Save the Planet
The other day, I was sitting in the waiting room of an oil change facility. They had a television playing an episode of the BBC series “Planet Earth.” One of the people they interviewed (from the World Wildlife Fund I believe) was saying that “our planet” is at risk.
This is plainly foolish. Even if global thermonuclear war breaks out, followed by a massive asteroid impact, the planet (and life generally) will continue. Humanity may not survive, and many other species may perish, but life will continue.
Unfortunately, this is quite common of advocates for environmental causes. “The earth” or “the planet” is at risk – what can be more urgent? Send in your money now.
The problem is that it fuels a growing skepticism about ecological science. There are valid rational and scientific reasons for society (both locally and globally) to address ecological issues. The rationale is simple self-interest on the part of humanity. Pouring industrial waste chemicals into the local water supply, for example, should be banned not because it makes the water less pretty but because it harms the health of the populace.
To be fair, the episode pursues the theme that “sustainable development” must help people. Too bad much of the environmental message is being advanced by shameless (or ignorant) hacks trying to raise money or manipulate people for political advantage.
- posted by Thomas @ 9:32 AM 0 comments
Shame on the Courts
In the last week before what is expected to be a close election, supporters of a sitting Governor have legally forced the opposing candidate to stop campaigning for a period of time. The implications of this for liberty are chilling.
In one fell swoop, supporters of Christine Gregoire have both politicized the courts and pioneered new lows in political campaigning. They have also abundantly illustrated the perversion of campaign finance laws into weapons with which the powerful oppress any challengers to their position.
Supporters of governor Gregoire, specifically retired Supreme Court Justices Utter and Ireland, sued the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) on October 6, 2008 – 29 days prior to the election. Utter and Ireland’s suit alleges that the BIAW engaged in illegal campaign coordination with Dino Rossi. This is permitted under campaign finance law but is illustrative of the problematic nature of those same laws.
What distinguishes this lawsuit from others, however, was that the Justices sought to take the deposition (sworn testimony) of gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi on an expedited basis. Civil Rule 30 (the court rule regarding depositions) states that, ordinarily, the plaintiff cannot take any depositions until 30 days after service of the lawsuit on a defendant. The plaintiff needs to get special court permission to take a deposition prior to that time.
The justices filed their lawsuit on October 6th – ordinarily they would not be able to get a deposition taken until Wednesday November 5th – the day after the election. The Justices, however, were able to go into court and get an order allowing a pre-election deposition of Dino Rossi.
Rossi’s attorneys went to the court and made the sensible argument that he was in the middle of a tightly fought campaign for the highest office in this State and he should not have to be sidelined while partisans of the other side get to ask him questions under oath. The court rules specifically allow third parties to ask for protective orders to protect them from “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
Judge Kallas ruled that “[e]arly discovery allows the parties to confirm – or dispel – the allegations before the election.” Judge Kallas is ordinarily a fine judge, but is simply wrong about this. Depositions are not hearings. Even if Dino Rossi vehemently denies any coordination with the BIAW the allegations will not be “dispelled” – Governor Gregoire’s partisans will simply argue that Rossi was lying, and the lawsuit will go on. A deposition is not a hearing, there is no rebuttal case put on by the opposing party. Nobody gets to rule on the merits of the allegations. A deposition is an interrogation, plain and simple.
In addition, Judge Kallas has made the all-too-common judicial mistake of forgetting that legal procedure, especially depositions, is burdensome and sometimes inflicting this burden on the other side is the point of the litigation.
The deposition occurred this morning. Not surprisingly it was a contentious waste of time. The plaintiff’s attorney apparently felt it was relevant to the lawsuit to ask if Rossi – who is nether a party or an attorney – if he understood that “the purpose of the public disclosure law in the state was to prevent ‘groups with lots of money from having a disproportionate or controlling influence on the election of candidates?’” This wasn’t a question, it was a speech. Plainitff’s attorney took the opportunity to berate Rossi. This behavior demonstrates that the lawsuit and the deposition were an exercise in political theater.
Judge Kallas is mistaken if she thinks this deposition will resolve any issues in the lawsuit. It was inevitable that the plaintiff attorney made sure that a transcript of the deposition were given to the press immediately. Depositions transcripts usually take a couple of weeks to produce – it is considered a extraordinary rush if the deposition transcript needed to be produced in 48 hours. The plaintiff expected and prepared for this opportunity. Judge Kallas gave it to them.
In summary, by silencing the Rossi campaign for a period of time, this ruling damages democracy in Washington State. In addition it (further) politicizes the courts. Utter and Ireland have successfully forced a candidate they disagree with off the campaign trail. They have silenced a campaign and served warning on anyone else who dares to oppose the selected candidate of the establishment. This is disgraceful. I fear that we have entered into a new era of campaign tactics in Washington State – third party proxy harassment litigation.
- posted by Thomas @ 6:35 PM 0 comments
SCOTUS moderates are no virtue
This decision highlights the problem of moderate Republicans. Some conservatives argue that we need to support moderate republicans as they are more electable and they are better than the alternative of liberal democrats. This is the “half a loaf” argument. The problem with this line of thinking is that it gives us appalling Supreme Court Justice choices.
The Boumediene decision was a 5-4 matter. The four justices who voted against the extension of habeas corpus rights to overseas foreigners were Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. All four dissenters are explicitly conservative in their judicial philosophy and were supported, if at all, only reluctantly by the moderates.
The five justices who voted for this travesty are Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer & Ginsburg. Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton nominees and are explicitly liberal. However, Stevens was appointed by Ford, Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush, and Kennedy was appointed by Reagan. These three are best described as “liberal” “liberal” and “swing vote” - in that order.
Moderate Republican Gerald Ford appointed Stevens. Moderate Republican Warren Rudman was the chief proponent of Souter and assured George H.W. Bush that Souter was in fact a conservative.
Anthony Kennedy was appointed in 1988 as a moderate pick by President Reagan designed to avoid opposition in Senate confirmation after the rejection of Robert Bork’s nomination. Moderate Republicans Arlen Specter and John Warner opposed Reagan and voted against the confirmation of Bork. Kennedy is the compromise that Moderate Republicans forced on Reagan.
The pattern is clear: Moderate Republican politicians want “Moderates” on the Supreme Court who are not significantly different from liberals. Moderate Republican politicians are the opponents of conservatives – not their allies.
- posted by Thomas @ 9:03 AM 0 comments
Hillary Doesn't Like Divisive Figures
Hillary Clinton has joined Democratic Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) in publicly urging the Iraqi parliament to dump Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki. According to Mrs. Clinton, Al-Maliki must go because he is a “divisive" figure who is "too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders." This should go in the dictionary as an example of “chutzpah.”
Let's examine the pot that calls the kettle black: Mrs. Clinton has unprecedented negative ratings. If she is elected President, it will be due to ferocious and zealous supporters who are united in their distaste for her political enemies – Republicans. Mrs. Clinton is no stranger to bare knuckle politics and demonization of her enemies. Perhaps Mr. Maliki should publicly urge American voters to not elect her due to her divisiveness and her political debt to shady characters.
If I was Mr. Maliki, I wouldn't be too concerned about Mrs. Clinton's demand that he be removed as Iraq's leader. I seem to remember another Clinton who supposedly wanted the ouster of an Iraq leader but did nothing about it.
- posted by Thomas @ 7:32 PM 0 comments
Snow Donuts and Global Warming
I did not know that nature could make "snow donuts" until I read this story on the Northwest Cable News web site. It seems that, if the conditions are just right, snow rolling down a slope will make a donut or wheel shape rather than an ever larger snowball.
I find the next to last sentence interesting: "The snow is deeper than previous years."
Why is that every time we have a warm spell in the winter, the media trumpets it as proof of global warming - but when the "snow is deeper than previous years" nobody cares?
Maybe Al Gore can do a documentary on it.
- posted by Thomas @ 9:29 AM 0 comments
Republicans have to kick the pork habit
Jeb Bush spoke the other day at the conservative Summit and reportedly thrilled the crowd with his defense of conservative principles and his assertion that the electoral defeat in 2006 was largely due to Republican abandonment of fiscal restraint. I think the younger Bush brother has it mostly right.
Jeb even recognized that some Republicans in Congress don’t seem to have realized the obvious. According to Zachary Goldfarb at the Washington Post, Jeb Bush told the crowd that: “[i]f the promise of pork and more programs is the way Republicans think they'll regain the majority, then they've got a problem."
Jeb Bush is not the only one to recognize the Republican problem with pork spending. David Boaz and David Kirby at the Cato Institute have argued that small “l” libertarians abandoned the Republican Party in droves in 2006, primarily over the issues of the Iraq war and profligate spending.
Boaz and Kirby go too far, I think, in placing the War in Iraq on the same level as runaway spending. Virtually any particular policy will have its detractors and proponents. Taking a position in support of this or that issue will always cost you x number of voters but will also bring you the support of y number of voters. I don’t think opposing the War in Iraq, for instance, would have gained a Republican candidate more votes than they would have lost.
However, I think Boaz and Kirby are right so far as spending goes. Most Republican and small “l” libertarians were disgusted at such earmark abuse as the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” Republicans will never gain enough voters grateful for the pork bestowed upon them to offset the supporters they lose for wasting public money. Fiscal restraint voters are a big segment of the Republican coalition and the Republican congressional majority took them for granted.
Amazingly, rather than repent their sins of pork, many Republican members of Congress think they can gain voter approval by abandoning President Bush on Iraq. Once again, they think they can mollify the left by irritating the right. Just like when they try to please the mainstream media, this plan is doomed to failure.
To be sure, wasteful spending was not the only reason republicans took a pasting in 2006. Republicans were barraged with negative news throughout the Summer of 2006 regarding corrupt Republican members of Congress. Republican congressmen were either soliciting gay sex congressional pages or taking bribes from government contractors. The Democrats’ assertion of a “culture of corruption” was very effective on this point. Republican arguments that Democrat members had ethical problems too were beside the point. The Democrats did not control the Congress – the Republicans did. Congressmen who take bribes in return for pork or who sexually prey on minors are not the image any political party wants to put forward. These ethical stains are even worse for Republicans because they are supposed to be the party of restrained sending and traditional moral values – leave pork and sexual deviancy to the Democrat party.
Republicans need to clean house and get back to their fundamental principles. Alaska is great example of how to do this. Long-time Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski ran for governor in 2002 and won. He then promptly named his daughter Lisa to his old senate seat. Republicans in Alaska were bothered by this and many other questionable lapses in judgment and did the right thing – they refused to renew old Frank’s contract. They voted in the primary for challenger Sarah Palin, who went on to victory in the general election.
The lesson is clear: the Republicans can still appeal to the majority of voters by focusing on fiscal restraint and ethical clarity. If the Republicans who have stayed too long in Washington would only recognize this, the party and the country would be better off for it.
- posted by Thomas @ 9:25 AM 0 comments
Still here
My last post pointed out that I was starting to use Windows Live Writer(beta) for my posts. The I went silent for several weeks. However, this was not due to the software - it seems to be working fine. It just happens to be the very busy time of the year for me professionally and I haven't really had a chance to catch my breath.
I did see a post from the magnificent Mark Steyn regarding the Sea-Tac airport Christmas tree removal episode. I initially had a different take from Mr. Steyn - I blamed the Port of Seattle for being overly wimpy. But Steyn puts the blame right back on the rabbi and his lawyer who initially threatened to sue over the "holiday tree" display.
On reflection, I now think Steyn has it right. The Port of Seattle is overly wimpy, however. They just aren't the primary culprits for this all-too-typical embarrassment from the forces of political correctness.
- posted by Thomas @ 8:42 PM 0 comments
