Obsidian Wings

In Sadding Around

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania today; it's quite a bit better than I remember it (or maybe it's just gotten better).  The Federal Courthouse is decidedly unimpressive, but the old brick and narrow alleys have a certain charm.  And the commons before the Statehouse is verdant and encompassing -- even under a threat of stormclouds.  So what if the "skyline" screams "Worcester, Mass."; I'll maintain 'till the end that Worcester ain't all that bad of a town.

And neither is here.

Incidentally, I've discovered a new way for me to be a total prick:  Put IPod in suit breast pocket.  Turn volume up to 11 in order to better ignore world.  Walk with decisive purpose, occasionally shouting out song lyrics -- but never enough to give anyone a firm sense of what you're listening to.  Say, "Fan-tas-tic" to underlings when the IPod is turned off (yet the tell-tale cords remain draped around my necktied neck).  Occasionally scrunch face to people on the street passing by, mimicking that practiced look that accompanies my practiced lies, which tonight may include:  "Merlot?  I find it kinda boring, really."   

Is there a saving grace from such total prickdom?  Perhaps.  'Cause, approaching Courthouse security, no one knew that it was Screeching Weasel ("My Brain Hurts") blasting in my ears.

This is your total prick open thread. 

Fan-tas-tic!

Minor Annoyance Monday

If she's gonna start using her celebrity to promote her husband's agenda, then First Lady Laura Bush (why do I always want to type "Barbara Bush"?) is opening herself up to the public critique of her words and actions. In that context, I'd like to note that this is a silly statement about the protests that met her in Jerusalem:

"As we all know, this is a place of very high tensions and high emotions," the first lady said while standing in the garden courtyard of the Church of the Resurrection. "And you can understand why when you see the people with a deep and sincere faith in their religion all living side by side."

I'm not sure what her religion is teaching her, but mine suggests that the deeper and more sincere your faith is, the more tolerant and peaceful you'll become with the people living side by side with you, regardless of who they are.

For once, though, I actually agree with Scott McClellan:

President Bush talked with his wife by telephone Monday and she told him the trip was going well, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. McClellan dismissed the protests as "a little commotion" and said the demonstrators were few although they got a lot of coverage.

From what I could see in the TV coverage, the protests were indeed just a little commotion. But this is where I get a little annoyed myself.

Here in the US, shouting or wearing a T-shirt that criticizes Bush or his policies when Laura is nearby can get you whisked away and arrested. So it's not surprising the US press was surprised by folks within shouting distance actually voicing something less flattering than all-out admiration. And I'm sorry, but that's really about the lamest thing I can imagine for the leader of the "free world" to have his people do in his own country.

"Circling The Wagons"

by hilzoy

There's a fascinating new idea abroad in some parts of the right-wing blogosphere: that Friday's story about the torture and death of two Afghan prisoners in US custody is just an attempt on the part of the New York Times to divert attention from Newsweek's retraction of its story on flushing Qur'ans down toilets. Some cites:

Instapundit: "READER JAMES MCCORMICK EMAILS:

Does the latest NYT articles on deaths-in-custody in Afghanistan smack of diversion to take the heat off Newsweek? Set a fire somewhere else so Newsweek never has to acknowledge any responsibility for its acts. Newsweek can return the favour during the next NYT scandal. The MSM guild is all about authority without responsibility. Can't have that change ...

And it's not just the NYT, as I've seen other examples of this phenomenon in quite a few outlets. As Martin Peretz noted, they're circling the wagons."

John Podhoretz at The Corner: "The New York Times continues the bizarre act of carrying Newsweek's water in the wake of the false Koran-desecration story (which I write about this morning here). The paper's lead story is a lurid account of the vicious treatment of two Afghan prisoners by U.S. soldiers -- events that occurred in December 2002 and for which seven servicemen have been properly punished. Let me repeat that: December 2002. That's two and a half years ago. Every detail published by the Times comes from a report done by the U.S. military, which did the investigating and the punishing. The publication of this piece this week is an effort not to get at the truth, not to praise the military establishment for rooting out the evil being done, but to make the point that the United States is engaged in despicable conduct as it fights the war on terror. In the name of covering the behinds of media colleagues, all is fair in hate and war."

See also Hugh Hewitt, the inimitable Wretchard, and, of course, LGF.

This is just crazy.

Adding the F-word to the N-word: A Washington Governors' Race Update

by Charles

Last January, I became convinced that Dino Rossi should contest the governor's race and call for a revote.  This Monday, the trial begins and Republicans will make their case that the 2004 election for governor should be canceled and that a revote be conducted.  Most of the evidence will focus on lapses by King County election officials.  While other counties also made mistakes, they pale before massive numbers of mistakes in King County.  If anything, there are now many more and many larger errors by King County, in the form of illegal provisional ballots included in the vote tally, felon votes and discrepancies between the numbers of ballots and numbers of voters.  While the N-word (negligence) has been used liberally and rightfully so in this mess, I had seen no evidence of the F-word (fraud).  Until two days ago.  In the Seattle Times:

Good Question.

One of the likely scenarios for the nuclear option involves Vice President Cheney, in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruling that it is unconstitutional to filibuster judicial nominees. After running through some of the Constitutional questions that might be asked about this position, Paul Horwitz (via Discourse.net) asks a very good question:

"What is disappointing is that Cheney has, essentially, been allowed to maintain near perfect silence on the question of whether and why it is unconstitutional to filibuster judicial nominees. Nor, for reasons I hope I have demonstrated, is it enough to stop there? What constitutional conclusions has he reached on all these other questions? The failure of the press to push for answers on these questions is really disappointing -- inexcusable, in fact. It is also disappointing that the Democratic Senate caucus has not pressed him, or anyone, on these points in a sustained and public way.

What accounts for this silence? I don't think it is simply that this level of detail is reserved for law geeks. I think it says something about how we think about the Constitution as applied outside the courts. The prevailing assumption from day one, I think, has been that the Vice President would simply come to the aid of his party. Thus, the Majority Leader assumed the rule change could happen, the press assumed the same thing, and the Democrats didn't fight hard on the constitutional point but focused instead on the nucelar option specter.

But a vote by the presiding officer of the Senate (who, it is generally assumed, will also be the Vice President) is not a political vote. At least it is not supposed to be. It decides a constitutional question -- and one that, at that, would likely be insulated from judicial review. The Vice President, along with the members of the Senate, takes an oath to "support this Constitution," and we ought to assume he takes it seriously. That means that, finally, only his views will matter -- not those of Senator Frist, or his lawyers, or the public, or even the President. Whether liberal or conservative, most lawyers (and citizens) assume that a judge who cast a vote on a constitutional question purely as a matter of expediency would be dishonoring his office: that judge must decide what the Constitution means, and vote accordingly, without regard to his personal preferences. Is the same any less true of any other government officer faced with the duty of interpreting the Constitution? In short, the failure to press Cheney for a principled explanation of his position on the constitutionality of the filibuster of judicial nominees, and of all other filibusters, is inexcusable. It speaks to an unbecoming cynicism about the role of the legislator or parliamentary officer. These officials, just as much as judges, can be oathbreakers, and that ought to mean something. At the very least, by acting as if these questions mean something, we attempt to ensure that they do. "

This is absolutely right. The post is worth reading in its entirety.

What To Say?

Via The Light Of Reason, I see that Bush has changed his views on media responsibility for violence, and about whether the White House should tell journalists what to do. Either that, or it makes a difference that Newsweek is not involved this time:

"President Bush said Friday that he did not think photos of imprisoned Saddam Hussein clad only in his underwear would incite further anti-American violence in Iraq. "I don't think a photo inspires murderers," Bush said. (...)

The White House declined to say what decisions news organizations should make about disseminating the photos. "That's your job," he said.

With the inquiry ongoing, he also would not comment on how the pictures may affect the U.S. image abroad. But the president downplayed the importance of the photos in stirring up the Iraqi insurgency.

"I think the insurgency is inspired by their desire to stop the march of freedom," Bush said."

Consistency: the hobgoblin of small minds.

Entirely Redundant, I am.

Daniel Drezner states, far better than I did, the odd sense that many of us are ____ on Flushgate (choose one, and only one, cliche' to fill in the MadLib):  failing to see the forest for the trees; confusing the horse for the hay*; seeing the stars but not the sky**; and generally missing the boat.  Drezner writes:

Let me put this more bluntly: assume that the Newsweek goof was of the maximal variety -- i.e., despite Gitmo prisoner claims, it turns out that no Qu'ran was ever flushed down any toilet. Should it nevertheless be considered a major foreign policy problem that this report triggered significant protests in Afghanistan, a populace with good reasons to support the United States? In today's New York Times, David Brooks is right to point out the blogosphere's misplaced foci, and suggests that "radical clerics in Afghanistan" used the story to trigger outrage. What bothers me is that it was too damn easy for the clerics to whip up anti-American sentiment.

I leave it to my readers: am I overly concerned about this?

It would behoove us all -- particularly those of us who believe in an engaged U.S. foreign policy -- to be just as concerned as Drezner.  Success in the war on terror requires that we win the battle of ideas.  The fact that a single mistaken sentence in a newsmagazine blurb can derail our foreign policy efforts to such an extent that it requires repeated rebukes from the President and his senior staff -- well, let's just say that it's not a good thing.

As for the penalty that should be applied to Newsweek:  the most balanced decision I've read thus far comes from Jane Galt.  Go read the whole thing.

UPDATE:  And also read our own Charles Bird, if you haven't already; it's an insightful and provokative piece.

Blocking Judicial Nominees: Let Me Count The Ways...

by hilzoy

Sebastian has been making an interesting argument about the history of blocking judicial nominees over in the 'Out of Bounds' thread, and what he said prompted me to do some more digging on the various ways in which, traditionally, judicial appointees could be blocked. A good short history by the Congressional Research Service is here (pdf). Some of the means included:

NY Times Abuse Story Open Thread

Per votermom's request, this is an open thread to discuss this New York Times article.  Lacking the time to read it all the way through, I therefore offer this as a jumping-off place for those who have read it to discuss.

Out Of Bounds

by hilzoy

Today, in the debate over the nuclear option, Rick Santorum said this:

"We shouldn't go mucking around in this institution and changing the way we've done things, particularly when it comes to the balance of powers between the three branches of government, and the independence of one of those branches, the judiciary. We must tread very carefully before we go radically changing the way we do business here that has served this country well, and we have radically changed the way we do business here. Some are suggesting that we are trying to change the law, that we're trying to break the rules. Remarkable. Remarkable hubris. I mean, imagine, the rule has been in place for 214 years that this is the way we confirm judges. Broken by the other side two years ago, and the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942,saying, "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine." This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused." (Transcript mine, from the CSPAN video linked at Crooks and Liars.)

Four points. First, this is completely and totally out of bounds. And I don't mean this in some PC, "ooh he said the H-word" sort of way. I mean: no one who had a shred of honor, or who in any way appreciated the horror of Nazi Germany, would dare to make this comparison without thinking for a very, very long time about whether it was fully warranted, and whether there was no other way to make his point. In this case, there were many other ways. Santorum could, for instance, have compared the Democrats to a child who takes her sister's toys and then says, no, you can't take them, they're mine. He could have said any number of things and made the same point. But he said this. It's dishonorable and shameful. And yes, I feel the same way when Democrats do this.