http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:32:23 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/05/003223.php Prometheus 6Dear Future Angry White Men of America:I would just like to document the fact that this time you can't blame Black folks. This time, it's your own leaders.JIM LEHRER: Do you read the split in the party the same way?DAVID BROOKS: Not quite. I mean, there is a split. And there's a split between the business side and the law-and-order side. But there's also social conservatives, like Sam Brownback, who are on the McCain-Kennedy side, because they believe in being good Samaritans, and for other reasons.And I'm not sure how serious a blow it would be if they passed something like McCain-Kennedy. I think it's no accident that every major national Republican over the past 20 years has basically been where Bush is now -- Reagan, Bush, McCain, who's got national ambitions, the big state governors, the senators who have to run in the states.If you look at the hard-core anti-immigrant House members, they come from districts where the Republicans win 80, 90 percent, all-white districts, safe districts. So they aren't -- I don't trust that they're good judges of the party, or of where the country is, or even where the party is. [P6: emphasis added]Actually, it's always been your leaders...ours just talk and screen folks for entry into their respective political parties.Mr. Brooks isn't a leader, of course...he is, however, a spokesman or vehicle those leaders use to get their viewpoint out there, trouble the waters, stuff like that. In the same roundtable, Mr. Lehrer says (in reference to possible personnel changes at the White House)JIM LEHRER: You have tremendous sources within this White House, David. Anybody else going to go?...so this isn't just an opinion.No one forced Mr. Brooks to say that. In fact, the version he gave on Face the Nation was more polished, making no mention of the whiteness of those Republicans' districts. But I don't think he thought you were listening. And you weren't...were you?Now to tell the truth, I think the "throw the immigrants out" contingent are...okay, "wrong" isn't the word I want, because you do get to make the nation you want...you just have to live with the repercussions. And I don't think most in that contingent have thought through the repercussions of what they are asking for (though there is no real answer to comments on the absurdity of implementing a guest worker monitoring bureaucracy when no one seems to know how to make the current system support much lesser demands). And I'm not really trying to make y'all crazy.I'm anticipating y'all going crazy though...you don't take being ignored lightly, and roughly half the potential angry white men in American are going to come out of this feeling pretty ignored. In the NY Times you've got Mr Brooks saying: Almost half of second-generation Latinos ages 25 to 44 have attended college, and those who graduate earn more on average than non-Hispanic white workers.And Linda Chavez saying:Mexican-born men, for example, are more likely to be in the labor force than any other racial or ethnic group, according to the Census Bureau. Nearly half of Latino immigrants own their own homes. While most immigrants from Latin America, especially Mexico and Central America, lag in educational attainment, their children are far more likely to stay in school: according to research by the Pew Hispanic Center, 80 percent of second-generation Latinos graduate from high school. Almost half of second-generation Latinos ages 25 to 44 have attended college, and those who graduate earn more on average than non-Hispanic white workers.I ask you...does lauding their competitive abilities really make you feel better about the immigrants? How can anyone expect a bunch of folks whose real income has stagnated or receded to take that announcement as a Good Thing?I sense your cynicism. "This Black partisan," you say to yourself, "is trying to foment internecine strife in the White Race." Nope. As I said, this is me anticipating your anger and making clear Black people are not the legitimate target of your anger. You see, just like you are getting set up, so are Black folks...but I don't like the contours of the plan so far. Now that your income and employment levels approach the level you associate with Black folks, others are already lobbying on your behalf. But the chief "equity" issue at their college is the shortage of men, who make up barely a fifth of the student body. What happened to the boys who didn't make it?Boys are, on average, as smart as girls, but they are much less fond of school. They consistently receive lower grades, have more discipline problems and are more likely to be held back for a year or placed in special education classes. The Harvard economist Brian Jacob attributes these problems to boys' lack of "noncognitive skills," like their difficulties with paying attention in class, their disorganization and their reluctance to seek help from others.Those are serious handicaps, but they could be mitigated if schools became more boy-friendly. And their suggestions look remarkably like those Black folks have said were needed for decades.We are losing young boys to a sense of failure that comes from schooling poorly adapted to their needs. We are losing adolescent males to the depression that comes from feeling neither needed nor respected. We are losing young men to life tracks that include neither college nor any other energetic endeavor.According to the Boys Project, white males take collective damage simply from the transfer of attention from them to girls for a decade or two.A large, sullen, poorly educated group of men will not keep the nation vital in the twenty-first century. The nation needs the energy, initiative, and ambition of its young men as well as its young women.Sorry for the extensive quotes, but the point is these judgements are being pass by folks who are looking out for mainstream Americans. They are not my opinions and I quote to make that clear.One would think the realization that schooling that disregards the students' background and nature damages children, would take the air out of the recent press about how "something very different happening with young black men." Boys had always gotten better education opportunities than girls just as white kids have always had better educational opportunities than Black kids...and white males begin showing the same troublesome signs that are too frequently attributed to Black peoples nature (or, if you prefer the current code word, our culture) when that excess attention is directed more equitably. And the explanation for those troublesome signs is the same for white men and Black men. This actually pleases me...same input and same output is strong evidence the same kind of machine is doing the processing. I see you good folks as being on the same path as Black folk; we're just further along that path "for various historic reasons." As Massimo Calabresi points out in Time Magazine, in your case, it seems that corporate Persons are playing the role of the mainstream:With all the money it throws around on Congress, Big Business tends to get its own way in Washington. But for three surprising months this winter, on an issue near and dear to its heart, corporate America seemed to be getting the cold shoulder on Capitol Hill. It started last December when House Judiciary Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner, without informing the business lobby in Washington, whipped through a draconian immigration bill that targeted the so-called "jobs magnet" — agribusiness, service sector, construction and other industries that eagerly, and often illegally, employ cheap, undocumented immigrant labor to cut costs. The law would have stripped business of much of its semi-skilled laborers by forcing undocumented workers to leave the country, would have jacked up fines on employers for hiring illegals and would have required businesses to check the identities of prospective hires with the Department of Homeland Security.But Monday night, Reiff and other business lobbyists broke into applause and embraced each other in the Dirksen office building as the Senate Judiciary committee voted 12-6 to send a bill sponsored by chairman Arlen Specter to the floor that swings the momentum back to their side. In a sharp rebuke to Senate majority leader Bill Frist, who had said he would introduce his own, tough counterpart to the House bill, Specter, three other Republicans and all the committee's Democrats united to force a pro-business, pro-immigrant bill through. Said a smiling Reiff minutes after the vote: "Specter takes a more expansive view of these issues than Sensenbrenner."My opinion, as a Black partisan, is that an unholy mess is a real possibility. So I feel it prudent to keep the cause and effect of things clear. We would all be more effective in addressing it if we all select our targets correctly. Politics45920@blogcritics.org Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:32:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/18/071834.php Prometheus 6Like most progressives -- actually, like most Americans -- I want to see an impeachment of George W. Bush once it is officially determined that his wiretapping scheme is illegal as implemented. I am very comfortable saying "when" rather than "if" because he is hanging his hat on the "unitary executive" theory of executive power.As it turns out, George W. Bush has been flexing this theory since his inauguration. I am considerably behind professional scholars in considering this, but I figure since I'm right in step with professional journalists, I'm okay. So I set out to find just what is involved in the theory and the arguments based on it. I found pdf documents that explain each side of the scholarly debate, and an article on FindLaw taking the position that Bush overstepped his legal authority (it is very difficult to find someone outside the Bush regime who says unequivocally that the executive branch has the power to ignore the intent of Congress and the letter of the law at will). Here are the scholarly pdf documents: The Unitary Executive in the Modern Era, 1945-2001 Rethinking Presidential Power—The Unitary Executive and the George W. Bush Presidency.And here is the FindLaw article. How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief?"Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power PrecedentThe first pdf document is one of a series of four that provides the rational underpinnings of Bush's power grab; the second reviews the actions he's taken using this justification.By now it's pretty obvious which side I come down on. The four-part series was interesting but obviously not an unbiased analysis. I reject justification of a current outlook based on an extensive reinterpretation of century-old events immediately for much the same reason I don't call Thomas Jefferson a White Supremacist.I came to my own conclusion partly based on the official Progressive argument based on Justice Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which he noted the President's power is at its lowest when acting against the stated will of Congress. I note in addition that, constitutionally, there are areas in which the President's powers are non-existent. Regulating interstate commerce is one of those areas in which the Office of the President has only those powers that Congress delegates to it, and in this case there were numerous public statements that Congress delegated no new powers to the Office of the President prior to passage of the authorization to invade Iraq. There's no question the Bush regime defied the intent and constitutional powers of Congress. There is no way to mistake the intent of Congress in this case. The Constitution having established three co-equal branches of government, Congress and the Supreme Court have powers as unitary as the Office of the President. If the President can freely interpret the law, then Congress can enforce them directly and the courts can legislate. And there are times the Executive branch promotes that very viewpoint, most recently in considering New Hampshire's abortion restriction laws (play the second audio file).This unitary powers doctrine could lead to some really interesting conversations. For instance, the word of the Attorney General is not a "second opinion" when, under the unitary executive philosophy, the President can simply order the Attorney General to declare his orders legal on pain of termination. This is a task that could legitimately be claimed by the Judiciary; in fact, when there is a dispute between Congressional and Executive interpretation of the law it is the Supreme Court's duty to resolve the dispute. But if each branch decides its own limits independently, we'll have chaos, and the rule of law will simply end.This is why we cannot allow the Bush regime to choose which laws it will follow, which philosophy it will espouse at any given moment. As Justice Douglass said in his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:Legislative action may indeed often be cumbersome, time-consuming, and apparently inefficient. But as Mr. Justice Brandeis stated in his dissent in Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 :"The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from autocracy." [343 U.S. 579, 630] We therefore cannot decide this case by determining which branch of government can deal most expeditiously with the present crisis. The answer must depend on the allocation of powers under the Constitution. There is no authorization in the Constitution that allows the Office of the President to break, rather than enforce, the laws of the nation. Anyone that thinks otherwise is unfit to hold the office. Impeachment, which we came to understand during the Clinton administration is a mere investigation rather than an inevitable eviction, is more than appropriate when a President assumes powers categorically denied the office by the Constitution. So I say, impeach Bush. Give him the same chance to explain and defend himself that Clinton had. To do less would be unfair to Bush. Politics42433@blogcritics.org Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:18:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/19/124235.php Prometheus 6It occurs to me that anyone that supports the textualist, originalist or strict construction legal philosophies and supports George Bush's program of illegal domestic spying is a hypocrite.It would be very interesting to find Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito's position on all this. Just asking him would be very enlightening... Will he answer? Or will he say the possibility he would have to rule on it compels his silence?Somewhat later: The original post consisted of the above two paragraphs. I thought it clear enough, but it was suggested that I expand on it.You could, for instance, add commentary on why you think supporters of Bush's domestic spying are hypocrites.That is SO far from the point, I decided expansion was necessary after all. Let's start with a non-partisan understanding of the terms; let’s use an article at law.com as a reference.ORIGINALIST: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he's one. "I am one of a small number of judges -- a small number of anybody, judges, professors, lawyers -- who are known as originalists," Scalia said in a speech last March. "Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people." TEXTUALIST: Scalia says he is one of these, too. He equates it with originalism: taking the Constitution's words at face value without trying to figure out the drafters' intentions. "If you are a textualist, you don't care about the intent, and I don't care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words," Scalia said in a 1996 speech. "I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words. ... The words are the law." STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST: Similar to an originalist or a textualist, a strict constructionist is one who sticks to the meaning of the words in the Constitution as they were used at the time of its drafting without reading too much into them. Since the three terms refer to nearly identical concepts, I will refer to all three as “strict constructionist” unless and until someone can demonstrate a difference in practical effect between them. Now, let’s look at the laws being invoked to attack and defend Bush’s domestic spying program. The most significant attack is based on the Constitution, specifically the fourth amendment. What does a strict constructionist make of this? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Remember, a strict constructionist must stick to the meaning of the words as they were used at the time of its drafting. There can be no consideration of intent. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act significantly loosens the limitation on the fourth amendment. Not only can surveillance begin immediately with judicial review within 72 hours, but during times of war the President can authorize such surveillance without judicial review for up to 15 days. An honest strict constructionist must recognize, however, that we are not at war. War is a specific legal condition which can only be instituted by Congress…that’s what the Constitution says, and strict constructionists can’t go beyond the words on the parchment. And the resolution authorizing George Bush to use force against Iraq does not qualify as a declaration of war. It is at best a Letter of Reprisal. Strict constructionists would have to hold that George Bush broke the law.Like all the other historical cases where we as a nation suspended the rights of our citizens in the face of war, this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, and it will ultimately be judged a severe overreach. There are judicial philosophies that could lead to a ruling that George Bush acted within the law, of course. Those would be broad constructionism and intentionalism…both of which are specifically rejected by the Bush regime. Which leaves Bush in the interesting position of needed exactly the type of justice he explicitly rejected to declare his actions legal. Politics41222@blogcritics.org Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:42:35 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/08/223025.php Prometheus 6Active Liberty, by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, is a first pass at a progressive interpretation of the Constitution. at least I hope it's a first pass. I like the book, but truth is I wanted to like it more than I do.Justice Breyer starts out by explaining what he wants to do in the book, which is to lay out what he refers to as a "theme," a thesis on the values that should be used as aids in interpreting the constitution. He actually takes something of an originalist stance; however, beyond restrictions on governmental power he also finds goads to direct what action is necessary.Breyer's basic position is the Constitution's various provisions exist in order to defend against a domineering government and to enable active participation in government by the governed. The exposition of this position is concise and pretty solid. He takes some twenty pages to explain the theme, how it fits into judicial interpretative traditions and to explain why his thesis is "consistent with the Constitution's history."He then applies this theme to several broad categories of constitutional issues:speech, federalism, privacy, affirmative action (the most disappointing), statuitory interpretation and administrative law. Finally he takes a significant swipe at the literalist interpretative tradition First, the more "originalist" judges cannot appeal to the Framers themselves in support of their interpretive views....Why would the Framers have preferred (1) a system of interpretation that relies heavily on linguistic canons to (2) a system that seeks more directly to find the intent of the legislators who enacted the statute?...Why would the Framers, who disagreed even about the necessity of including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, who disagreed about the content of the Bill of Rights, nonetheless have agreed about what school of interpretive thought should prove dominant in interpreting that Bill of Rights in the centuries to come? And after briefly reviewing a few cases adds Why do I point out the uncertainties in close cases, of linguistic structure, of canons of interpretation and of history? Because those difficulties mean that the "textualist," "originalist," and "literalist" approaches themsekves possess inherantly subjective elements. Which linguistic characteristics are determinative? Which conons shall we choose? Which historical account shall we use? Which tradition shall we apply? And how does that history, or that tradition, apply now? Significantly, an effort to answer those questions can produce a decision that is not only subjective but also unclear, lacking transparency about the factors that the judge considers truly significant. In sooth. Word in the press is that lawyers are discussing it in comparison to Justice Scalia's equivalent book, and that's good...Justice Breyer can't establish Active Liberty as a principle all by himself any more than Justice Scalia could legitimize strict construction as a priciple without massive support. This may be an important book. Books37629@blogcritics.org Sat, 8 Oct 2005 22:30:25 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/17/000454.php Prometheus 6Mario Cuomo spoke on the stem cell debate in a NY Times editorial. He's reaching for a rational reconsideration of the religious and ethical issues Dubya says motivated his decision to limit federal funding of certain lines of research. This is offered as a favor to Mr.Bush, as he's backed himself into a moral corner.Although Mr. Bush believes that destroying an embryo is murder, he refuses to demand legislation to stop commercial interests that are busily destroying embryos in order to obtain stem cells. If their conduct amounts to murder as the president contends, it is hardly satisfactory for him to say he will do nothing to stop the evil act other than to refuse to pay for it.Mr. Cuomo suggests a panel of "respected scientists, humanists and religious leaders" be assembled to review the relevant material. This, of course, will fail miserably to resolve the issue. Each side...and sadly, this time there are sides rather than a spectrum of positions...would have to be open to reconsidering their current position. Those on the science side of the debate do so as a matter of course. Those on the faith side of this particular debate refuse to do so as a matter of course, and this is one of the rare times where I will say the religious side is wrong...as in incorrect, not evil..for doing so.The belief that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception is more than challenged, it is denied by in-vitro fertilization technology. This thought first occurred to me when I found out fertilized eggs are examined for defects by removing a cell at a very early stage of development.Fertility doctors have known for years that early embryos seem unfazed by the removal of any one of their eight virtually identical cells, called blastomeres. In fact, it is common today to remove a single, representative blastomere from a laboratory-conceived embryo and test that cell for disease genes before deciding whether to transfer that embryo into a woman's womb.My immediate, rather cynical, reaction was, "Wow, how do you get into heaven with one eighth of your soul gone?"When I read how embryos are preserved by freezing it was pretty obvious that the frozen result could not be called alive. Not only is there no biological activity going on in there, the material necessary for biological activity isn't even present...not enough water, too much (which is to say, any at all) antifreeze.Yet they are restored, implanted, children have been brought to term. And I defy anyone, no matter how pious, to look at those children and declare they have no soul.Unliving things have no soul, living humans do, right? So the child's soul had to "arrive" after fertilization and division into at least eight cells...probably more, since removing one of the eight has no impact. There is no other possibility. Most likely ensoulment requires a physical vehicle capable of supporting life.That's the conclusion Mr. Cuomo expects from his suggested panel. Maybe life begins when the fertilized egg is properly implanted in the womb. The repercussions of such a conclusion would be subtle...for instance, the Catholic doctrine against contraception wouldn't be weakened at all. It could still be a mortal sin to interfere with the process, religious beliefs on the proper actions to take need not change. It would undermine attempts to paint abortion as murder when the physical receptical for a soul isn't ready to support said soul yet.But the most interesting repercussion of all would be the forced recognition that dogma extrapolated by humans is limited by human knowledge...the Pope being human, that would include him. And that would put more than a couple Pharisees in serious risk of exposure.So, People of the Word will be told to "have faith" that this physical reality is irrelevant and they will NOT be told to pursue those commercial entities that are happily dismembering souls as we speak. It will be interesting to see if the faithful will be barred from using anything that is derived from this research...wages of sin and all that.Scanned:NBEdited: LH Sci/Tech32711@blogcritics.org Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:04:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/15/064943.php Prometheus 6The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case.With another administration leak from an unverifiable anonymous source taking the lead, we begin another round of deflectionsRove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. OfficerBy DAVID JOHNSTONand RICHARD W. STEVENSONWASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."So now Novak is Rove's source.Maybe Judith Miller's source got to Novak before Rove did. But it seems Rove is Cooper's source...which still means he Identified Ms. Plame (I know, People of the Word claim you have to use someone's name to identify them...but People of the Word are kind of helpless in peculiar ways).After saying in 2003 that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case.See what I mean? The next excuse will be "He didn't identify, he verified."Rove told Chris Matthews Ms.Plame was "fair game" politically, but of course as a CIA operative she is not...or is not supposed to be. That Rove said this suggests an interesting view on the importance of the spirit of the law, i.e., there is no importance. It seems Rove's position is, once the law has been broken it doesn't work anymore. Politics32608@blogcritics.org Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:49:43 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/16/093509.php Prometheus 6I read OpinionJournal's opinion on Why Republicans can't let the judicial filibuster succeed.Barring a surprise last-minute deal, this week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will ask for a ruling from the chair--Vice President Dick Cheney presiding--that ending debate on a judicial nominee requires a vote of a simple majority of 51 Senators, not a super-majority of 60. The nuclear option--aka the "constitutional option"--will have been detonated. Judicial filibusters, R.I.P.Okay, first of all, "judicial filibusters" are not a special case. If there is debate taking place on the floor of the Senate, each Senator is entitled to speak to the issue without interruption until done. That the topic is whether to consent to an appointment is beside the point.Senator Frist will be asking the Vice President to change the cloture rule by fiat. This plainly cannot be done under the standing rules of the Senate. To describe this as a coup would not be an overstatement (so phrased to maintain deniability in case they get away with it).The judicial filibuster of the last two years marks another political escalation--this time twisting a procedure used historically for the most important legislative debates into an abuse of the Senate's advise-and-consent responsibility.Fiery rhetoric.You know, the whole "it's never been done before" thing is just wimpy. I mean, suppose we never did anything that hasn't been done before? The rules of the House of Representatives had never been manipulated to exclude the minority party as entirely as possible before. States never redrew their congressional district boundaries between censuses...explicitly for political gain, by the way.And how many times has a rejected judicial nominee been resubmitted?It isn't just one nominee they object to; it's 10, and counting. It isn't just abortion they're worried about but the entire range of constitutional law.Yes, ten out of 229. Less than five percent.And it's only ever been a religious reactionary hallucination that this is all exclusively about abortion rights. Of course it's about the entire range of constitutional law, as it should be. And thank you for admitting it at last.With the filibuster, Democrats are denying an elected President the ability to fill out even the lower courts.Simply not true.The two parties having different approaches, there will obviously be candidates that each would accept that the other would reject. But being typical mainstream Americans, the overlap in their respective pools of acceptable candidates is so great that this claim sounds more facetious than disingenuous. There are any number of staunchly conservative judges that would be acceptable and Democratic Senators are elected to represent their constituency too. They must hold out...out of the hundreds of conservative justices, Republicans could easily find ten in the overlap.As a side note, I find it interesting they feel the need to remind Dubya he was elected. I, for one, will never forget.Perhaps the coming showdown will lead to more political bitterness, but we doubt Democrats will be able to follow through on their pledge to shut down the Senate; the public wants other things done.Of course there'll be no shutdown.But when one side refuses to negotiate, the other side would be foolish to consent (unanimously, no less) to their own irrelevance. Especially when it is in their power to change conditions such that compromise is necessary. Politics29542@blogcritics.org Mon, 16 May 2005 09:35:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/10/171732.php Prometheus 6Let's say we assemble a package of changes to Social Security, including a diversion of funds from Social Security to private accounts that somehow manages, by the necessary combination of tax increases and benefit cuts, to achieve solvency for th eprogram. If you put it all on a balance sheet, the diversion would have to count as an outflow...a reduction of the cash available to pay benefits.Now. Remove that diversion from the balance sheet.Suddenly the size of the necessary tax increase or benefit cut is reduced. Drastically.It's that simple. Politics26538@blogcritics.org Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:17:32 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/01/084620.php Prometheus 6Tonight at 10 pm on most PBS stations: Independent LensFebruary One: The Story of the Greensboro Four Tuesday, February 1, 10:00pmCHANNEL 13 (Thirteen/WNET New York)On February 1, 1960, four college students staged a sit-in at a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, a pivotal event in the civil rights movement. In this intimate portrait, viewers learn what led these four friends to protest and how their lives have been affected. Producers: Steven Channing and Rebecca Cerese. Co-presentation with South Carolina ETVCC TVPG Educational Taping Rights: 1 yearAgain, PBS set up an excellent supporting web site for this show. And this is critical: What "Education taping rights" means is you can record and distribute this episode of Independent Lens for educational purposes for a year after the broadcast is aired. So get your recorders, people. Video24974@blogcritics.org Tue, 1 Feb 2005 08:46:20 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/04/095823.php Prometheus 6Yes, for those who live on unearned income, these are flush times. Thank you, George Bush and the Republican Party. Cash Flow in '04 Found Its Way Into Dividends By FLOYD NORRIS Published: January 4, 2005American companies stepped up their dividend increases in 2004, buoyed by strong cash flows and by a changed tax law that made dividends more attractive to shareholders.But the really good news for shareholders on the dividend front was that the number of negative dividend actions hit a record low of just 64. Of those, 35 were announcements of dividend cuts and 29 were decisions to omit dividends entirely. Oh, you work for a living?Never mind. Politics23897@blogcritics.org Tue, 4 Jan 2005 09:58:23 EST