Sacramento Shenanigans

Abuses of power are hardly the exclusive province of the Bush White House, and the Bush White House seems to be getting better about this now that there is meaningful political opposition. The same cannot be said of leaders of the California Democratic Party.

To enforce ideological rigidity, three moderate Democrats found themselves locked out of their own offices by the more liberal President Pro Tempore of the California Senate, the day after the three moderate officeholders attended a fundraiser aimed at middle-of-the-road kinds of policies. The next day, the "Mod Squad" got keys that worked.

Petty, stupid, and not good for anyone.

What's The Word For That?

In the past two days, I've come across references to patchouli oil three times. Before today, I don't think I'd ever given much thought to patchouli oil and was barely aware that it existed.
You know, for some of you Loyal Readers, maybe patchouli oil seems commonplace or prosaic. But I assure you, it's not something that is part of my world.

The plant is sort of pretty, I admit.

So what's it called when suddenly, from out of the blue, some word or concept or event suddenly comes up repeatedly? "Coincidence" doesn't capture the element of the novelty of the repeated concept.

Maybe I'm Missing Something

Attorney General Gonzales (of whom I am not a very big fan) has been the subject of demands for resignation, apparently because nine U.S. Attorneys were recently fired and he and possibly political advisors in the White House were somehow involved in making that happen.

For those of the Loyal Readership who are unfamiliar with the process, there are about 200 U.S. Attorneys; they are in charge of various geographic divisions of the Justice Department. They are the prosecutors for the Federal Government and they also represent the government in civil cases. Professional federal prosecutors are called Assistant U.S. Attorneys and make their careers prosecuting bad guys -- drug dealers of mid- to large magnitude, money launderers, organized crime bosses, and corrupt politicians are the most prominent kinds of targets of these prosecutors.

And it's the anti-corruption activities that give rise to the calls for Gonzales' resignation. As I understand it, the story goes that Gonzales, or somebody else close to the Oval Office, directed a variety of U.S. Attorneys to investigate political corruption, and directed the focus of that attention to Democrats.

Umm. So what? If they directed that corruption investigations against Republicans cease, that would be something. Trying to protect cronies and allies would be an abuse of power. But investigating other people who are abusing their power is what prosecutors are supposed to do. If the person on the receiving end of this kind of treatment is a member of the opposition party, so what? No one's supposed to be taking bribes.

What's more, the U.S. Attorneys are political appointees. As political appointees, they serve at the pleasure of the President. If the President is unsatisfied with their performance, he can dismiss them. And since these are political appointees, the President is properly subject to political pressure, and properly exerts political pressure, in controlling who holds these jobs. These aren't supposed to be civil service jobs insulated from the rough and tumble of politics. If we were talking about Assistant U.S. Attorneys here, the professional careerists who do the bulk of the work, that would be different. These are the people who direct and control the individual offices, and without a certain amount of discretionary control over these people, the President would be effectively unable to implement his priorities for federal law enforcement. And that is one of the things we elect Presidents to do.

Maybe firing these attorneys was unwise; maybe you or I would have kept them in their positions had you or I been President. But the thing is, you and I are not the President. George W. Bush is. He's the decider. He gets to make that call and we don't.

Like I said before, using the discretion inherent in the Presidency to protect political cronies would be an abuse of power. But I haven't heard any claims that this has happened. The investigations and prosecutions have not been directed exclusively at Democrats, and indeed, at least two prominent Republican legislators -- Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham -- did get prosecuted for corruption. Another prominent political corruption play was the Tennessee Waltz affair from 2004, which caught up Republicans and Democrats in its net. Certainly there was "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, he of the $90,000 stored in the freezer, wrapped in aluminum foil. Jefferson is a Democrat but I hardly think that the government was in the wrong to go after him just because he was in the opposition party, and my goodness! he's still serving in Congress today.

So I don't see any evidence that the political corruption prosecutions were themselves political -- it seems to have been pretty much even-handed; to the extent that more Republicans got harsh treatment, well, let's not forget that they were in the majority in Congress until very recently, so it's natural that more dirty money would flow their way. If you're going to bribe someone, you'll try to bribe someone who can do something for you, so you'll make a good return on your money. Majority members are better able to do that than minority members. Now that Democrats are in the majority again, they will have the opportunity to tap in to filthy lucre once more -- some will, I'm sure, and some won't. But it only seems natural that guys like Ney and Cunningham would have had more opportunities to be bribed than their Democratic counterparts back before January of 2007.

So maybe that's why these attorneys were fired -- revenge for Ney and Cunningham? That just doesn't wash and no report or commentary that I've read suggests that these events are linked. It isn't revenge for Scooter Libby, whose prosecution was handled independently. It seems to be more of a case of these U.S. Attorneys simply not submitting to control by the Attorney General or the White House in a more general sense. And they are supposed to be controlled by the White House; that is why they are political appointees and not civil servants.

So while I have sympathy for these very capable attorneys who lost their jobs due to the whims of politics, and while I would prefer someone else were the Attorney General, this is not a good reason for Gonzales' resignation. As I wrote in the title of the post, I might be missing something here. But it seems to me that the President has the power to control his political appointees.

Why'd It Have To Be Him?

America finally has its first openly atheist Congressman in the modern era of politics. Maybe ever. Fourtney "Pete" Stark has "come out" with a public admission of his nontheism. However, he still insists that he is a Unitarian, albeit one without a "God-belief."

Congressman Stark is a Democrat representing California's East Bay (he has never actually lived within the district he represents -- Hayward, Alameda, and Fremont) and serves on the powerful Ways and Means Committee. In other words, he doesn't have anything to lose by "coming out" -- he will hold his seat in Congress for as long as he cares to. Which may not be for much longer; he is 75 years old and apparently entering the twilight of his political career.

Unfortunately for the likes of me, he's also one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives. Perhaps this accurately reflects his district, perhaps not; either way, I find it distasteful to be associated with him. Please remember, Loyal Readers -- not all atheists are liberal, any more than all Christians are conservative! About the only thing we agree on is skepticism about the supernatural.

Stark is also rather ill-mannered and has called Republicans things like "fruitcakes," "Nazis," and worse. Other liberal members of Congress are able to advocate their point of view without calling people names, but Carpetbagger Pete apparently gets a pass on the ostensible need to adhere to a standard of civility in public debate.

As poster boys for atheists in politics go, this is not a good start. If it must be a Democrat, I suppose I can accept that. But surely we seculars can do better than this.

Polling Data

A new widget to the blog appears to the left -- the weekly poll. I get to write the polls, so that's kind of fun for me. Not every poll will be about politics. The poll appears in more than one place on the Web, so it's possible that not all respondents will be from the Loyal Readership, although I anticipate that most will. Also note that there is an IP address recognition cookie, so you can only vote once per poll.

Mississippi Renders Me A Lone Voice In The Wilderness

Spoiling for a fight before a new Supreme Court next year (coincidentally during election season), Mississippi is apparently on the verge of outlawing all abortions except in the case of rape or endangerment of the mother.

Note the absence of the traditional exception for incest. Of course, if you accept the moral argument underlying the pro-life position (the fertilized ovum is a full and complete human being and therefore as entitled to life as an independent adult) then the only exception should be endangerment of the mother – it is not the unborn human’s fault that its father raped its mother, any more than it is that unborn human’s fault that there is a close genetic or family relationship between its parents. That is where the pro-life argument ends, after all – only when one life is threatened by another can it become morally permissible to take one.

Conversely, the pro-choice argument's reductio ad absurdum is the moral condonation of post-partum infanticide. Both extremes are unpalatable.

The answer, of course, lies in the ability of the political process to reach a compromise. Oh, dear. Did I use the “c-word” with respect to abortion? That would mean that advocates for both positions will have to sit down, listen to each other in good faith, modify their original positions to at least partially accommodate the concerns of the other side, and otherwise act like grownups. Pro-lifers would have to accept that since abortions are going to take place anyway, they should at least be safe and not send people to jail for doing them. Pro-choicers are going to accept that after a certain point, the abortion starts to become a morally grave act indeed and that yes, the state really does have an interest in regulating and in some cases preventing it.

Fact is, Justice Blackmun kind of jumped the gun with his reasoning in Roe v. Wade. Perhaps Blackmun reached what would work out to a good political compromise, but he did not allow the political process to move forward to that position and instead figured what he thought would be the right balance himself. That doesn't mean it was the wrong result (in a general sense) but it does mean that the result shouldn't have come in the form of an absolute dictum from the Supreme Court.

Now I’ve done it – no one’s going to be happy with me.

President Fred?

While we’re contemplating possible Presidential firsts (first woman, first African-American, first Italian-American, first Mormon, first Vietnam vet) I don’t think we’ve ever had a President named Fred before, either.

Fred Dalton Thompson is best known to Americans as Arthur Branch, the District Attorney on TV’s Law & Order. He does a very convincing job in that role. Earlier in his acting career, he played a racist bad guy once, but most Americans won’t confuse a role with an actor. We’re willing to accept Anthony Hopkins as someone other than Hannibal Lecter, for instance. And he certainly looks the part of a conservative President from the South.

More important, he’s not an intellectual or political lightweight. He was also an accomplished prosecutor (on the Watergate team) who took down Tennessee Governor Ray Blanton for selling pardons, but whose legal career will forever be defined by being the man who formulated the question that, more than any other, resulted in Richard Nixon’s fall from power: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Thompson is solidly conservative on social issues and has been beefing up his foreign policy credentials at the American Enterprise Institute.

On the other hand, he is closely associated with recently-convicted felon Scooter Libby, having raised over three and a half million dollars for Scooter’s defense fund. While there may be some sympathy for Scooter as being the “fall guy” for Vice-President Cheney in the Valerie Plame affair, that is a simplistic and probably erroneous characterization of what happened – and Scooter did lie to investigators. Even if he was told to, that was still a wrong thing to do. No candidate is perfect, and this is one of several downsides Thompson might bring to the table. But on the other hand, I think he’d be able to make a credible play for the right flank of the GOP.

The biggest problem for Thompson – as it is for Newt Gingrich, another potential right-wing star – is that surprisingly, it’s getting to be reasonably late in the game already. It’s eleven months until the effective end of the primary season. So if these guys are going to go for it, they need to decide to do so very soon before all the money and organization gets snapped up by the other candidates.

Looking Forward to February

You probably read it here two and a half weeks ago. But the Gray Lady has figured it out, too -- a national primary is shaping up, one which will cross regional boundaries and challenge Presidential campaigns like never before. I say, it will test the candidates by fire in the arenas of money and logistics and only the strongest will survive. Small states like Iowa and New Hampshire are simply going to be swamped out; their value will be in their ability to garner free media and little more.

I wonder if either convention could wind up brokered. I think the Democrats have a greater chance of that than the Republicans. But no one can say for sure. Exciting stuff.

Silk Shortage

In the United Kingdom (most specifically in England and Wales) lawyers can apply to become Queen's Counsel, which is an elite status given to attorneys who have shown a high level of competence and impressed their peers with their abilities. Because Queen's Counsel can wear special court dress made of silk, they have the colloquial name of "Silks." An example is illustrated here -- that's Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister's wife, who is an accomplished barrister. Solicitors may also "take silk," although this is a recent phenomenon.

The application process is quite elaborate and not without some restrictions on the lawyer's practice, mainly in the form of requiring the permission of the court before taking on a case against the Crown, such as a criminal defense matter or a claim against the government (although such conflict waivers are routinely granted). It is also quite expensive -- if one's application to the Queen's Counsel accepted the first time, the attorney can count on shelling out at least ₤7,500 for fees and the new, fancier robes and wigs necessary to take silk. Of course, the initial application fee (₤2,500) does not guarantee admission; it seems that only about 1 in 3 applications are accepted. The benefit, of course, is that a QC barrister (and now a QC solicitor) can charge a significantly higher fee for legal services. And apparently taking silk gives you a reasonably high (.1% or so) chance of being married to the Prime Minister, but that's a different story.

So it's with some hand-wringing that the Law Society (the equivalent of a state bar for all of England and Wales) notes that applications to become Queen's Counsel are down by about 25% this year. The primary criticism has been the high application fee. But I have to think that can't be the problem -- a silk can charge half again what she charged before getting her letters patent, so it should only take a few cases before the application fee, dues, and expense of the new robes are all paid for.

I wonder whether the QC system is running out of steam for the Brits because they have found a taste for egalitarianism despite their historic and stereotypical obsession with class and rank. This is the country, after all, that gave us the Great Chain of Being and for nearly five hundred years has had some trouble letting go of the concept. So maybe barristers are simply not interested in taking silk and would rather let the marketplace sort out how much fee they can charge. But I just can't see that being the case, either; lawyers in the UK are made of pretty much the same stuff as they are here, and they are just as vulnerable to things that stroke their egos. They would want the distinction simply because it is a distinction. The problem may not be a problem at all -- it may just be a statistical blip, an unusually low year for applications, and the Queen's Bench should have no reason to panic.

There is nothing remotely like this in U.S. law, to my knowledge. The closest it comes is the Solicitor General wearing morning dress to argue before the Supreme Court, but even so this is an incident of the office that the attorney occupies and not a distinction personal to the attorney. I wonder whether we in the U.S. can take any wisdom from the QC system. Does it profit the legal profession to have a special class of attorneys who are recognized for their high skills and abilities?

Lawyers here can take an LL.M. or an LL.D. as an advanced law degree, but that doesn't really affect one's billing rate very much, at least not directly; outside of the world of tax law, an LL.M. is primarily useful for someone looking at an academic career, and even then it does not seem to be necessary. In many cases, the advanced degree is simply the result of a desire to delay entry into the working world for a year.

An attorney can also become a certified specialist; California recognizes certified specialties in nine practice areas, and there are some national certifications as well. This would have a more direct effect on rates, but there is really not much more prestige or recognition within the profession. If I hear "So-and-so is a certified workers' compensation specialist," my response is, "Oh." It just doesn't impress me all that much. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

And maybe I shouldn't be so impressed with a silk, either. Just because a British attorney takes silk and gets to add the letters "QC" after his name may not necessarily mean much of anything other than that he's been around for the requisite 15 years and has lots of friends who will say nice things about him. My 15-year anniversary as an attorney is not that far in the future and I have lots of friends who will say nice things about me. And I can probably find a better use for $15,000 than buying myself a title and the right to wear an itchy, heavy wig. Maybe that's how more British lawyers feel, too, which would account for the shortage of new silk at London's Inns of Court.

Seen From The Aqueduct

The Wife and I took the dogs for a walk today along the aqueduct. Here are some of the things we saw. Each picture expands to a very large photograph, suitable for use as wallpaper on your Windows environment.

First, the aqueduct itself, with Palmdale in the background:


Then, a ranch located in a canyon in a foothill of the Santa Susanna Mountains, complete with donkey seeking shade:


These are examples of the local almond trees in blossom:


And a fine specimen of a wild Joshua tree:


It's about three miles from one bridge to the other and back. The dogs are sacked out, which of course was the objective of the exercise.

Is the Surge Working?

I expressed skepticism that the surge would work at the outset; the plan seemed like "more of the same, only moreso." There have been what seems to be an accelerated number of car bombings, and a lot of reports of the more educated, middle-class members of Iraqi society (particularly in Baghdad, where a quarter of the country's population lives) fleeing the country and setting up shop elsewhere, whether that be in one of the Gulf States, Europe, India, or the U.S.

At the same time, I have the opportunity to correspond and share messages with other instructors at University of Phoenix. One of them is a Colonel on active duty in the Guard, and he and his troops are part of the "clean up the streets" operations, and just finished another sweep of Sadr City (which, as I recall, used to be called Saddam City), a Shi'ite slum to the northeast of central Baghdad. My UoP colleague reports with a tone of resignation and realism that the violence does continue, but that the bulk of it is now sectarian rather than insurgent. In other words, he sees the fact that the violence is religiously-motivated, and aimed at members of varying sects of Islam (and against non-Muslim religions, like against the native Jewish, Druze, and Christian populations) is at least better than violence directed at unseating the Iraqi government and dislodge the U.S. forces.

He acknowledges that there are a lot of the educated class fleeing. He has seen this process start to slow down in the past two weeks, though, and thinks it will eventually slow down to a trickle and then stop. He is confident that many will come back if a greater level of peace and stability can be created. (To his credit, he uses the word "if," indicating an uncertainty of result, but that in no way diminishes his feeling of confidence that the job can get done.) He stresses the point, which I think is patently obvious, that if U.S. forces were not in Iraq, the level of violence that would be going on would be several orders of magnitude greater than what we are seeing now.

My colleague is someone who is actually there, mature and intelligent enough to assess the situation realistically, and has the ability to discuss his evaluation in a candid fashion with his civilian colleagues back home. He hasn't disclosed anything operational but instead shared with us a big-picture sort of assessment -- like the kind he and his fellow full-birds give as briefings to both the Congressional and industrial delegations that visit periodically and to the lower-ranking officers who lead the squads and units out into the city to be visible and engage in operations against "the bad guys." My point here is that he is in a position to give a realistic assessment of the situation, and he seems to have done so. His tone lacks both panic and swagger. Rather, he writes as if there is still a great deal of work to do, but given sufficient support and a realistic amount of time, he is confident that it can get done. A "realistic amount of time" seems to be months, not weeks, and not years. "Getting it done" seems to be attaining a level of urban violence roughly equivalent to that of a U.S. or European city of similar size.

The biggest thing he thinks needs more work is rebuilding Iraqi nationalism -- right now he thinks people identify with their religious sect or their favored militia faction more than they do with their country. The most promising thing he sees happening are multinational corporations seeking to open factories and other facilities in and around Baghdad, representing both capital investments and employment opportunities.

I'd call it a guarded vote of confidence. Reassuring, but realistic. The violence isn't going to end next week. Or the week after that. But my colleague seems to think that it will recede to, perhaps, Israeli-like levels, and soon thereafter, we can start drawing down our forces. Assuming that my colleague's reports to the rest of the faculty are pretty much accurate, I'd be extremely glad to be in the middle of being proven wrong right now.

Democrats Boycott Fox News, Ratings Unaffected

It's no secret that Democrats and liberals think that Fox News is biased to the right. I'm neither a Democrat nor a liberal, but I do think there's something to that accusation. The kinds of people who think that Fox News is "fair and balanced" all seem to be politically to the right, and they almost all accuse other news outlets like CNN and MSNBC of being biased to the left. If it's CBS broadcast news we're talking about, then I can see some truth to that accusation, too.

So I think it's kind of a dumb move for Democrats to cave in to pressure from moveon.org to cancel a debate amongst several of the the Democratic Presidential candidates on Fox News. If this is a mostly Republican or conservative audience watching Fox News, then the debate represented a great opportunity to reach out to that segment of the electorate. Sure, Roger Ailes' joke about Barack Obama was in very poor taste. But it was obviously a joke, and it's easy enough to take exception to it in other ways.

If Democrats are ready to put forward a platform that has proposals that are good for America, the venue they do it in shouldn't matter all that much -- it's not like it won't be reported on by a hyper-competitive, starved-for-content punditocracy the instant it happens on the internet, and on nearly every competing broadcast news service within a few minutes of it happening. So left-leaning voters can get their news about the debate anyway, and yes, they can probably gird themselves to watch Fox News for a little bit before and after the debate. (And chances are it would be simulcast on PBS, too.) And, if conservatives are the primary audience on Fox News, well, aren't Democrats trying to pitch themselves to that demographic these days anyway? Democrats must know that conservatives are dissatisfied with their three main choices in the Republican primary so they're looking around -- a canny politician would call that "opportunity."

But, these are Democrats we're talking about here, after all. Bright individuals, perhaps, but generally not very visionary. Competent legislators (in some cases) but not necessarily very well-organized. Charismatic (most of them) but not necessarily able to translate personal charisma into a real platform. Hidebound by an ever-growing list of demands from the ever-diversifying multiplicity of special interest groups that make up their party's coalition of interests. United only by their smarmy insistence that they are better than the Republicans simply by virtue of not being Republicans; opposing Republican ideas for no better reason than that they are proposed by Republicans. So disappointing -- they could be so much better than they are.

In 1935, Will Rogers said "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." It's still true more than seventy years later.

Think The Unthinkable

The Wife suggested last night that we get rid of all of our televisions and not replace them.

There was a time that I did not have a television and was perfectly happy not watching TV, ever. I read books instead; I would watch sporting events at friends' houses or at sports bars. It made me have to really want to see the game in order to go to it.

Now, I would miss TV during football season, although again I suppose I could go to a bar and watch a game on a Sunday morning (and see my Packers every week that way, too). But I would also miss Battlestar Galactica. (This even after last week's blandly anticlimactic event that ought to have weighed larger than it did in the story arc, coming on the heels of several other lackluster episodes.) I suppose I could wait for it to come out on DVD or figure out some way to watch the podcasts. But something tells me that I wouldn't do that, that it would be too much trouble. I have great interest in HBO's series Rome, but I haven't bothered to watch any of it even though the first season is available on DVD.

I wouldn't need a TV player to watch a DVD; the computer shows DVD's just fine and if I really wanted to watch one bad enough, I'd do it. I think later tonight I'm going to do exactly that, with a set of DVD's that I've been meaning to watch for a long time but just haven't got around to yet. So it's not like The Wife's proposition would leave us without audiovisual entertainment.

I wonder what she would do, though -- she watches more TV than I do, I think. She likes to watch "lampshade shows," so-called because they are about people I don't know agonizing over what lampshade to put in a house I've never seen and don't care about. I would miss the Daily Show, although if I don't see an episode it doesn't bother me very much.

So maybe we can think the unthinkable. We'd have to find some way to keep the high-speed internet, though. Can't do without that, not at all.

Religious Ignorance

Religion is always a hot topic here, so I was interested in this article. It includes a test, and I got 49 points. How did you do, Loyal Readers?

The Times They Are A-Changing

Today is the first day of the new daylight savings time. This is supposed to happen at the start of spring and a lot of people feel inconvenienced because it is coming earlier than usual (and earlier than expected, which will make a lot of computer consultants well-paid but irritated tomorrow). But here in the desert, the timing is just about perfect.

Today the weather is mild and pleasant, with a light breeze. Shorts weather, very comfortable. I've turned off the climate control and opened up every window in the house. In a house this size, that's a project in itself.

The cats love it. They get access to windowsills they don't ordinarily get, and they can sniff the fresh air outside all day. Both of them are pacing from window to window trying to figure out which one is best. They all are, kitties. They all are.

It's loud, because we're right up on a major street and living across the street from a white-trashy neighborhood where people seem to enjoy revving automobile and motorcycle engines and leaning on car horns; I can hear people shouting at each other from time to time. Mostly, though, that's not really much of a factor. Aside from the noise, it's really very pleasant to have the windows open. If I turned on some music it would pretty much take care of that.

The grass is coming back alive and the flowers that the dogs haven't dug up yet are also starting to bloom. I'll go outside in a few minutes on poop patrol to pick up after the dogs, wearing sandals and shorts. It's nice to have winter gone and summer not yet here; while poop patrol is never pleasant, it's at least nicer when the weather is good and there's a breeze.

Speaking of the dogs, yesterday, The Wife and I took the doggies for a walk along the aqueduct. They loved it. There are ducks and loons that like to hang out on the water. The Wife thinks that the desert is beautiful. I do too, this time of year. From the nearest access point to the aqueduct, we can walk by old cherry orchards (mostly dead now, unfortunately) and see the almond and cherry trees in bloom, and the intense green of the spikes of recently-watered Joshua trees in bloom. The juniper bushes have berries and the sagebrush is not yet dessicated and there are even still patches of green grass out.

A mile up the aqueduct and then back to the car was much more tiring than I would have thought. Walking two miles does not seem like it would be very challenging, particularly along the mostly level path. But by the end of it I was feeling it in my legs, and both The Wife and I slept quite soundly last night. We're hoping for similar results again today after repeating the walk, this time going a different direction along the path.

We finally used a gift card we got for the holidays last night, getting a new digital camera (the old one finally stopped working about a month ago) and a scanner for The Wife's computer. Today while we're out on the aqueduct, we'll take some pictures and I'll post them for the Loyal Readers to view and see what the desert looks like when it's springtime here. By the time The Wife gets back from her girly event (a stamping party) the gentle breeze may be more of a steady wind, so we'll need to go quickly before it kicks up into the semi-nightly windstorm we expect to see most days here in the desert. But for now, I'm going to enjoy things just the way they are.

Stepping Up Security Somewhat

A few minor changes to the blog.

After a series of unfriendly-in-tone comments and what seems to be a testy exchange developing, anonymous comments are no longer permitted; you must now log in to comment. Disagreements with opinions expressed in the blog itself continue to be welcome in the comments -- but you must at least identify yourself so that the Loyal Readers can keep track of who is trolling who.

That's not to say that comments and dialogue are not welcome. Hopefully some intelligent thoughts can be exchanged. I'm not sure this comment qualifies, though. Contrary to the anonymous commentator's claim, not one or two, but four (4) U.S. Presidents' last names have ended in a vowel, and all with the same vowel, "e": Calvin Coolidge, Millard Fillmore, James Monroe, and Franklin Pierce. If you count "y" as a vowel, you'd add John F. Kennedy and William McKinley to that list. As for the substance, it's evident that the commentator does not share my enthusiasm for Rudy Giuliani, which is certainly the commentator's prerogative; it's disappointing, though, to see no reason offered for why the commentator finds the Mayor unsatisfactory.

Also after a creepy comment about a personal friend, profile pictures are turned off for comments until further notice.

I cannot determine whether the creepy comment was made by the same anonymous commentator as the one who forgot two Presidents or the one who got involved in the start of a dust-up over the Establishment Clause versus the Declaration of Independence. (I'm not sure they are really in conflict, myself, but if they are, the Establishment Clause wins since the Declaration of Independence is not the supreme law of the land and the Constitution is. But that's besides the point. The point is, seeing that exchange left me wondering who was saying what and generally displeased with the tone of the discussion.)

So, you're still welcome to express yourself, but please leave a name to go with the comments; an alter-ego or pseudonym is fine but please only use one. And hey, if you have a blog of your own, maybe it will lead to more traffic for you, too.

A Big Deal

Yes, this is a big deal. But I haven’t got the time to look at it in detail right now and it is likely there isn’t much to learn right at this moment anyway. Maybe later tonight we’ll know more.

New Newt News

Well, here's something that doesn't add luster to Newt's Presidential prospects: Fooling around on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Bill Clinton because Clinton lied about fooling around with an intern. I presume that this information is being released in an interview with James Dobson for a reason -- better that the loyal troops in the GOP religious-right base hear this sort of thing in a friendly forum, where Gingrich can have a chance to explain himself and put his spin on things, before it gets splashed over the front page of the Washington Post.

So what's the spin? "The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge ... Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

It doesn't read well, but then Newt has to be heard rather than read to get the full effect; he's quite eloquent with the spoken word. Still, I'm frankly not sure I buy it, at least not the part about not "rendering judgment" on Clinton. Insisting that the impeachment was about perjury and not adultery is a half-truth; as I recall it, the articles of impeachment focused on the perjury but the political momentum was elsewhere.

So if Newt feels the need to spill the beans on himself, clearly there is a need for him to engage in that kind of preemptive disclosure. One thing that could mean is that he's moving to challenge "the big three" for the Republican nomination next year. It's late so I can't think of alternatives to that objective, but I'm sure they exist. But even if they did, they're not so obvious as a Gingrich candidacy to gather the conservative votes under a single banner, one more credible and prominent than Tom Tancredo's or even Sam Brownback's. So are you playing Intrade? Buy Gingrich -- his price is going to rise soon.

Funny Name, Serious Numbers

I keep telling you Loyal Readers, Rudy can win.

Fresh results from Quinnipiac University’s Polling Institute indicating that Giuliani would beat Clinton in two of three key swing states confirm this: Rudy takes Florida by 5 points, Pennsylvania by 11 points, with a convincing 51% of the vote, and loses Ohio by only 1 point. He does even better against Barack Obama and absolutely crushes John Edwards. John McCain ties Clinton in Florida, loses Ohio by 3, and wins Pennsylvania by 6. Mitt Romney does… um… not so good, not winning a single matchup against any of the Democratic contenders.

That’s probably why Intrade’s political futures market looks like this today:

Candidate	Nomination	Election
Hillary Clinton	44.3	25.0
Rudy Giuliani	40.1	22.6
Barack Obama	29.9	19.9
John McCain	24.0	16.9
Al Gore	12.0	11.4
Mitt Romney	18.9	8.8
John Edwards	8.7	7.0

These are the asking prices for $100 contracts – pay $40.10 for a Giuliani nomination contract, and if he winds up getting the nomination, you’ll be paid $100. As you can see, the collective wisdom of the market of people betting real money on these propositions favors Clinton and Giuliani to be their respective parties’ nominees (by comfortable margins, natch) and only gives Clinton a slight-to-moderate edge over Giuliani in the general election.

And odd indeed that there continues to be an active market for Al Gore – is this the result of an active community of true Gore believers still unwilling to let go of the 2000 election, or is there really something to a Gore candidacy – despite the lack of any indication that he’s interested in trying for the job again? If I had to guess, I’d say it’s the Greater Fool Theory in action.

Sure, like Glenn Reynolds says, it’s early yet. But what this should tell you is that Rudy can win. It’s a close call for McCain and a long shot for Romney. Rudy’s the best bet the GOP has going. If George W. Bush was supposed to be the nominee in 2000 based on nothing more than his ultimate electability, then the easy call for Republicans is indeed for Rudy Giuliani.

Mock Trials

Two weeks ago, I judged a mock trial contest for the local high schools. It got some press last week. It was fun, but somewhat time-consuming. It’s also a good opportunity to interact with other lawyers from other segments of the profession – I got to hang with a public defender for a while, and with several of the judges in the local courthouse. I get to go again tonight for the semifinals, and I’m scheduled to judge the finals next week, too. My first week, I saw my old high school field a very impressive team; while I admit some affinity for the old school, it did not feel like it affected my grading very much – they were just better than their competition.

I would rather, frankly, have helped coach or train the other team from the public high school. These were bright kids who got thrown in to the competition at the last minute and, while they were beaten by an older, more experienced, and generally more confident group of students, they nevertheless presented a good case and did well with what, for them, was surely an overwhelming set of circumstances. Maybe next year I’ll volunteer to be an attorney coach instead of a judge.

So, I’m out of the office now to go do that tonight.

UPDATE (8:59 PM): Tonight's teams were not quite as impressive, but there were some bright moments. And it looks like I'll have a team of some kind to coach next year. That will be fun.