It was yesterday or the day before that Glenn was discussing something (I haven't seen the whole broadcast yet) about which I had not heard previously: Working from memory here, apparently in September 2010 (i.e. during the height of the election compaign) a hard lefty with a huge trail of his leftness attempted to assassinate a Democratic governor with a knife-- only he mis-identified his target and instead stabbed the Dean of the university that had invited the governor to speak.
You never heard of that? Me neither-- until GB.
IMHO GB is a remarkable man in search of Truth for the good of America. The powers that be fear him-- and they should.
Further evidence that the independent judiciary should remain as such. And, even if Justices Scalia and Thomas "should" have recused themselves, it would hardly have been the most egregious examples of a justice sitting on a decision in a case where he had obvious ties.
I mostly agree with you Guro. I read these articles about 4 hours after talking about the politics of recusal in class. I am often struck at the sheer dumb luck of what I teach and what goes in politics. At any rate, I found them interesting, but mostly due to timing.
SAN DIEGO — Many Americans see Mexico as a dysfunctional family in the neighborhood. With the start of a new year, and a new Congress, President Obama needs to persuade the American people to see Mexico in a different light — as one of the most explosive countries in the region capable of creating a major foreign policy crisis for the U.S. There's no better time to start than with Obama's upcoming State of the Union address.
Thanks to Mexico's narco nightmare, our backyard is on fire. According to figures recently released by Mexican Attorney General Arturo Chavez, the number of deaths in drug-related violence since President Felipe Calderon took office four years ago has surpassed 30,000.
You can chalk up a few of those killings to a notorious drug cartel hit man who has admitted to beheading his victims — even though he isn't old enough to shave. A few weeks
"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in early 2009 found himself dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression without his team of deputies in place. The attempted bombing of an American airliner on Christmas Day 2009 occurred when the Transportation Security Administration was without an administrator."
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that in great part because BO (Geithner) did not nominate anyone?
NOT DENYING THE LARGER ISSUE, but
a) the Dems strated it with their outrageious borking of Reagan's Judge Bork nomination (contrast the Reps subsequent treatment of Ruth Bader Ginsberg; b) BO has nominated some seriously radical people.
I don't think that a "he started it" is all that helpful. That may be the case, and I do feel that Bork deserved a seat on the Bench, but there is more than that. (Here's an opening) As the size of the government increases, which it has consistently across adminisitrations regardless of party, that then increases the number of political appointments that the president, with the Senate, is responsible for filling.
And, whether you like it or not, the Senate has been responsible for preventing people from taking a place on the Supreme Court under necessary circumstances, as well (Fortas and the early Nixon defeats come to mind as examples). I recognize that the Senate should not abdicate its advice and consent role, but I do think that a reform of the process could help the president, regardless of party.
Small tangent: I think that reform should focus primarilt on the executive branch positions. I think the president should have more latitude as on appointments for those who will work for him than for those in a co-equal branch of government with lifetime appointments.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate, in its inaugural session, rejected George Washington's nominee to be a naval officer in Savannah because the two Georgia senators wanted their guy in the job. The way of naming and confirming the nation's top officials hasn't become much smarter in the years since.
It's become a lot more of a problem.
President George W. Bush had only about half his political appointees on the job at the time of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in early 2009 found himself dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression without his team of deputies in place. The attempted bombing of an American airliner on Christmas Day 2009 occurred when the Transportation Security Administration was without an administrator.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican leader Mitch McConnell, in a rare moment of agreement, opened the new Congress this month by endorsing a bipartisan effort to find ways to improve an unwieldy, unproductive system.
It's a challenge because there are so many ways to bog down a nomination.
Reid noted that the slow-moving Senate is now responsible for confirming 1,215 executive branch nominees and the number keeps rising. Brookings Institution senior fellows E.J. Dionne Jr. and William Galston wrote in a study that the number of core policy positions the president must fill has risen from 295 when Ronald Reagan took office to 422 for Barack Obama.
Then there's the onerous screening process, even for lower-level appointees. It's meant that an administration can take months to send a nomination to the Senate for confirmation. Finally, there's the increasingly partisan Senate, where a single lawmaker has the power to bottle up a nomination for months or kill it, sometimes for reasons unrelated to the person in line for the job.
Like their Georgia counterparts of old, Louisiana's two senators stood in the way of nominations last fall to protest the freeze on offshore drilling after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The White House said there would be a one-week delay in making public the president's budget proposal this year, partly because Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., had blocked a vote on Obama's choice to be budget director, Jack Lew, for more than a month.
"Among the democracies, the United States has created — without intending to — what is almost certainly the most ungainly process of filling a government with qualified people," Dionne and Galston wrote.
A Commission on Public Service headed by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker recommended in 2003 turning one-third of all Senate-confirmed political positions into career jobs. The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that promotes service in the federal government, wants the Senate to commit to voting on the president's top 50 national and economic security officials immediately after inauguration and having the top 500-plus appointees in place by the summer recess.
Those studies dealt primarily with executive office nominees and not the equally vexing issue of judges. There are more than 90 judicial vacancies in U.S. district and appellate courts today. Chief Justice John Roberts complained in a year-end report that "each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime from decrying to defending the blocking of judicial nominations, depending on their changing political fortunes."
Reid, D-Nev., and McConnell, R-Ky., suggested that the chairman and the top Republican on the Senate Rules Committee — Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. — lead a working group to study ways to streamline the confirmation process. But progress probably depends on Democratic-led efforts to change Senate rules to make it harder for single senators to hold up legislation and nominees and to reduce the number of filibusters.
At the end of the last session of Congress, 43 nominees, including judges, awaited a vote by the full Senate. That compared with seven at the end of Bush's first two years in office, Reid's office said. Seven have been on the waiting list since 2009.
One result is that many competent people are dissuaded from accepting positions in government, said Max Stier, president of Partnership for Public Service.
"It's the rare individual who is both qualified and willing to run the obstacle course that is required," he said. Stier said there are examples of people, even those without background problems, who had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get through the screening process.
Presidents sometimes turn to recess appointments — putting people in the jobs temporarily when the Senate is not in session. Obama warned Republicans last February that he would resort to this strategy because of holds on nominations he said were "motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a senator's state or simply to frustrate progress. It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people."
Among his recess appointees: Donald Berwick, a Harvard professor now heading the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid; James Cole, the No. 2 official at the Justice Department; Craig Becker, as a member of the National Labor Relations Board.
Obama also avoided a drawn-out fight with Senate Republicans on Elizabeth Warren, his choice to head the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, by naming her to oversee creation of the fledgling agency. That post doesn't require confirmation.
This is from SI, and Phil Taylor is discussing the most recent voting from the Baseball Hall of Fame. I like this entire article, but the qutoes below are what stood out to me the most, and why I posted here:
Q | Doesn't that mean that some players with excellent stats will be kept out?
A | It does, and there's nothing wrong with that. The Gatekeeper believes the Hall of Fame has too many members as it is. In fact, don't get the Gatekeeper started, because he'll talk your ear off about how it's all part of the misguided tendency in sports to relax the standards of excellence. We don't just lock onto outdated milestones, like 500 home runs, we consider anyone who gets in the neighborhood, causing the bar to fall increasingly lower. The problem isn't limited to the Hall. Some people want to double the number of teams in the NCAA men's basketball tournament—or even worse, let everyone in. Loosening the definition of excellence is why we have expanded playoffs and expanded All-Star rosters. Does everything have to be devalued, diluted? The Gatekeeper wants a Hall that's harder to get into than his old high school jersey.
Q | Isn't it unfair to keep deserving players out when they don't meet subjective criteria?
A | Define deserving. The Gatekeeper believes that no one deserves enshrinement in Cooperstown. Induction is a privilege, and it's perfectly reasonable to put emotion into the analysis. Noted baseball thinker Bob Costas has said that the Hall should be limited to the immortals. The Gatekeeper couldn't agree more. How do we get such a Hall? By asking questions that can't be answered with a calculator. Did the player take your breath away? Is he someone to tell your grandchildren about? The Gatekeeper evaluates an artist by how a painting makes him feel, not by the number of brushstrokes per canvas.
What I will write here likely will lead to backlash and consternation from at least some of you.
Williams sets up the article in a sort of straw man. Asking the the question of whether the the father of the Constitution was constitutionally ignorant is silly. And you and I both know it, and so does he. However, as I often say, Madison was not the only person attending the convention, not the only person writing the Constitution, not the only person voting on the document in convention, and most certainly not the only person voting to ratify the document. While I want to give Madison his due, it is important to note that even Madison is not solely, or even mostly (despite Williams' set up) responsible for the Constitution. By the way, Constitution signer Rufus King was in the Senate at the time of Madison's veto. I can't quickly find if he voted to support the bill, but pretending that he did, he would not be constitutionally ignorant.
Also, it is worth noting that the president, by design, is intended to check congressional power, and no where is this seen more than in the veto. (Quick note: I like this. I think the veto is incredibly important and worthwhile.) Just because Madison SAID he vetoed for a particular reason does not mean that this is the real reason. Perhaps the House had managed to upset him, and he vetoed for a personal or politcal reason.
Another important innovation, by President Andrew Jackson, is the veto for strictly political reasons. He, unlike his predecessors, did not feel the need to even try to justify some of his vetoes with a nod to the Constitution. While I realize that Jackson postdates Madison, that cannot be said for the other two presidents that Williams uses to support his argument. Pierce and Cleveland certainly may have felt that a veto was required by constitutional standards, or they could just have used constitutional language to support their politics. I am not sure why either Pierce or Cleveland would be considered any more constitutionally literate than any other particular president. Moreover, it is worth noting that Cleveland hardly met a bill he didn't want to veto, and that over half of Pierce's were overridden: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html.
Finally, the Constitution has changed. Not always in a formal way, and I realize that that it the only way that many of you see it as legitimate. However, states, in many instances, have asked the national government to step in many different instances, many of which involve "charity." Moreover, whether Madison likes it or not, we have an interstate highway system, and railroads, and planes. A far higher percentage of the commerce of today is interstate. If I drink a Coke, based out of Georgia at a McDonald's, based out of Illinois, out of a cup made in , on my way to Maine, it is interstate commerce. If I order a Dog Brothers DVD and it is shipped to my home, it is interstate.
Things are different now, politically, environmentally, etc.
DougMacG: While I appreciate the First Amendment a great deal, I like the idea of the revocation of the tax exempt status. I have no love for Fred Phelps, but I am looking forward to the USSC's opinion on the anti-protest legislation.
(One small quibble: remember that the lack of protection by the First Amendment is FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater. If I am watching a movie, and there is a fire, I for damn sure want to know!)
I have spent my lunch hour discussing this situation with two anti-gunners. It did take them 2 minutes after I walked into the lunch room for the discussion to begin. The backlash is quick.
A statistics of pardons, from Presidents Truman to Obama. Pay special attention to Clinton's last day pardons of Marc Rich, Roger Clinton, and Susan McDougal, accessed from a link on the page. http://www.justice.gov/pardon/recipients.htm
Well, as Speaker she campaigned for several D's in 2008, let them lambast her in 2010, controlled debate on the floor of the House, has major impact over committee assignments, and big time sway over the contributions of the DCCC.
I was at a birhtday party a few weeks ago, and there was discussion of football and football fans. One of the mothers there said to a early teen girl who had mentioned that she liked football, after the mother had said that she doesn't allow her 10ish year old son to watch, something to the effect of: "That's fine for you. I don't have to worry about you growing up and beating your wife."
BD, There was humor intended that did not come through. My timing was lousy because of reading along without having the time to post. I'm sorry for making things worse. I was sincere in saying I appreciated the original post. - Doug
Rereading your post, there is humor and it does come through. My sincere apologies, DMG.
I am stunned at how much my post has generated, for a few reasons. 1, I genuinely found the original aricle posted by GM to be interesting. I then posted another article with a different list of underreported stories. I acknowledged the interest I had in GM's post, and thought there might be other stories of interest. Instead, the interest was that I used TIME MAGAZINE. Holy ape sh!+, Batman.
2, Guro Crafty has asked for a cease and desist. Something about a dead horse... keep kicking it, I'll let you, but I will no longer be brought into the session.
3, DougMacG, while I appreciate your interest (and I mean that sincerely), I'm not sure how my posting a single article from TIME MAGAZINE is like taking acid. As I have said earlier, I post stories because I find them to be interesting. I found the Scalia interview to be interesting, but not because of a browbeating.
4, I attempt to convey a general appreciation for the materials presented /shared in this forum, even when I do not agree with them, but that is not the norm, it would seem. If I don't agree with them, I will certainly acknowledge that, but it doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the fact that the person found the story worth sharing. Let me repeat, I don't always post stories I agree with. I post those I find interesting. If the articles, etc. that I post don't interest you, don't read them. But to have 3 day discussion about TIME MAGAZINE, and not the story is pointless. See 2 above, and the rule about remaining "friends at the end of the day."
BD, I agree that with your mindset you can get useful starting points from JournoLists, indeed very JKD of you to do so but FWIW for myself I think there are other sources more that give more value for my time. For example see CCP's post of the interview with Khosla on January 1 with regard to energy and environmental predictions on the Stock Market thread of our "S,C, &H" forum.
Anyway, I suspect we are near to confusing a horse with a cat-- the cat may have 9 lives, but this horse is probably dead by now from the beating we have given him Last word yours
I think part of the issue is that we come at this from different starting points. Unlike most people, I don't look at news just to be informed. I look at news that can be digested, is informative, has a different tack, and lots of other reasons and purposes. While I certainly read for myself, and increasingly for this forum, I also use the materials professionally. While you (plural) may not find Time, NYT, or other publications to be worth your while, in the end they are not less trustworthy, biased, useful, important, etc. than most other sources.
Media are designed to make money, and increasingly news has become "softer" no matter the medium. My favorite recent example was a (seemingly serious) discussion about the way that President Obama walked his dog. To blame Time for having biases is silly. They attempt to reach their audience. Fox News does the same thing.
This is why I suggest that any news source can provide an intro to a story. NO news outlet can, will, or should provide a comprehensive look at any story. They just can't. There are contradictory book length treatments of much of the world's problems.
I have written a 2-3 page article and used 30 sources. Not all of them were "expert", "right", "mainstream", or some other adjective. However, all of them provided a small lens into the story I was telling.
Simply dismissing a story because Time, or similar, tells it is too simple. A professor of mine once asked the question of a bureaucrat who was creating an advisory board. In general, the board should be comprised of experts who are more right than wrong. If, however, there was one person who was only right 10% of the time, but was right when everyone else was wrong, wouldn't you want him on the board?
It seems to me that we, at least as martial artists, do this same thing (a head nod to the JKD in me). If I go to a BJJ seminar with some hotshot, trim, young,black belt and he teaches me only one thing in 2 days that I feel like I make mine, I don't dismiss his expertise. I am glad I went to the seminar.
After all that, I feel really bad for the horse. Sorry, Mr. Ed.
Yes, any media entity could potentially introduce a story not being covered by other media entities. Given the corruption demonstrated by Time and other MSM entities involved in JournoList, do you trust them?
GM, I don't trust much about any news source, mainstream or otherwise. That is why I suggested that if one source can introduce me to a story, it can provide the impetus to do expanded research on my own. My trust of Time is not higher or lower than New York Times, Fox News, The Economist, Commentary.
20 predictions for the next 25 years From the web to wildlife, the economy to nanotechnology, politics to sport, the Observer's team of experts prophesy how the world will change – for good or bad – in the next quarter of a century
1 Geopolitics: 'Rivals will take greater risks against the US'
No balance of power lasts forever. Just a century ago, London was the centre of the world. Britain bestrode the world like a colossus and only those with strong nerves (or weak judgment) dared challenge the Pax Britannica.
That, of course, is all history, but the Pax Americana that has taken shape since 1989 is just as vulnerable to historical change. In the 1910s, the rising power and wealth of Germany and America splintered the Pax Britannica; in the 2010s, east Asia will do the same to the Pax Americana.
The 21st century will see technological change on an astonishing scale. It may even transform what it means to be human. But in the short term – the next 20 years – the world will still be dominated by the doings of nation-states and the central issue will be the rise of the east.
By 2030, the world will be more complicated, divided between a broad American sphere of influence in Europe, the Middle East and south Asia, and a Chinese sphere in east Asia and Africa. Even within its own sphere, the US will face new challenges from former peripheries. The large, educated populations of Poland, Turkey, Brazil and their neighbours will come into their own and Russia will continue its revival.
Nevertheless, America will probably remain the world's major power. The critics who wrote off the US during the depression of the 1930s and the stagflation of the 1970s lived to see it bounce back to defeat the Nazis in the 1940s and the Soviets in the 1980s. America's financial problems will surely deepen through the 2010s, but the 2020s could bring another Roosevelt or Reagan.
I got your email, and will read it in the AM. I take your point, but I still see merit in the Time piece. It is silly, I think, to assume that a single news outlet will provide the whole story. Bias will persist whether political, geographical, gender etc. What the stories can do is bring them to our attention and then allow us to research the background stories. A little research never hurt anyone!
FIRE is, in my opinion, a very good organization. In my adult life, I have dealt with public and private colleges and universities in several states and in varying capacities. I can tell you first hand that many are becoming more controlling of speech than they were even 10-12 years ago (and even then there were control issues). I can also tell you from first hand experience that several have begun to relinquish some of that control. There has been some backlash from faculty and students that have led to this. Organization such as FIRE are also an intrical part of this movement, again in my opinion.
There are some good media reactions to speech control on campuses as well. Two of my favorite:
1. PCU, a very funny, low budget film from the mid-1990's starring Jeremy Piven, Jon Favreau, and David Spade. See below for a trailer that fails to fully illustrate or even hint at the depth at the attack on PC.
2. "Free Speech for me but not for Thee" by Nat Hentoff (who has written several books on the subject of free speech). This book includes several examples of censorship on campuses.