Roscoe's Blog

I am normally not a big round ball fan, but I have to get excited about the LSU Tigers getting to the Final Four and playing UCLA next weekend.  Of course, this means that they will start getting some local coverage, and the LA Times can start getting stuff wrong about them.

About that.  I appreciate that the LA Times is finally starting to refer to "Louisiana State University" as "LSU" rather than "Louisiana State" at least some of the time.  But guys, they don't have "crawfish broils" down there, they have "crawfish boils".

Who Would Jesus Deport?

Hillary Clinton is telling us that God wouldn't like the new House immigration reform bill:

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself," [Clinton] said. "We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."

Me, I was unaware that Jesus took any positions one way or another on illegal immigration.  And I didn't know that there was some problem with too many undocumented Assyrans or Hittites looking for work in the Promised Land.  And I certainly don't recall Hillary being all so quick to invoke scripture when she was voting in favor of partial birth abortions.  Maybe she should shut up about religion and talk about the merits of the bill.

And, about that, the NYT "news" story, channeling Ms. Clinton, tells us that the that the bill would, "among other things, would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants."  What the bill says on the subject is this:

(b)(1) Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien violating section 276(b) to reenter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to reenter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for a term imposed under paragraph (2), or both.

Hey, when you are a hard working NYT reporter, why bother to go out and read the bill.  It's so much easier to just recite Democratic talking points.  (As usual, the Washington Post does a more honest job of reporting).

Anyway, the House bill won't get through the Senate.  With the exception of Bill Frist, the members of the "Worlds Greatest Deliberative Body" will try to sell us a "guest work" program, with some meager enforcement provisions that nobody will take seriously. 

Hey Don't Sugarcoat it Mr. Green, Tell Us How You Really Feel

ABC's John Green, the executive producer of the Saturday and Sunday Good Morning America, apparently doesn't like George Bush all that much.   According to the Mat Drudge site, here is an e-mail he wrote back during the last election cycle:

As we lawyers say, "the thing speaks for itself" (except we have a complicated Latin phrase for it, in order to make everyone think we are smarter than we are).   But does anyone have a problem with the fact that the guy whose job it is to make sure we get an unbiased view of the news has such strong feelings about the President?  Don't you think we should get some disclose on this sort of thing, and not have to wonder why the Administration never seems to get a fair shake on his channel?

Reactions to this are just coming in, but my favorite so far is from Keith Olbermann, whose first take on the document is to blame the Bush Administration.  His evidence?  Turns out that "the timing's too good" for it to be otherwise.    Kinda makes you wonder what sort of e-mails are coming from Keith's Blackberry.

Another Reason Not to Like Aging Hippies (as if you needed another)

This really frosted my cake.  A joint U.S. and Brit military operation rescued the three peace-nicks who had been held hostage by Islamic terrorists for the past four months.  Given that the peace-nicks were there for the express purpose of criticizing the U.S. and Brit military for being there, you would think that the terrorists would have given them a break, but I guess to some people one infidel dog is pretty like any other infidel dog.

Anyway, regular people might have thought that having been kidnapped and held by the terrorists would have given these guys a clue as to who the good guys and the bad guys were in that particular neighborhood.  Or maybe they might have figured it out after one of their number, poor Tom Fox, was tortured and murdered by their captors.

But, of course, the peace-nicks were all sweetness and light toward the men who had held them for four months and killed their friend.   According to their spokesman:  “Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship to our friends and sorrow to their families."

And maybe these good Christians could offer up a word of thanks to the Brits and  Yanks who laid it on the line to rescue them?  Not a chance, in fact the graying hippies couldn't pass up this chance to note that the whole thing was the military's fault:

We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq.

So the murdering terrorists who kidnap them get their "love" while the kids who rescue them get blamed.   What a bunch of jerks.

Republicans Explained

Twenty years ago a fellow named Jack Block and his wife stated a study to try to find out what types of kids become conservative and what types of kids become liberal.   Given that Mr. Block is a Berkeley professor, it hardly comes as a surprise that he has found that the whiny kids in preschool generally turn out to be conservatives, while the cool kids become liberals.  Mr. Black tells us that:

The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests.

For the record the sample was small (only 100 kids) and the Berkeley locale of the study is hardly representative of the rest of the country.  More significantly, according to the paper, the correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and later becoming a liberal is only .27.  So there ain't much there, there.

So I  am more inclined to go with George Will, who tells us--based on a study done by the the Pew Research Center--that on average conservatives are happier than liberals:

While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.

On a purely anecdotal basis I am inclined to go with this, if only because so few liberals have anything at all that looks like a sense of humor (this Stewart guy being the exception that proves the rule (and what the hell does that mean, anyway)).   Today's Exhibit A to this is over at the Huffington Post, where blogger Greg Gutfield gives us "29 Reasons Why America Sucks".  It is a perfectly funny little bit,  for example  Number 4 is "Not executing homosexuals or adulterers makes us a laughing stock in Islamic countries."   Maybe not LOL funny, but look at the comments if you want an example of stiff, necked, self-righteous, and intolerant ladies and gentlemen of the left who just can't stand it that Mr. Gutfield has yet to be taken out and beaten for his unacceptable viewpoints.

But if you really want to know where Republicans are at, look no further than a GQ article (written by an anonymous lady who claims to have done lots and lots of research) called "The Elephant in the Bedroom" that gives us all ten reasons why Republicans are better in the sack than Democrats.    Not family safe, but very funny (and it's twue. It's twue. It's twue, it's twue! ).

Kevin Phillips on NPR

I was listening to "Democratic Public Radio" last night on my way to the gym.  Terri Gross was interviewing "former Republican strategist" Kevin Phillips on his latest book.  In "American Theocracy" Phillips (according to the interview, I haven't read the thing) criticizes the current administration for cuddling up to right wing religious fundamentalists.   In her introduction to the interview, Ms. Gross must have mentioned that Phillips was  a former Republican strategist four of  five times, a point which gives his attacks on George Bush & Co. added credibility.

But it seems to me that this "former Republican strategist" has been primarily engaged in beating up on Republicans for some time now.  In his previous book, "American Dynasty" Phillips tells us all the things he doesn't like about the Bush family.   And back in 1990, the "former Republican strategist" was taking on Ronald Reagan.  According to a review, in  "The Politics of Rich and Poor":

Phillips proposes that the legacy of Reagan's presidency includes an enormous concentration of wealth at the top, intensifying pain and inequality for the poor, a massive, mounting debt, and foreigners gobbling up large chunks of America.

In fact, I haven't heard Kevin Phillips say a nice thing about a (current) Republican for about as long as I have been paying attention.  And the last Republican this "former Republican strategist" actually worked for was Richard Nixon, over 35 years ago.

Obviously, Mr. Phillips can say whatever he likes, and his opinions are a lot smarter and better supported than you generally get from people on the left.   But the statute of limitations on being a "former Republican strategist" should have run at some point in the last 30 years, and he should give that particular piece of his schtick a rest.

Some Perspective

Lots of people are criticizing George Bush for the military deaths which have occurred during the Iraq war.  But if you look at this chart of military deaths, and the analysis done by the folks at Red State, you see that Bush the elder and Reagan both had more of our guys die on their watch, and Bill Clinton wasn't that far behind.

George W. Bush . . .  . . 5187  (2001-2004)
Bill  Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302  (1993-1996) 
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223  (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . .  9163  (1981-1984)

What is going on here, given that weren't any real hot wars fought during most of these administrations?  The fact is that, as the chart shows, accidents have usually been the leading killer of American servicemen, even during the Gulf War and most of the Iraq War.  Some of them are garden variety accidents that we risk in civilian life (car crashes, falling off a roof, etc.) and some of them are training accidents.

Of course, I am not trying to diminish the significance of any of these deaths, quite the opposite. Back in the Day I had a very bad time when two of my buddies, Foosball and Smut, died within a week of each other in training accidents.   The deaths shook me up, and they shook up a lot of people in the relatively small Marine aviation community.

But if the deaths were reported, beyond the small town obituary kind of thing, I missed it.  And this is in spite of the fact that Smut and Foosball died for their country the same as any guy who got blown up by an IED in Iraq, and in spite of the fact that there more accidental deaths in the military that year (1983), than the combined number of accidental and combat deaths last year. 

So why didn't Foosball make the national news?  Why weren't there any lefties in Santa Monica or anyone from Code Pink setting up pretend graveyards or nattering on about the loss of young life?  Is it grief motivating these people, or politics?  Me, I think a lot of these people don't give a rat's ass about the young kids from flyover country that serve, they are just using the deaths as a stick to beat up on George Bush.  (h/t Instapundit).

The French are Revolting (I Know, I've Seen Them)

A million or more Frenchmen are expected to be demostrating today.  Needless to say, to get that many of them on the street, it has to involve the only thing that matters to these people, their lifestyle.  And it does, the French are unhappy about a change to their labor laws that will make it easier to fire some of them.

This change to the labor laws is in response to the recent riots in "some poor suburbs" (according to Reuters, please note the lack of any mention at all that it was Muslims that were rioting).   The French unemployment rate is 23 percent among young people, which rises to 50 percent among the people in the "depressed suburbs that were shaken by weeks of riots last year."  (That is CNN, also no mention that it was Muslim kids torching the cars).  Someone has apparently figured out that the laws which make it virtually illegal for an employer to fire anyone make it harder for these young people to get that first job.  So a new law now makes it possible to fire a worker under 26 during the first two years of his or her employment.

The French are outraged at this notion that an employer should ever be able to fire an employee who is not working out:

Critics reject this as a "Kleenex contract" because young workers could be fired without explanation -- "thrown away like a paper tissue," they say -- during their first two years. They demand full job protection after a short trial period.

This one young fellow thinks that a job where the employer isn't required by law to keep you on isn't worth having.  "'I would say 'no' (to a job offered under the law) because I would have no security for two years,' Jerome Desprol, 24, told Reuters."

A couple of thoughts.  First, the French are in a lot of trouble.   Their labor laws (including a required 35 hour work week, a required 5 weeks of paid vacation (with 11 other paid Holiday or personal days which are legally mandated)) have brought them a world where anyone with a job gets to keep it forever, and anyone without a job can just go whistle.   This is an economic model that just doesn't work, but making even a minor fix in the system causes riots.  And with unemployment rates at 50% in some part of town, if the French can't muster the political will to make some changes it is only a matter of time until their vaunted social contract falls apart.

Second, you say to yourself, "there but for the grace of God."  I have a lot of problems with a lot of things that the Republicans are doing, but does anyone have any doubt that if the Democrats and the labor unions were running things, we would be where the French are now?

So, Patrick Moody was executed by the good people of the State of North Carolina, by lethal injection.  (You know, what we really need is a slang term for death by lethal injection, sort of like "fried" for the electric chair).

Anyway, Moody's crime was that he conspired with his girlfriend to kill her husband, in order to collect the insurance money.   Not all that unusual, except the amount of  insurance money we are talking about here is the princely sum of  FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Talk about lowering the bar.   The wife has been bugging me to get more insurance, and I have been pushing back some.  "Dear," I tell her, "If I die I want to make sure that we are both unhappy about it".    But if these losers are now willing to kill somebody in order to cheat the insurance company out of a measly five grand, then a lot more husbands will be looking over their shoulder.

The Moussaoui Penalty Phase Melts Down

You would think something really awful has happened in the Moussaoui  penalty trial.  The judge, Loenie Brinkema is saying terrible things about how the government is handling the case:

"I don't think in the annals of criminal law there has ever been a case with this many significant problems," Brinkema said after Tuesday's hearing uncovered even more government misconduct.

The defense counsel are agreeing (of course) that this attempt to "shape the testimony" of witnesses deprives Moussaoui of a fair trial.   And even the government prosecutors are admitting that what happened was "horrendously wrong."

Everyone is pointing the finger at Carla Martin, an attorney who works at TSA and who is apparently "helping" with the government's case.  Ms. Martin's sin, apparently, was that she "coached" witnesses by providing them with copies of some trial transcripts, and told them about some potential problems with the government's case.   According to the NYT, the Judge said that this attempt to "coach[] seven witnesses on how to testify and respond during cross-examination" was "the most striking example of witness tampering by a lawyer she had experienced in her years on the bench."

This, we are told, is a horrible mistake that any experienced lawyer would know not to make:

"It's pretty basic," said Peter Margulies, a visiting law professor at St. John's Law School in Queens. "Lawyers know you've got to sequester witnesses."

ABC News tells us (without a cite and attribution) that Ms. Martin's conduct was a violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Federal rules of evidence prohibit witnesses from exposure to trial testimony because of the possibility they will alter their testimony based on what they learn.

In fact, according to the NYT, even law students know you aren't supposed to "coach" witnesses. 

All of this leads me to say that there are a lot of people taking about this case that have never tried a case, or talked to anyone who ever had.

In the real world, "coaching" a witness is what happens when an attorney advises a witness how to answer a pending question.  And "tampering" with a witness usually involves offering some inducement to get him to say what you want.  But when a trial lawyer talks to a witness before he hits the stand, it isn't called "coaching" or "tampering", rather it is called "preparing the witness".

Legitimate preparation of a witness can get pretty extensive; you can remind the witness of his prior testimony or documents he has written or seen, tell him what other witnesses have had to say about the subject of his testimony,  and run the witness through a practice direct examination.  You can suggest questions the witness is likely to get on cross examination, and even run a practice cross to see how he holds up.  All this is not only okay, but it is fairly routine.  It isn't "witness tampering", it doesn't violate any rules or constitutional rights, and it happens in virtually every single trial--civil or criminal--that takes place in the Federal courts (at least every trial conducted by competent attorneys).

So if Ms. Martin and the government didn't violate any of Mr. Moussaoui's constitutional rights or the Federal Rules of Evidence, what is the problem?  The problem is that Judge Brinkema issued an order that "barred the witnesses from receiving the testimony of other witnesses or receiving any news accounts of the trial."  Now, there was nothing in the Constitution requiring an order like this, and in my humble opinion this order is broader than what you usually see (although the Federal Rules do require that witnesses be excluded from the Courtroom when one side or the other asks for it).    But the government lawyers violated Judge Brinkema's order, and federal judges are generally unhappy when their orders aren't obeyed.

Now, I'm not saying that Ms. Martin was right to disobey the Court's order (it seems she didn't remember it being issued, which is probably true).  But we shouldn't make more of this than is taking place; which is that the government violated one of the trial judge's orders, and now the trial judge is annoyed at them.  The defense is pressing its advantage, and the government lawyers are rolling around on the floor and covering themselves with dust (a good practice when a judge is pissed at you for violating one of her orders). 

Now, is Judge Brinkema maybe over-reacting a little bit to the violation of one of her orders?  Frankly (and I now fore-swear any cases in the Eastern District of Virginia) it sounds like it.  The judge's comments that this is the most error ridden trial "in the annals of criminal law" is a bit over the top.   And given that (1) the prosecutors were the ones who called this to the Court's attention when they found out what Ms. Martin had done (here is their letter to the judge with the attached e-mails) and (2) all the TSA witnesses pretty much testified that they ignored what Ms. Martin was telling them, it really sounds to me like that the judge could have found some way to deal with her hurt feelings other than cutting the heart out of the government's case.   And the fact that the good judge advised Ms. Martin of her Miranda rights shows that she might not be entirely sensible, given that Ms. Martin isn't even in custody. 

Oh well, it looks like Moussaoui will be living on the government nickle for the next 40 years or so, and that you and I will be footing the bill.