in the District of Columbia and Providence, R.I., have already thrown two chilling strikes at journalists for refusing to betray their sources. In San Francisco, a third strike against reporters' ability to gather the news may be on the way.
This sudden wave of judicial repression, unless checked quickly by higher courts or by Congressional action, will make it much easier for the government to deny a citizen's right to know about wrongdoing by every miscreant from corrupt officials to sports heroes.

One year ago, baseball's leading slugger, Barry Bonds, was called before a federal grand jury in the Northern District of California investigating steroid use by athletes to enhance performance. He admitted using a "clear substance" he said he thought was a muscle rub provided by his trainer, who has since been indicted.

The secret Bonds testimony, along with admission of steroid use by Jason Giambi, the Yankee, was reported by The San Francisco Chronicle.

As a result, baseball fans are dismayed and infuriated; the Senate Commerce chairman, John McCain, threatens legislation unless the "national pastime" cleans up its act; Major League Baseball's see-no-evil officials belatedly promise to deal with the worst scandal since the Black Sox of a century ago; even the players' union may consent to more than one drug test per season.

What will happen, now that this stunning news has finally been brought before the public? No, not retribution for the wrongdoers or even an asterisk next to records broken of unhyped athletes of the past.

Such justice is secondary to the new vogue of leak-plumbing that has seized the federal judiciary. Inspired by the sentences for contempt imposed in D.C. on Judith Miller of The Times and Matthew Cooper of Time, and on Jim Taricani, the TV reporter in Rhode Island, a judge in San Francisco is urging the Justice Department to conduct an investigation of who brought the evidence of steroid abuse into public view one year after the explosive testimony was taken.
If the new plumbing pattern is followed, Chronicle reporters will be threatened with jail for contempt unless they reveal who provided the transcripts of grand jury testimony (which the paper had the First Amendment right, and journalistic obligation, to print). I cannot imagine the newspaper burning its source.

Stipulated, as lawyers say, that grand jury testimony is secret, protecting the privacy of reluctant witnesses. If the source violated an oath, that was wrong. But it is the publication's obligation to the public to publish what it considers newsworthy - and not to assist the government in punishing the provider of that news.
Counters the court cohort of coercion: isn't every citizen obliged to give sworn testimony to help the government enforce the law?

The answer is no. Government may not compel a man to testify against his wife, nor doctor against patient, nor priest against penitent, nor lawyer against client. The law has extended this "privilege" to psychologists and social workers, on the theory that society is ill served by erosion of trust within relationships dependent on such trust. Certainly the public interest in the robust and uninhibited flow of information should continue to protect confidential relations between source and journalist (as more than 30 states now do through "shield" laws).

Here's the rub: no privilege is absolute. Constitutional rights sometimes conflict. Extreme example: Everybody - spouses, doctors, lawyers, clergy, journalists, bartenders - must break any confidence to prevent a murder. We are expected to use common sense in balancing our right to remain silent with our obligation to bear witness.

That good sense is being swept away today by leak-happy prosecutors and activist judges. This trend toward the jailing of journalists for protecting the free flow of news is an abuse-of-power abomination. If higher courts can't control the plumbing fashionable below, it's up to Congress to enact a federal shield law.

Liberals may now be fearful of opposing mindless media hatred, but why are principled conservatives not aroused by imperial judges? The founders ensured freedom of the Fourth Estate as a check against the powers of all three branches of central government. Most states are doing their part. Pass that federal shield law before a judiciary on steroids throws Strike 3.

Affirmative Action Revisited

Why is it that Grutter and other cases allowing affirmative action point to diversity as a compelling government interest in having affirmative action? By stating this, the Supreme Court is essentializing racial minorities as though if when a racial minority is admitted into a college, she will and must bring her racial culture into the classroom in order to fulfill this compelling government interest.

Though it's true that because someone is, say a Black male, he probably experiences the same imposition of existing stereotypes by those around him as other Black males. Yet it's odd how the courts mix up racial experience with cultural identity and almost implicitly force racial minorities into a particular pigeonhole as symbols of their racial minorities' culture in the classroom to better the classroom experience for future white male corporate america leaders! *GRR!!!* *WTF!* Is this where the interest convergence of affirmative action coincides for racial minorities and white males?

It's sad b/c then later on, in the work force, racial minorities are told not to show their cultural and racial identity but to change these mutable characteristics of theirs to conform to mainstream culture, be "color-blind." They lack Title VII protection so they can legally be fired, not promoted, or even not hired due to their race! The same government that endorses affirmative action for racial minorities because of racial (or cultural) diversity ALSO allows employers to arbitrarily stifle racial diversity in the workplace. *Grr!*

I see affirmative action's justification as a remedy to the present societal subordination of racial minorities. Affirmative action opens doors to racial minorities that would most likely have been open to them had it not been for the present discrimination against them (created in part by the many historical discriminatory acts by both the government and private actors and perpetuated by existing stereotypes/lack of economic opportunity).

Don't Even Think About Having Kids...

I saw a story on MSNBC last week that I couldn't beleive for the sheer lack of rational thought displayed by the people in it. Today, I read a Newsweek article that pretty much affirmed my disbelief. In a growing number of small towns in the United States, pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control. Under industry standards, pharmacists are free to refuse to a fill a prescription, but still have the oligation to refer that person to another pharmcacist. However, that referral process isn't happening either. (I guess socially conservative pharmacists only follow the rules they agree with.) This means that women in small communtities, which often only have 1 local pharmacy, are gradually losing control over their own bodies.

I am a strong advocate of personal autonomy & privacy. I am also a strong supporter of women's reproductive rights. That alone should make me upset about what's happening. However, the "sheer lack of rational thought" that I mentioned earlier refers to why these pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control. Their rationale isn't about promoting abstinence or keeping women in the home. Many pharmacists said that their refusal was out of "their moral opposition to taking another life." Keep in mind that they're NOT talking about abortion, they're talking about birth control. Apparently, these guys think that life doesn't start at conception. Rather, it starts when one thinks about the possibility of pregnancy. Ironically, these pharmamcists may be encourgaing abortion by not allowing women to prevent unwanted pregnancies via contraception or other forms of birth control.

Pesonally, I tend to think that a 35 year old woman who's married & already has 3 kids should be allowed to do what she wants w/ her life. If she wants to stop having kids & do other things instead, she should have the freedom of choice to do so, especially if it only involves taking a pill everyday. Calling that a taking of a life is an such a blatant example of ideology overcoming rational thought that calling it a "moral value" is an insult to those who truly have ethics.

Remembering 1994...

Mentioning the year 1994 to a Democrat is the equivalent of asking a conservative what they think about gay marriage. That's the year the GOP took over Congress, gaining over 50 seats in the House alone. In a pevious post, I said that the House GOP have betrayed their own principles by becoming what they despised during 40 years of Democratic Hose rule: a majority who prefers self-perpetuation over real reform. I mentioned how the House GOP changed their own rules to allow Tom DeLay to keep his leadership post in case he gets indicted for some funny business in Texas.

I read an article in Slate that explains this pattern of hypocrisy better than my unqiue writing style ever could. The House GOP is clearly a group more interested in perpetuating their own rule as evicenced how many of the reforms in it instituted in 1994 have been repealed or weakened. These include term limits for the Speaker of the House and committee chairmen, and bans on corporate junkets and lobbyist-paid meals. The article also points out how these jokers have become ideological traitors that have foresaken the priciples that got them elected in the 1st place.

When I wrote about this eariler, I used the example of the stalled intelligence reform bill to illustrate this corrution. The article in Slate uses the example of wasteful spending. I posted earlier how blue states are subsidizing red states, but I want to make a different point here. The issue of fiscal resonsility is a term that associates itself w/ Republicans more than Dems. This is puzzling b/c Bill Cinton, a Democratic President, balanced the budget, lowered government spending, & lowered taxes more times than Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile, the last Republican adminstation to balance the budget was friggin' Eisenhower. Currently, the House Republicans pass more wasteful spending than their Democratic predecessors ever did & don't get called on it. You may argue on the value of what Clinton spent money on, but at least he actually paid for it. Meanwhile, Congress is spending money, as John McCain puts it, like a "drunken sailor."

Although I admit to being socially liberal/progressive, I'm actually a fiscal moderate. I believe that money should be spent on social programs b/c I believe they're important for a better society. But, I'm solidly against pork-barrel spending that goes to helping no one. What it now means to be a a so-called fiscal "liberal" is defined by pragmatic spending, balanced budgets, & less government (i.e., "Clintonomics"). What's going on now is wasteful & apalling for the lack of accountability.

In 1994, I didn't agree w/ Gingrich & his crew. I still don't agree w/ them, but at least they did actually change how Congress was run. I'll let you decide for better or worse. But, everything has come full circle & these self-puported "revolutionaries" have become even worse than their predecessors. Last time a party became too concerned about self-perpetuation, they got ousted. I don't know if 2006 can be a Democratic 1994. The Dems will need to be bold & idelaistic again to accoplish the same feat. (Personally, I think it's unlikely b/c the GOP has monoplized the use of "God" in politics to insulate themselves from criticism on job performance) But, majorities usually come to an end b/c they die from within. If I were a conservative, I'd do some soul-seaching right about now. Forunately, for Dems, conservatives aren't exactly good at self-reflection or admitting their own mistakes.

States' Rights for all! Unless you're California...

Here's something that both cancer patients & partying college kids will have interest in. If you haven't heard, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments for a case involving medicinal marijuana (Ashcroft v. Raich). In 1996, California voters passed a proposition allowing for the medical use of marijuana. However, such an exemption from state criminal drug laws is in direct conflict w/ Federal criminal laws, which classify marijuana was Schedule I drug w/ no legitimate medical use. (I'm not exactly sure what "Schedule I" means, but it doesn't sound like a good way to break federal law.) I won't get into the issue of whether marijuna has medical value. However, you should keep in mind that many drugs are legal for medical uses, but are highly illegal for anything else.

This is a typical federalism case w/ an ironic twist. Most federal laws are passed under the commerce clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate "interstate commerce." As you know, conservatives like Scalia are big states' rights advocates who want to limit the power of Congress. However, Scalia is also the least likely to allow states to pass their own laws allowing medical use of marijuana. (For those of you think that this is different b/c drug possession is normally a criminal act, Scalia agreed w/ decisions to invalidate 2 federal laws that criminalized gun possession around schools & violence toward women. The rationale in each case was federalism & states' rights.)

Scalia & his ideological brothers (Thomas & Rehnquist) seem to be in a tight spot. Deciding against the plaintiff, who might die w/o medical marijuana, means that the Court's staunchest conservatives are all for states' rights, unless that state is California. It would also imply that they don't believe that states in general have the ability to enforce their own drug laws w/o the federal government stepping in, which doesn't sound too conservative either. For even more irony, this case arises when Chief Justice William Rehnquist is taking a leave from the Court b/c of cancer. Although having a disease that might be helped w/ medical marijuna probably won't change his vote, I wonder if he's going to think about it more than he normally would.

Personally, I think this case is emblematic of how idiotic our nation's drug policy is. Compared w/ many legal substances, marijuana seems like a peculiar drug to criminalize. Few, if any, people die from it, it's not as addictive, & may actually have some medical use. Compare that w/ nicotine & alcohol, both of which are highly addictive, cause thousands of deaths a year in the US, & only have negative consequences for your health. Also, most individuals using marijuana for medial uses are seriosuly ill people who aren't getting high & only want to save their own lives. Not exaclty the types of people you'd normally want to put in jail. Many social conservatives would probably just ban all this stuff. I don't think that's the answer, but at least it's consistent. For their sake, I hope they don't get cancer or some other serious disease that might cause a crisis of conscience.

In any event, this is a case where the Supreme Court's hardline conservatives can get my respect. If they follow their convictions, as written in their previous opinions, they'll vote in favor of states' rights & medical marijuana. Voting this way has no cosnequence b/c the other 6 Justices are almost certain to vote for the federal government, ensuring that the conservatives will still get the result they want & medical marijuana is criminalized. On the other hand, if the conservatives vote for the federal government, they will only confirm the worst opinion of them as being hypocrites who only use states' rights when they actually like the state in question. Remember, it's the United States of America, not just the states you agree with.

For an interesting article about the case, click here.

The Cost of Being Blue...

Let's play mini-Jeopardy. The answer: $136 billion. Try to guess the question.

In the fiscal year 2002, $136 billion was the income transfer from blue states to red states in federal tax dollars. In other words, blue states get $136 billion less in benefits fron the federal government than what they pay out in federal taxes. On the flip side, red states get $136 billion more. Only 2 red states, Nevada & Colorado, get less in benefits from the federal government than what they pay in federal taxes. As an empirical fact, this is b/c people in blue states tend to be more educated, have higher paying jobs, & actually work more. (For those of you who think I'm exaggerating, here are 2 articles to read: #1 & #2.)

The idea of an income transfer doesn't bother me. A good society looks out for those less fortunate, even if they live in another state. That's the rationale behind social welfare spending (e.g., Medicare, Social Security, public education), which red staters ironically rant against even though they're the ones receiving more of the benefits. However, the $136 billion bothers me for 2 reasons.

First, much of this money goes to government programs that don't actually help out people living in red states while having bad consequnces for everybody in general. An example of this would be agriculture subsidies, most of which go to large corporations instead of independent farmers. The consquence for the rest of us is that food is more expensive than it should be, raising the cost of living for everybody, including the poor urban & rural households who live in both blue & red states. Only a convoluted system of agriculuture susbsideis can make a gallon of milk cost more than a gallon of gasoline. Personally, I would like it if the money went to things that actually helped these people improve their lives, like better schools, job training, & crime prevention. (Click here for a cool article about this topic.)

Second, the $136 billion bothers me b/c people living in blue states don't seem to receive any benefit, financial or otherwise, in return. In addition to not going to programs that actually help people, the people in the red states seem to hate people living in the blue states as a result. There's a cultural divide in this country, but it has reached a toxic level where those in the red states feel morally superior to those in the blue states & feel entitled to despise them. If they want to be upset, they should look at the government b/c it's filled w/ guys who they elected. Although I find it troubling that the people who actually pay for the government don't actually elect the guys who decide where to spend their money, all things balance out in the long run & being a nation means being bound together. It would just be nice if the red staters didn't immediately judge & despise a person just b/c he or she disagrees w/ them, especially when we're trying to help them out.