As I've written about before, Repubilcans are threatening to scrap the Senate filibuster that Democrats have threatened to use against a couple of President Bush's judicial nominations. The poster girl in that battle is a judge named Priscilla Owen.
Interestingly, Owen is the first nominee in the history of the US Senate to be given a hearing, to be rejected by the Judiciary Committee, and then to be renominated to the federal bench by the president.
Ironically, What's more, the opening on the 5th Circuit for which Bush nominated Owen exists only because Republicans for years refused to hold up-or-down votes on three judges nominated separately by President Clinton. Yet now Republicans are demanding an up-or-down vote on Owen.
But what's more curious is her penchant for judicial activism. Odd considering the fact that demonizing so-called judicial activism is at the heart of the conservative strategy to take over the judiciary.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Owen was repeatedly criticized for judicial activism by one of her colleagues. That colleague is now Attorney General of the United States Alberto Gonzales.
Then-Justice Gonzales accused her of trying to implement "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." The charge came during a heated abortion ruling in which Owen tried to make the burden for a minor even more onerous than the Texas Legislature intended.
Time and again while serving with Owen, Gonzales admonished her for straying too far from the clear intent of Texas statutes. Today, however, Gonzales praises Owen as "superbly qualified," while her supporters try valiantly -- and at times imaginatively -- to explain away the damning "judicial activism" description.
Furthermore, in the span of less than two years then-Justice Gonzales singled out Owen's dissents 11 times, accusing her of ignoring the legislative intent of laws and instead struggling to manufacture an outcome.
Owen didn't get high marks from her local bar association either. In a 2003 survey of Texas jurists, 47% labelled her performance 'poor' versus only 43% who labelled it 'outstanding.'
Some observers believe that the current filibuster isn't about Priscilla Owen or the tiny percentage of Bush judicial appointees blocked by Democrats; it's about who will replace US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is expected to retire this year. Bush is believed to be leaning toward Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, the Court's two most hardline conservative justices.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if Democrats filibustered either nomination. Scalia's original appointment ot the Court passed 98-0 and Thomas' faced opposition not based on his shaky qualifications but on allegations of sexual harassment.
Bush replacing Rehnquist with another conservative justice probably won't provoke that much huffing and puffing from Democrats; even though Rehnquist is more a traditional 'small government' conservative than an activist ideologue like Scalia and Thomas.
I think Democrats will save their fury from if one of the six moderate or liberal justices creates a vacancy during the Bush presidency.
Update: Perhaps the White House's affinity for Justice Owen is more simple. Apparently, she was a protege of Karl Rove, the president's political maven.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Monday, May 02, 2005
Unprofessional editorials win national award
I hate to take anything that might be construed as a cheap shot, especially at someone who's been personally civil to me. But I also hate to see avoidable mediocrity rewarded.
The American Society of Newspaper Editors must not have exceptionally high standards for its awards. Recently, ASNE feted Mark Mahoney, editorial writer for the Glens Falls Post-Star for his work.
Mahoney was a finalist in the ASNE’s 2005 annual writing competition, with his editorials being judged among the top two out of entries from 550 newspapers around the country, reports the paper.
Coincidentally (I assume), this was announced in the paper on the same day as The Post-Star's managing editor Ken Tingley was appointed to the board of directors of the very same ASNE.
In the past, I've been a defender of the Glens Falls' daily against some of its harsher critics. I've read a lot of smaller newspapers; every time I travel, I pick up a local daily of wherever I'm going or passing through. I used to think that The Post-Star was an excellent paper for an area this size. It was far better than many other papers that serve larger markets.
Notice how I used the past tense.
The paper has clearly gone downhill in the last few years. From enormous contrived photographs to gaudy graphics to cheesy, tabloid-style headlines to an op-ed page layout that literally changes every day, The Post-Star has gone whole hog down the lowest common denominator route.
The paper's editorials are not immune from this trend. I do give them credit: at least now they're actually giving proper attribution to the many editorials that were written by other papers. Even without the attribution question, The Post-Star's own editorials would be clearly evident by the style. They are curt, irreverent, flip and almost insultingly casual. They are overreliant on cutesy, simplistic metaphors in an attempt to ingratiate with readers and to avoid the possibility that readers might be challenged to think. Metaphors are fine, but should be done sparingly in serious essays.
I may only be an amateur blogger, but I have certain expectations of editorials, which are supposed to be the collective opinion of a paper's editorial board. I expect them to be straightforward. I expect them to factually based. I expect them to show a modicum of restraint, to not throw a journalistic temper tantrum. I expect them to treat readers like intelligent adults. In other words, I expect them to be professional.
I remember one recent editorial that contained the sentence, "In the neighborhood we grew up in..."
Who's 'we'?
The editorial is supposed to reflect the collective opinion of the paper. Did the entire editorial board grow up in the same neighborhood?
This unprofessional casualness is not limited to editorials. A news article that ran yesterday included the following paragraph: So we walk our kids a block and a half to school, even though they’re old enough to look both ways. And we leaf through the binder of local sex offenders in the school office. And we don’t let our kids roam the neighborhood the way we and our friends used to. And, finally, we don’t notice — or maybe we don’t care — when officials report that crime rates have been falling for years and our neighborhoods are quite likely safer than they used to be.
I expect this informality of a opinion column, but not of a purported news article.
Revisiting an earlier topic: the The Post-Star induced teen drinking witch hunt is not going away, counterproductive as it may be. Just yesterday, Tingley wrote yet another patronizing column patting himself on the back for whipping up this hysteria, which he misleadingly calls a 'discussion.' Two days earlier, a self-congratulatory editorial did the exact same thing.
Update: The Post-Star caused an uproar last year by axing liberal columnist Molly Ivins. Managing editor Tingley claimed she was a one-trick pony. I was never a huge fan of Ivins, but I did wonder how she was any more predictable than George Will or Cal Thomas, whose columns the paper kept. My friend Matt wondered why being a one-trick pony was sufficient for Ivins to be axed but when Tingley himself consecrates nearly every opinion column in recent weeks to one topic, he pats himself on the back for starting a "discussion."
The American Society of Newspaper Editors must not have exceptionally high standards for its awards. Recently, ASNE feted Mark Mahoney, editorial writer for the Glens Falls Post-Star for his work.
Mahoney was a finalist in the ASNE’s 2005 annual writing competition, with his editorials being judged among the top two out of entries from 550 newspapers around the country, reports the paper.
Coincidentally (I assume), this was announced in the paper on the same day as The Post-Star's managing editor Ken Tingley was appointed to the board of directors of the very same ASNE.
In the past, I've been a defender of the Glens Falls' daily against some of its harsher critics. I've read a lot of smaller newspapers; every time I travel, I pick up a local daily of wherever I'm going or passing through. I used to think that The Post-Star was an excellent paper for an area this size. It was far better than many other papers that serve larger markets.
Notice how I used the past tense.
The paper has clearly gone downhill in the last few years. From enormous contrived photographs to gaudy graphics to cheesy, tabloid-style headlines to an op-ed page layout that literally changes every day, The Post-Star has gone whole hog down the lowest common denominator route.
The paper's editorials are not immune from this trend. I do give them credit: at least now they're actually giving proper attribution to the many editorials that were written by other papers. Even without the attribution question, The Post-Star's own editorials would be clearly evident by the style. They are curt, irreverent, flip and almost insultingly casual. They are overreliant on cutesy, simplistic metaphors in an attempt to ingratiate with readers and to avoid the possibility that readers might be challenged to think. Metaphors are fine, but should be done sparingly in serious essays.
I may only be an amateur blogger, but I have certain expectations of editorials, which are supposed to be the collective opinion of a paper's editorial board. I expect them to be straightforward. I expect them to factually based. I expect them to show a modicum of restraint, to not throw a journalistic temper tantrum. I expect them to treat readers like intelligent adults. In other words, I expect them to be professional.
I remember one recent editorial that contained the sentence, "In the neighborhood we grew up in..."
Who's 'we'?
The editorial is supposed to reflect the collective opinion of the paper. Did the entire editorial board grow up in the same neighborhood?
This unprofessional casualness is not limited to editorials. A news article that ran yesterday included the following paragraph: So we walk our kids a block and a half to school, even though they’re old enough to look both ways. And we leaf through the binder of local sex offenders in the school office. And we don’t let our kids roam the neighborhood the way we and our friends used to. And, finally, we don’t notice — or maybe we don’t care — when officials report that crime rates have been falling for years and our neighborhoods are quite likely safer than they used to be.
I expect this informality of a opinion column, but not of a purported news article.
Revisiting an earlier topic: the The Post-Star induced teen drinking witch hunt is not going away, counterproductive as it may be. Just yesterday, Tingley wrote yet another patronizing column patting himself on the back for whipping up this hysteria, which he misleadingly calls a 'discussion.' Two days earlier, a self-congratulatory editorial did the exact same thing.
Update: The Post-Star caused an uproar last year by axing liberal columnist Molly Ivins. Managing editor Tingley claimed she was a one-trick pony. I was never a huge fan of Ivins, but I did wonder how she was any more predictable than George Will or Cal Thomas, whose columns the paper kept. My friend Matt wondered why being a one-trick pony was sufficient for Ivins to be axed but when Tingley himself consecrates nearly every opinion column in recent weeks to one topic, he pats himself on the back for starting a "discussion."
Sunday, May 01, 2005
At least they don't have socialized medicine!
As an ethical question, I was intrigued to read about this case in Peru about a young woman who is selling her virginity to pay her sick mother's medical bills. Her newspaper advertisement asked for the equivalent of about US$9500.
The advert has provoked a furor in the macho, heavily Catholic country. "This shows that there is a crisis of values in this country. She should get a job and not sell her body!" said one female parliamentarian who would do better to help address the country's economic crisis and cripplingly high unemployment.
Tellingly, the young woman told a Spanish paper, "I got thousands of emails, most using words I would not dare repeat. But nobody offered a solution for my family."
The advert has provoked a furor in the macho, heavily Catholic country. "This shows that there is a crisis of values in this country. She should get a job and not sell her body!" said one female parliamentarian who would do better to help address the country's economic crisis and cripplingly high unemployment.
Tellingly, the young woman told a Spanish paper, "I got thousands of emails, most using words I would not dare repeat. But nobody offered a solution for my family."
Saturday, April 30, 2005
I wonder why...
I wonder why so much of the US right wing screams bloody murder about the United Nations' supposed invasion of American sovereignty, The UN is little more than a toothless tiger (except when Washington is able to bully it to the US administration's own ends). At the end of the day, the US follows the UN when it wants to and ignores it when it wants to. The UN can't do anything about it.
The World Trade Organization, on the other the hand, truly is an infringement of national sovereignty. If the US ignores WTO rulings, it is punished with trade sanctions. Yet the WTO barely gets mentioned by the right.
The WTO is even more secretive and unaccountable than the UN but has actual power.
I wonder why the right choose easy, powerless targets rather than real ones.
Or is it more about cheap, diversionary symbolism than substance?
The World Trade Organization, on the other the hand, truly is an infringement of national sovereignty. If the US ignores WTO rulings, it is punished with trade sanctions. Yet the WTO barely gets mentioned by the right.
The WTO is even more secretive and unaccountable than the UN but has actual power.
I wonder why the right choose easy, powerless targets rather than real ones.
Or is it more about cheap, diversionary symbolism than substance?
Friday, April 29, 2005
...but I know it when I see it
So you thought the FCC's crackdown on the deliciously vague violation of 'indecency' on broadcast airwaves was over the top?
It could get worse.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chair of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, wants to criminalize so-called indecency.
Instead of being in violation of federal regulations and subject to a fine, Sensenbrenner would turn indecency (however that's defined... if it's defined) into a criminal offense and subject possibly to jail time.
The other change is that the target of big government's wrath would not be radio and TV stations but the actual people who perpetrated the 'indecency.' Thus, stations would no longer be liable for what their invited guests do or say.
Sensenbrenner encouraged cable operators to do more to promote ways that parents can block unsavory programming they do not want and said that "The first thing we need is education has got to get better."
He added, "You can't expect the government to replace parental responsibility," which is exactly what his proposal purports to do.
It is not yet clear if Sensenbrenner wants criminal penalties to include jail time; it's still vague at this point.
In fact, the 'decency' itself, as a legal concept, is very vague. Too vague. I'd love to see how the criminalization of 'broadcast indecency' would stand up in court.
Or perhaps it's being left vague for quite intentional reasons. It's worth noting that Sensenbrenner made these intimidating comments before the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual convention.
The main problem with this atrocity is that it gives far too much authority to limit freedom of speech to those in power.
When I was in Guinea, a man was thrown in jail for naming his dog after the head of state. In Zimbabwe (and other countries), it's a crime to insult the president. Imagine how many anti-Clinton folks could've been imprisoned in the 90s for that. An opposition activist was thrown in jail in Zimbabwe late last year for calling the country's strongman Robert Mugabe 'thick headed' and another met the same fate for correctly referring to Mugabe as a 'dictator.'
How do you define obscenity? Or do you define it?
If you define it, then freedom of speech is dependent on whoever's in power (and is in a position to define the crime). Who's to say it won't be defined with a Mugabe-esque interpretation?
If you don't define it, then it's horrifically vague and subject to the whim of whoever's in power (and in a position to prosecute whoever they feel like)
Today, 'obscenity' could be "Bush is Hitler."
Tommorrow, 'obscenity' could just as easily become "illegal immigration is a bad idea."
It's truly a Pandora's Box.
Some will dismiss this is the typical whinings of liberals and ACLU-types. The fact of the matter is that the 'politically incorrect' have as much to worry about this bill as anyone else. What happens if liberals get in power and decide to say that 'political incorrectness' constitutes obscenity?
It is interesting that conservatives usually reject the concept that the airwaves are public property but accept this concept for the purpose of regulating something they don't like. They'd never try to get away with this for newspapers.
I think Howard Stern is a horse's rear end. My brother loves him. My solution and the solution of most 'freedom loving people' [(c) 2002 G.W.Bush] is to ignore something that we know we dislike. Sensenbrenner's solution is to impose his dislike on every American.
Do you want politicians to tell you what you can and can't watch?
Update: Even in the Guinea, the only West African state to not allow private TV or radio stations, they are going in the opposite direction as Sensenbrenner's criminalization efforts. The country's information minister is reportedly calling for the decriminalization of press 'offenses' for the print media.
It could get worse.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chair of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, wants to criminalize so-called indecency.
Instead of being in violation of federal regulations and subject to a fine, Sensenbrenner would turn indecency (however that's defined... if it's defined) into a criminal offense and subject possibly to jail time.
The other change is that the target of big government's wrath would not be radio and TV stations but the actual people who perpetrated the 'indecency.' Thus, stations would no longer be liable for what their invited guests do or say.
Sensenbrenner encouraged cable operators to do more to promote ways that parents can block unsavory programming they do not want and said that "The first thing we need is education has got to get better."
He added, "You can't expect the government to replace parental responsibility," which is exactly what his proposal purports to do.
It is not yet clear if Sensenbrenner wants criminal penalties to include jail time; it's still vague at this point.
In fact, the 'decency' itself, as a legal concept, is very vague. Too vague. I'd love to see how the criminalization of 'broadcast indecency' would stand up in court.
Or perhaps it's being left vague for quite intentional reasons. It's worth noting that Sensenbrenner made these intimidating comments before the National Cable & Telecommunications Association annual convention.
The main problem with this atrocity is that it gives far too much authority to limit freedom of speech to those in power.
When I was in Guinea, a man was thrown in jail for naming his dog after the head of state. In Zimbabwe (and other countries), it's a crime to insult the president. Imagine how many anti-Clinton folks could've been imprisoned in the 90s for that. An opposition activist was thrown in jail in Zimbabwe late last year for calling the country's strongman Robert Mugabe 'thick headed' and another met the same fate for correctly referring to Mugabe as a 'dictator.'
How do you define obscenity? Or do you define it?
If you define it, then freedom of speech is dependent on whoever's in power (and is in a position to define the crime). Who's to say it won't be defined with a Mugabe-esque interpretation?
If you don't define it, then it's horrifically vague and subject to the whim of whoever's in power (and in a position to prosecute whoever they feel like)
Today, 'obscenity' could be "Bush is Hitler."
Tommorrow, 'obscenity' could just as easily become "illegal immigration is a bad idea."
It's truly a Pandora's Box.
Some will dismiss this is the typical whinings of liberals and ACLU-types. The fact of the matter is that the 'politically incorrect' have as much to worry about this bill as anyone else. What happens if liberals get in power and decide to say that 'political incorrectness' constitutes obscenity?
It is interesting that conservatives usually reject the concept that the airwaves are public property but accept this concept for the purpose of regulating something they don't like. They'd never try to get away with this for newspapers.
I think Howard Stern is a horse's rear end. My brother loves him. My solution and the solution of most 'freedom loving people' [(c) 2002 G.W.Bush] is to ignore something that we know we dislike. Sensenbrenner's solution is to impose his dislike on every American.
Do you want politicians to tell you what you can and can't watch?
Update: Even in the Guinea, the only West African state to not allow private TV or radio stations, they are going in the opposite direction as Sensenbrenner's criminalization efforts. The country's information minister is reportedly calling for the decriminalization of press 'offenses' for the print media.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
'Civility in political life' and its manifestations
At the now infamous 'Justice Sunday' [sic] sponsored by right wing religious groups, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, "Emotions are running high on both sides, and it reveals once again our country's desperate need for more civility in political life."
Ironic since Frist's comments were at an event whose subtitle was the loaded 'Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith.'
As noble as Sen. Frist's words may have been, few others at the event seemed to be paying attention.
Charles W. Colson, head of Prison Fellowship Ministries, said that Democrats' actions in blocking a handful of the most extreme judicial nominations (versus the nearly 200 Bush judicial nominees approved) "are destroying the balance of power, which was a vital Christian contribution to the founding of our nation."
James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, said that the Supreme Court's majority "was unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious and determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they're out of control" and that most of the justice do not care "about the sanctity of life." He referred to Democrats' blocking of a less than a dozen judges as "judicial tyranny to people of faith."
Is this the moderation Frist was talking about?
Ironic since Frist's comments were at an event whose subtitle was the loaded 'Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith.'
As noble as Sen. Frist's words may have been, few others at the event seemed to be paying attention.
Charles W. Colson, head of Prison Fellowship Ministries, said that Democrats' actions in blocking a handful of the most extreme judicial nominations (versus the nearly 200 Bush judicial nominees approved) "are destroying the balance of power, which was a vital Christian contribution to the founding of our nation."
James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, said that the Supreme Court's majority "was unelected and unaccountable and arrogant and imperious and determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values, and they're out of control" and that most of the justice do not care "about the sanctity of life." He referred to Democrats' blocking of a less than a dozen judges as "judicial tyranny to people of faith."
Is this the moderation Frist was talking about?
Chinese government denounces revisionism
There's something more than a little ironic about the latest row between China and Japan. China is making a big deal about the fact that some Japanese school textbooks seem to downplay Japan's atrocities during World War II.
This is hardly surprising. I think most countries' textbooks tend to downplay the more unsavory parts of national history. I know American school textbooks make a big deal about 'Manifest destiny' but not quite as much about its consequence: the genocide of the Native Americans. When I was in Guinea, their civics texts hardly mentioned the horrific repression of the First Republic (1958-84) except in the most vague terms. I wonder how much detail British and French textbooks go into the atrocities committed during colonialism in Africa or the ruthless Dutch campaign in Indonesia.
Even though the Japanese prime minister took the unprecedented step of apologizing for Japan's wartime crimes, China wasn't satisified. China wasn't mentioned specifically in the apology.
Of course, the textbook issue is merely a ruse for the Chinese to pick a fight. It makes people forget that Japan is a fairly prosperous democracy and China is an authoritarian state.
While there's more than a grain of truth in the complaint that Japan has barely done anything to face up to its atrocious crimes during World War II and before, I wonder how people in Tibet feel about China's denunciations of Japanese imperialism.
And it's quite amusing to hear the Chinese autocracy, of all countries, complaining about censorship and glossing over history. I wonder how many Chinese textbooks mention the Tianamen Square uprising and massacre. I wonder how many mention tens of millions who starved during Mao's Great Leap Forward [sic].
Then again, the row with the Japanese is surely one of the few news stories NOT censored by the regime.
This is hardly surprising. I think most countries' textbooks tend to downplay the more unsavory parts of national history. I know American school textbooks make a big deal about 'Manifest destiny' but not quite as much about its consequence: the genocide of the Native Americans. When I was in Guinea, their civics texts hardly mentioned the horrific repression of the First Republic (1958-84) except in the most vague terms. I wonder how much detail British and French textbooks go into the atrocities committed during colonialism in Africa or the ruthless Dutch campaign in Indonesia.
Even though the Japanese prime minister took the unprecedented step of apologizing for Japan's wartime crimes, China wasn't satisified. China wasn't mentioned specifically in the apology.
Of course, the textbook issue is merely a ruse for the Chinese to pick a fight. It makes people forget that Japan is a fairly prosperous democracy and China is an authoritarian state.
While there's more than a grain of truth in the complaint that Japan has barely done anything to face up to its atrocious crimes during World War II and before, I wonder how people in Tibet feel about China's denunciations of Japanese imperialism.
And it's quite amusing to hear the Chinese autocracy, of all countries, complaining about censorship and glossing over history. I wonder how many Chinese textbooks mention the Tianamen Square uprising and massacre. I wonder how many mention tens of millions who starved during Mao's Great Leap Forward [sic].
Then again, the row with the Japanese is surely one of the few news stories NOT censored by the regime.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Bettman and Goodenow should resign
Bobo's blog made a long overdue suggestion to address the league-imposed lockout that cost the National Hockey League its season.
It is time for [NHL Commissioner Gary] Bettman and [NHL Players' Association chief Bob] Goodenow to meet continously until they have reached a decision or resign and make room for new negotiators.
I say skip the interim. They've already met many times. While substantive differences aren't nil, it seems clear to most observers that the personal animosity between Bettman and Goodenow is a major obstacle standing in the way of a settlement.
The NHL became the first league in North American sports' history to cancel its entire season due to a labor dispute. Bettman and Goodenow are co-captains of this Titanic. They should both resign now before the league disappears. Ice hockey is too great a sport. Its fans deserve better.
The league is already talking about using scabs (replacement players) for next season. I trust this is just a bargaining ploy by owners. Even the NHL product has declined in quality over the last ten years because of the teams' emphasis on slow, hyperdefensive play and the league's refusal to crack down on hooking, holding and interference. But a second-rate product would be even more resoundingly rejected by fans. This wouldn't halt the league's fading into oblivion. It would accelerate it.
Update: The Players' Association is seeking trade union status in Quebec and British Columbia, reports the Canada's CBC. In those provinces, if unionized workers go on strike, replacement workers can not be engaged. This would prevent the Vancouver Canucks and Montreal Canadiens from using scab players, as the league has hinted it might do next season if the league-imposed lockout is not resolved.
It is time for [NHL Commissioner Gary] Bettman and [NHL Players' Association chief Bob] Goodenow to meet continously until they have reached a decision or resign and make room for new negotiators.
I say skip the interim. They've already met many times. While substantive differences aren't nil, it seems clear to most observers that the personal animosity between Bettman and Goodenow is a major obstacle standing in the way of a settlement.
The NHL became the first league in North American sports' history to cancel its entire season due to a labor dispute. Bettman and Goodenow are co-captains of this Titanic. They should both resign now before the league disappears. Ice hockey is too great a sport. Its fans deserve better.
The league is already talking about using scabs (replacement players) for next season. I trust this is just a bargaining ploy by owners. Even the NHL product has declined in quality over the last ten years because of the teams' emphasis on slow, hyperdefensive play and the league's refusal to crack down on hooking, holding and interference. But a second-rate product would be even more resoundingly rejected by fans. This wouldn't halt the league's fading into oblivion. It would accelerate it.
Update: The Players' Association is seeking trade union status in Quebec and British Columbia, reports the Canada's CBC. In those provinces, if unionized workers go on strike, replacement workers can not be engaged. This would prevent the Vancouver Canucks and Montreal Canadiens from using scab players, as the league has hinted it might do next season if the league-imposed lockout is not resolved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)