Andrew Hagen

Howard Dean was Governor of Vermont for twelve years. As a candidate for president he has criticized Bush for promoting too much secrecy in government. Now, as Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reports, he has taken his gubernatorial records and moved them into cold storage, where no independent person can access them. (*) When questioned, his campaign says this was done because opponents were distorting his record.

Then release the files so that his record will no longer be distorted.

If you care about transparency in government, you have got to have a lot of concerns about Howard Dean on the basis of this report alone.

The conservative group American Legislative Exchange Council is lobbying state legislatures to pass the Jury Patriotism Act. (*) It would allow jurors to take time off from work for jury service without dipping into vacation or sick days at their jobs. That’s good. It would make it a criminal offense to not show up for jury duty. I don’t think that is necessary. We shouldn’t throw people in jail for skipping jury duty, though we should be disappointed in them. Finally, it would assess some type of a fee on those filing lawsuits in order to pay for various costs. That is a bad idea. As the fee becomes larger, more and more Americans will find the courthouse doors barred. That isn’t right. Furthermore, the fee could set the stage for a “lawsuit tax” that would hinder and deprive Americans who are seeking justice from getting their day in court.

The jury system is very important to our free society. The basic principle is that no one should lose at trial or go to prison unless regular folks, drawn from the community at large, are persuaded that the other side has a good enough argument. If it can’t be explained to regular people, it probably can’t be explained at all. The American people have the ultimate say in what our courts do. The smooth and fair functioning of our courts depends on the people doing their part.

Legislation that protects and maintains the jury system should have our support.

Update: 4 December 2003. Bill at Walloworld considers the issue. (†)

Comparisons between the struggle for civil rights and gay marriage are not valid, say conservative black leaders. The Washington Times reports:

[T]he Rev. Talbert Swan II said the two struggles are not similar because blacks were lynched, denied property rights and declared inhuman.

“Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle,” he said. “I could not choose the color of my skin. … For me to ride down the street and get profiled just because of my skin color is something a homosexual will never go through.”

(*) This gets right at the heart of the matter. Homosexuality is behavior influenced by choice. To say that it is not is to deny human free will.

Here is something of interest in the John F. Kennedy assassination case. In 1963, minutes before the assassination, a telephone company employee in California heard a woman say something on the line.

A whispered warning from an Oxnard area telephone predicted President John F. Kennedy would be killed only moments before he was shot in downtown Dallas yesterday.

A woman’s voice whispered to two General Telephone Co. operator supervisors about 10:05 a.m.: “The President will be killed at 10 minutes after 10.”

Moments later the same voice told the supervisors, “It won’t be 10 after 10, it will be 10:30.”

(*) The listening employee was Ray Sheehan, the director of the telephone company’s Oxnard, California office. He was working the lines because of a strike. He said the call “had to come from his office’s service area of Oxnard, Port Hueneme or Point Mugu.” (†)

The basic trouble with this is the lack of much additional information. With just this information, we can’t make the case that there was a conspiracy to kill the president.

Some conspiracy theories attached to this report are not backed by evidence. (‡)

Other conspiracy theorists, like Gary Wean, say that they have some piece of important information. They would tell the world, but they can’t for fear of being killed themselves. (§) Let’s assume that is true. The best solution for anyone in that position is to just publish whatever it is you have to the world. You can publish in a newspaper, a magazine, or on the Internet. Once the secret is out in the world, there is no reason for the bad guys to kill you. In fact, killing you after you publish would make them look even more guilty. Therefore, publish what you’ve got, assassination researchers. That’s the best way to be safe.

In contrast to the angry Left, Hillary Rodham Clinton has established a record of responsible positions on the War on Terrorism, finds Howard Owens. (*) Constructive criticism of foreign policy is presidential. Now even conservatives are beginning to understand. HRC has the makings of a great president.

Let’s be optimistic. Perhaps Howard Dean’s campaign will somehow falter, and HRC will somehow become the Democratic nominee in 2004. Imagine another round of Bush against Clinton. That went well in 1992. Realistically, though, George W. Bush will cruise to victory over the antiwar granola brigade. Only then will my fellow liberals see the the truth and stop supporting the personification of the angry Left, Howard “Hitman” Dean.

Jim Wooten informs his readership of how the prescription drug bill, recently passed by Congress, has one interesting, new, but little-remarked upon provision, health savings accounts. (*) Like IRAs, they are tax-free savings accounts that allow Americans under 65 to actually save dollars for their own health care, and then actually retain control over their own savings. These accounts should allow consumers to make better health care decisions, and enjoy more freedom of choice in the health market.

To put on my amateur economist’s hat, they should increase the elasticity of demand for many medical services, and therefore just might put a small dent in ruinous medical cost inflation.

Real liberals should approve, and I say bravo.

Jeff Jacoby has some stark words on gay marriage in the Boston Globe now that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has declared its existence.

[T]he Commonwealth of Massachusetts will no longer communicate to its citizens that the central purpose of marriage is to bind men and women exclusively to each other and to the children that their sexual behavior is apt to produce. It will communicate instead that marriage was created to gratify grown-ups by reinforcing their committed romantic relationships. To be sure, a loving relationship is ideal in any marriage. But that isn’t why every society in history has defined marriage as an institution for linking the sexes.

Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life. The meanings and status associated with words like “husband” and “wife” will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced with the unisex “spouse,” just as “father” and “mother” will give way to “parent.”

(*) Unfortunately, this will be like music to many Leftist ears.

Omar, an Iraqi web logger, recounts his experience in the antiterrorism, anti-tyranny march recently held in a major city of the world. (*)

Baghdad.

Omar concludes by saying, “Our victory in this challenge is a victory for all the honest, good and free people on earth.”

It’s a message the Western Left needs to hear.

The Washington Post reports on the thinking about an amendment to the Constitution of the United States that would protect against gay marriage. (*) I have a suggestion for the amendment’s wording.

As proposed in Congress, the Federal Marriage Amendment reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

There are at least two problems. The first sentence seems to give the US government the power to regulate marriage. Purporting to be in a “gay marriage” might become a criminal offense. That would go much further than is intended. The second sentence could ban civil unions altogether, rather than just protecting marriage from equivalence with civil unions.

I would propose the following wording:

Neither the federal government nor any state may recognize any marriage except the union of a man and a woman. Neither the federal government nor any state may confer marital status or all of the legal incidents thereof upon unmarried couples or groups.

This would prevent gay marriage; allow gay couples to say they were “married” without fear of criminal prosecution for saying so; prevent government from interfering with marriage rituals performed by religious groups; allow states to tinker with civil unions as alternatives to marriage; and protect marriage from equivalence with civil unions. Civil union rights and duties would have to be specified, item by item, by legislatures. There would be no civil union that automatically would have under law all of the rights and duties of marriage. Gay rights groups could still lobby for changes, but they would have to do so through the legislature, and not the courts.

Within the past week there have been two kidnapping events in North Dakota and Minnesota. First, Dru Sjodin, 22, was kidnapped from a mall parking lot in Grand Forks, North Dakota. That is in northeastern North Dakota. Sjodin’s whereabouts are unknown. The effort to find her is underway. (*) (†) (‡)

Then, yesterday, a woman was abducted from a parking lot in Fertile, Minnesota. (§) That is in northwest Minnesota. She managed to escape by jumping from the abductor’s car.

It wouldn’t take a genius to figure out that these two incidents may be connected. This is an extremely low crime area of the country. It is almost a certainty that the second incident either involves the same perpetrator or is a copycat crime.

Update: 30 November 2003. Authorities say they are not related. (**) Then, a 17–year old girl was nearly abducted by three men in Hermantown Minnesota, in northeastern Minnesota. (††)

Upper Midwesterners, especially young women, should be aware of this and increase their number of precautions.

Update: 30 November 2003. Both the Fertile and Hermantown attempted kidnappings were of 17–year old girls. (‡‡) (§§)

Update: 2 December 2003. Authorities have arrested Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., 50 years old, in the Dru Sjodin case. (***) He was a high-risk sexual offender released onto the street by the State of Minnesota. He was living in Crookston, a town in northwestern Minnesota. (†††) In 1980, he attacked a woman in her late 30s, stabbing her, and putting her in his car before she escaped. She drew a portrait of him that helped convict Rodriguez.

It seems likely that authorities have caught the perpetrator responsible, but Dru Sjodin has not yet been found. (‡‡‡) The search continues.

Update: 3 December 2003. The woman Rodriguez attacked in 1980 was apparently in her late 40s, not in her late 30s. (§§§)

Update: 5 May 2004. Dru Sjodin’s body was found. (****) May her murderer receive swift justice.

Gay marriage is both an intensely personal issue, and one with enormous repercussions for civilization.
(more…)

Yemen has captured Al Qaeda leader Mohammed Hamdi al-Ahdal, who is suspected of masterminding the bombing of the USS Cole and the French oil tanker MV Limburg. (*) (†)

They said that the Iraq campaign would disenchant friendly countries with fighting terrorism. They were wrong. The liberation and securing of Iraq is a critical phase in the War on Terrorism. Fighting terrorism in countries like Yemen goes hand-in-hand with the overall effort. (‡) (§) The US is not alone in fighting the War on Terrorism. We don’t have some of our older allies like France fully on board, but we are not alone.

Congratulations, Yemen!

Democrats have been hammering away at the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy, the Patriot Act, and other aspects of the War on Terrorism for well over a year now. Just this week, The Republican National Committee began running an ad that says the Democrats are, to paraphrase, attacking Bush because Bush is attacking the terrorists. To this, the Democrats are crying foul, calling it a repulsive ad.

Bill Herbert senses hypocrisy. (*) Indeed, it feels like all the Dems have done for the past year is unleash invective against Bush’s Iraq policy. What kind of response did they expect?

At the very least, arguably, the Iraq campaign is part of the War on Terror. Thus, in Iraq, the President’s policy is to attack terrorists, arguably. Howard Dean and the rest are attacking President Bush for his Iraq campaign and for other harsh measures against terrorists, like the Patriot Act. It is at least arguable that Democrats like Howard Dean are attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists. That is all the ad claims.

Moreover, isn’t the whole paleoliberal strategy to play defense against the terrorists? The Bush strategy in contrast is to go on the offensive against our known enemies. It would be more accurate but less pithy to say: “The Democrats are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists, and saying that the President should only play defense and never offense against our known enemies.”

I can’t find the ad online. (†)

Howard Dean is playing this cynically. He has raised over $600,000 since Friday to “defend” himself against Bush’s attacks. (‡) In his fundraising effort, Dean is saying that Bush was questioning the Democrats’ patriotism. The ad apparently says, however, that the Dems were attacking Bush for attacking the terrorists. Nice trick to deceive people and then rake in their cash.

The Dems would be better off staying above the fray by keeping foreign policy bipartisan. Constructive criticism is presidential. Whining and crying is not.

Like I’ve said before, if you are for the War on Terrorism, except the Patriot Act, except Iraq, except the CIA drone attack on the terrorists in Yemen, except Iran, except Syria, except for supporting Israel, except for Guantanamo, the question becomes: what part of the War on Terrorism are you for? Maybe you were for it for a while, during the Afghanistan campaign. Now, maybe you’re against it. Just be honest.

The Democrats lambast Bush for not getting more allies on board. That’s a good start, but it doesn’t go far enough. They should also lambast France and Germany for poisoning the US’s attempt to get more allies aboard.

Howard Dean is poised to take over the Democratic Party. It’s not looking good for 2004.

Ted Rall now endorses Howard Dean for President. (*) (†)

Ted Rall is the coldblooded malignancy responsible for literary atrocities such as the mocking of 9/11 widows and the cheering on of our terrorist foes. (‡)

Who Knew? has more. (§)

Updated: 26 November 2003. Title changed. Major changes. Thank you to reader HackmcHackery.

Robert Bass does a nice job of attacking the philosophy of Ayn Rand and libertarianism, saying it is derived from egoism. (*)

The Associated Press reports on the debate over why Nielsen ratings are sharply down this year in the coveted 18–34 male demographic. Some say it is a statistical blip, but others, like me, would say it is a real decline. (*) Yet, this gives me cognitive dissonance. I thought the networks didn’t want any male 18–34 viewers. They really want us to watch? Wow.

Well, then how about using a few 18–34 year old actors in your shows? In show after show, there are few of them. Actors tend to be baby boomers or older, or Generation Y or younger. If you want to see Generation Xers, you have to watch sports, reality TV, or CNN Headline News. The cast of Friends is in their upper 30s, other than Jennifer Aniston. (Brad Pitt is 40+). Aniston is Gen-X, but she is not male. There are many Generation X movie stars, like Matt Damon and Julia Roberts. They are known to have box office success.

How about some relevant shows? Our country is engaged in a protracted war on terrorism that experts say will last for decades. These early years are a critical phase. How many television shows address this topic? I can think of one, 24. That seems to be doing well. There is also Alias, but there the terrorists tend to be Europeans speaking in haughty British accents. We all know that the real enemy doesn’t speak in a British accent, although a few of them are indeed Europeans. Most shows are sitcoms and legal, police, and hospital dramas. They might address the War on Terrorism on a very special episode, but even that is rare.

A counterpoint is that the news channels like CNN and MSNBC aren’t doing that well in the ratings. This refutes itself. Look at what they cover: Michael Jackson, Laci Peterson, Kobe Bryant, and countless other pointless, irrelevant stories. Guess which news channel has the best ratings? Could it be the same channel that devotes more time to the War on Terrorism than does any other channel? Could it be Fox News? Of course it is.

Additionally, multiculturalism is boring. I am sick of every show having one character of each kind. Life is not always Noah’s Ark. Have some variety, but don’t shove it down our throats.

Generation X prizes relevancy, but it is too unclubbable to be more easily characterized. My suggestion to television executives is to get some perspective. Why should we watch? Why should we care? Why does it matter when it has little to do with our lives?

In short, television executives are putting out a bad product that is geared away from male 18–34 viewers. Low ratings, especially in that category, should be expected.

Update: 4 December 2003. Jonah Goldberg is worth reading on the subject. (†)

The BBC’s Gavin Esler looks at the conspiracy theories that surround the killing of President Kennedy. (*) This is nicely done. It is written as if starting with no knowledge of the subject, and then working through the evidence to learn what happened.

The nation is moving to electronic voting without many citizens realizing that electronic voting is susceptible to fraud.

(more…)

Slashdot has a story with discussion on the problem of web pages that disappear. (*) This is especially troubling for academic disciplines, because references to web pages stop working.

Here is a solution. (more…)

It’s not just a lifestyle. It’s what’s for dinner. (*)