Who's Running This Circus?

What struck me even more about the Gene Healy article in Reason was the following excerpt:

McCain-Feingold clocked in at a mere 36 pages, yet in February 2003 The New York Times reported that the Democratic and Republican party organizations had to hire high-priced lawyers and consultants to run seminars teaching senators and congressmen about the requirements of the law they had just passed. "I didn't realize what all was in it," Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.) said.

They didn't understand the requirements of the law they had just passed. Unbelievable. And this was legislation that directly affected them and the way that they raised money.
McCain-Feingold is extraordinarily bad law. It may have been based on good intentions, but the ramifications of the law have been disastrous. First, it has made it all but impossible for anyone but the very rich to run for office. For some reason, the courts have ruled that spending your money on advertising, etc. to promote your own political ideas or to support your own political campaign is a free speech issue, protected by the 1st amendment, while spending your money on someone else's campaign is not. Therefore, under McCain-Feingold, you cannot give more than $2,000 to any single candidate in any single election. It takes a lot of $2,000 contributions to run a successful campaign these days, especially difficult if you aren't an incumbent.
The loophole that McCain-Feingold left open gave rise to the 527 organizations in the last election. These organizations can accept unlimited amounts of money, but cannot be officially tied in anyway to a candidate. Politician's must love these. 527's can put out the most outrageous and scandalous allegations, and the candidate can say that he had nothing to do with them. Plausible deniability.
So, Congress passed this law, a mere 36 pages of text, and didn't understand it. The Intelligence Reform Bill of 2004 is 200 pages longer. How many Senators actually understand that little piece of legislation? If you want some real reform in government, maybe we should adopt a five sentence rule for legislation. No law can be longer than five sentences long. Of course, maybe we should also make sure that they use single syllable words so that the whole of Congress can understand them, too.

Bring On Mr. Smith

Gene Healy makes some compelling arguments in this article in Reason today. I don't know that I agree with him about the likelihood of the disallowing of filibusters on judicial appointments leading to the end of all filibusters, but he is right that the Republicans would be better off forcing their colleagues on the other side of the aisle to mount a real filibuster. As best I understand it, the current process of acquiescing when the other side announces that they plan to filibuster is nothing more than a gentleman's agreement. In reading the text of the Senate Rule, there is only the requirement of an affirmative vote "in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" to close debate, except to change the rules, in which case "the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting". The filibuster is meant to be used on issues that are so important as to put aside all other work of the Senate. The Democrats want to call on the memory of Mr. Jefferson Smith? Let them emulate him. Bring on the debate, and the cots.

You Can't Win Them All

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has consistently been right on the importance and necessity of the war in Iraq, but he has weighed in a couple of pounds light on the nomination of John Bolton to be our Ambassador to the UN (column). I don't know that Bolton is necessarily the right man for the job, although anyone with the chutzpah to say that we could do without 10 floors of the UN building and no one would notice has risen several pegs in my book. I do know, however, that it would be far worse to heed Friedman's advice and nominate George H. W. Bush to fill the role.
The foreign policy goals of the two Bush administrations could hardly be more diametrically opposed. George Bush 41 viewed foreign policy as the need for stability, the theory being that it was better to bear those ills we have than flee to others we know not of. George Bush 43, on the other hand, has instituted a foreign policy based on change and the primacy of freedom. He has a vision of a better world, based on democracy and freedom.
Friedman is also wrong when it comes to the costs of the current Mid-East campaign. Having more allies would not reduce, in any significant measure, the cost in blood nor dollars that America is expending in Iraq. A more Grand Alliance would be merely symbolic. In Operation Desert Storm, the United States provided the vast majority of troops and equipment, and an even more disproportionate percentage of casualties. The same is true in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It doesn't matter. What does matter is doing the right thing. As King Arthur says in the Broadway Musical Camelot, what we believe in is not that might makes right, but that we should use might for right.

Change Everything?

That is the prescription that James Carville and Paul Begala have given the Democratic Party. I am reminded of something I once heard. If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't thinking. I think that the same can be said when two people disagree on everything - one of them isn't thinking either. Their article does, however, get at least one thing right. The biggest problem that the Democrats face is not that they stand for things that the American public doesn't like, but that they stand for nothing. As it stands, it is still the Rupublican Party that is the party of ideas, the party of change and the party of reform. It is not and will not be enough for the Democrats just to stand up and say "No!" (which, by the way, seems to be what they are doing). They must instead formulate an alternative plan from which to govern. Carville and Begala have outlined five issues that they believe can be exploited. Doing so, however, may be more difficult than they imagine.
The Economy. The Democrats solution: Tax the rich, encourage corporations to keep jobs in the US, reform and simplify the Tax Code by making it more progressive (again, tax the rich). There is a plan in place that accomplishes everything in that list save the last, making it more progressive, the National Sales Tax. It is proposed by a Republican congressman from Georgia.
Health Care. The Democrats solution: Some sort of mandated health insurance for every American. Their preference would be a single-payer (government funded) plan, but they would settle for requiring employers to insure their workers, with an additional tax to cover those that fell through the cracks. The Republicans here aren't much better, preferring to let people make their own health decisions - whether it is an employee benefit (in lieu of salary), privately purchased health insurance, or (in the only innovative policy set forth on this issue) private, tax-deductible, individual health insurance accounts. The problem with all but the private accounts is that it hides the cost from the consumer. Do you know that your insurance carrier may be paying more for your doctor visits and prescriptions than you would pay yourself in a "pay-as-you-go" system. And you are probably paying a co-payment for that priveledge.
Foreign Policy. If you haven't been watching, it would seem that the current administration's firm, decisive foreign policy has been having effects far beyond the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. Although too early to call the campaign for freedom a resounding success, there are now fledgling democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a general move toward democracy in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There is even hope for a democratic movement in Iran and Syria. American foreign policy shouldn't be reached as a consensus with other nations. It should be based on doing the right thing, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. If they come along for the ride, great. If they don't, we can go it alone just fine.
Political Reform. This issue is like the chimney sweep telling the coal miner that he is dirty. There is plenty of political corruption on both sides of the aisle. It is easy to point a finger at Tom Delay now, but now the Democratic House Leader, Nancy please, is having similar allegations flung her way. Political reform as a campaign issue will often take down friend and foe alike. If Carville and Begala don't see this, it is because they see Democrats not as being right, but good, and Republicans not as wrong, but bad.

Time to Ban Assault Rocks

Rocks can be dangerous things, just ask Goliath. In the interest of the public safety, then, it is high time that we look at the danger that Assault Rocks are in our society. In my unscientific estimate, there are in excess of 8 million rocks for every man woman and child in the United States. That is enough of these potentially lethal weapons for every citizen to wipe out an entire major city, yet we allow these objects to fall into the hands of criminals on a daily basis. Not only that, but large-capacity Assault Rock Magazines are made available at no cost at every major grocery store, in two convenient styles, paper and plastic. These magazines can hold hundreds of Assault Rocks at a time, and pose an even greater risk to society. This is a worldwide problem, with incidents in South Africa, Israel, Honduras, Haiti, and Ireland, to name a few.
Here, finally, is an issue where we can get out in front of the curve. Legislation is needed immediately to protect us from this danger that surrounds us seemingly on all sides. I can't believe that there are still people out there that claim "rocks don't kill people - people kill people." We need to make sure that there is a 2 month waiting period before people are allowed to take possession of rocks, and complete FBI background checks performed in the interim. Smooth stones should be completely prohibited, as they are more aerodynamic, and there is no reason for them other than to hurt or kill people and other living things. No rocks should be allowed within 100 yards of a school or government building. The penalty for carrying rocks onto school property by students should be immediate expulsion, and applied to rocks of any size and shape, from grains of sand (which can insidiously be hidden in childrens' shoes) to boulders (which can cause catastrophic damage). It is important, as part of our necessary zero tolerance policy that all rocks and rock-like substances be included in this ban, lest we set a bad example and promote the idea that some rocks are safe and others are not.
Thanks to Jason Adams for the concept and link to the Aran Islands (Ireland) rock-throwing incident.

The Derby

I would be remiss if I didn't at least post something about my sons' Pinewood Derby (Cub Scouts) experience yesterday (April 2nd). Both of them were just so proud of their cars, and both of them did admirably. Ryan placed 4th in his group (Wolves or 2nd graders), and Alex placed 1st in his (Tigers or 1st graders). You should have seen the look of pride on his face as he stood up there waiting to compete against the other division winners.
I was surprised one thing, however. Everything that I had read had indicated that putting more weight in the back would make the car run faster. The cars that I saw do the best, though, had the weight more evenly distributed. In fact, the car that won for the entire Pack was barely more than the original block of wood.
Regardless, though, a good time was had by all, and congratulations to all participants, and especially the winners.

A Dignified Death

Today, the gates of Heaven were opened for Pope John Paul II. His was a remarkable life, and an equally remarkable death. When we speak of 'death with dignity', this is the example that we should look to. John Paul did not hurry toward his death, rushing to embrace it, nor did he shirk or cower from it. The Pope instead accepted death when it came, walking with it, embracing it, while still savoring every last ounce of life while he had breath.
The Holy Father has walked with death for some time. He met it in passing in his youth, losing his Mother just one month before his 9th birthday, his elder brother at the age of 12, and his Father at 21. He lived under both Nazi and Communist rule and no doubt came to know death as at least a passing acquaintance. Death also came calling in 1981, by way of an assassin's bullet. By this time, the Pope was probably on a first name basis with death, but this time it was just a visit, and the Pontiff endured.
With the onset of Parkinson's Disease, death started to become a more constant companion, trailing far behind at first, but coming closer with each step. These past few years, John Paul and death could be seen walking, side by side, in constant conversation with each other. But the Pope had other responsibilities, and the presence of death by his side would not keep him from them. His travel may be curtailed, he may have found it difficult to walk, or, at times, even to speak, but still, he walked on. I am reminded of a line from The Princess Bride, "Life is pain. Anyone that tries to tell you differently is selling you something." The pope, however, was not buying. There was pain, certainly, and suffering, but this man bore his cross with dignity.
This year, however, John Paul's health took a turn for the worse. He contracted the flu, which caused him to have difficulty breathing. Rather than succumb, he allowed a tracheotomy to be performed, so that his lungs could take in enough air. Then his illness caused him to to have trouble eating, so he had a feeding tube inserted into his nose so that he received enough nourishment. He did not feel that these things were undignified. They were necessary to allow him to go on with his mission. As long as his lungs had breath, and his heart had strength, his life had purpose and meaning, and it was that he would embrace, not death, which was now his constant companion.
As ill as he was, Ester Sunday, he appeared at his window, and again on Wednesday, when he traditionally greeted the masses in St. Peter's Square. This is one of those pictures of him that I will remember, embracing life with what little strength he had left. In the end, though, there was no treatment for him. A urinary tract infection put him into septic shock. Antibiotics were prescribed, but they proved unequal to the task. In the hours before his death, though, he continued to receive visitors, living his life as best he could. In the end, though, death took him by the arm, and took him the few short steps to Heaven's Gate. Thus, Pope John Paul II passed from this world to the next, straight and erect and, yes, dignified.
The next time that you hear someone say that they wish to 'die with dignity', remember the way that this Pope carried himself in the face of death, and see if it measures up.
Good-night, Karol Wojtyla. Godspeed.

Crimes Are Misdemeanors

National Security just isn't what it used to be. I thought that government secrets were supposed to be just that, government secrets, and that violation of the public trust in such instances would have severe consequences. I was wrong. It is merely a misdemeanor. A drunk driving conviction would carry more weight in many states.
Last summer, Sandy Berger called it an "honest mistake" when he unintentionally removed 5 classified documents from the national archives. Apparently, this "honest mistake" is neither. Nor did he misplace, or mistakenly discard of, 3 of the 5 documents. Instead, he shredded them with a pair of scissors in his office. The question that we do not have an answer to is "Why?" Why would a man that once held the highest National Security post in the land deliberately remove and destroy documents? I will not speculate on this, but I cannot think of any legitimate reason.
So, what are the consequences of this betrayal of the national trust? A $10,000 fine and the suspension of his security clearance for 3 years. That's right, THREE YEARS. As Jim Geraghty rightly points out, this is farcical. Three years just happens to to fall within the second term of President George W. Bush. Do you think that the Bush administration was planning on granting Berger any access to sensitive documents? Once that second Clinton administration comes rumbling down the tracks, he will be eligible to once again be privy to the most sensitive of our nation's secrets.
To me, this sounds like another "honest mistake."