Roscoe's Blog

Political Lowlights of 2005

I guess if I was a nicer person I would be writing about all the uplifting stuff I have seen and heard over the past year.  But, as the sailor man said, "I yam what I yam",  so I looked back at the year picked out the ten worst political low-lights.   So, in no particular order:

1.  The Response to Bush's Attempt to Reform Social Security

Anyone who thinks that Bush is nothing but an opportunist who just wants to get elected so he can steal our freedom should note his attempt to fix our broken Social Security system.

The Social Security system is nothing but a big Ponzi scheme.  The government takes your money, promising to invest it for your retirement.  The government "invests" the money by buying government bonds, and then uses proceeds of the bond sales (i.e. your money) to buy  important stuff like  bridges-to-nowhere.  So there isn't anything to pay the retirement checks but current payroll taxes, and with people living longer and the baby boomers about to retire, the well is going to run dry in the not-to-distant future.

Every now and again some politician tries to do something responsible to fix the system, with predictable results; the members of the other party accuse him of wanting to kill old people, while the members of his own party duck and cover.  It was Bush's turn, this time.

2.  The Republican Response to Attempts to Cut Spending

Speaking of bridges to nowhere, how about the Ted Steven's response when, in the wake of the massive federal spending needed in response to Katrina, the suggestion was made that maybe we could trim a few modest items off the budget.  One of the proposals was a to save 400+ million by not building two bridges in Alaska that didn't go anywhere.   Stevens, a member of a party elected because they promised to be fiscally prudent, threw a hissyfit and threatened to quit from the Senate if he didn't get his pork. 

3.  The "Racist" Response to Katrina

Speaking of Katrina, the government did a lousy job of  responding to the Katrina disaster on all levels, local, state and federal.  And the politicians hardly waited for the rain to stop falling before they started blaming each other for all the problems.  And our mainstream media got into the act by shrieking urban legends of terror, rape, murder and death as cold facts.   It wasn't anyone's finest hour.

But all this unfortunate-but-expected nonsense got blown off the table by the allegations that  "Bush delayed the federal response to Katrina because he hates black people".  And this was not limited to just idiot rappers, but by our elected "leaders."

Me, as a conservative I am neither surprised nor overly disappointed about the responses by our various levels of government.   Anybody who wants to see our government in action, go get your driver's license renewed, or just visit a post office.  Then tell me why you would expect the government to do a better job at tackling bigger and problems. 

4.  Hyperbole and Defeatism on the War in Iraq

It would be one thing for the democrats to say that Bush got us into an ill-considered war, and the potential gains aren't worth the lives lost and the money spent.   But policy arguments aren't good enough for the maddened left in this country, we have to admit that Bush lied about why he went to war, which was really to steal all of the oil and destroy civil liberty

But now we have had that war, which has resulted in a freely elected government in Iraq that is counting on us to keep the peace until the Iraqi army can be rebuilt.  For the near future, they need our protection from the maddened terrorists who want to kill everyone who won't submit to their view of how Allah wants the world to be run

The reaction from the left?  From the Cindy Sheehan moonbat brigade to John Murtha, we hear that there is nothing more important that we leave everyone in the lurch and cut-and-run, right this very minute.   Forget about the fact that this will practically guarantee that Iraq will turn into a failed state, with all the lives lost for nothing.  And now we have the leaders of the Democratic party saying that not only aren't we winning the war, but that it can't be won.  That, of course, is sure to comfort our troops, friends and allies.

In other words, who cares if what we say is bad for freedom, or security or our war effort, so long as it hurts George Bush.

5.  Screeching about the Government's Invasion of our Privacy

And what about all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the disclosure that we are intercepting communications between suspected terrorists abroad and in the U.S. 

Most people would say "no big deal."  After all, we are in a war.  Listening to the other side's communications is something you do when you are in a war, generally without much concern about getting a warrant.   And add to this the fact that we have been intercepting suspected terrorist communications  during prior administrations, before we were in a war (or at least before we knew we were in a war).

But some people can't miss an opportunity to bash Bush, even where it gives aid and comfort to the bad guys and hurts the war effort.   So of course this is treated as a hugely big deal, even among some of our leaders who knew what was going on all along.  And, of course, this willingness to believe the worst about our country and this administration causes otherwise sensible people (and some who are less than sensible) to see government agents under our very beds. 

6.  Criminal Investigations of Leaks to the Media

I don't think anybody outside the moonbat brigade believes that Karl Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration "outed" Valerie Plame to to get back at her husband, the lyin' Joe Wilson.  It was just damage control on Wilson's NYT allegations.  And the notion that there was vast damage done to the national security by letting it be known that this mother of two working at a desk in Langley was CIA is something that only Charles Schumer buys.

But in uncritically supporting a criminal prosecution into the matter, where a reporter can be jailed to make her reveal her sources, we are going down a road which leads to a place where most members of the media don't want to be.   Will we see more criminal probes into how a particular newspaper got a particular story?  We already are, in the Justice Department's recent criminal probe of how the NY Times found about the NSA's intercept policy.

And does anyone think it will stop here?  What about the leaks about the CIA's air force, or the leaks about the CIA's "secret prisons" or the leaks about the grand jury testimony in the Plame investigation itself?  If we are going to treat all leaks involving classified information with equal dignity, we should expect lots and lots of investigations.

7.  The Tom Delay Indictment[s]

Isn't it odd that Tom Delay is seeking an early trial, and that Ronnie Earle is trying to drag his feet?  Not something that you see from the usual criminal defendant, that.  The reason, of course, is that Ronnie Earle doesn't have the goods to back up his charges.

In fact, there is lots and lots of evidence that this is a politically motivated attack on an innocent man.  There is Ronnie's  first bungled indictment, his hurried shopping for a new grand jury willing to indict on different charges, his speaking about Delay at democratic fundraisers while the investigation was going, and his allowing a movie crew to "cover" the investigation.  Normally you would think that a prosecutor using his position to punish his political enemies with false criminal charges would be a big deal to the civil liberties crowd, but not--I guess--if the victim is an unlikable guy like Delay.

8.  Enemy Propaganda as "News"

The press comes out with bogus claims that our guys are flushing Korans down the toilet, and deadly riots erupt.  As I noted back in the day:

We are being Mau-Maued (in the sense of Tom Wolfe's book on the subject).  Our enemies in the Muslim world have turned their sensitivity meters way up high  and are looking for anything they can to take offense.    Have the infidel dogs touched the Koran without washing first, or without putting on white gloves, or placed it too close to a sink?  Outrage!  The Westerners don't respect the True Faith!   Of course, the media completely buys into this and people like Andrew Sullivan practically wet their pants.

We are in a war, and as usual our media uncritically reports enemy propaganda.  And the loyal opposition, in the person of Dick Durbin, reacts by calling the troops who have the difficult and thankless job of keeping terrorists locked up "Nazis."   My aching back.

9.  The Harriet Miers  Nomination

What the heck was Bush thinking.  Here was the moment that the people who fought to get him elected had been waiting for, an actual chance to shift the Supreme Court marginally to the right.  So Bush picks his own personal lawyer, with no special qualifications other than thinking her boss was swell, who might be a conservative but then again might not be. 

10.  Terri Schiavo

Looking back on this, all I can do is make like the Godfather and ask how it came to this.  A political war fought over a poor woman in a coma.  We all came out looking like callous bastards, or idiots, or zealots.

Oh well, have a Happy New Year.

The End of Broadcast Monday Night Football

The final Monday Night Football on broadcast TV was shown last night, a blowout win by the Patriots over the hapless Jets.  Next year, the MNF franchise will be on ESPN, a cable network.  Why?  Because the NFL wants too much for the game, 1.1 billion a year.  ABC couldn't afford it, but ESPN apparently thinks it can.

At first blush, the move doesn't make any sense.  A lot  of potential viewers won't have access to the game, given that ESPN only reaches 89 million out of the 110 million or so households.  So less people will be watching the game, as evidenced by the current split between broadcast and cable ratings.   A Sunday NFL game on broadcast TV will draw about 15 million viewers, with MNF drawing about 16.  But the Sunday night ESPN game on cable gets a lot less, only 8 million or so.  So there will be a significant decrease in the number of viewers  on account of the move to cable.

Of course, for the cable people--as opposed to broadcast--how many people are watching is only part of the equation.  ESPN won't make as much selling commercials, but the network has a second stream of revenue, the "carriage fees" that it charges the cable companies for the right to carry its programming.  ESPN already has the highest fees per subscriber of any non-premium cable network; if you have cable with ESPN you are paying $2.28 (or so) a month for the service, plus whatever your cable company rakes off the top. 

And, unless you think that ESPN is shelling out the 8.8 billion because they want to be good sports, you can expect your basic cable rates to go up.  If you remember the fight over the cable fees a couple of years back, ESPN is the biggest source of the pressure on cable operators to raise fees for basic cable.   Owning the MNF franchise for the next 8 years will give ESPN a lot of clout, and it would surprise me mightily if ESPN didn't use that clout to justify demanding more from the cable giants.  And so the cable companies will respond by cutting executive salaries and shareholder dividends in order to make up the increased cost?  Yeah right, prepare to reach a little deeper, sports fans.

Which brings us back to the NFL, which caused the problem by pricing the Monday night game beyond the reach of broadcast TV.    The NFL's need to squeeze every last nickle out of their product is really starting to grate on me.   The number of commercials are starting to ruin the game--did you know that after a team scores, there is an eight minute block of commercials, broken only by a kick off?  Now the NFL is putting the price tag on its product so high that even the dollars generated by all those commercials isn't enough to pay the freight.

Supply and demand, guys, golden gooses and all that good stuff.  The NFL has a sweet deal going, but at some point the price to watch the games--in terms of money, time, and the distaste for being taken for a sucker--won't be worth it even for serious fans (like me).

Over at NFL.com, Lincoln Kennedy is saying that it is time that the Packers showed Brett Favre the door.  Granted, he has been having a lousy year.  On the other hand, a QB is only as good as his supporting cast, and the Packers have been decimated by injuries at the skill positions.

More to the point, just who does Mr. Kennedy think is going to step in to fill Brett's shoes.  Well, there is rookie Aaron Rogers, whose NFL career to this point has included all of 16 passes, of which he has completed 9 for 65 yards, no touchdowns and one interception.  Or, if he isn't ready to go, the Packers can shop the free agent market, maybe Kurt Warner or Aaron Brooks might be available?

Mr. Kennedy, it is just like foreign politics, when we are thinking about cutting some strongman off at the knees.   Before you "throw the rascals out" you have to take a good, hard look at who the new rascals are likely to be (the Shah of Iran, anyone?).

Federal Agents Under Our Beds

Here is a good example of how the wack jobs on the left are always willing to believe the worst about the government, even when the story makes no sense at all.  At U. Mass at Dartmouth, a student, who wished to remain anonymous, told two of his professors that he had checked out Mao's "Little Red Book" from the school library and, as a result, received a visit from two federal agents.  The lefties grabbed the story and ran with it, moaning with alarm about the repressive state in which we live.  One professor even said that he was re-thinking whether to offer a course, because the required research materials would put his students at risk:

Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk. "I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."

Apparently none of these people thought for a second how absurd this claim was, that federal agents have so much free time that they are investigating a student for no other reason than that he is reading Mao.  Not surprisingly, now the story doesn't check out, the student is refusing to talk about the incident and, not only do the relevant government agents have no record of having interviewed the student, but the university has no record of any contact at all with the government over the issue.

People should know that, given the war, the FBI has nowhere enough resources to perform even important tasks.  In a case of mine, a senior FBI agent admitted in open court that his office didn't have any agents available to investigate ongoing "prime bank" schemes that were defrauding people out of millions of dollars.  In another case, it took me over a year to get the bureau involved in a completely made case where a local school district was the victim of a million + fraud.  So, anyone who thinks that the FBI has so much free time that they are investigating people solely on the basis of what they read is--to put it bluntly--either entirely nuts, or really, really uninformed.  (Hattip to Jay Tea at Wizbang).

My Take on Whether the NSA Intercepts Violate FISA

Over at Volokh, Orin Kerr has an excellent (and long and detailed) post about the debate over the legality of the NSA intercepts between a foreign site and a site within the U.S.  He concludes that, while the law is unsettled and there is a lot we don't know about what the NSA was doing, the intercepts probably weren't a violation of the Constitution, but probably were a violation of FISA. Me, I think it depends on precisely what the government was doing whether there was a FISA violation.

First off, 50 U.S.C. 1809 makes it illegal to engage in "electronic surveillance" except as allowed by statute:

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.

So, if you have to be doing "electronic surveillance" in order to violate FISA, what is "electronic surveillance"?  That is also defined, in 50 U.S.C. 1801 (in relevant part):

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person . . . ;

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States . . . ;

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or . . .

In other words, under the portions of the statute quoted (which I think are all that are potentially relevant, trust me or see for yourself), there are one of three things that you have to be doing for this law to apply.  (1) is if you intercept a communication by targeting a person who is legally in the U.S.  (2) is if you intercept a communication of a person legally in the U.S. from within the U.S..  And (3) is if you intercept a communication (from where-ever) with both the sender and recipient being legally in the U.S.

Now, as I stated earlier, there is a lot that we don't know about this program.  But I would suppose that the most likely situation where this comes up is like the pre-911 incident related in the LA Times, where NSA is targeting a suspected Al Qaeda site overseas, and intercepts a communication from that site to someone in the U.S.    As I read the statute, assuming that the intercept is done off-shore (which I would figure it would have to be), there isn't  any "electronic surveillance" taking place, and so FISA  just doesn't apply.

Now, if the target of the intercept  shifts to someone legally in the U.S. (who isn't an agent of a  foreign power), then FISA is implicated.  However, I don't know if we are doing that without getting warrants.  And even if we are, the President might still be legally able to conduct that surveillance without a warrant, given his inherent constitutional powers and the authority granted him by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.  For that, you have to find someone who is (1) smarter than I am, or (2) has more free time (or some combination of the above, back to you, Professor Kerr).

One more point, to answer the many people who are asking why the NSA just doesn't remove all doubt over the legality of the intercepts by obtaining a warrant.   As someone who has gotten a lot of wiretap orders (not for foreign intercepts, the old fashioned kind), let me say that the process is time consuming, very intensive and very laborious.   Anyone who has not had to do this would simply not believe the amount of paperwork you have to generate.  If warrants for intercepts between the U.S. and a foreign site were routinely required, someone sitting on a dirty phone in Yemen would, if that phone called a number in the U.S., have to think long and hard about what (legal and other) resources were available before making the decision to listen in.

At any rate, this is complicated stuff, the stakes are high, and there is a whole bunch we don't know.  So those folks that assume that the President has just blithely gone ahead and violated the law probably haven't thought about it enough.

The Latest from Uncle Joe

Back in the 20' Joseph Stalin had an animal breeder try to cross breed humans and apes in order to create a super soldier:

According to Moscow newspapers, Stalin told the scientist: "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat."

Unfortunately for Stalin, numerous attempts to fertilize human women with ape sperm came to naught.

Ain't communism grand?  Of course, here in America we already have a facility for creating invincible human beings,  "insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat" (especially that last part).   We call it Parris Island.

I guess Norma Rae Doesn't Live In New York

Ain't it swell?  The New York City Transit Workers have chosen the week before Christmas to go on strike, causing chaos and inconveniencing millions of people during one of the busiest travel weeks of the year.  The fact that the strike is illegal doesn't seem to bother any of the members.  (Although it might now that a judge has slapped the union with a 3 million dollar a day fine.)

The big issue that is prompting the strike?  The union says it is all about respect:

"This is a fight over dignity and respect on the job, a concept that is very alien to the MTA," Toussaint said. "Transit workers are tired of being underappreciated and disrespected."

In reality, it's about pensions.  The union members want to able to retire with a full pension at 55.  The MTA wants to change the retirement age to 62.  The union thinks this is "unfair".  Oh, and the poor "disrespected" union members don't contribute a penny to their health care.

It is interesting, I think, that the union doesn't seem to care at all that the average New Yorkers are outraged by the strike.  This is a naked display of power, by a union that wants to keep benefits that nobody in the private sector is getting these days.

Of course, any private employer with a benefit package that even approaches this would be filing for bankruptcy, or laying off employees left and right.  It is only public and quasi public entities that can afford this sort of nonsense.  Which is why, of course, that union membership is down below 8% for private companies, but over 36% for government workers. 

Me, I wonder why these trains and buses can't be run with non unionized workers.  I think there would be plenty of folks who would be willing to run these trains for 35k (to start), free health care and a pension at 62.  And if the union members are going to go out on an illegal strike, I don't see any reason why replacement workers can't be hired.

The Raiders' QB Shuffle

It looks like the Raiders Marques Tuiasosopo experiment is only going to last one game.  He got a start at QB because of Kerry Collins' poor performance, but after an absolutely awful outing against an absolutely awful Jets team (2.6 yards per attempt, anyone?), the Raiders are putting Collins back in.

I have always said that the QB gets way too much credit and way too much blame for what is happening with his team.  When Collins gets decent pass protection, a decent running game and someone to throw to, he is a more than competent QB.  (For example, look at his 2002 year with the Giants).  But the Raiders stink, and to blame Collins just because he is the guy who has to handle the ball every snap shows a lack of understanding.

Any doubters can look at Jake Plummer.  When he was with Arizona he stunk.  I was at an Arizona game back then, and the fans booed him like crazy, like it was all his fault.  Now that he is throwing the ball for the Broncos people were talking MVP (the year he made the move, he went from a 65 passer rating to a 91 rating).  He didn't all of a sudden get better, he is just surrounded by better people, in a better system.  And, of course, Arizona still stinks.

And, in my humble opinion, the real problem with the Raiders stops and end with Al Davis, the worst owner in all of football (and that is saying a lot).  That team won't get any better until Davis goes.

There is an interesting editorial in TNR today, making "The Liberal Case for the Solomon Amendment."   The author, T.A. Frank, notes that banning military recruiters from NYU and Harvard is going to have very little impact on the status of gays in our society.  However, Frank is concerned that restricting the military from top schools will only widen the gulf which already exists between America's "elites" and the type of folks who go into the military:

Military culture with respect to gays and lesbians is not going to change in response to a boycott by a few schools. (If anything, such a boycott would only make military culture more insular and therefore less tolerant.) And "don't ask, don't tell" is likely to disappear on its own. On the other hand, while most Americans have grown more tolerant of gay rights in recent decades, elites have become increasingly unwilling to serve in the military. The real shame at the heart of the Solomon Amendment scuffle, then, isn't the possibility of students being confronted by representatives from an organization that discriminates against gays and lesbians. It's the possibility of elites becoming even more isolated from the armed services that keep all of us safe.

Mr. Frank is right.  As someone who has taken the little traveled road from the Marine Corps to one of America's top law firms, I can testify that there really are two Americas here.  The vast majority of persons in the top law schools have not only never served themselves, but they really don't know anyone who has (not counting distant cousins and the like).   And most of the people I met in law school were completely ignorant about the military, what it was like, or why anyone would join.  If I had a nickle for everyone who asked "How could you stand getting all those orders all the time" well, I would have a lot of nickels.

Frankly, I doubt that having military recruiters at Yale is going to help the situation much.  But banning them is only going to make what is already a bad situation worse.

A Quick Post Office Story

The wife was in the local post office yesterday, standing in line waiting to be served.  There were five clerks working the counter, and they weren't keeping up with the demand as the line of customers started to get longer.  All of a sudden - break time.  Four of the five clerks put up those "Window Closed" signs, and headed out the back.  The fifth clerk was dealing with this little old lady who was apparently sending boxes of See's candy to half the planet.

Ten minutes go by, without a single customer getting waited on.  The line now was almost out the door, and there was much muttering and grumbling.  Then, break time ended and  the four clerks came back from whatever they were doing, took down their signs, and started taking customers as if nothing had happened.

And to think that there are some people in this country that things we should turn the health care system over to these guys.