ROGER SIMON wonders why the New York Times isn’t covering the biggest terrorism trial since 9/11.
Archive for 2005
June 24, 2005
ADVANTAGE: Anglo-Saxon horde.
CHICAGO: Offering free ad space for pimps and violating the Geneva Convention!
CRITICAL NODES: Michael Yon is reporting from the Persian Gulf.
PROFESSOR BAINBRIDGE has an article on the Kelo decision in TechCentralStation today. That was fast!
I’m still getting a lot of angry email, and as noted below, the decision seems to have angered people on both left and right. It’s true, as Eugene Volokh noted on Hugh Hewitt’s show last night, that it was only a modest extension of existing law. But I think that existing law has moved, by gradual increments, to a point where it’s out of step with the Constitution and with public sentiment about what’s just. Sometimes a Supreme Court decision, even one that doesn’t make new law, can bring people’s attention to a situation and drive efforts to change it.
Some people are comparing this with Dred Scott, but that’s a bit over the top. A better analogy might be the Bowers v. Hardwick decision, which didn’t make new law, but which led to a sea-change in public attitudes. One difference is that Bowers was consistent with the law going all the way back, while the 20th Century takings doctrines were not. As Joseph Story wrote in 1833:
It seems to be the general opinion, fortified by a strong current of judicial opinion, that since the American revolution no state government can be presumed to possess the transcendental sovereignty to take away vested rights of property; to take the property of A. and transfer it to B. by a mere legislative act. A government can scarcely be deemed to be free, where the rights of property are left solely dependent upon a legislative body, without any restraint.
And yet that’s the law now: The rights of property are left solely dependent upon a legislative body, without any restraint. Small wonder that it’s inspiring a lot of unhappiness.
Check out the Kelo topic page at TTLB for much, much more on the decision.
UPDATE: The New York Times is editorializing in favor of Kelo, but has a huge conflict of interest here as it’s engaged in self-serving eminent domain procedures itself.
And here’s a state legislative response.
Heh: “So according to recent Supreme Court decisions, the government has no business in your bedroom (unless you’re growing marijuana), but they can drive a bulldozer right through it?”
I’ll tell you why the Kelo ruling hits especially close to home this week. The other day, FBI agents raided the Dallas City Hall offices of two city council members, as well as the office of a rich and politically well-connected developer who has built lots of housing in their districts. The FBI is being quiet about what they were looking for, but news reports say it’s part of a federal investigation into bribery and suchlike. Nobody has been charged — yet, anyway — but if the speculation proves out, this stands to be an infuriating example of what businessmen with money can get done when they have corrupt pols in their pocket. I know, I know, this stuff happens every day, all over the place. But the FBI raids on Dallas City Hall have been front page news here all week, and the nefarious potential connection between private and public power and corruption has been on everyone’s mind here in Chinatown, I mean Big D.
Yep. There’s a lot of corruption in local government, particularly where development plans are concerned.
Now that development interests officially trump property rights, I think it’s natural to wonder, “What trumps development interests?”
Follow the link for the answer. Here’s more suggestion of left-right agreement on this decision. And there’s more here.
COMMENTING on the increased number of cellphones in Iraq, Mickey Kaus writes:
I would just suggest that, in the kind of war we are fighting, the proliferation of cell phones and other means of fast communication may not be an unalloyed good–e.g. if the cells are used to efficiently spy and coordinate bomb attacks.
Well, nothing’s an unalloyed good. But as the terrorists become less popular all the time, the proliferation of cellphones becomes more and more useful. As StrategyPage notes:
While these improved communications have aided the terrorists, it has hurt them more. People reporting terrorists via phones or Internet, often get a very swift response. As more Iraqis die from terrorist attacks, more phone calls are made reporting terrorist activity. There have been cases where terrorist gangs have tried to seize all the cell phones used in a neighborhood where their hideout was.
My own sense is that when you’re dealing with a small and unpopular group that depends on concealment and intimidation to survive, more communications are likely to be better, not worse.
June 23, 2005
LINDA FOLEY HAS BACKED DOWN. I credit Hiawatha Bray.
But there are a lot of ifs in her apology. And she seems clueless as to why her comments made people angry, or why people don’t trust journalists like they used to, though the tone of her piece might provide a clue . . . .
Okay FOX, you win. It worked. I won’t kidnap any young, blonde, blue-eyed, upper class, teenage, all-American girls. Your round the clock mega-hyped coverage of this tragic but nonetheless non-story is working. It’s a brilliant deterrent. Who in their right mind would think suffering through incessant, overblown, 24/7, E! True Suburb Tragedy was worth it?
Like the guy says, it’s a brilliant deterrent.
UPDATE: And so is this!
In the Summer 2005 Issues in Science and Technology, two of the primary White House advocates for the original U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Neal Lane and Tom Kalil, issue a warning: “We are concerned that lukewarm support for nanoscale science and engineering (S&E) puts U.S. technological leadership at risk and might prevent the country from realize the full potential of nanotechnology.”
If you missed it, you may want to read this nanotechnology post from Tuesday, too.
FEDERALISM? WHAT FEDERALISM:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is the latest Tennessee politician to weigh in on the Cocke County cockfighting raid. Frist, R-Tenn., said in an interview Wednesday that the practice of gambling on razor-armed roosters often fighting to the death “is wrong and irresponsible.”
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Knoxville, said he opposes cockfighting and may support a stiffer state or federal penalty for participants. But Duncan also echoed recent comments by U.S. Rep. Bill Jenkins of Rogersville that the FBI should have left enforcement against cockfighting and gambling violations in Cocke County on June 11 to state and local law enforcement.
“Congressman Jenkins told me they spent $400,000 to conduct that raid,” Duncan said in an interview. “I understand there were helicopters and machine guns and all that kind of stuff. I think they went way overboard on that.”
Until they can secure the borders and stuff, it seems to me that cockfighting should be a pretty low priority. D’ya think?
SOMETIMES I WONDER if Karl Rove is as smart as everyone says. But just as the Durbin affair was dying down, he makes a comment about liberals and the war that leads Democrats — itching for payback — to angrily demand his resignation.
Trouble is, those demands just provide an excuse for Republicans to repeat every single stupid or unpatriotic thing that every Democratic politician ever said. And there are a lot of those. Examples can be found here, and here, and here. And, of course, there’s this. And because the usual suspects in the media could be expected to pick up on the Rove story much faster than the Durbin story (as they did) now there’s a news hook.
Yeah, he’s pretty smart.
UPDATE: Michael Totten, on the other hand, thinks Rove is deranged.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Mark Eichenlaub sends this transcript from Hardball as evidence that what’s going on is “Rove-a-dope.”
It certainly seems to be working.
Tom Maguire is looking at the story in more detail, and it looks as if the Democrats are taking the bait with disastrous results. One observation: Democrats don’t usually embrace the “liberal” word these days, but they seem to regard Rove’s comments about “liberals” as being aimed directly at Democrats.
Some people have figured it out:
I’m as angry and eager to froth at the mouth as anyone over Karl Rove’s recent statements. But after reading back-to-back posts over at TAPPED working up a chorus to that effect, I got a sinking feeling. Turn back. It’s a trap!
GayPatriot: “Rove said ‘liberals’… not necessarily Democrats. But wow, the Democrats who, in the 2004 Presidential Election couldn’t run fast enough from the word ‘liberal’ now seem to be embracing it wholeheartedly in their ‘outrage’ I also never saw a Democrat refuse to take campaign money from MoveOn.org and their ilk. . . . Karl Rove was spot on… and the Dems fell for the bait: Hook, Line & Sinker.”
Read the whole thing. And there’s still more here.
MORE: A reader notes this liberal reaction on 9/11, and this one. But I doubt that they made Karl Rove’s reading list. On the other hand, this probably was:
Of course the initial response of left-wing intellectuals to Sept. 11 was one jerking of the collective knee. This was America’s fault. From Susan Sontag to Michael Moore, from Noam Chomsky to Edward Said, there was no question that, however awful the attack on the World Trade Center, it was vital to keep attention fixed on the real culprit: the United States. Of the massacre, a Rutgers professor summed up the consensus by informing her students that “we should be aware that, whatever its proximate cause, its ultimate cause is the fascism of U.S. foreign policy over the past many decades.” Or as a poster at the demonstrations in Washington last weekend put it, “Amerika, Get a Clue.”
Less noticed was the reasoned stance of liberal groups like the National Organization for Women. President Kim Candy stated that “The Taliban government of Afghanistan, believed to be harboring suspect Osama bin Laden, subjugates women and girls, and deprives them of the most basic human rights–including education, medicine and jobs. The smoldering remains of the World Trade Center are a stark reminder that when such extremism is allowed to flourish anywhere in the world, none of us is safe.” The NAACP issued an equally forceful “message of resolve,” declaring, “These tragedies and these acts of evil must not go unpunished. Justice must be served.”
Left-wing dissident Christopher Hitchens, meanwhile, assailed his comrades as “soft on crime and soft on fascism.” After an initial spasm of equivocation, The American Prospect magazine ran a column this week accusing the pre-emptive peace movement of “a truly vile form of moral equivalency” in equating President Bush with terrorists. Not a hard call, but daring for a magazine that rarely has even a civil word for the right. . . .
The left’s howls of anguish are therefore essentially phony–and they stem from a growing realization that this crisis has largely destroyed the credibility of the far left. Forced to choose between the West and the Taliban, the hard left simply cannot decide. Far from concealing this ideological bankruptcy, we need to expose it and condemn it as widely and as irrevocably as we can.
But now TAP is angry at Rove.
MORE STILL: Yep, I think this was carefully planned. Daniel Aronstein sends a link to a Pew Internet survey that shows that in 2004 51% of Democrats thought the 9/11 attacks might have been caused by American wrongdoing — though in Sept. of 2001 that number was 40%. But as Aronstein notes, not all Democrats are liberals.
I’LL BE ON HUGH HEWITT in a few minutes, talking about the Kelo case. And there are, by the way, a lot of interesting posts over at SCOTUSblog. [LATER: Audio here. Transcript here.]
UPDATE: Charles Fried:
The court might have reined in local governments from bulldozing private property rights by at least demanding some heightened legal inquiry into the government’s claim that its action will bring about a public benefit. But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the majority opinion for the court, would have none of that: While intoning the formula that a pure grab to favor cronies of the state would not be tolerated, he refused to consider even the mildest boost to judicial scrutiny. Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to see this point. In a concurrence, he expressed hope that the court would not be powerless to curb abuses of government power—but then unaccountably he joined Stevens’ opinion holding that the state can do no wrong. . . .
Over the last 15 years or so—in decisions like Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard, and Pallazolo v. Rhode Island—the court has shown some backbone in protecting property rights from the insatiable appetite of the regulatory state. Unlike some other rights that get the fullest measure of the court’s protection, these property rights are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Kelo, however, is the latest example of the court’s faltering will in this and several other areas. . . . The Rehnquist Court has done its greatest work in reversing the excesses of the years of Justice William Brennan’s ascendancy. But in its recent decisions in the areas of federalism, religion, affirmative action, the death penalty, and now property rights, the court seems to be losing its grip.
I’m already calling it the “Emily Litella court” in an in-progress article on Raich.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader George Zachar says I have the wrong allusion — it’s really the “Andy Warhol court”:
This court won’t you let you use something you’ve grown on your land ON your land because somehow that’s “interstate commerce”.
Now, a govt planner’s fancy report is deemed adequate reason to force a property owner to sell out.
Under this court, the law has become what Andy Warhol said art is: What you can get away with.
Ouch.
MORE: A potent tool for shutting down unpopular businesses, like abortion clinics, gun ranges, nude bars, unpopular religous congregations, hostile newspapers, etc.?
Wal-Marts? (“We think this hemp-based boutique will generate more tax revenues. And we commissioned a report that says so!”)
And Ann Althouse is savaging Justice Kennedy for falling into “the most obvious spelling pitfall in all of law.” That really hurts . . . .
MORE THOUGHTS ON KELO, over at GlennReynolds.com.
UPDATE: Funniest comment, from reader Stephen Herdina:
This ruling leaves open the possibility that the City of Detroit can take away the factories of General Motors (who knows how to lose money) and award them to Toyota (who knows how to make money). Given GM’s woefull book value, the factories could be had for literally a steal, and the tax revenues would be immense.
Heh. Makes sense to me.
GATEWAY PUNDIT has more on genocide in Zimbabwe, with video.
A ZIMBABWE ROUNDUP at Norm Geras’ place.
YES, IT’S ALWAYS NICE TO BE NOTICED. Congratulations!
MORE ON KELO: Judging by my email, and the reactions I’ve seen around the blogosphere, I think the political impact of this decision is going to be very large. Here are a few thoughts on the impacts it may have:
Bad for Bush: A lot of conservatives — especially the small-government, libertarian-leaning kind — are already deeply unhappy. This may cause them to either withdraw from politics, or at least lose vigor in supporting the Republicans. It’s been a steady stream of bad news for them this year, and the Bush Administration hasn’t exactly thrown them any bones. Passing Social Security reform might have fixed that, but the less said about that subject, the better.
Good for Bush: The White House spin will be “This is why we need to confirm our judges.” Nice, if they can make it work. But will they be nominating people who would have voted the other way in this case? And — more to the point — judges aside, are they willing to support legislation to address this issue? If they are, they may get some traction. If they aren’t, then the comments about judges will look like an effort to change the subject and escape responsibility.
Other Impacts: I suspect that this decision — somewhat like Bowers — will cause a lot of activists to shift their focus to state legislatures and state courts. One difference: State legislatures, and sometimes state courts, are in the pockets of real estate developers and corrupt local politicians in a way that they weren’t beholden to anti-gay-rights activists. So it’ll be a lot harder. This may also lead to a greater focus on local politics by political activists (and bloggers!) of all stripes. That, at least, would probably be a good thing.
UPDATE: This is not as big a deal for the left, but maybe it should be. As Julian Sanchez notes:
Now that the “liberal” justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?
My guess is no, but I’d love to be wrong.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Hmm. This post at Kos is supportive of the decision, but the commenters seem to think that it’s a giveaway to Wal-Mart at the expense of the poor. Which is certainly true.
Meanwhile, here’s a proposal from Right-Thinking that even the Kossacks might get behind:
Here’s a thought: How about the GOP-controlled Congress puts the flag desecration amendment on the back burner and gets to work on an amendment limiting the power of the state to seize private property from citizens?
I think it’s a great idea.
MORE: Reader Eric Cowperthwaite has surveyed the blogosphere reactions linked below and observes: “If this is how the normally GOP leaning libertarians and minarchists feel, the GOP is in deep trouble right now.”
Depends on what they do. But if they do what I expect — not much — then, yeah. Meanwhile, reader Matt Ness emails:
Just wanted you to know that I’m a proud liberal who reads your blog on occasion, and I’ve always appreciated your even-handed regarding most subjects, even though I tend not to agree with you on many of them.
I was really happy to see that you acknowledged that not all liberals out there favor the Kelo decision. My wife and I were both horrified when we read the news about it. It didn’t seem like a left-wing decision to us at all–it seemed crazy. And it was quite obvious that this decision would ultimately favor folks like Wal-Mart and business park developers over the poor and middle-class.
I think you’ll find that many self-described “liberals” and “left-wingers” do not support this turn of events. None of us want to see our hard-earned homes handed over to Best Buy or whatever.
Perhaps we’ll have a political Perfect Storm, then. Nothing would please me more.
MORE: A reader who prefers anonymity thinks this is the end of the real estate bubble:
Some of the luster attached to dirt has been severely diminished for the small investor class. I’ve made a few dollars in real estate and now I’m gong to have to look elsewhere. Having the capriciousness of government looming over my property takes all the safety out of the equation. On an even more serious note, the three pillars of prosperity for emerging nations are free markets, rule of law, and private property rights. We just got busted down to third world status.
Ouch. Realistically, I don’t know how much this should affect investment decisions, at least in the short term. But psychologically it may have more of an effect, and the long-term point is apt if perhaps a bit overstated.
STILL MORE: Slashdot: “Needless to say, the little guy loses to the commercial developer this case… ”
Inevitable followup comment: “All your homes are belong to us.”
Jonah Goldberg: “I don’t see any downside whatsoever in George W. Bush going before the cameras and delivering a sober but stern denunciation of this ruling. The principles are obvious.”
TAPPED calls it an “illiberal ruling” and observes:
Loose interpretations of a government’s right of eminent domain is the sort of thing we expect in Harare — not New London.
Plus, Ry Cooder has thoughts. Hey, maybe it is a Perfect Storm!
Still more here. And, er, here . . . .
Jonathan Adler: “There are a few problems with President Bush going out and attacking the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. First, the Bush Administration had the opportunity to intervene on the side of the homeowners, and they decided not to. Indeed, it was pretty clear to those watching the case that if the Solicitor General’s office participated at all, it would have been on the side of the city government seeking to use eminent domain.” Oops.
Jeff Goldstein: “This is nannystatism at its most cynical. And if the Bush administration were to use this ruling to push for the kinds of conservative justices who strongly object to what amounts to outright thievery and municipal bullying, I think they’d have a real winner on their hands. . . . Personally, I’m for starting a cyber support group for the New Londoners who are planning a show of civil disobedience when the bulldozers tractor up to the doors of their homes. Anybody else?”
Michelle Malkin has another roundup.
Donald Sensing, meanwhile, thinks that churches will make especially attractive targets for eminent domain: “[T]here is no kind of building more vulnerable than a house of worship, for the simple reason that cities do not collect property taxes from houses of worship, nor any other kind of tax. . . . In every city and town in America you will find churches sitting on what is now some the most valuable land there.”
We’ll see.
MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT: Tunku Varadarajan looks at the case of Oriana Fallaci.
UPDATE: Roger Simon has some thoughts.
STRATEGYPAGE SAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY:
In Iraq, it’s the state of the economy, more than anything else, that drives politics and stability. The economy stagnated from 1990 to 2003, because of the UN embargo following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The invasion in 2003 caused another major hit to the economy, causing it to contract 21.2 percent. Since then, the Iraqi economy has had no place to go but up. The economy grew 54 percent in 2004, and is headed for a 34 percent increase this year. Most of this growth is not reported, the violence in Sunni Arab areas being considered more newsworthy. But in the south and north, the economic boom is very visible, just from the growing number of traffic jams, satellite dishes and new construction.
Iraq needs about $100 billion to rebuild. Most of this is not repairing war damage, but doing maintenance of infrastructure that Saddam did not do for two decades. He stopped work on roads, schools, hospitals, and utilities when he went to war with Iran in 1980. . . .
In May, 2005, 1.9 million barrels a day were being produced. Current maximum production capacity is 2.5 million barrels a day. Reconstruction and expansion of the oil industry will take 2-3 years, but will get production up to four million barrels a day. Maximum production of the Iraqi oil fields is believed to be about six million barrels a day. At current prices, that’s over $110 billion a year, which is over $4,000 for every man, woman and child in Iraq. In the past, the Sunni Arabs, about 20 percent of the population, grabbed some 80 percent of the oil income for themselves. The Sunni Arabs continue to attack the oil fields and pumping facilities, to make sure that they eventually get their share of the oil wealth, and maybe a little more. If you want to understand what causes the violence in Iraq, follow the money.
This is why I wish that the “oil trust” idea I was pushing before had gotten more traction. Perhaps there were good reasons for not taking that approach, but I certainly never saw any sign that the Administration was mulling the issue seriously to begin with. I think that might have prevented some of the violence.
On the other hand, the BBC reports that the terrorists’ violence is generating some blowback:
Al Jazeera – often accused by the Americans of stirring anti-US feeling – has adopted less of an “Us and Them” approach.
The militants are no longer referred to as the “resistance” but as gunmen or suicide bombers.
Eyewitnesses are shown denouncing them as “terrorists” – condemnations that are echoed by a parade of Iraqi officials and religious authorities.
One recent attack drew this comment from the al-Jazeera reporter: “Most of the time it’s civilians who pay the price for the violence that has cost thousands of their lives”.
Al-Jazeera’s main rival, the Dubai-based al-Arabiya, has also shown little sympathy for the bombers – a recent report, instead, painted a favourable picture of British soldiers patrolling Basra.
Our PR efforts may be inadequate, but they’re better than deliberately blowing up innocents. As some people keep saying, you can’t win hearts and minds with random bombings.
JONATHAN ADLER: “I think a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning is an abomination.”
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: Does Nancy Pelosi agree with Karl Zinsmeister? Somehow I doubt it.
OUR STATIST SUPREME COURT STRIKES AGAIN: They’ve had quite a run lately.
UPDATE: In my stack of reprints-by-mail at the office is one from Lino Graglia with this already-obsolete title: “Lawrence v. Texas: Our Philosopher-Kings Adopt Libertarianism as Our Official National Philosophy and Reject Traditional Morality as a Basis for Law.”
Not so much. They may be rejecting traditional morality — if “a man’s home is his castle” counts as traditional morality — but they certainly aren’t close to adopting libertarianism as our “official national philosophy.” Quite the contrary.
Professor Bainbridge: “So much for private property rights.”
Blake Wylie is rounding up some other reactions.
[C]onsider the lineup in Raich and Kelo. Then consider the legal gymnastics it takes to consider local medical pot part of “interstate commerce,” and to consider taking people’s home and giving them to Pfizer a “public use” in the face of two hundred years of precedent that A to B transfers are illegitimate.
I’m unimpressed with this term of the Court.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s an even bigger roundup of reactions. Lots of people are unhappy.
PAMELA NOTICES SOMETHING that a lot of people missed. In response, she gets sexist comments on her makeup from a lefty commenter.
I FINISHED THE ERIC FLINT BOOK that I mentioned a while back. It’s obviously the start of a series, but I thought it was quite good. The characters are three-dimensional, with virtues and vices displayed in all complexity — Flint doesn’t paint the Cherokees as traditional cardboard victims, but shows their flaws and doesn’t shy from the fact that many owned slaves. Andrew Jackson (whom I’ve never liked) appears as a rounded character, too, and Sam Houston is fun.
And with all the Scots-Irish talk (including the parallels between many of them and the Cherokees in terms of culture), I suspect that Flint has read James Webb, or more likely David Hackett Fischer.
