I just watched a CNN story called "Oil and Terrorism" that pissed me off so much I had to go float in a tank. Apparently, The Terrorists are the sole force behind the skyrocketing prices--by attacking oil pipelines. Cross-cut images of burning oil fields, angry brown men, and ominously upticking gas price meters and you have what passes for a CNN investigative report.
Sure, terrorists attack oil pipelines. But perhaps it's slightly disingenuous to report on this without examining, maybe, I don't know, why terrorists attack pipelines? The piece managed to suggest that terrorists in Nigeria and the Middle East have basically the same reasons for disrupting the flow of oil without asking why it is that oil-rich nations in the Third World have proved such fertile ground for violent guerilla groups. Oh, and note to CNN: it undercuts your credibility to present this kind of studied ignorance ("What could possibly be the connection between oil and terrorism?") when your lead expert analyst is Stephen Leeb, the guy who wrote the book on profiting from oil instability.
Plus, bonus points for working in my two favorite oil memes: "foreign oil" and "our way of life."
Foreign oil as in "when we say the only solution is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, that reassures people that the problem lies not in our consumption habits, but rather in our reliance on some other damn country."
And our way of life as in "when we say this threatens our way of life, that will make people think of the Declaration of Independence, the First Amendment, apple pie, and Mom--not of SUV's, conspicuous consumption, NASCAR, and the all-hallowed place of the car in American culture."
Nice job!
The October Protocol is the connection between Oil and Terrorism.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
CNN, I shake my fist at you
A Love Supreme
It’s more than just Coltrane’s sickest album. It’s also what I feel for the highest court in the land.
And in light of that love, it’s never too early to start handicapping the candidates’ possible SCOTUS picks!
Supreme Court appointments worm their way into political discourse in strange ways. Generally speaking, voters don’t give a shit: no politician scores huge points by talking about the least accountable branch of government. But to movement soldiers on the Right and the Left, control over the Court is the great prize. In this bizarro campaign season, when both parties are facing the possibility of revolt, partisans of the candidates are using the Court to rally the troops. Unite around Obama or turn the Court over to Scalia and Thomas! Vote for McCain or permanently lose the chance to overturn Roe!
The current age of composition of the Court makes this election particularly crucial. The liberals are older, the conservatives younger: in January 2009, Stevens will be 88, Ginsburg 75, Breyer 70, and Souter 69. Kennedy and Scalia will both be 72, Thomas 60, Alito 58, and Roberts a frisky 53. The next president will likely be able to replace Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter (who hates being on the Court)—Breyer, Scalia, and Kennedy love being justices, and Thomas will hold on grimly until his seat is plucked from his cold, dead hands. Three seats for the November victor is a legacy worth fighting for: FDR’s picks were radically changing American jurisprudence and society for thirty years after his death, and Reagan’s might end up doing the same.
Yesterday’s NYT spotlights the differences between McCain’s and Obama’s philosophies on SCOTUS appointees. Briefly: McCain has sold his soul to the right and pledges more of Roberts and Alito; Obama wants empathy.
Of course, these handy soundbites greatly simplify things. Let’s not forget that McCain, the champion of campaign finance reform, filed an amicus brief in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life to no avail, as the two justices he claims to want to emulate effectively gutted the Court’s previous upholding of McCain-Feingold. And Obama taught law for ten years at the University of Chicago, hardly a hotbed of empathy-based jurisprudence. Campaign rhetoric is campaign rhetoric: I expect that both candidates would hew closer to the ideological center in their SCOTUS picks.
With that in mind, and without further ado, The October Protocol shortlists.
OBAMA
Sonia Sotomayor: Second Circuit (Clinton); 54 years old; appointed to the Southern District of New York by GHW Bush; would be the first Hispanic justice since Cardozo; reliably liberal; widely considered a front-runner if the Democrat wins.
Diane Wood: Seventh Circuit (Clinton); 58 years old; certified MILF; mentioned as possible pick for Kerry; more moderate than other liberal judges; academic star and respected judge; from Obama’s home circuit.
Merrick Garland: D.C. Circuit (Clinton); 56 years old; oversaw the Oklahoma City and Unabomber investigations for the Clinton DOJ; considered relatively moderate.
Deval Patrick/Jennifer Granholm: Governors of Mass. (52) and Mich. (49), respectively. Obama has floated the idea of nominating a politician in the mold of Earl Warren, former (Republican!) governor of California. Patrick was head of the Civil Rights Division in the Clinton DOJ; Granholm was the Michigan attorney general. Both have the legal chops and the real-world experience to add a shot of pragmatism to a Court made up entirely of former circuit court judges; both are also partisan Democrats, and might only add to the politicization of the Court.
Harold Koh: Dean of Yale Law School; 54 years old; clerked for Blackmun; Ass’t Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor under Clinton; respected author and essayist on human rights and international law; criticized as a partisan Democrat; intellectual heavyweight; would be first Asian-American on the Court.
Other options: Kim Wardlaw (9th Cir.); Leah Ward Sears (Georgia Supreme Court); Cass Sunstein (University of Chicago); Barrington D. Parker (2nd Cir.).
Michael McConnell: Tenth Circuit (GW Bush); 53 years old; prominent Constitutional scholar; widely cited as a likely pick to replace Rehnquist; proponent of originalism; supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion—but then again, thinks it’s the only way to do so.
Alex Kozinski: Chief Judge, Ninth Circuit (Reagan); 58 years old; distinguished essayist and legal scholar; idiosyncratic judge with a strong libertarian bent; not an ‘originalist’ like Scalia or ‘batshit crazy’ like Thomas; author of the greatest judicial line ever: “The parties are advised to chill.”
Maureen Mahoney: Appellate lawyer, Latham & Wilkins; 54 years old; deputy Solicitor General under GHW Bush; distinguished advocate; argued for the University of Michigan in favor of its affirmative action program in Grutter v. Bollinger; highly competent attorney in the mode of John Roberts.
J. Michael Luttig: General counsel for Boeing; 54 years old; star of the conservative legal movement who resigned from the Fourth Circuit for a higher-paying job (who does that?); often compared to Scalia in philosophy and temperament; clashed with Bush administration over executive prerogatives in the Jose Padilla case.
Edward Prado: Fifth Circuit (GW Bush); 61 years old; former federal public defender; touted as a moderate option to replace O’Connor; subject of a “Draft Prado” movement for a Latino Supreme Court justice not named Alberto Gonzalez.
Other options: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Cir.); Priscilla Owen (5th Cir.); Emilio Garza (5th Cir.); Eugene Volokh (UCLA and The Volokh Conspiracy).
And the doozy:
Richard Posner: Seventh Circuit; 69 years old; widely considered the most brilliant judge in America; immensely prolific scholar and philosopher; self-declared Pragmatist in the mode of Oliver Wendell Holmes; noted proponent of the Law & Economics school; supports both the president’s power to order torture and the legalization of soft drugs; unquestioned intellect and lack of partisan identification make him a lock never to sit on the Supreme Court.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Maxine Waters, everybody!
Oops--the Democratic congresswoman catches herself. That sound you hear is Republicans shitting themselves in indignation.
In which David Brooks drops the f-bomb
Thursday, May 22, 2008
California Hearts Lesbian Pilots
The Ninth Circuit has reinstated a gay Air Force Major's suit against the service for being discharged under "Don't Ask Don't Tell." I'm feelin' it.
Pilar Lujan Disenfranchises Seven Voters
Guam Democratic Party Chair and Superdelegate Pilar Lujan announced her support for Senator Clinton today. This announcement is a reversal or her original stated position as revealed to Micronesia's leading newspaper (since '72) the day before Guam's May 3rd Primary:
Lujan remains uncommitted because she believes that her vote should reflect the will of the majority of Democrats. However, her running mate, Paulino, has publicly endorsed Obama, according to Tenorio.
"Both Hillary and Obama represent the party ideals. As a candidate for the Democratic party chair, I will like my vote to represent the Democratic Party of Guam," Lujan said.
Obama won Guam, barely, by a count of 2264-2257, but the concept of a majority is binary - you either win one or you don't. Obama won the majority and Lujan has now reversed her previously reported position. I suppose we can forgive a Guamanian party official for failing to parse her words carefully, but in the 2008 Democratic Primary, no one escapes scrutiny.
Pilar Lujan, you are in breach of Appendix A of the Protocol.