WaxWorks
|
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Shouldn't This Be A Bigger Story?
Hmm. The Speaker of the House and a GOP Senator did not pay for freebie fundraisers that they held at Jack Abramoff's restaurant TWO YEARS AGO until BusinessWeek began asking questions this month. I would think that would be bigger news. And I can't imagine that they are the only ones:
A political action committee for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) only
recently paid for a fundraising lunch that took place nearly two years ago at a
lobbyist's restaurant, a Hastert spokesman said.The June 3, 2003, event was at Signatures, an upscale restaurant partly
owned by lawyer-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is being investigated by a grand
jury and two Senate committees over $80 million he charged several Indian tribes
for representing their casino interests.
The bill for the 2003 Hastert event went unpaid until this month, around
the time BusinessWeek Online began asking questions about the event, the news
site reported last week.
The fundraising expense has been filed with the Federal Election Commission, Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said. Fundraising costs in excess of $200 must be filed with the FEC.
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said his campaign also neglected to pay for a
fundraiser at Signatures, this one hosted by Abramoff in September 2003.
But here is my favorite part:
Vitter said he meant to pay for the event, but the restaurant mistakenly never
charged him for the $1,500 tab.
"Mistakenly." Riight. Waiting for the SCLM to run with this one.
UPDATE:
Here's the Business Week story as well.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Condi Does It Again
I have posted repeatedly about the negligence by Condi Rice leading up to September 11 and her misleading, if not perjurous testimony before the 9/11 Commission, so I was greatly relieved to see her unequivocally state that she would not seek the Presidency. I shared my relief with a friend of mine, who incredulously wondered why I would feel relieved. When I shared with him Rice's comments about the Presidency, he reminded me how the truth and Ms. Rice are mutually exclusive, so her statement likely meant that she WAS intending to run. I can't say I can disagree with that.
But now, according to today's Washington Post, Rice has gone a step further: attempting to hinder the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's investigation of allegations concerning the conduct of John Bolton. According the Post:
On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told her senior staff she was
disappointed about the stream of allegations and said she did not want any
information coming out of the department that could adversely affect the
nomination, said officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
So Barbara Boxer has written Rice a letter today, noting that:
I am sure you are aware that Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states
that thePresident is to appoint Ambassadors "by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate." As such, the Senate is fully vested with the authority to
investigate executive nominations to ensure that they are qualified in tenns of
experience, temperament, and conduct. In addition, paragraph 1 of Rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate authorizes Committees "to require by subpoena or
otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such
correspondence, books, papers, and documents." The Supreme Court has upheld this authority, calling it, "an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative function."
Boxer has asked Rice to issue an instruction to her Department that it cooperate fully with the Bolton investigation. Rice proponents for her taking the position of Secretary of State have consistently stated that she would be echoing the President's sentiments as a policymaker. Perhaps this directive is another example of this.
Liberal Activism = Bad; Conservative Activism = A-OK
With all the heated rhetoric coming from the right over so-called "activist judges" (brought on, ironically enough, by their complaints that the judges hearing the Schiavo case -- which include ultra-conservative Bill Pryor on the 11th Circuit -- weren't activist enough), I thought this editorial from the New York Times on Justice Scalia was worth reading.
The author notes that Scalia has repeatedly said that his strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution binds him from activist decisions and dictates how he must rule in each case, in contrast with those who favor a "living Constitution," who Scalia claims are susceptible to decision-making based upon the whims of the judge. But how to explain the revolutionary 11th Amendment jurisprudence that has flourished during Scalia's tenure:
Justice Scalia's views on federalism - which now generally command a
majority on the Supreme Court - are perhaps the clearest example of the problem
with the conservative attack on judicial activism. When conservatives complain
about activist judges, they talk about gay marriage and defendants' rights. But
they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own
plain words into a states' rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the
disabled out of federal court.
The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a
state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any
Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own
citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the
Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that
"despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by
the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of
our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that
rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be
withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian
tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.
There is simply NO textual basis for interpreting the 11th Amendment as barring suits against states by citizens of those states. Scalia and others can only find justification for such decisions in the "penumbras" of the 11th Amendment. And we know how conservatives feel about penumbras when it comes to the 14th Amendment...
But let us not forget Bush v. Gore, the ultimate, undeniable high-point for conservative judicial activism. But don't trust me - after all, I live in the "reality based community"; here's Scalia's justification for the decision:
The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only
did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop
the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future
cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker
profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only
issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a
constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism.
And I have to wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion in the article, which is really what this whole filibuster issue comes down to, rather than some made-up garbage reason that is being thrown about by "Pander Bear" Frist, "Dead Man Walking" DeLay and "Spongebob" Dobson:
When it comes to judicial activism, conservative judges are no better than
liberal ones - and, it must be said, no worse. If conservatives are going to
continue their war on the judiciary, though, they should be honest. They do not
want to get rid of judicial activists, a standard that would bring down even
Justice Scalia. They want to rid the courts of judges who disagree with them.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Facts and Honesty
Recently I posted on the attempt by the right, through mediums like Fox News, to eliminate accepted facts from the discourse and to create "red" facts and "blue" facts and let the viewer determine which fact to choose. William Raspberry today has an excellent column today making the same point.
I was also struck by an article I read in the Washington Post today about a group of film "sanitizers" or "scrubbers" who are "self-proclaimed 'family-friendly" editors who delete scenes containing sexuality, violence or crude language -- and sometimes more -- from the DVD releases of Hollywood movies. The edited DVDs are resold or rented to parents and others who want a 'clean' version of the movie."
In addition to striking things like Kate Winslet's nude scene from Titanic, they've also eliminated any depictions of Oskar Schindler's extramarital affairs, as well as other stuff:
But critics say sanitizers sometimes alter a film so much that its original
themes are muted or even turned upside down. Robert Rosen, dean of UCLA's film,
theater and television school, points to a sanitized version of "The Hurricane,"
about African American boxer Rubin Carter, that eliminated racial epithets
uttered by police officials investigating Carter. That, according to Rosen,
undercut two of the movie's central themes, racism and police corruption.
Besides the obvious copyright violations associated with such an endeavor I was struck by the fact that there may be another unspoken agenda behind these sanitizers:
Family Flix, which claims to have the toughest standards, removes "sexual
innuendo," including suggestions or depictions of homosexuality. It recently
edited "The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie," an animated film with a PG rating, to
eliminate a scene in which a male starfish character sings and dances while
dressed in fishnet stockings and high heels.
"We don't hate homosexuals," says Sandra Teraci. "We just don't think
that lifestyle should be glorified. It's becoming rampant in more types of
films."
Hmm. I wonder what they did with the Birdcage? But one of the most interesting issues is how these groups treat film violence. 1998 Academy Award winning Saving Private Ryan had its amazing, opening D-Day battle sequence trimmed, despite protests by director Stephen Spielberg that "those images were critical in illustrating the courage and sacrifice of American troops and the viscerally disturbing nature of warfare." Nope. The "sanitizer" found them over the top. "You still get the full effect" even after the cuts, he says.
However, the "sanitizers" have not tackled the ultra-violent 2004 release "Passion of the Christ." When asked why not, the "sanitizer" replied that "everyone has already seen it."
Hmm. So you don't trim the "Passion" released in 2004 because "everyone has already seen it" but you do trim "Saving Private Ryan" released in 1998? I guess no one went to see Ryan, huh? Nah, there can't be another agenda here.
