10/31/2005
Scalito: Harrassment is Protected Speech
by Liesa on 6:50 pm.
Check out this bullshit. Of all the cases that have come before him on sexual harrassment, Alito has ruled in favor of a plaintiff in a sex discrimination case only once. In most instances, Alito issued opinions that made it far more difficult for victims of discrimination to get to court and prove their cases.
In one sexual harassment case, Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, a police officer filed a complaint that her supervisor was “unhooking her bra, snapping her bra strap, touching her hair and ears, telling her ‘you stink pretty,’ making comments about the size of her breasts…” The police chief took no action, and Robinson sued. Alito ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the chief knew of the harassment, even though Robinson had filed a report. (Alito issued similar opinions in Sheridan v. DuPont and Watson v. SEPTA.) Alito also struck down the anti-harassment policy of the State College Area School District in Saxe v. State College Area Sch. Dist.
He wrote that “There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.” In other words, “harassment is protected speech!”
Sounds like Conrad Burns will be voting yes on this one.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Samuel Alito, ideologues |
More on the Bush Commission Tax Plan
by Matt Singer on 4:58 pm.
Full details are reportedly going to be released tomorrow, but Slate’s Moneybox takes an early peek and says the middle-class is going to get pinched. Daniel Gross neglects to mention that it seems the deductions will be turned into credits (a boon for lower-income families). His conclusions also rely on urban middle-class, and the negative impacts will probably be less of an issue here in Montana. Still worth reading.
| Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Categories: economic, policy, taxes |
More Cooking Adventures
by Matt Singer on 4:32 pm.
A while ago, I wrote about my chicken teriyaki recipe. Aaron Weissman of Treasure State Judaism ended up giving a few pointers for a red meat teriyaki sauce. I gave his recipe a whirl and grilled up some teriyaki steaks. The result was great.
Here’s how that recipe worked:
- 1 cup soy sauce
- 1/2 cup aji mirin
- 2 teaspoons chinese five spice
- 1 teaspoon ginger, shredded
- five cloves garlic, minced
Regardless, I then decided to try my hand at a homemade sichuan sauce and some homemade enchilada sauce. The sichuan sauce ended up quite good:
- 1 cup chicken broth
- 2 tablespoons aji mirin
- 3 tablespoons soy sauce
- 3 tablespoons garlic chili paste (I couldn’t get fresh chili peppers)
- half an onion and 4 minced garlic cloves, sauteed in butter
Finally, I’m working on an enchilada sauce that is actually thickening on the stove right now. I used an additional 4 minced garlic cloves and the rest of the onion from above (sauteed as well), mixed in 2 cups of chicken broth, and put the mixture in a blender with two jalapenos and two anaheim peppers. Finally, I threw in a bunch of green chiles (the diced in a can variety). I blended it and threw in some cumin. Now I’m simmering it. It’s already got the knock-you-into-a-wall-coughing-from -a-spiciness-that-doesn’t-linger that I love so much. When some of the water is gone, we’ll see how it fares.
Update — The enchilada sauce was awesome. I’m totally making it again.
| Comments (5) | Permanent Link | Categories: food |
A Court That Looks Like New Jersey
by Matt Singer on 3:21 pm.
As Ezra points out, how bizarre is this. Alito’s confirmation would give us a Supreme Court with more Trenton, NJ natives than women.
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: Samuel Alito |
Halloween Open Thread
by Matt Singer on 3:00 pm.
What are you doing for this day of the dead?
| Comments (12) | Permanent Link | Categories: general |
Congrats to my Former Colleagues
by Matt Singer on 12:07 pm.
at New West who are being recognized for their online journalistic efforts with two Online Journalism Awards. Of course, Mickey Kaus also got a special recognition award.
Hmm…
Oh well, nice job Jonathan, Courtney, and the rest of the gang.
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: general |
Stability
by V on 10:43 am.
President Bush has caved to his ultra conservative base with his nomination of “Scalito” to the highest court. I think that Samuel Alito is not a bad jurist per se, but his claims of restraint are ersatz at best. This recent cry for conservative judges and jurists to guise their names and records in shrouds of restraint is rediculous.
To a young mind, the issue of activism is a simple balance between stability and consistency. A judge can either be consistent in the interest of a longer term stability or can respect precedent to serve stability in the now. At the heart of most restraintist jurisprudence is an understanding of the court that most people share, where the court is a stabalizer for their governmental system or a release valve for the pressure that broad stroke legislative government causes. That is to say, actions of the court should not completely change the face of the everyday lives of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade, or writing opinions that call for overturning staples of American jurisprudence smacks not just of activism, but of a base divergence with the restraintist point of view.
It is true as the nominee says that the role for the court was intended to be limited, but a limited role of the judiciary is not what he really wants. He wants to see American precedents overturned, and Scalia’s numerous dissents (not just in 5-4 decisions) turned into majority opinions for the court. These things would undoubtedly change everyday life in America, and once a justice moves from restraint to activism the balance shifts also: would this change in everyday life be good or bad for America now? I sympathize with real restraintists on the point that this is rarely a question for the courts. In the coming weeks we may find Judge Alito to be may be many things, but I doubt that true restraintist will be counted among them by anyone that is not blinded by neo-conservative judicial propaganda.
Update: Center for American Progress offers some food for our civil libertarian readers:
In Doe v. Groody, Alito argued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip-searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: Samuel Alito, law |
Adding Insult to Injury
by Matt Singer on 10:18 am.
The Bush Administration is using Rosa Parks as a political pawn to make Judge Alito, their nominee, look sensitive to civil rights concerns. Here’s the thing, Judge Alito has been criticized by his colleagues for effectively arguing for the legalization of race-based discrimination. Rosa Parks would not have endorsed this man. As Ezra writes, this is disgusting, offensive, and patently BushCo.
Diego has already dropped the f-bomb. I think I’m with him. This guy deserves a filibuster.
If Harriet Miers was bad enough for right-wingers that they could deny her an up-or-down vote, we can do the same with Scalito.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: Samuel Alito, law |
It’s On: Alito Nominated
by Matt Singer on 9:44 am.
Judge Alito (nickname “Scalito”) is Bush’s new nominee for Justice O’Connor’s seat. This is going to be a battle.
Update — To understand how reactionary Alito is both politically and in his judicial philosophy, he has actually already written an opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he did so as a Circuit Court Judge, where his main prerogative is correctly applying SCOTUS precedent. ThinkProgress has more.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: Samuel Alito, law, political |
10/30/2005
Gazette Endorses…Badly
by Matt Singer on 1:28 pm.
The Billings Gazette has made its endorsements for the upcoming election. The two I care about are pretty awful. In the Mayor’s race, they recognize that this isn’t an easy choice but that one needs to be made. Unfortunately, after acknowledging that Garver is wrong on a number of issues facing the city, they simply endorse him saying that we need to put the Tussing/Bauer fiasco behind us.
Fair enough, and I might be inclined to agree, if I didn’t think that Garver was five scandals waiting to happen. The fact of the matter is that there is simply no reason to think that Al Garver, like the man he aspires to be, has the competence to serve well on a bowling team, much less on the city council, much less as Mayor.
Then, after arguing that the Tussing/Bauer situation is enough of a reason to vote for Captain Six Months, they endorse Ed Ulledalen for City Council in Ward 4. As a letter to the editor today points out, Ulledalen still hasn’t seen fit to explain to his current constituents his reasons for voting the way he did on the Bauer buyout. The letter writer says Ulledalen doesn’t return phone calls or answer emails. On top of that, he apparently rolls his eyes at public comment.
That’s a great record. I also wrote a letter that was in the paper today endorsing Ulledalen’s opponent. I’ll let that letter speak for itself, posted in full after the jump: (more…)
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: political |
10/29/2005
We Need to Discuss our Metaphysics
by Matt Singer on 10:53 am.
or our Epistemology or something. Maybe V can clarify. He’s the philosopher of the group.
Regardless, I was actually going to direct people to The Corner which has had some great posts (I didn’t think I would write that about anyone at the National Review today, especially after seeing that dickwad Jonah Goldberg has a new book comparing America’s liberal movement with Hitler*, an action that will prevent him from winning another political argument again ever).
But then I went over there and say a stupid argument. It didn’t surprise me, but I felt the need to highlight it, because it is the sort of mistake in reasoning that happens entirely too often.
Mark Levin, who has been the chief apologizing-for-doing-it-but-critic izing-Fitzgerald-all-the-same correspondent for NRO, writes this sentence:
If the charges are found to be true by a trial jury (assuming no plea agreement), then Libby, like anyone else, has committed very serious federal crimes.OK, there are actually two problems with this statement. One is that the line “Libby, like anyone else, has committed very serious federal crimes.” I haven’t committed very serious federal crimes. That statement should be amended.
The more serious problem, though, is the “the charges are found to be true…” portion of the “If…then” statement. See, first, juries don’t find charges to be true or false. They judge them to be true beyond a reasonable doubt or not. But what the jury says does not have any real connection to whether Libby has committed very serious federal crimes. This latter question, of whether Libby committed very serious federal crimes is a wholly fact-based question about something that happened in the past. Libby may have known that Plame’s status was covert and leaked it. Or he may have simply lied a lot. Even if Fitzgerald can’t prove those allegations, that does not mean they are false.
Likewise, even though O.J. Simpson was not convicted, he may indeed be the real killer. A handful of people probably know whether he is or not. The rest of us don’t. But our lack of knowing does not change the facts of the case.
Likewise, prosecutors can have persuasive cases and convict innocent people. A conviction does not necessarily mean someone committed crimes. It means that the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of 12 people that the person committed the crime for which they were convicted.
This latter standard is high enough that for all intents and purposes, I think it is fair to regard someone convicted by a jury as a criminal. But it isn’t fair to say that someone who is unconvicted is not yet a criminal. The American legal system presumes innocence until guilt is proven to our standard. But that’s a very specific presumption that exists for its own reason. There is absolutely no reason the rest of us can’t look at the evidence in front of us and draw our own conclusions (I personally don’t use a “reasonable doubt” standard in making my political decisions, I use a much lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard).
*Amazingly, he appears to have gotten his cover image from Prussian Blue, the 13-year-old Neo-Nazi singing pair.
| Comments (10) | Permanent Link | Categories: corrupt, law, philosophy, republicans |
Blame Wal-Mart and the System
by Matt Singer on 10:30 am.
During my guest-blogging stint at Sirota’s, I said that my friend Ezra was wrong in defending Wal-Mart’s free-riding of our system and their structuring of employment to avoid hiring any elderly or sick workers. Basically, my argument was that individuals can take advantage of free rider situations all the time. In polite society, we consider people who do it rude. In fact, the parts of our society that function best, function that way when people stop considering the bottom line.
Luckily, Nathan Newman is bringing the argument to Daily Kos today after the New America Foundation started spouting the same talking points. He lays out a strong case that this argument is wrong, not just substantively, but also strategically. He’s right.
Wal-Mart is one of America’s worst companies. They are, in part, because of the way that they hide everything they do behind the curtain of market demands.
Newman also highlights one of the reasons why progressives in the states get frustrated with DC think tankers:
Here’s the difference between conservative and a lot of DC liberal intellectuals. Conservatives are actually disciplined in using the privileges they have in think tanks to support the conservative movement out in the field. But much of the DC liberal policy wonk crowd– whether supporting free trade or the new talking point that Wal-Mart has no responsibility to provide health care — seem to not give a damn if they are writing Wal-Mart’s campaign ads.That’s a problem.
(Full disclosure: I think I’m about to begin work on a project with Nathan.)
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: policy, political |
Huge Poll in North Carolina
by Matt Singer on 10:22 am.
I’ve been having a discussion with Steve of Rabid Sanity regarding how the anti-war movement played up the death of the 2000th soldier in Iraq. I tend not to highlight the death of each soldier as a reason why it is now time to put an exit strategy in place, mostly because doing so strikes me as unfair to that soldier who may or may not agree with me. There’s no point in forcing someone posthumously to become part of my argument. Most of my response to Steve consisted of pointing out that the elements of the pro-war faction (in my mind) do the exact same thing by insisting that all of the soldiers are committed to the mission in Iraq and that to put together an exit strategy now is to turn our backs on them. Knowing that some of the soldiers who served and died there opposed the mission, I don’t think it’s fair to them to say what turning our backs on them means.
Chris Kromm of the Institute of Southern Studies highlights a new poll this morning that is well worth reading. A survey of North Carolina military shows most of them disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war (caveat: a sizeable number support him as well). A slim majority oppose the war (caveat: a significant number support it). A majority say they do not know whether it is worth it for them to be over there and slightly more say they are sure it isn’t “worth it” (29%) than said it was (19%).
These numbers reflect what has long been my gut on this issue. The military, like America, is a very diverse body (geographically, politically, racially). To pretend that its members en masse support us remaining in Iraq is foolishness, but so is pretending that we’re doing a favor for all of our troops by calling for their return.
There’s going to be disagreements on this issue. That’s fair. Some people, like Steve, argue that staying in Iraq is now the right thing for the military to do both strategically and for Iraq.
Looking back, I think our original entrance into Iraq was a bad strategic move (I, unfortunately, waffled on this point before the war began). I think putting a plan to pull out in place now would be the right move both for Iraq and for us strategically.
But this poll is an important reminder that, on the Iraq question, members of the military are very much in disagreement — just like the rest of the country.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: foreign, iraq, policy |
Blogger over Drupal? You’re Forking Me.
by Matt Singer on 10:06 am.
CMack at Big Sky Dems thinks they should move from Drupal to Blogger. That’s one of the silliest moves I’ve ever heard of.
What they should do is move to WordPress. Like Blogger, it’s free. Unlike Blogger, it is great software. It’s theme system does wonders. It is nearly infinitely customizable. Fair enough, it doesn’t have WYSIWYG editing, but that stuff is very rarely needed.
Blogger is crappy software where the permalinks get fried all the time and it is not versatile at all.
If you’re a new blogger looking to go cheap, but running your own domain, WordPress is the only real solution in my mind. If you’re willing to throw down cash, there may be some advantages to Movable Type, but I haven’t used it since they started charging.
Oh, WordPress is also great at preventing comment spam. Which is great.
| Comments (5) | Permanent Link | Categories: general |
10/28/2005
Rehberg and Burns
by Liesa on 5:13 pm.
You all shouldn’t be so hard on them. Trick or Treat.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: food |
Hmm, more Congress critters reading today than usual
by Matt Singer on 4:05 pm.
Maybe that’s cause I had some unkind words for Mr. Rehberg earlier today.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: general |
Judges Writing Law
by Matt Singer on 2:10 pm.
I’ve taken some flack from friends on both the left and the right for my refusal to condemn the Supreme Court opinion on private property in Kelo v. New London. The reason I take that stance is because judicially, I’m a proponent of restraint. Jeffrey Toobin has an excellent profile of Stephen Breyer and his restraint-oriented judicial philosophy, a philosophy shared by Cass Sunstein.
One of the noteworthy pieces of information in the article is that Breyer has the lowest rate of any member of the Court in voting to overturn law. The most activist justice, most inclined to tell Congress how to do its job, is Clarence Thomas.
Deference to our legislative branches is the only real way for ordinary people to have a say at all in how this country is governed. It may lead to some injustice, as occured in New London. But just systems may well allow for injustice to happen.
Also worth reading in The New Yorker this week is this Freakonomics style look at how Senators (not just Bill Frist) engage in inside trading.
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: economic, law |
Libby Has Resigned; 5 Indictments Charges, 1 Indictment
by Matt Singer on 11:01 am.
Raw Story has indictment details. The charges are perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the grand jury. Wonkette says FoxNews is reporting that his resignation is already submitted.
Update The DOJ has posted the indictments.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: general |
Rehberg is Still a Political Operative, He’s Just Got a Fancier Title These Days
by Matt Singer on 9:44 am.
Look, regular readers will already know that Dennis Rehberg is probably the member of our federal delegation who I like least. If Al Garver comes across as a snake in the grass, it’s only because he’s the latest product packaged together from the greatest (worst?) snake oil salesman Montana has ever seen.
Dennis Rehberg screams used car even more than Tom DeLay. Whether it is his hypocrisy on science issues, taking tainted money and refusing to return it, trading on right-wing lies that cause very real problems around the world, voting against stem cell research, slashing Medicaid, or always prioritizing the wealthiest and lying to do so, Rehberg is always a solid team player for the Republican Party and its twin constituencies of rich people and religious nuts.
So it turns out that he’s also still a political operative and he is working avidly to give non-profit organizations affiliated with his party more leeway to spend money to advocate or oppose candidates while putting ball gags in the mouths of organizations that work with low-income families. I’ve got the whole story up at Sirota’s blog.
This guy doesn’t deserve to be a member of an upstanding bowling league, much less Congress.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Dennis Rehberg, political |
10/27/2005
Van Dyk for House
by Matt Singer on 5:18 pm.
I mentioned earlier that Kendall Van Dyk was one of three two Democrats looking to run in Roy Brown’s old House seat. Kendall is active with the Big Sky Dems, which now has a intro and background on him.
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, political |
