Saving Christmas By Killing Common Sense

<> The year might be winding down for most of us, but those who are in the business of producing jeremiads are just entering the peak of their season. As if high heating costs and depressed folks offing themselves weren’t reasons enough to make us dread December, the ever-ready punditry tells us we have a war to look forward to; a war on Christmas. Given the importance December 25 holds, both as a religious holiday and a cultural and commercial phenomenon, its demise would spell trouble for many of us. Fortunately, there is one small thing that stands in the way of this impending doom – the fact that the so-called “war” on Christmas doesn’t exist.
Before we can delve into this illusory war’s many fictions, we would do well to learn who authored them. Not surprisingly (for those of us who have been paying attention), the evidence points to the FOX 'News' (and I use that term loosely) crowd. Fox anchor John Gibson is peddling a book entitled “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.” His general sentiment is echoed by fellow Fox personality, Bill O’Reilly, who laid blame with “far left. It's the loony left, the Kool-Aid secular progressive ACLU America-haters. That's who's doing this.”
Outside the FOX realm, Jerry Falwell’s ironically-named Liberty Counsel has devised a Christmas Campaign, whose sole purpose, as far as I can tell, is meddling in the affairs of local governments and making sure they celebrate the holidays the “right” way. Lastly, fulfilling the role of the whiner….er…..aggrieved victim is none other than Patrick J. Buchanan, who claimed the use of “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” constituted a “hate crime against Christianity.”
Given the strength of these reactions, you would think that Christmas was on the verge of being outlawed under the penalty of death. Instead, something a tad less dramatic is taking place: a few cities (Boston and New York among them) are referring to their Christmas trees as holiday trees and a few department stores are sticking with “Happy Holidays.” Gasp! The horror of it all.
It should be abundantly clear to all that these actions don’t constitute a war. First, there is no evidence that the governments of Boston and New York City acted in league with one another. Second, it is the prerogative of city governments to determine city policy. It isn’t Jerry Falwell’s business what Boston chooses to call its tree any more than it’s my business to say that a mayor somewhere in rural Texas can’t issue a proclamation naming a day as “Jesus Day” (actually George W. Bush did this when he was governor). And third, did anyone explain to O’Reilly and Gibson that NYC and Boston represent the exception rather than the rule?
It also bears mentioning that the blame is being placed on the wrong people here. As Michelle Goldberg noted in a recent Slate piece, the ACLU stepped in in 2003 to defend the right of teenagers in Massachusetts to pass out candy canes with religious messages. Pretty suspicious behavior for a group that’s “out to get” Christmas. Also, the idea that “Christian” and “liberal” are mutually exclusive is absurd, if not downright insulting. As John Gibson conceded in a National Review interview, even the Kennedys “celebrate Christmas with vigor.” Add to that Jimmy Carter, Martin Sheen, and the God-invoking Barack Obama and I begin to wonder who, exactly, these Christmas-hating liberals Gibson alludes to, can possibly be.
So, when all is said and done, do these folks have any real grievances? That depends entirely on the answer to one very simple question: are individuals prevented from freely celebrating Christmas in public? If that is the case, then yes, there are complaints to be had, and I will join in among the complainers for the sake of the First Amendment.
But before we jump to that conclusion, let’s first establish what ‘freely celebrating’ really means. In order for anyone to freely celebrate anything, they must do it with their own means and of their own volition. Any kind of taxpayer-funded holiday celebration does not meet these criteria. You have no right to take my money and use it for a religious display. Christmas trees, however, are not religious; the Supreme Court ruled that they are secular symbols. As such (and especially in light of their possible pagan origins), throwing a hissy fit when they are called ‘holiday trees’ is ludicrous (nativity scenes, on the other hand, are another matter entirely).
‘Freely celebrating’ Christmas also does not extend itself to telling others how they should or should not celebrate the holidays. This is especially true of private enterprise, such as Macy’s. From a business perspective, using “Happy Holidays” in lieu of “Merry Christmas” makes sense: you draw in those who celebrate Kwanzaa, Hanukah, Festivus and all other occasions while sacrificing only the tiny amount that would be offended by such a switch. But even if it was a poor business strategy, it would still be Macy’s prerogative – you can’t tell them what to say in their stores any more than I can tell you what to say in your home.
That brings me to my final point: the distinction between private and public. Suppose, for a minute, that every city decides to go the way of New York or Boston and every department store went the way of Macy’s. Christmas would surely be dead, right? Think again. Every Christian would still have the unfettered right to celebrate Christmas in his or her own fashion in the comfort of his or her own home, at his or her own church and with his or her own family. In fact, even if you were to take down every public Christmas display in the United States (a measure which I would find distasteful, to say the least), the only ones not celebrating Christmas would be the homeless and those who wouldn’t celebrate it anyway.
When all is said and done, the “war on Christmas” really boils down to a war on secularism by an increasingly insecure group of gadflies and zealots. December offers us many possible perils, including snow, ice and about half a dozen actors uttering “bah, humbug” in lousy made-for-TV movies. But a “war on Christmas” isn’t on anyone’s wish list and those who are dreaming it up have been naughty rather than nice.

The French Connection and America’s Cultural Amnesia

The French Connection and America’s Cultural Amnesia

I’m the first to admit it: its fun to mock the French. Whether you are taking shots at France’s perceived arrogance or its pitiful record in recent wars, Le Republique is an easy target. Even the French language, with its abundance of silent syllables, is open to ridicule. But while I am eager to tease the French, I am also the first to admit I do it largely in jest. After all, I don’t know any French people. I’ve never been to the country, let alone lived there. Who am I to pronounce judgment with any degree of accuracy?

While my France-bashing is confined largely to crude jokes and occasional digs at policy blunders, the attitude toward France harbored by many in the American punditry borders on irrational, pathological hatred. Talking heads constantly vilify French leaders and call for boycotts of all goods produced by “the cheese-eating surrender monkeys” and then have the audacity to complain of rising anti-American sentiment in France (as if they should somehow be expected to take everything we dish out with a smile).

This inane petulance reached a boiling point with the recent civil unrest across France’s urban centers. As cars burned and chaos ensued, America’s opinion-mongers reveled in glee. Suzanne Fields, true to form, found a way to blame the riots on “multiculturalism,” claiming that France’s tolerance of radical Islam was to blame.

As per usual, Fields is grossly misinformed. France has long been a predominantly secular nation, with a legal tradition that excludes religion from state affairs. It is this secular posture that drew the country criticism from Pope Benedict and culminated in the controversial head scarf ban. That France would embrace “radical Islam” is an inherent contradiction.

Ironically, Fields also had the nerve to complain of French anti-Americanism in the same column in which she touted a book called “Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese." I suppose the moral here is that bigotry is A-OK for everyone except for America.

Appearing right beside Fields on the op-ed section of my newspaper that day was Cal Thomas, who took Fields’ erroneous “tolerance” argument one step further and basically implied that France coddled terrorists. But if the underlying message is that this was what France deserved for not participating in the invasion of Iraq, then how does he explain the vicious terrorist attacks in the UK and Spain (which, at the time, was a coalition partner)?

Furthermore, Thomas warns that “France will be America’s future” unless we start converting Muslims to Christianity, ASAP. If and when we reach that point, there would be no need to fight the terrorists. They, in causing us to destroy our fundamental religious freedoms, would have already won.

Even the paper’s own editorial had a hand in the blame game, placing fault for the riots on France’s pitiful public housing and failed welfare programs.

In all three instances, the rioting was used as an excuse to justify whatever solutions were already desired. There was no attempt made on the part of the authors to show causation. Instead, they merely offered a few shallow criticisms and hoped people would see things their way. To draw a parallel, I can blame the destruction on French cars being too easily combustible, point to the fact that many French cars did in fact explode and have as much of a substantive argument as some of these folks.

Or, I can be honest and definitively say that I do not know what caused the rioting. My guess would be that it stemmed from a variety of factors, some of them social, many of them economic. As per the solution, I can only offer this: let the French figure it out. The last thing they need is an obtrusive American “diagnosis” of all that ills them. After all, it unnerves us in the states to no end when people suggest we emulate Europe. Why, therefore, should we reciprocate?

The final point I’d like to make pertains not to the quality of the negative assessments of the French situation, but to why these assessments were made to begin with. Schadenfreude (laughing at others’ pain) was out in full effect on our side of the Atlantic recently, but it was notably absent in France when we were in crisis mode.

Just a few short months ago, Hurricane Katrina hit and unleashed a torrent of destruction. Did the French mock our response efforts and lack of preparedness? If they did, I didn’t notice. I was too busy paying attention to their relief effort, which included 600 tents, 1000 beds, three pumps, three water purification stations, rescue personnel, misc. supplies and a letter of condolence from Jacques Chirac. It is also worth noting that this generous offer was initially declined by the U.S. government.

But why stop there. Let’s go back to 9/11/2001. Did France tell us – as some on the American religious right did – that we got what we deserved? Or was the leading French newspaper, Le Monde, too busy issuing sympathetic front-page headlines that proclaimed “Today, We Are All Americans”? It would appear that the hot-headed, Francophobic American punditry experienced a case of highly selective cultural amnesia when it came time to write about the rioting.

Even given this lengthy diatribe, it’s unlikely that I’ll stop making French jokes. Nor will I suddenly pretend to understand or like those folks across the pond. But I will leave them be. And that is all I ask of anyone reading this.

2004 Revisited

It’s been just over a year since America returned George W. Bush to the White House. During that time, there have been many developments in both the nation and the world beyond that have been less than fortuitous. Yet to look at the president’s low approval ratings and assume – as some of Bush’s opponents have – that Americans chose wrongly in 2004 is to ignore the burdensome task that is governance. The challenge, therefore, is not to look at how Bush handled/mishandled the decisions put before him, but rather if his opponent, John Kerry, would have achieved a better end. The results of this hypothetical may surprise you.

The War in Iraq

The good news here is that there would be far fewer American casualties under a Kerry presidency. Unfortunately, that’s where the good news ends. After initially advocating more troops, Kerry is now pushing for gradual withdrawal. Assuming this is the course he would take if president (a likelihood given the increasing unpopularity of the war), we can expect a withdrawal from Iraq, and, subsequently, a collapse of the frail governing coalition and a further descent into sectarian and terror-fueled violence. Remember: the al-Qaeda types aren’t just fighting to get us out of the country; they are actively working to destroy the government we help build. Thus, the notion that the violence would experience a downturn upon our departure is ludicrous.

Even if Kerry pegs withdrawal to tangible achievements (i.e.: elections), the Iraqi forces are incapable of defending on their own for the foreseeable future, well beyond the point where political goals are achieved. Echoing Richard Nixon’s botched Vietnamization plan, we would experience a failure that would linger for years to come.

Edge: Bush

The Economy

Unlike his veto-shy predecessor, Kerry would probably go after the deficit with vigor. Unfortunately, his remedy for Congress’ big-spending ways is likely to be no more than a band-aid, and one that is destined to fall off a few years down the lines.

Assume here that Kerry sticks to his plan, which calls for keeping the Bush cuts for the middle class and imposing a tax increase on those earning more than $200,000. This will raise revenue, certainly, but it will also push the wealthy into looking for more tax shelters, some of which are bound to be extra-legal.

Furthermore, Kerry’s record in Congress is one of spending. Thus, instead of attacking the root of deficits, he would probably enable them to continue to grow. Then again, he would probably veto the pork-laden energy bill, if for no other reason than to stick it to ‘big oil.’

In switching from Bush to Kerry, America would basically exchange immediate economic woes for bigger problems further down the line.

Edge: Neither.

Hurricane Katrina Response

This may be the one area where Kerry has an absolute advantage. As could be expected with an incoming Democratic administration, Kerry would have cleaned house, which meant getting rid of the incompetent Michael Brown before he had the opportunity to do any damage. Also, given that he is a more conciliatory figure than the man he replaces, he probably would have achieved better cooperation and communication with the pols in Louisiana. Lastly, if for no other reason than he’s a glory hog, you would not expect to find Kerry on vacation when the worst of it went down.

Edge: Kerry

CAFTA and Summit of the Americas

Kerry likes to compare himself to Bill Clinton on many economic issues, but whereas Clinton actually understood and believed in free trade, Kerry is wishy-washy at best. Add to this the fact that his running mate, John Edwards, is a rabid protectionist and there is no way that CAFTA would have seen the light of day.

It is also likely that Kerry would have fared very poorly at the Summit of the Americas in Argentina. Bush, characteristically stubborn (or resolute, depending on how you choose to spin it), was able to drown out the attempts at intimidation posed by Hugo Chavez and other rabble-rousers and find willing trading partners. Kerry, given his conciliatory temperament, probably would have alienated potential allies in order to appease those who would never be considered friends regardless.

Edge: Bush

The Plame Affair

Given that the wheels were in motion in 2003 and Patrick Fitzgerald is as independent as they get, it really wouldn’t have made a difference who is in office.

Edge: Neither.

Waning Confidence in Government

Kerry gets the edge here, for reasons that have very little to do with him. Most reelected presidents encounter friction during their second terms (see Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, etc.). With an incoming president, however, it’s highly unlikely the turning point/downfall would occur within the first year. At any rate, given that Scooter Libby wouldn’t be affiliated with the White House under Kerry, his indictment wouldn’t stain Washington nearly as badly.

Edge: Kerry, but again, by reason of process rather than person

Supreme Court Nominations

As a legislator, Kerry didn’t sponsor a lot of huge, sweeping bills, which leads me to indicate he’s not interested in pushing for huge, sweeping changes, especially when they aren’t politically expedient. Thus, it’s hard to see him appointing a fire-breathing 9^th Circuit radical to the Supreme Court. I have no insight into who he would nominate, but it’s safe to assume that they would be well-qualified and reliable defenders of the status quo (which, given the court’s recent run of controversial decisions, isn’t particularly a good thing).

While it’s a pretty safe bet Kerry would never pick anyone as intelligent and challenging as John Roberts or Samuel Alito, he would also avoid making the catastrophic political blunder that was the Harriet Miers nomination.

Edge: Even for now, but it goes to Bush if Alito gets confirmed without a circus

Oil prices

Given that even ‘conservatives’ were scolding the oil companies for post-Katrina inflation (aka ‘price gouging), it’s difficult to imagine a Democratic president not going one step further and trying for price controls. And we all know how that turned out in the 70s.

Edge: Bush

A year ago, I made a point of criticizing the ‘anyone but Bush’ philosophy. Though it got virtually no media attention, a number of ardent conservatives – including former New Hampshire Sen. Robert Smith and the late supply side economics guru/Wall Street Journal pundit Jude Wanniski – threw their support behind Kerry to get Bush out of office. Given what Kerry might have done in the above situations, it’s difficult to imagine them being happy now.

My conclusion? America made the right choice between the two, by a narrow margin. This speaks more about the woes of our political system than it does of either candidate, as there are a number of non-candidates from both parties (John McCain and Bill Richardson come to mind) that probably would have done better than either. But hindsight is always clearer and we have to deal with what is in front of us. I can only hope that in future elections, we will have better choices and make better use of them.

Yes, Logo: The Upside of Globalization

Yes Logo: The Upside of Globalization
Globalization is the odd duck of American politics. Over the years, opposition to it has drawn the likes of Pat Buchanan and Noam Chomsky into an improbable consensus, while support for it has fallen to George Bush (both of them) and Bill Clinton alike. All this has happened, despite many people being unable to pin down what, exactly, globalization is. Is it corporations taking over the planet? Is it freeing people from the tyranny of rampant nationalism? Is it being able to watch a French movie on a Japanese DVD player in America? Perhaps it’s all of the above, in divided quantities. However, the one thing globalization is not is a force that can, and should, be stopped.
There are various economic arguments in favor and in opposition to the practices associated with globalization. Trade, immigration and labor flow are weighty issues that are given their due and proper by financial gurus with lengthy résumés. But globalization also entails a cultural aspect that, for many, is probably easier to grasp.
Opponents to cultural globalization – that is, the unimpeded flow of media, language, entertainment and other commercial goods – tend to come in two flavors. Social conservatives tend to object to this practice on the grounds that it will erode the American cultural identity and produce a sort of destruction from within. Multicultural naysayers, such as Suzanne Fields, have long forecasted the demolition of cherished values and a freefall into relativism.
This view, however, neglects the historical truth that ours is, by its very nature, an assimilationist culture. We are not drawn wholecloth from the remnants of any one group of people, but instead we absorb the best of what many groups have to offer. For all the endless carping about “Western values,” it’s worth noting that we use Arabic numerals and that Chinese restaurants have become mainstays even in small towns in the reddest of states.
Rather than keep up the pretense of innate superiority and try to protect ourselves from some unlikely hostile takeover, we should recognize that other cultures have things of value to offer us. Besides, cultural protectionism will only result in sharper national divides and increased animosity along national lines. If every nation is concerned with preserving its own national identity, than little constructive cooperation can be achieved.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, social progressives tend to concern themselves with the export end of things. They see globalization as a form of global imperialism, with Western cultural uprooting, destroying and replacing homespun institutions. In the estimation of people like Benjamin Barber, the result of successful globalization will be a homogenous, flavorless McWorld.
Personally, I find this view to be subtly racist, inasmuch as it does not acknowledge the Third World’s capacity for ingenuity. Often, the result is not the Western product replacing the native culture, but the two being blended together to form a new product entirely.
The economist Tyler Cowen once gave a lecture in which he demonstrated this principle by tracing the history of Jamaican music. Starting in the 1950s or so, Jamaicans began receiving radio signals that introduced them to American doo-wop. They then took this newfound curiosity and married it to their native music (itself derived from Africa), thus creating ska in the process. Ska eventually evolved into reggae, the success of which allowed Jamaica to have its own music industry. Reggae was then imported to the U.S., where it became an influence for early rap….and so the cycle goes.
Under this scenario, the implementation of American culture was the motivation for positive cultural change. Had Jamaicans found American music not to their liking, they wouldn’t have listened to it. And had the leftist “cultural imperialism” argument been applied here, nobody today would be listening to Bob Marley.
Ironically, the opposition to globalization has achieved a sort of unintended cultural exchange of its own. Not only have Buchanan, Chomsky and Ralph Nader reached agreement on this issue, but economic nationalists of many backgrounds and denominations have, under the auspices of anti-globalization, formed a quasi-socialist globalized movement of their own. Plus, the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle were enough to draw ex-Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic out of retirement, where he teamed with Jello Biafra and Soundgarden’s Kim Thayil to form the one-off No WTO Combo.
So, in the name of Novoselic, subtitled Jet Li films and being able to eat Big Macs in Kazakhstan, I say to Naomi Klein and other cultural pessimists: yes, logo.

Know Your Job and Do It Right

This was from last month. I'm just a little late in posting it:

The Washington Nationals recently suspended John Moeller, their chapel leader. The suspension came not because prayer was ineffective at lifting the Nationals out of their second-half rut or because Moeller called for the assassination of a South American leader. It came because Moeller did his job.

According to the Washington Post, outfielder Ryan Church approached Moeller and asked if Jews were doomed because they did not accept Jesus. Moeller nodded in reply and thus the fracas began. Jewish groups jumped on the Nationals front office, accusing them of “bringing hate into the locker room.” The Nationals, in turn, did everything they could to distance themselves from Moeller’s nod, claiming it did not in any manner, reflect the views or opinions of the Washington Nationals franchise." All the while, no one bothered to ask if what Moeller did was really wrong.

I consider myself Jewish and I don’t believe the ousted chaplain to be in error. He was approached as a representative of the Christian faith and answered the question honestly in that capacity. Christians believe acceptance of Jesus is necessary to avoid damnation, cut and dried. Why this bothers Jews is beyond me. Aren’t we just as free to dismiss this condemnation as nonsense as they are to condemn us for our nonbelief (I should sure hope so, inasmuch as I wish to remain free to believe Trinitarian Christianity to be polytheistic blasphemy)?

While the answer is a simple “yes,” religious propriety was probably not the key consideration among those doing the complaining. Instead of accepting that Moeller said the right thing religiously, they chose to focus on the fact that Moeller said the wrong thing politically. As a representative of the Nationals, he showed poor judgment. As someone whose views were fit to print, he failed. But John Moeller is not, nor is he expected to be, any of those things. He is just a chaplain and he did his job.

If the above does not illustrate why the separation of church and state is a sound idea, let’s examine the flip side. Asking religious leaders to frame the tenets of their faith in a politically appropriate context is odious, but asking those charged to make laws to do their jobs only in a religiously palatable context is no less so.

When we look at politics, we often make the error of equating political decisions with moral ones. Politics, however, is as inherently amoral as religion is inherently apolitical. A political — or, to use a less maligned term, procedural — question does not ask “is this right or wrong?” Instead, it asks “is this the right thing to do according to the rules of conduct we have laid out for ourselves?” The moral question that is left out of politics is then given to us to decide as individuals, guided by our conscience, our family, our faith, etc. When an attempt is made to merge the two questions into one, the results are often disastrous.

To illustrate the point, I’ll offer the example of sodomy. More so than many other activities, has been maligned by politicians who have been unable to distinguish the jobs they hold from the jobs they do not. As lawmakers, the kinds of questions they should be asking themselves are, “does the government have a legitimate public interest in doing something (severely restrict or ban outright) about this behavior? And, if so, does it have the authority to do so?” The answer, in both cases, would be no.

Acknowledging this ‘no’ does not remove the moral question, it just leaves it to be answered by more appropriate agents. Fundamentalist values groups can still condemn sodomy and be justified in doing so according to their beliefs. And the politicians who opt not to criminalize it for procedurally correct reasons can remain personally opposed to it if they feel it is personally inappropriate.

Alas, what happens far too often is that lawmakers stop making the procedural judgments they are counted on to make and start making moral judgments instead. Thus, we go from “should the government be doing something about this?” to “is this right or wrong?” Once the latter is determined, the authority to act accordingly is often presumed whether it actually exists or not (translation: if something is wrong, acting against it can only be right….right?).

To draw a parallel here, let’s replace a moral issue with a health issue: smoking. The procedural question a lawmaker should ask is whether there is a public interest in banning smoking and whether the government has the authority to do so. In saying “no,” the politician is not saying that smoking is healthy. Rather, he is leaving it to doctors and health advocates to say that it is unhealthy.

Bottom line: inasmuch as politicians continue to usurp the functions of religious leaders, the role religion plays in deciding moral issues will gradually become obsolete. Why would anyone seek out religious guidance when Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum are there to tell them right from wrong (because we all know they are paradigms of virtue, right ;p).

Cover-Up For a Nonexistant Crime

The latter stages of the Valerie Plame Affair are playing out like nourish drama, replete with sinister doings, shady characters and plenty of plot twists. The only problem for conspiracy enthusiasts is that the players are behaving more like bumbling Elmore Leonard caricatures than suave masterminds.

Consider, for instance, the White House’s alleged role in the scandal. The impetus behind this entire investigation is a 1982 law that forbids the disclosure of a covert operative’s identity. Given that Plame was outed by Robert Novak in a column and identified to Matthew Cooper by Karl Rove, it’s pretty obvious the law has been broken, right?

Think again. As John Tierney tells us, Valerie Plame was working at CIA headquarters when her identity was revealed. It is doubtful, therefore, that she would qualify as a covert agent under the law. Given that, can we assume that Rove should be completely exonerated?

Not exactly. President Bush, if you recall, promised to take action against anyone in the administration who leaked classified information. That would mean Rove, and, if the NY Times is right, Scooter Libby as well. Furthermore, Rove has already lied continually about being the source of the leak, or, even more surreptitiously, about even having knowledge that the leak occurred. If he continues to march down the path of dishonesty amid a Justice Department investigation, he will likely find himself facing charges of perjury or obstruction of justice.

Sadly, all of this might have been averted if Rove, Scott McCllelan, et al simply came clean from the beginning. If they didn’t break the law (which I’m fairly certain they didn’t), they would have nothing to hide. Now, their denials and deflections are coming back to haunt them. As numerous commentators (many of them conservative) have noted, Rove’s attempt to split hairs over the word “involved” evokes Bill Clinton trying to call into question the definition of “is.”

Naturally, Democrats have been salivating over the investigation so far. And, while I can’t blame them for going on the offensive, they should wise up and realize that the White House isn’t going to fire Rove. He’s simply too valuable to be dismissed over something like this. Unless he comits/commited a crime, he’s here to stay. Besides, any talk about the appearance of impropriety is a moot point when discussing a political operative of Rove’s caliber (let’s not forget the McCain smear back in 2000).

If anything, this investigation is working evidence that people don’t get what they deserve. Valerie Plame, the victim of the non-crime, has been out and about with her husband Joe Wilson since being outed. Both are popular in leftist circles and can expect to reap the benefits of future book deals and media exposure.

Bob Novak, who actually did the outing, hasn’t even as much as received a slap on the wrist. He didn’t break any laws, but he stands guilty of exercising poor journalistic judgment (though calling his ethics in question is enough to send the old timer into conniptions).

Judith Miller, who did not do any outing whatsoever, sits in jail. Unlike Novak, she did what journalists are supposed to do, which is protect (rather than burn) sources. Her heroism here makes up for her shoddy WMD reporting of years’ past.

As per Rove, Libby and the rest of the White House gang, only time will tell. Like all political scandals, actual issues of guilt or innocence are going to take a back seat to whomever’s sympathies (Wilson’s, Rove’s) are held by They Who Yell the Loudest (Hannity, Franken, etc.).

Sandra Day and the Looming Fog

Thanks to Sandra Day O’Connor’s surprise retirement (though at age 75, it couldn’t have been too surprising), the Senate faces yet another contentious confirmation battle. As was the case with John Bolton, Janice Rogers Brown et al, there is likely to be a lot of overblown histrionics and rhetorical saber-rattling. This time, however, the voice of undue obstruction will probably come from the right.

While Democrats have already thrown in the towel and conceded (quite wisely, I might add) the fact that the next Supreme Court justice will be a conservative, right wing activists are already up in arms about the nomination. Conservatives have all but preemptively blockaded Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, claiming he doesn’t veer right enough on issues like abortion and affirmative action.

This objection underscores the conservative paradox with regard to constitutionality. If the goal of conservatives is to quell judicial activism and uphold the Constitution, they cannot support a candidate with a stated anti-abortion/anti-gay/anti-drug agenda. Since the Constitution is virtually mum on those issues, using the federal judiciary to set policy would be as egregious a form of judicial activism as the Warren court decisions, though conservatives aren’t likely to see it as such.

Furthermore, objecting to a moderate conservative at this stage of the game makes zero sense for practical reasons. As O’Connor was a moderate, replacing her with a moderate conservative wouldn’t ruffle any feathers. Replacing her with a rightwing activist, however, would cause a lengthy confirmation battle and pose problems when Justice Rehnquist finally decides to step down.

Given the recent turmoil in congress, it’s surprising that the Democrats (with the perennial exception of Ted Kennedy) have been the ones to show greater maturity as the nomination process begins. Chuck Schumer has spoken highly of several of the potential nominees and Harry Reid recommended Mel Martinez firsthand. Whether or not this newfound diplomacy holds will be something to keep an eye on for the future.

One name that isn’t being mentioned is Richard Epstein. A Chicago law professor, Epstein has a vision of jurisprudence that would likely result in overturning the recent Raich and Kelo abominations as well as a score of other bad decisions.

Regardless of who gets the nomination (and, more importantly, who gets confirmed), this will likely be a turning point in the history of the court. While O’Connor was a pragmatist in approach, she was guided by federal ideals. The rest of the Rehnquist court, however, was marked by spineless inconsistency (Souter, Kennedy) and judicial activism from the left (Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer) and right (Scalia). The time is right for a judge of principle to take the bench, provided the senate and the president can agree on what the principle would be.

Jeb Bush: Stalker Extraordinaire

An autopsy report may have vindicated Michael Schiavo, but Florida Gov. Jeb Bush isn’t going to let a pesky little thing like the truth deter him in his quest to ruin the man’s life. Bush has now asked a prosecutor to look into why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago. The working theory is that there was a large gap of time (40-70 minutes) between when Michael found Terri and when he placed a 911 call, during which anything may have happened (sinister wink).

As if it wasn’t evident during the whole feeding tube debacle, Bush has a serious hard-on for Michael and seems willing to make him suffer no matter what. But what is disturbing is the extent to which he is willing to warp logic and fudge facts to support his belief that Michael was up to no good. Bolstering the “fact fixing” assertions of the Downing Street Memo, its clear that the Bush boys haven’t quite learned you can’t attempt to alter reality to fit your whim and expect to get away with it.

<>The consideration that gnaws the most about this new investigation is time. Bush tells us, “Mrs. Schiavo’s family deserves to know anything that can be done to determine the cause and circumstances of her collapse 15 years ago.” Fair enough. But if that is the case, why wasn’t a deeper investigation launched 15 years ago? Obviously, the authorities at the time didn’t think too much of the alleged gap before the 911 call, else Michael might have found himself on trial. Further, why is it that during more than a decade of legal wrangling, replete with numerous invasive inquiries into Michael Schiavo, this issue didn’t pop up in any significant way?

Much as Michael Schiavo’s timing in pushing for feeding tube removal made him a shady character, Bush’s timing in launching this investigation calls his motives into serious doubt. If Bush is so concerned about justice, perhaps he should launch an investigation into the people threatening Judge Greer. Greer, a conservative Baptist, has received death threats for sticking to the law in his ruling in the Schiavo case. He’s become a poster boy for the Christian Right eating its own.

<>Time, by the way, also puts a dent in the physical possibility of the “Michael killed Terri” theory. Had he waited 70 minutes after finding her, wouldn’t she have died?

Don’t be surprised if Bush and his supporters come up with a phony medical “expert” to back their claim or if a high school girlfriend suddenly (after all these years and a sizeable silent payoff) forward to vouch that he was “abusive.” I’m not sold on Michael as a good guy, but the extent to which he’s been hounded makes me sick. His detractors seem ready to do literally anything to bring him down.

Footing the bill for famine

The LA Times tells us that the Group of 8 (that's the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia) has voted to forgive $40 billion worth of debt to 18 of the world's poorest nations. Bono and Bob Geldoff must be thrilled and Gordon Brown's political stock just shot up a zillion points. But seriously: did anyone bother to consider the possibility that this isn't a good idea?

First of all, this sends a bad message to third-world countries. Instead of (gasp) cutting aid or perhaps even tying it to policy-based incentives, this sort of carte-blanche debt relief basically says if you are poor enough and a few rock stars sympathize with your plight, you have nothing to worry about. The more developed nations of the world are paying the tab at the IMF and World Bank. Instead of treating these impoverished nations as equal partners in world affairs, we are offering them the presumption of fiscal incompetence. Fear not Africa, the white, Western world is here to rescue you.

In addition to this gross paternalism, paying for debt relief is only going to enlarge the U.S.'s budget deficit. Perhaps we should give thought to paying off our own debts before we tackle Ghana's.

None of this would matter, of course, if debt relief actually did what it was supposed to do. After all, you can't put a price on curing poverty. But since when does forgiving debt mean that poverty will automatically be cured? Remember, we aren't pumping capital back into the economies of these countries; all we are doing is letting them off the hook for money they already owe. Assume for a moment that most of these countries have corrupt governments that set bad policies that resulted not only in accruing billions of dollars of debt, but poverty, famine, oppression, etc. Now suppose we say to these governments, "OK....you're off the hook." What's really changed? And, given that, why should we expect anything to improve?

The world will be a better place if I'm wrong about this. Sadly, I don't think I am.