Renzi Gets Worse

So he's not just indicted. He's indicted on 36 counts of corruption, including conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering, extortion and insurance fraud; two others were charged along with him. One hopes that on top of everything else, we're not running against a "culture of corruption" too this November.

Oh Goody

Rick Renzi indicted. The Congressman from the AZ01 has been ethically challenged for a while - but now it's all out there. Thinking off the top of my head, he'll probably pull out and be replaced on the ballot by a state senator or other local worthy. The seat's not especially safe, only an R+2 (Bush won with 54% in 04 and 51% in 00). Although Renzi won easily in 2004, in 2006, with the ethical questions and the overall Democratic environment, he won with just 52% of the vote. We'll see...

UPDATE: Oops - I'd forgotten that Renzi announced last August that he wouldn't seek reelection. Still, a Republican in the district will have to run tainted by the association.

"Fair and Balanced"

CNN distributed a series of talking points to its anchors in the wake of Fidel Castro's "resignation" - talking points that bring a whole new meaning to fair and balanced (a slogan liberals love to hate) and once again reveal the media's inescapable bias. They're just too good, I'll post them in their entirety.

From: Flexner, Allison
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:46 AM
To: *CNN Superdesk (TBS)
Cc: Neill, Morgan; Darlington, Shasta
Subject: Castro guidance

Some points on Castro – for adding to our anchor reads/reporting:

* Please say in our reporting that Castro stepped down in a letter he wrote to Granma (the communist party daily), as opposed to in a letter attributed to Fidel Castro. We have no reason to doubt he wrote his resignation letter, he has penned numerous articles over the past year and a half.

* Please note Fidel did bring social reforms to Cuba – namely free education and universal health care, and racial integration. in addition to being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech.

* Also the Cuban government blames a lot of Cuba’s economic problems on the US embargo, and while that has caused some difficulties, (far less so than the collapse of the Soviet Union) the bulk of Cuba’s economic problems are due to Cuba’s failed economic polices. Some analysts would say the US embargo was a benefit to Castro politically – something to blame problems on, by what the Cubans call “the imperialist,” meddling in their affairs.

* While despised by some, he is seen as a revolutionary hero, especially with leftist in Latin America, for standing up to the United States.

Any questions, please call the international desk.

Allison

I'm really kind of surprised that the US isn't denounced as being a nation of baby-killers for the embargo. Anyone else think that the sentence about "being criticized for oppressing human rights and freedom of speech" was a later addition to the whole piece? Finally, I would suggest that he's probably also seen as a revolutionary hero at CNN.

More Lessig

So he's still not officially running, but he's now got a campaign website of sorts. It's got most of what you'd find on a real site, but he's still not officially in. I'm not certain this is a statement of intent - perhaps he's trying to gauge support still?


He also sat down for an interview with Ars Technica, touching on his campaign and what he'd like to do in Congress. It's worth reading in its (relatively brief) entirety, but I'll pull some key excerpts here. First off, it's worth noting that Lessig is currently focused (academically speaking) on the corrupting influence of money in politics; to that end:

One simple means of reducing the political power of campaign cash, Lessig says, "could be done tomorrow." He wants to ban legislative earmarks, those juicy morsels of targeted federal funding legislators direct toward pet projects and political supporters. Lessig also hopes to encourage more robust public financing of campaigns, noting the salutary effect such policies appear to be having in states like Maine and Arizona. Most immediately—and perhaps most radically—Lessig says he will swear off contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, and he hopes to bring grassroots pressure to bear on other candidates to follow suit.

"This is about building a parallel to Creative Commons in Congress," Lessig explains, referencing the popular legal license he created to help authors and artists make their work available for free distribution and modification. Just as creators under a Creative Commons license cede some control over their works in order to promote a robust open-source culture, Lessig's political vision entails "people in power, legislators, voluntarily waiving that power in order to build a better system."

No more earmarks? Good. Public funding? Less certain how I feel about this. It might make for more reasonable campaigns, however - and perhaps shorter campaigns (which in turn would allow voters to pay more attention). The no PAC money is nice - and in a true blue district like the CA-12 may appeal to voters (pure speculation, that).

On policy, he is (as I noted yesterday) a full-blown progressive. However, and I imagine in opposition to his primary opponent, he's a "free-trade, pro-market liberal." As I've said, we could do worse. So what's he planning on doing in Congress?

"Silicon Valley needs a representative who can speak for the interests of the Internet, of making it flourish," he says. "As we're leading into this moment when the owners of telecommunications platforms are trying to leverage their ownership into control of the Internet, yammering about the need to turn it into the old Bell System, we need someone in Washington who's going to be able to stare them down."

But while Lessig wryly notes that the RIAA and MPAA "won't be excited to have an opponent of extremist copyright legislation in Congress," he also stresses that a congressional run would not be some kind of crusading extension of his work on "free culture." For Lessig, the central policy question will be, "Who ultimately controls innovation on the Internet? That's the net neutrality fight; that's the open spectrum fight."

As I've said, I've got mixed feelings about net neutrality. But as I've also said, we could do worse - Lessig is an intellectual and a thoughtful one at that. Given the district, he's orders of magnitude better than a Republican has any reason to hope for.

I'll credit the unparalleled Glenn Reynolds for bringing this to my attention; on Instapundit, he notes "one certainly can't object to the prospect of more serious thinkers, and fewer professional politicians, in Congress." I wholeheartedly agree.

Bush in Africa

El Presidente's doing his thing in Africa - perhaps because he's more popular over there than he is at home - and has been warmly received everywhere. He's also received plaudits from Bob Geldorf, the other Irish rocker who's taken an interest in the continent's plight. Geldorf said, a comment sure to raise liberal hackles, that Bush has done more for African than any other president so far. But let's be honest and look at US-African history since 1945:

• Pressuring Europeans to end their colonial presence was a mixed bag. Some were obviously suffering - Belgian colonies, for example (not to say that things improved after they left) - but many of the British colonies have gone downhill since independence. Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria come to mind - but don't take my word for it, look at demographic indicators.
  
• During the Cold War, we largely let Africa go to pot in our struggle with the Communists. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have subverted the continent to our national interest - we should have, and anyways they would be worse off under Communism, but in terms of helping Africa it wasn't our brightest hour.
• After the Cold War, Bush Sr. wasn't all that concerned. The continent was sort of in stasis - political and economic turmoil, of course, but I don't believe that we'd begun to understand the true extent of the AIDS crisis.
• Clinton: Rwanda. Need we say more?
• Bush II: AIDS programs, consistent engagement with the continent - more than previous presidents. Some might fault him, saying we haven't done enough to end the bloodshed in Darfur, for example; there's some merit in this, but those same folks are the ones who castigate us for going into Iraq without UN authorization - and there's no way in hell we'd get a UN resolution authorizing US troops into Darfur.

So Geldorf's statement isn't a stretch - indeed it's probably the truth. I've got my own personal quibbles with his policies - the emphasis on abstinence rather than contraception in the fight against AIDS for example - but I don't dispute Geldorf's point. Anyways, this whole post was largely an excuse to embed this video. It isn't MC Rove, but try not to laugh too hard.

The NYT's McCain Hit Job

The story of the morning in the political world is, without a doubt, the New York Times' hit job on John McCain. It's the most absurd coalition of rumor and innuendo, shameful journalism even by the standards of the Times.

McCain's denied the allegations, with his campaign saying he's going to war with the paper over the allegations. The Times has their own version of the back-and-forth, including a statement from their editor which makes reference to "facts;" he fails to note that they are few and far between in this particular piece.

Meanwhile, John Weaver, one of the figures at the center of the Times' concocted drama, has issued a statement explaining his role - and it contradicts what NYT says. He's McCain to the end, it would appear. TNR has a must-read metacommentary on the story - the story behind the story, the debates within the Times as to whether or not to publish, etc. It's a hit piece, but apparently not everyone was comfortable with that. Others were apparently dismayed by the timing; the story had originally begun circulating (according to Drudge at least) back in December, but was pulled; some wonder if the Times was holding its fire to help its favorite Republican.

And last but not least, the law of unintended consequences kicks in: the Right is rallying behind McCain. This whole story - especially if it starts to backfire on the Times - also helps McCain in drawing attention away from Obama/Clinton, which had been largely dominating headlines and news coverage. Unifying the party, giving McCain the spotlight with its BS - I never thought I'd say it, but thank you Grey Lady!

CQ has a worthwhile post that's part summary, part analysis, but is definitely worth the time (as is everything that Ed writes).

Lessig for Congress?

One of the more interesting books I've read for a class recently was Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. It's a book about creativity and copyrights, and despite sound like something only a wonk could love, Lessig succeeds in making it accessible, even pleasant, for the lay reader. As such, I strongly recommend it. Besides being an author, Lessig's also a professor out at Stanford Law and a blogger. Busy man. He may also be looking for a new day job.

Lessig lives in (or at least near) California's 12th Congressional District, until recently represented by the late (and sorely missed) Tom Lantos. I didn't always agree with Lantos - indeed the man often drove me up the wall - but I respected him (as Congress's only Holocaust survivor, he deserved at least that much) and found myself agreeing with him more than I might have thought likely. Now there's a Draft Lessig movement afoot, looking to him to replace Lantos. The 12th is a district in which the primary is essentially the ball game - no Republican has gotten more than 43% since 1982 - and more recently most have been held south of 30. Looking at the map such poor performance shouldn't come as much of a surprise - we're talking deep Bay Area here.

I imagine that we can do much worse than Lessig (more on this later). In recent years, Congress's track-record on matters of intellectual property has continually been somewhere between ludicrous and unconstitutional; debate has been minimal at best (the infamous Mickey Mouse Act, properly the Copyright Terms Extension Act, passed by voice vote leaving no record of those few who stood in opposition). Lessig would certainly change all of that, sparking a serious debate on an important and neglected area of policy. Of course it's not all peaches and creme - he's a vociferous Obama supporter and has also stood up for Net Neutrality (on which I remain neutral). But as I said, I imagine we can do much worse.

What's also interesting is the nature of his still-unofficial campaign: it started with a "Draft Lessig for Congress" Facebook group. The movement has gone from there to draftlessig.org website and has gone so far as to have established an Actblue page for the candidate (through which he's already garnered $24,240). Lessig officially remains coy; on his blog, he's said he'll decide soon whether or not to run. Making this whole thing more intriguing is the fact that, in his words, "A bunch of people have asked (and some in the strongest way possible) that I not run because somehow, as a progressive (the pc word for "liberal"), it is wrong to challenge another established progressive."

"Another established progressive" refers to Jackie Speier, who presumably was the establishment candidate to replace Lantos (who had already planned on retiring). Speier looks like Pelosi - which is reason enough to support Lessig over her. She also sounds like Pelosi - cut and run on Iraq, "bring the troops home to fix the economy," yadda yadda yadda (though interestingly, her positions on the Environment and Health Care are "Coming soon...").

If they're both progressives, I presume Lessig feels much the same way on the issues. Given the choice between the two, I have to say that Lessig is the lesser of two evils - in fact he'd be a fine addition to Congress (remember, we're not getting anything that smells like a Republican elected out here). Check out his blog and some of the other links; I encourage you to read Free Culture. This special election may be one worth watching.

Opening the Ballot in North Carolina

I could hardly believe my eyes this morning as I perused The Chronicle, Duke's daily which bills itself as "The Tower of Campus Thought and Action" or some such drivel. Buried inside was some real reporting, regarding efforts by North Carolina's Libertarian and Green Parties to liberalize state ballot laws, currently among the nation's strictest. The present requirement to collect 70,000 votes in order to qualify obviously discriminates against such small parties, which usually spend the majority of their respective budgets in the process. Now, however, the Greens and Libertarians have laid their ideological differences aside in an attempt to overturn the law.

First, I was flabbergasted by such reporting in the Chronicle; more often than not, I feel that the thing should come in two ply on a roll because that's about the limit of its value. Second, and this isn't always the case, I like the idea. It's not out of any ideological willingness to see third (and fourth) parties compete in the general - it's bad enough having Ron Paul in the debates without having Cynthia McKinney in there. Rather, it's because of the Libertarian Party's gubernatorial candidate Mike Munger.

Munger, the Political Science Department Chair here at Duke, has a well-deserved and legendary reputation. He's also inarguably brilliant. He almost certainly wouldn't win election - he's too smart for that (a sad testament to our political system) - but I'd love nothing than to see him get into the gubernatorial debates. This isn't to say the others are dunces, indeed by Tarheel State standards, they're not a bad lot (Wake Forest grads, one graduate degree from LSE). But Mungowitz is a) brilliant and b) absolutely without regard for political convention. Thus the debates would quickly become must-see TV (and I might not be joking had the writers strike recently ended). Oh and Munger's an enormously amusing blogger. Check him out.

I won't cry if he and his greenie counterpart don't make the ballot - but I do think North Carolina politics will be the worse for it.

Ron Paul's Troubled Home Front

So he's technically still running for president, but if Ron Paul keeps on pressing his absurd presidential bid, he may find himself wandering off the political stage altogether. According to Power Line, Paul's gotten himself a pretty serious primary challenge in Chris Peden. His website is here - feel free to take a look, especially his self-comparisons with Paul.

Quick Question

So, Comrade Castro finally "announced" that he won't seek "reelection" tomorrow. Does anyone honestly believe that he's even had a pulse the last 18 or so months? Comrade Castro had a cold...embalming cured it nicely.

Obama's So-Called "Accomplishments"

Browsing around on DailyKos (thesis research, really), some diarist was screaming about Obama's legislative "accomplishments" and begging his fellow Kool-Aid drinkers to get the word out that, yes, Obama's done something other than just vote present (129 times) in his career as a public servant. The diarist then pointed elixir-imbibers to this blog entry, which has a long-winded list of the alleged accomplishments. It's a snorer - Obama doesn't win a prize for sexy legislative accomplishments. But has he just introduced a pile of bills, or has he gotten them passed? Let's take a look - from the top:

• Nonproliferation: So he worked with Lugar on nonproliferation. Admirable, but really, who's in favor of loose Russian nukes? I'd be impressed if he had proposed a bill establishing Alcoholics Anonymous chapters at all WMD-related military facilities in Russia - that'd be a big step forward. In reality, he just coauthored things with the nonproliferation Senator. Obama gets to look like he's playing with the big kids, Lugar gets to appear bipartisan.
• Avian Flu: Again, admirable. This is a public policy issue that I don't think we've talked enough about. All Democratic efforts on the issue can be found here. Obama's succeeded with two amendments that, combined, appropriate a whopping $50 million for international efforts. As successful amendments go, this one may be tough to defend - after all, foreign aid never sells well (obviously H5N1 should be an exception to that rule). He's also introduced the AVIAN Act (I swear there must be a government office devoted solely to filling out acronyms), which was read twice, referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (what was I saying about acronyms), and then came back to the floor where Obama made introductory remarks. Three times. A rousing success, that one. He also cosponsored an amendment (along with the rest of the Democratic leadership) that actually got a meaningful chunk of change, sent a letter to the HHS secretary about bird flu (again, with other Democrats - and HHS, clearly the Bureau of Acronyms was asleep on that one), and...yeah. That's it. On his own, $50 million and a bill that didn't go anywhere. Setting the bar pretty high here, Barack.
• Regulating Genetic Testing: Again, noble. Again, who's opposed to misdiagnosing Tay Sachs, Down Syndrome, or another equally tragic illness? Bold leadership, nonetheless. This time, our Savior/Messiah/Empty-Vessel-Onto-Which-We-Can-Project-Our-Dreams has introduced another visionary piece of legislation. The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006 was introduced, referred to the Committee on Finance (why this isn't HELP's territory is absolutely beyond my sleep-deprived mind), and there languished till the end of Congress. One small step for man, one giant accomplishment for Obama? Note, too, that he didn't even have any cosponsors on this one. Yikes.
• Reducing Medical Malpractice: I read this, and all of a sudden thought that I might be crazy. Obama, taking on trial lawyers? Not to be - according to our intrepid blogger, who clearly has too much time on his hands (what does that say about me, taking the time to refute him), "medical malpractice claims do not do much to drive up health care costs." I think you could wiggle the Titanic through that, but that's another story. According to this fellow, all we've got to do is apologize (and presumably sing Kumbayah afterwards - Osama's invited and bringing punch). Obama and Hillary teamed up to introduce a bill "aimed at helping hospitals to develop programs for disclosure of medical errors." This particular bill, clearly touched by the geniuses of the Bureau of Acronyms and thus cleverly entitled the National Medical Error DIsclosure and Compensation Act (MEDiC Act), was read and referred to the HELP Committee. A day's work well done for our acronym allies. Again, beyond Hillary and Barack - no cosponsors.
• Tax Privacy: I don't want my tax-preparer selling my personal information, I doubt you do either. Thankfully Barack's here to help with his Protecting Taxpayer Privacy Act. He actually got cosponsors (eight of 'em, all Democrats) but this bill, too was simply referred to committee, never to see the light of day again.
• Chemical Plant Security: Again, admirable. Why we're not letting plant owners see to this themselves is questionable, but Barack's insistent that they don't care (or something). Obama's presser wasn't kind enough to provide a bill number, but a little bit of THOMAS (another acronym...) sleuthing dug up S.2486, the Chemical Safety and Security Act of 2006. Co-sponsors? 5 (not counting Obama and Lautenberg). Progress. None - but a new committee this time, Homeland Security (actually seems relevant to the bill at hand).
• Lead Paint: Stop the presses - the Messiah is against lead paint! I never would have guessed...he's must be taking money from the water-based paint industry under the table. What's he done here? Actually passed something! An amendment to an Interior Department (which has oversight of everything in the nation's interior - trees, corn, buffalo, trees) appropriations bill that, according to a third-party presser, "would help speed the creation of regulations to protect our nation's children from dangerous lead-paint poisoning." Good job, Barack! The EPA was nine years late with the regulations, but Barack's on the job. Amendment regarding lead paint? I think even Teddy Kennedy can be convinced to get out of his car (and put down his drink) long enough to vote for this. No word on whether Obama's crowning achievement thus far survived the conference committee wrangling that nearly all appropriations bills undergo...
• "Health Care for Hybrids:" This bold bill - with a House cosponsor! - would burden the government with part of Detroit's bloated pensions so long as Detroit promised to reinvest the saved money into hybrids. Sound stupid to you? The Senate thought so too - damn thing was consigned to committee. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate.
• Energy Security: The resource cannot be found. Seems fitting, right?
• Aid for Katrina Kids: "Dear Children: Since your parents didn't bother to get you out of Nola before Katrina wrecked your city (a marvel of engineering seeing as it is underwater and all), they'll get a tax credit to be just as responsible next time! Love, Barack." Hate me, if you wish. I won't even bother plugging Child Tax Credit extension into THOMAS, so I can't inform you whether this, too, is one of Barack's (actually completed) "accomplishments." This generous amendment was tacked onto a "$70 billion bill laden with tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected" - since when are those of us with fat Outlook contact files being lumped in with those of us with fat wallets? Senator, I'm sure a lot of high-priced escorts are "well-connected," but I'm not sure if they qualify as wealthy. Empty rhetoric aside (why does this seem familiar?), the unfortunate truth of the matter is that tax cuts for the poor don't work. They don't spend more, thus defeating the aim of tax cuts in the first place (confronted with this rhetoric, we thus hear "well let's raise taxes and see what happens!")
• No-bid contracts for FEMA: Fourth time may be the charm, according to The Hill. No word from the compiling blogger as to whether it was the charm - were they being sloppy or merely omitting the sad truth that this too didn't work? And this is a bit incongruous when contrasted with the previous item - Obama wanted cleanup and reconstruction to happen quickly, no? A lengthy, bureaucratic bidding process would throw a jar of molasses and a monkey wrench into the process, no? Barack, buddy, you can have your cake or you can eat it - the federal government could be timely or it could be cheap. Odds are it won't be either, but it certainly can't be both.
• More FEMA/Katrina-related legislation!: All sorts of good ideas - for what that's worth. Also, an acronym-tastic title: the "Oversight of Vital Emergency Recovery Spending Enhancement and Enforcement" (OVERSEE) Act. This one, cosponsored with a Republican (how can any Democrate dare vote for this evil man?!), actually made it as far as the Senate's Legislative Calendar. Slowly, slowly getting there - there being an actual accomplishment.
  
• Coburn-Obama Spending Database: It passed! It's happened! It's out there somewhere, and the one time I tried to use it, I became hopelessly lost! Still, it's out there! ACCOMPLISHMENT!
• Hiking CAFE Standards: The Fuel Economy Reform Act - read twice, referred to committee. Nice try buddy. Even had eight cosponsors!
• Health Care for Veterans: Well-meaning, no doubt. And I, for one, think that we cannot do enough for those who have risked life and limb for our country. No doubt much of the Senate agreed in principle with the Lane Evans Health Care Benefits Improvement Act (using proper nouns precludes fun acronyms), but in reality they apparently had issue - condemned to committee, and briefly released for introductory remarks. Honestly: if you have the choice between Obama mouthing pretty-sounding platitudes on the Senate floor or Bob Byrd ranting incoherently and drooling on himself in his dotage, which would you pick? I can't stand him and I'd still go for the platitudes.
• Banning "certain kinds" of voter intimidation: Because only the kinds Republicans use are bad. He wrote a bill, the "Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005" - and it soon found itself languishing in committee.
  
• Lobbying Reform: Page not found. Maybe he thought Mark Foley was the love of his life? What intrigues me is the brief description provided by our intrepid glosser (nevermind Barack's done nothing, A for effort!): "requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them." Like the time Dick Durbin derided Jim DeMint for not having read the 3,417 page, $554.7 billion (34 pound!) omnibus bill in the 46 hours since its publication, saying “I would just say to the Senator from South Carolina: Welcome to the world of the Internet. This bill has been posted since 12:15 a.m. Monday morning on the Internet for your perusal ... You have had your chance. Every Senator has had a chance.” Which of course suggests that Durbin, Dick is a phenomenal speed-reader - to read that behemoth in the time allotted, "the Durbin Speed Reading standard required senators to read and comprehend 1.25 pages per minute, non-stop, for 2,768 minutes." I feel like I have the two stooges representing Illinois - no doubt their mother had a late-term abortion for the third.
• A proposal revamping ethics oversight: Again, sounds nice. But did it get anywhere? No clue. Any guesses?

I'll admit, the post I'm lambasting here was written on October 24th, 2006. So it's entirely plausible that Obama might have done something in the intervening 14 months. But since he's been running for president since kindergarten, I'm disinclined to believe such a proposition. And what of this lot? Three amendments and a succesfully passed earmark transparency program. That's a presidential resume, all right.

And in sympathy for the rest of his legislation, languishing somewhere in the Senate Office Buildings (their House counterparts are referred to as HOBs...Senate buildings aren't thusly abbreviated), I'm indulging a trip down memory lane to 4th grade social studies:

G'night, folks.

Break from the Thesis

Given that I'm basically locking myself in the library till Saturday, slaving away on my thesis (if you get a snarky, unPC, or generally mean-spirited response to an email between now and then, you likely know the cause), I figured I'd use my breaks to update the blog. So there may be some stuff for your amusement - because I can only read so much, write so much, and try to decipher so many statistical mysteries.