Ricci v. DeStefano: 5-4 in Favor of Playing by the Rules

It's a rule most of us learn early in life. You don't change the rules in the middle or the end of a game when you don't like the (likely) outcome. We all know the sore loser whom threw over a chessboard or other game board rather than concede the hard-earned victory by the adversary.

An Example of Unfairly Changing the Rules

It's also something that plays out in adult life as well. I may have mentioned in past posts my experience as a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. At the time I was on the PhD faculty, MIS doctoral students were given two attempts to pass a written comprehensive qualifying exam. One student, well-liked by the faculty, had failed his first attempt.We advised him to take an extra semester to study for the exam, but he decided to take it again at his next opportunity. I was the tie-breaking vote with two pairs of senior faculty at odds with each other. One of the pairs was the informal MIS faculty lead (we didn't have a departmentalized business faculty) and the other happened to chair the PhD program committee. These faculty members tried to bias the student's score upward under our grading criteria, but the student still failed the exam by a significant margin. The area lead then told the other pair that they would have to tell the student that he had failed because the professor had already told the student that the latter could do his dissertation under him. The other pair wavered, and then the 4 faculty members, over my objections, decided to suspend the hearing; the PhD program chair called a meeting and introduced a policy change that allowed a conditional pass with agreed-upon remedy work. The grading meeting reconvened with the four faculty members, over my objections, elected to give him a conditional pass. In my judgment, that was manifestly unfair to other students whom had played by the rules and a violation of professional ethics by the four senior faculty members: they let their positive feelings towards the student outweigh their professional judgment. I personally liked the student, but he had to accept responsibility for his failed effort. The conditional pass rule was not in effect at the time the student wrote his exam.

[Postscript: At a national conference two or 3 years later,   I was going through a pre-screen interview with another school in a setup interview area with tables and folding chairs; the topic of UWM came up and I mentioned this story. After the interview was over, I turned around and found myself confronted with my old area lead, whom had eavesdropped on the conversation. He tersely told me, "He doesn't have his PhD yet, does he!"]

A Brief Discussion of Test Construction and Validation

I have a special research interest in test construction. The reader may think that a teacher or professor would naturally have expertise in the area, but in fact I would apply rigor, intentionally attempting to sample course material of knowledge, skills and critical thinking. I was reading some lawyer mocking the concept of multiple-choice questions on firefighter or other exams. What you are trying to do is thoroughly cover the subject matter, and it's very difficult to do that in a limited testing period without the use of short-answer test questions. Writing a good multiple-choice question is an art, and I had a knack for writing good questions. (I sometimes used test-bank questions, depending on time constraints, but at least 85% of my test questions over my teaching career were original.) In fact, I often allowed students to bring in one cheat sheet (and you will not believe how small some students can write on a cheat sheet).

In writing a good test, ideally you want a number of discriminating questions, meaning that good students will get it right and poor students will not. For example, a question which seemed to draw random responses from good as well as bad students would get factored into any exam curve. The reason I mention this is the criterion that the EEOC often applies artificial standards for testing that can result in watering down exams (as was done in the City of Chicago) so almost everyone scores high. But if everybody scores high, it may simply reflect not testing higher-order knowledge or other factors. Just like nobody is doing a favor by giving an illiterate person a high school diploma, cities are not well-served where high-ranking fire officials only need to meet a minimum level of competence.

Why tests versus leadership or job ratings, etc.? Well, first, there's no reason you can't have multiple hiring/promotion criteria or factors, just as the Supreme Court described for university admissions. But why do you have standard aptitude tests (e.g., SAT, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc.)? Because grades can widely vary among schools and even among teachers within schools. The standard tests provide a common objective baseline for comparing performance. There can be significant variability among subjective ratings, and some feel that that can be a back-door approach to rationalize a de facto promotion quota.

The EEOC Rule and Standard Tests

The EEOC implements a fairly liberal guideline (meaning there's a fairly low threshold to trigger an accusation of  "cultural bias"):

A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.

Sailer claims that he has recalibrated some race-based means data on major graduate-level standard exams (GRE, GMAT, MCAT, LSAT, DAT) using a 50% percentile for white applicants and found (roughly) blacks at a comparable 13.5% and Hispanics at roughly 25%. If we used the four-fifths rule, the standard exam results would be considered "evidence of adverse impact". Sailer elsewhere argues that the controversial results under the Ricci case are comparable in distribution. He points out that fire departments all over (e.g., Chicago and New York City) have repeatedly run into similar exam distributions, despite hiring consultants to control for "cultural bias", to the point some cities (like Chicago and New Haven) had refused to administer subsequent exams for years.  (Chicago then finally had a watered-down test administered.)

The Ricci Case

The City of New Haven is 40% black. The city charter specifically forbids race-based preferences, but obviously there would be adverse public reactions if it was seen that blacks were disproportionately denied promotion; effectively, the only way to practically respond to these activist demands would be to implement promotional quotas, which are unconstitutional, violating equal protection--which is essentially what Rizzo and others would be arguing in terms of  reverse discrimination. 

The city contracted with I/O Solutions to devise a race-neutral test. I/O Solutions designed exams that were 60% written and 40% oral. Thirty fire department managers across the country, two-thirds of them minorities, were brought in to score the oral exams. (25 white, 8 black and 8 Hispanic). The exams, for captain and lieutenant, were administered in late 2003.They got sign-off on source materials for the exam from the black assistant chief.

The city had 7 captain promotions and 41 applicants. The top 7 applicants included 6 whites and 1 Hispanic. At least 5 white and up to 2 Hispanics could be selected under the original rules (it allowed a choice of 3 candidates for each position). The highest ranking black was #16. (The individual scores/ethic classification are available here.)

The city had 8 lieutenant promotions and 77 applicants (43 white, 19 black, 15 Hispanic). The top 13 were white (followed by 3 blacks).

There doesn't seem to be evidence of any systematic bias; it just seems to be a case blacks didn't score high enough to place, despite attempts to facilitate minority input into the exam. The distribution could simply reflect individual differences, not cultural differences, in test preparation. For instance, dyslexic Ricco studied almost 8 hours daily for 3 months before taking the exam.

The city refused to certify the results given hostile reaction from local civil rights leaders to news that no blacks would be among the 15 promotions.

The city effectively threw out the exam claiming racially disparate outcomes and cancelled the promotions claiming no discrimination took place because no one got promoted over the 15 qualifying firefighters. (In the interim, the city has gotten around things by establishing temporary "acting lieutenants" and "acting captains". I do not know if the acting positions were filled exclusively from the top 15 exam scorers. I suspect not, because the local civil rights leaders would probably see that as a work around.)

Cancelling the test results/promotions because some blacks didn't score at the top of the grade distribution, qualifying for promotion, seems arbitrary. It's another thing to argue, e.g., blacks did not have access to the same study materials, did not take the exams under the same conditions (e.g., time limits), or were given different, harder exams. There is no evidence I/O Solutions short-shrifted its methodology in devising a race-neutral exam. A number of blacks scored in the top 50% of the exam distribution and a number of whites scored in the lower 50%. But we don't hear, for instance, of cancelling bar exams or medical board exams because of "disparate outcomes".

Frank Ricci and others sued on the basis of reverse discrimination. The argument that several of the Clinton appointees (including Justice Ruth Ginsburg ) advanced--that there was no discrimination because no promotion event occurred is manifestly circular and absurd.  THEY LOST THEIR PROMOTION SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR SKIN COLOR. Start the game over again? To the people that played by the rules and lost and have nothing else to lose, they get a do-over. Simply because of the winners' skin color, which is a factor beyond their control.

Yes, there was discrimination--discrimination against those whom played by the rules and won their promotions fair and square. In any case, over 50% of the test takers were white, and under a racial quota, most of those positions would have gone to whites. Holding back the results simply because blacks didn't make the cutoff constitutes a de facto race-based preference for blacks, which is unconstitutional, as Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out.

You can't change the rules just because you don't like the way the results played out. In my view, the key question of dicrimination is NOT guaranteed outcome, but on having a fair chance to compete under the same rules. Canceling the exam was unjust for those whom played by the rules and won their promotions, like Frank Ricci. You can't keep testing people until you finally get race-based results you like and then stop the game.

The district court judge, a Clinton appointee, Janet Arterton Bond, ruled against Ricci v [New  Haven Mayor] DeStefano. I'll simply quote an amicus brief  from the National Association of Police Organizations, which argued:

Among the clearest of rules emerging from the last three decades of this Court’s Equal Protection jurisprudence is that, without exception, “all governmental uses of race are subject to strict scrutiny.” See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306,326-27 (2003)...The lower court [Judge Bond] squarely found that the Civil Service Board’s refusal to certify the exam results was motivated by the race of those who performed best....The lower court, however, did not apply strict scrutiny.The failure to subject the Board’s decision to strict scrutiny by itself constitutes reversible error. But the lower court’s decision should also be reversed because a straightforward application of strict scrutiny shows the Board’s decision cannot endure...In any event, regardless of what Title VII requires, that statute cannot trump a public employer’s obligations under the Equal Protection Clause.

The Circuit Appeal panel, including Judge Sonia Sotomayor, gave a perfunctory review, until Judge Jose Carbanes, like Sotomayor a Clinton appointee, red-flagged the case, which eventually resulted in yesterday's reversal. Still, you would have thought Judge Sotomayor would have been more familiar with other precedents, including Biondo v City of Chicago, and especially the relevant discussion in the circuit appeal by Judge Easterbrook:

Still, the premise of the City's argument is that regulations supply a compelling governmental interest in making decisions based on race. How can that be? Then Congress or any federal agency could direct employers to adopt racial quotas, and the direction would be self-justifying: the need to comply with the law (or regulation) would be the compelling interest. Such a circular process would drain the equal protection clause of meaning. 

Some Post-Decision Reflections

I think certainly Judge Sotomayor's due diligence and yet another reversed decision by the Supreme Court need to be taken into consideration by the Senate.  My position on Sotomayor remains unchanged: I am opposed to her confirmation (but I am also opposed to a filibuster). I do not like the way she has introduced identity politics into her judicial philosophy and I'm concerned whether she is short-shrifting the equal protection clause. I normally would be willing to consent to the President's choice, even with my misgivings of a nominee's judicial philosophy. But her infamous public quotes regarding the inherent superiority of a Latina judge in contrast to white male judges seems to me to be but the tip of the iceberg of self-serving, muddled thinking in a profession where words are carefully parsed for meaning.

The Obama Administration's decision to back the losing (DeStefano) side of the lawsuit is not surprising, given the fact that Obama has repeatedly been more concerned with outcome versus process and has espoused nontraditional criteria, e.g., empathy. But Robert Gibbs' insistence that the case proved that Judge Sotomayor followed precedent is pure chutzpah. The idea that a potential frivolous lawsuit against the city of New Haven justifies it to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is NOT justified by precedent--and if Judge Sotomayor believes it does, then she has no business not only being on the Supreme Court but on the Circuit itself.

Honduras: The Rule of Law Prevails Over the Abuse of Power

You know when Castro, Chavez, and Obama (the Western Hemisphere League of Narcissistic Personality Cult Leftist Leaders)  agree on something, it's bound to be wrong.

Why should we be surprised that Obama takes forever to condemn the brutal Iranian dictatorship's crackdown on Iranian citizens exercising their constitutional right to protest--but when it comes to the Honduran constitution, Obama comes down against the Honduran government exercising its constitutional authority of impeaching and removing the President? Knee-jerk reaction, no hesitation--and intentionally misleading the American people on the nature of the so-called coup. President Obama loves to cite "the rule of law"--only when it's convenient to his point of view.

What Obama, Clinton and others are trying to do is to confuse the American people between the means of the Honduras military in removing former President Zelaya from office with a unilateral military coup of a sitting  President. They want the American people to believe the latter is true. THE MILITARY DID NOT INITIATE THE "COUP": It followed action by the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court.

What Obama and others won't tell you is that Zelaya "was removed legally by the courts and Congress for violating Honduras' constitution and attempting to extend his own rule." What Obama further won't tell you is that new President Roberto Micheletti was the Honduran Congressional president from Zelaya's own Liberal Party, whom opposed Zelaya's illegal attempt to extend his Presidency beyond one term.

The Real Story

Zelaya essentially wanted a blank check constitutional referendum, hyping it to the nation's poor saying that the constitution was biased against them and it needed to be changed. One of the changes opponents expected was to allow for his reelection (for life?) beyond the constitutional limit of a single term, expiring within a few months: "The congress, the supreme court and the country's attorney general say that clauses in the constitution preclude certain changes being made to it, and that a referendum is therefore illegal." (The supreme court noted that relevant initiatives are illegal within 6 months of an election.)  Zelaya fired General Vasquez, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for refusing to support the referendum; the other military chiefs resigned in protest. When the supreme court ordered Vasquez reinstated, Zelaya refused. Zelaya had ballots shipped in from Venezuela (headed by Chavez) and intended to hold the election via his supporters, outside of the lawful constitutional process.

Here is how Zelaya responded the day after the congress ordered an investigation into his mental state:

Congress cannot investigate me, much less remove me or stage a technical coup against me because I am honest, I'm a free president and nobody scares me. You have declared war against me. Now face the consequences.

I think it's clear that the congress had the evidence it needed straight from the horse's mouth. Now, Obama, repeat after me: "rule of law."

By any objective standard, the aspiring dictator Zelaya clearly considered himself above the law and abused his authority. Obama's attempts to meddle in Honduran internal affairs, demanding restoration of an impeached and removed President, are unconscionable. Apparently Obama can't distinguish between fascist mobs in Honduras from the democratic resistance to Iran's brutal theocratic dictatorship. Let me put it in terms maybe Obama can understand: the common thread is tyranny--tyranny of an unelected theocracy in Iran and the tyranny of populists in Honduras whom disregard the rule of law.

Obama has made a habit of apologizing to other nations for alleged American mistakes; well, I only think in turn it's time for Americans to start apologizing to other countries for Obama's mistakes. Let me start by apologizing to the new, lawful President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, for Obama's meddling, disrespect and disregard for Honduran law.

George W. Bush: Now is Not the Time

A week ago last Wednesday at a local business group meeting in Erie, PA, former President George W. Bush came out with some specific criticisms of Obama Administration policies, in particular, stimulus spending and bailouts, health care legislation, and Obama's approach to shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detainee center.

First of all, although I know Obama has set an American Presidential record in terms of badmouthing his precessor in terms of duration and frequency, which clearly suggests a lack of confidence in his own agenda and a paucity of legitimate policy ideas to spur economic growth, I don't like the idea of Bush and Cheney taking a higher profile, because it simply gives the Obama Administration another excuse to bash the Bush Administration. Obama is rapidly running out of time to use that excuse, having now been in office for over 5 months; we should soon be able to see macroeconomic impact on the economy based on Obama's policies. We already know that Obama's hyped goals for passing the so-called stimulus package, e.g., capping unemployment below its current level, have already failed to hold.

As to Gibbs' reaction to the Bush criticisms that "We kept score last November, and we won": once again, the Democrats are confused: it was an open election with neither Bush nor Cheney on the ballot, and second, Bush and Obama did agree on a number of things, e.g., TARP funding and a targeted shutdown of the Guantanamo Bay detainee center. I attributed Obama's victory to principally two reasons: a vast campaign fund advantage, and significant economic distress which traditionally has been an advantage to the party out of power. Obama did not win by a landslide on which he could claim a significant mandate, nor did his individual policies; the polls have consistently shown that Obama's own ratings rate above the popularity of his policies. At most, Obama can claim a win in terms of personal style, not on policy substance.

Second, the former President puts in a vigorous defense of the private sector: "Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States.." This seems to be addressing Obama's patently absurd concepts of "investments" in education, green energy, and health care, as driving American growth. (Obama has a conceptual problem in confusing periodic/operational expenses with the concept of an investment.)

By any objective standard, green energy solutions are not significantly scalable in the short term for a number of intrinsic difficulties, such as the lack of cheap mass storage and means of distribution. It's also not clear why growing economies, such as China and India, with surging needs for energy, would unilaterally assume the higher costs of green energy, narrowing competitive cost advantages fueling their growth. For example, I've seen that China is averaging the opening of one coal-based power plant per week. It is not making this kind of investment in energy infrastructure for the short term. Obama has deliberately misled the American people, not pointing out that the US has been investing in and subsidizing in green technology solutions for decades while taking American sources of carbon-based energy essentially off the table. This is a deliberate strategy of the environmental leftists: they hardly oppose higher energy costs; they figure that the higher costs will force American consumers to be more energy-efficient. There is a major problem, though: the Democrats and environmentalists have been stonewalling domestic energy exploration while maturing oil and gas fields continue petering out, increasing America's dependence on carbon-based energy imports. There is a problem, though--net foreign energy supplies are not increasing fast enough to satisfy both America's increasing dependence on carbon-based supply as well as the emerging market's demands.

There is no denying that the status quo is not a long-term solution, but what the liberals won't tell you is that every barrel of domestic production which peters out without new domestic sources replacing it is a barrel we have to pay for on the expensive international market, We don't know when we'll get some scalable breakthrough in green technology, but it is sheer madness for Obama to be playing Russian roulette with the nation's economy.

However, Bush is also pointing at other issues as well, in particular, Obama's penchant for micromanaging the private sector, including the auto and financial services industry. It is certainly egregious for Obama to demagogue over "lobbyists" (naturally, not including his own special interest groups, like ACORN, the unions, the environmentalists, etc.) and the "rule of law", when he is willing to do away with contractual retention clauses in management contracts and throw securitized bondholders under the bus in favor of his crony union unsecuritized interests.

The problem that I have with Bush speaking up on this topic is due to the fact that in September, he himself was in charge when we saw government takeovers of AIG, Fannie and Freddie Mac, etc. He punted the ball on the automakers to Obama. So when he paints himself as aligned with the interests of the private economy, we would not be in the position we are in today if Bush had been more vigilant in defending the private economy instead of keeping failing business models going on the taxpayer dime; after all, that's the private enterprise system.

Third, Bush references Obama's tax-and-spend record: "I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in. You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money." Well, the low-tax message is laudable, but guess what, Mr. Bush? Obama co-opted the message in his redistributionist tax scheme. He saw your tax cuts and raised them with tax credits/refundable rebates. for lower/middle-income workers. He simply continued your example of no net federal income tax for about 40% of the workers--that means, 40% of voters without any qualms of spending what's in the other guy's pocket. Why should they care whether federal money is being being spent efficiently or effectively? Somebody else is paying for the bill; they're getting something for nothing. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Now Obama wants to raise the number of these workers to about half the working population.

The problem, Mr. Bush, is that you can only cut taxes so far: you have to pay the bills sooner or later. Obama, of course, is passing massive spending bill after massive spending bill, resulting in quadrupling the last fiscal year budget deficit under Bush. Oh, to be sure, Obama pays lip service to the concept: of fiscal conservatism; with a straight face, he talks about about a $17B deficit reduction in the face of a $2T deficit. He talks about "pay as you go", but the only times he threatens to veto spending is in Defense Department budgets (in the face of increasingly strident North Korea and Iran).

Perhaps Obama doesn't care about the climbing aggregate deficit; he certainly didn't micromanage the Congress (unlike private companies, like GM) or threaten the stimulus bill and omnibudget spending bill with vetoes. Maybe he's under the impression China and other countries will continue to buy up T-bills, keeping interest rates artificially low relative to inflation risks. Or maybe he's going to put it on the bill, so a future President and generations will have to pay for his spending sprees, at the price of future higher taxes and lower economic growth.

Mr. Bush, the solution is not simply lower taxes. You have to have federal revenues for a given level of spending. It is true that Wal-Mart could increase profits through aggressive discounts; but the problem is a diminishing return of tax rate cuts. If Wal-Mart sells at cost, it earns no profits. It continues to drive up sales volumes with price cuts, and aggregate profits will continue to increase as volume makes up for lower profit. But at a certain point further decreases in price will lower, not increase aggregate profitability, as the increased volume does not make up for lower profits. For, for Wal-Mart, the issue is finding that optimal price point. The same thing holds true for tax rates. In setting the "right" tax rate, one must first know how much federal revenue you need. You can argue a "starvation diet" for federal spending given low tax rates, just like Obama and the environmentalists unrealistically argue a "starvation diet" for energy consumption. The problem is that serious budget cuts are easier said than done.

The problem, of course, is the fact that the Bush Administration increased spending more than the revenues brought in under the Bush tax cuts, something that Democrats are all too eager to point out was not Clinton's legacy (although they fail to point out that only GOP-controlled Congresses have yielded a balanced budget over the past half century).  A lot of that deficit spending had to do with fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; there were also increases in homeland security spending and the new Medicare drug benefit. However worthy these spending priorities, I don't think Bush ever seriously addressed how to pay for the additional expenses. So Bush has less moral authority to argue about a budget deficit in general; he certainty did not do a government streamlining or a "pay as you go" policy for paying for the additional spending. Instead, his only spending vetoes were for limited spending bills like an upgraded SCHIP, which, of course, Democrats tried to paint as Bush standing in the doorway of a hospital emergency room trying to prevent a poor orphan from getting life-and-death surgery, instead of above-average income taxpayers trying to dump their children's medical bills onto the American taxpayer.

Fourth, Bush looked at the issue of Guantanamo Bay detainees: "The way I decided to address the problem was twofold: One, use every technique and tool within the law to bring terrorists to justice before they strike again...I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that -- persuasion isn't going to work. Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind." Whereas I'm sympathetic to the argument of judicious application of enhanced interrogation techniques to high-ranking terrorists, I'm not sure (if allegations are correct) why these techniques may have been applied as many times as they were. I do think Bush has to address a number of questions: Why would the CIA have dropped the technique in 2006 if it had been effective? For example, suppose Osama bin Laden was captured alive. Are we saying we wouldn't use enhanced interrogation techniques on him to obtain what he knows about projected attacks? Second, I would like to understand better why, if Bush is correct about the dangerous Gitmo detainees, did his administration release so many detainees whom ended up on the battlefields of Iran and Afghanistan battling American forces? Third, Bush needs to flesh out  his differences with Obama on the idea of closing Guantanamo Bay detention center, to which he himself agreed in concept.

Fifth, Bush sought to defend his administration from its part in the housing bubble, noting that they had attempted to rein in Freddie and Fannie Mac, but ran into political roadblocks. There are a number of issues that needed to be addressed, but the fact is the market was awash in speculation: we had markets, e.g., California, Las Vegas, and Florida, where housing prices were far outstripping wages, we had largely unregulated derivatives being used for bank reserves, we had Mortgage-Backed Securities on the market which weren't properly diversified by geographic risk and other factors, and we had gimmick home mortgages being extended without down payments and verified employment. I don't think this excuses the Democrats, because both political parties benefited from the expansion of home ownership and the Clinton Administration was an enabler of a deregulated financial services industry.

A Critique of George W. Bush

I do think that history will be kinder to George W. Bush than present-day ratings indicate. But there are some criticisms which will persist. First, George W. Bush largely threw away the "competent manager" card, which is particularly notable given the first MBA President. This is clear from the chaotic mess of post-invasion Iraq, including a lack of planning, an undermanned occupation force, the decision to disband the Iraqi Army, and decisions essentially shutting out the Sunni minority from power and influence. There were unforced errors in terms of issues with captured enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush tried to nominate his Texas cronies to positions for which they had questionable qualifications, e.g., Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. Bush gave undue deference to a clearly dysfunctional New Orleans mayor and Democratic Governor of Louisiana during the Katrina disaster. He clearly didn't pull the hook fast enough during Katrina and the Iraqi quagmire.

Second, Bush's party leadership was problematic, particularly during his second term. In a baffling decision, he waited until AFTER the 2006 election to announce Rumsfeld's termination and a new Iraq strategy. If this decision had been announced before the election, several Congressional seats would likely have been saved--including control of the Senate. Another notable problem was how Bush handled the economic tsunami, never even seriously taking into consideration the views of House Republicans. Bush's timing and mishandling of the immigration reform issue was a contributing factor towards McCain's losing a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Bush seemed to retreat to a defiant "I-am-the-decider" stance, contributing to the political polarization in Washington, a contributing factor to Obama's misleading but persuasive "turn-the-page" rhetoric. McCain had no coattails from Bush's endorsement, given Bush's growing unpopularity with voters except for the Republican faithful, and McCain found it difficult to separate his policies with those offered by Bush, which was expertly exploited by Obama. Finally, Bush failed to challenge the Congressional Republicans, especially after regaining the Senate in 2002, to hold true to the reform agenda and fresh ideas that led to the GOP's House victory in 1994 and the longstanding Republican emphasis on a balanced budget

Third, Bush made some key strategic blunders. One of those was taking on a sacred cow of American politics, social security, and introducing certain reforms (i.e., privitization of a portion of contributions) early in his second term, and the Democrats were easily able to foil the attempt with fear, uncertainty and doubt. Another was failing to seize the opportunity of bipartisanship after his deft handling of 9/11 and the subsequent defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This was particularly mystifying coming on the heels of his well-regarded bipartisanship as Texas governor. This is an odd case whether the son followed his own father's blown opportunity in the aftermath of the first Gulf War with approval ratings near 90%. Finally, Bush's public relations were handled ineptly, as Bush's adversaries were largely able to define him.

Finally, Bush failed to emulate Reagan's communication skills (with the exception of certain post-9/11 moments) and Reagan's pragmatic leadership. Bush often came across as strident versus open and flexible. The media/pop conservatives, for instance, choose to ignore one of Reagan's first steps as California governor was to raise taxes, and he came to a compromise with the Democrats during his first term as President for payroll increases for social security.

Concluding Remarks

I do commend President Bush for not returning in kind the polemical and, in my view, hypocritical scapegoating rhetoric and Roveian-style tactics of Obama, whom had promised a post-partisan Washington but has resorted to voting gimmicks and picking off individual Republican senators to avoid genuine bipartisan compromise. I do wish, however, that a former President whom oversaw protectionist steel policies, agricultural subsidies, and an unprecedented massive state intervention during the recent economic tsunami needs to go beyond pro-market sound bytes to differentiate his policies from Obama. The same type criticism can also be applied to Bush's other statements.

But at the present time, it's important that the Republican Party finds fresh voices and ideas to confront the vapid, pretentious leadership and ideas of Obama and his Congressional cronies. It's been less than 6 months since your Presidency ended, Mr. Bush. We are still coping with the worst recession in decades that started on your watch. Now is not the time to revisit the past; we need to focus on the present challenges.

Our Celebrity-Obsessed Society: Protecting the Rights of Nancy Benoit

It has become one of the established patterns in the history of online Internet sales: when there is a celebrity event such as an unexpected death (e.g., Michael Jackson), eBay sees an explosion of sales of various memorabilia, products (e.g., books or CD's), and tribute items, many of them priced outrageously to whatever they feel the market will bear given a limited supply of in-demand items. [To give a simple example in another context: when Benedict XVI, a prolific author as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, was elected pope, some of his books, normally priced in the $10-20 range, were priced over $100.] It never ceases to amaze me how quickly companies or individuals will exploit the situation (the items almost sell themselves, piggybacking on top of massive media coverage); in fact, just this morning I got a promotional email from a jewelry/collectibles company from which I've purchased in the past, offering a framed Michael Jackson tribute print. [No sale.]

Psychiatrists sometimes term this phenomenon as "Celebrity Worship Syndrome", which is somewhat of a misnomer, because we are talking about celebrity obsession, not praying to them. It can take various forms; it's often a part of growing up. My favorite baseball player was Harmon Killebrew of the Minnesota Twins; I checked out his biography from the local library and listened to Twins' games on an Iowa station I could barely pick up while living in Kansas. When I was at UT, it was sitting in on a class being taught by philosopher Charles Hartshorne, famous for his resurrection of the ontological argument (proof of the existence of God). When I was an MIS doctoral student and young professor, it was meeting people whose research I had studied, e.g., Gordon B. Davis, Blake Ives, and Ben Schneiderman. But in my case, it never really crossed the line of being interested in or wanting to intrude on their private lives.

But there are a lot of other people whom are interested in personal details; this is clear from the fact that are many celebrity-oriented shows, magazines, and blogs. And the phenomenon has not gone unnoticed by men's magazines, such as Playboy. They have pursued celebrity women for years, offering huge modeling fees to be featured in nude pictorials; there's only one reason they do it: it sells loads of magazines. Recently fired Miss California Carrie Prejean has repeatedly mentioned that the pageant organization had forwarded her an offer from Playboy (after her famous defense of traditional marriage at the Miss USA contest caused a firestorm across politically-correct California, angry over the recent passage of Proposition 8). I mean, does anyone doubt that Playboy desperately wants to sign South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's notorious Argentinian mistress?

What's worse than that, however, are those paparazzi whom go beyond the fair game of public appearances, trying to intrude on the privacy of celebrities, without their knowledge or consent  (e.g., women sunbathing topless in their own fenced-in backyard). I mean, doesn't a celebrity woman deserve a right to her privacy in a bathroom stall without worrying about being seen by hidden or undetected cameras?

We finally see some constitutional protect of privacy rights, long overdue, in the 11th Circuit of Appeals, which this past week reversed a district judge's moronic decision to uphold Hustler's sophistical defense of "First Amendment" claims to publish the late Nancy Benoit's 1983 nude modeling pictures released without her estate's knowledge or permission. (According to Nancy's mother Maureen Toffoloni, Nancy and her first husband eventually decided against a modeling career and had been been promised by the photographer that the pictures and/or videotape had been destroyed. There is some dispute over whether Nancy was aware that the photographer had made a videotape of the nude session, and the photographer/Hustler are arguing that Nancy's request only applied to pictures, not the videotape. This is patently disingenuous argument; what is the qualitative distinction between a nude picture and nude stills from videotape? Nancy's decision to destroy the nude pictures was unambiguous in intent.)

Nancy Benoit, who had been featured as a pro wrestling valet/manager, most prominently under the name "Woman", divorced her first husband to marry pro wrestler Kevin Sullivan in 1985. Nancy eventually divorced Sullivan around the time frame of a scripted rivalry between Sullivan and a rising wrestling star, Chris Benoit in 1997. Nancy retired from wrestling in 1997. This bears directly on the topic of interest, because it seems the reason Nancy left wrestling was that Sullivan wanted to book her into a pay-per-view skit which would end with her being topless. In 2000 Nancy married Chris Benoit and eventually gave birth to their first and only child, Daniel.

On June 25, 2007, Chris Benoit murdered his wife and then Daniel before committing suicide. There is no definitive ruling on what caused the death, although there was much speculation of steroid use. (I believe that mental illness played a role; there were signs of paranoia in his being followed from airports or dealings with neighbors, and there were a lot of religious/Biblical text messages left or being sent around the time of the murders. However, I'm not a psychiatrist.) It should be noted that Dr. Phil Astin, who has been connected to Chris Benoit and others, pled guilty back in March to some 175 counts of improper prescription drug authorizations.

From March 2008 Hustler Cover 

Redefining Bad Taste

I have no idea, after a woman has been murdered, what kind of perverted mind thinks of checking to see if there are any past nude pictures around so a magazine can financially exploit the tragedy; doesn't Nancy's mother have enough grief to deal with given the untimely loss of her daughter?

Even if we set aside the moral outrage, the fact is that many so-called WWE divas (attractive young women whom wrestle and/or serve as a valet/manger) have appeared in exclusive Playboy pictorials. Nancy Benoit had considerable audience of wrestling fans to negotiate a lucrative modeling assignment of her own. In fact, she was very happy living outside of the spotlight, in her role as homemaker and mother, and by all accounts, Chris and Nancy were involved with their local church.

The Circuit Court was exactly right; there was nothing newsworthy in unauthorized 25-year-old stills; the only thing newsworthy was Hustler's audacity in trying to sell magazines by promising a peek at the bare breasts of a murder victim, a violation of her constitutional rights of privacy.

Obama's Katrina Moment on Iran: 3AM Call Went to Voice Mail

Last Friday, the US House passed following resolution with just one dissenting vote (iconoclastic Republican Ron Paul), and the US Senate soon followed:

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

Notice that this bipartisan resolution did not take a position on the election outcome (i.e., Ahmadinejad or Mousavi). To be sure, Obama's muted response has been praised as virtuous: so-called "foreign policy experts", including the National Iranian American Council and foreign Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,  fretted that any American support of Iranian liberty and republicanism plays right into Ahmadinejad's hands, allowing him to demonize America as "interfering in its internal affairs": The US did not select the candidates, operate the election, fix the results, or beat, maim or murder Iranian citizens nonviolently exercising their human rights.

Earth to "experts": Since when is Iran "more equal" than other regimes we've condemned for violating human rights? Ahmadinejad trying to blame for the US for the corrupt Iranian dictatorship's crackdown on Iranian citizens exercising their constitutional rights to protest is not unlike an abusive husband trying to argue his beaten wife made him do it...

Let us remember what Edmund Burke said:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

[It's more commonly paraphrased: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."]

Or perhaps this quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Silence or watered-down rhetoric in the face of an unjustifiable crackdown of protesters in opposition to a tyrannical, morally bankrupt regime is not courage; it's moral cowardice and made the US out to be little more than an international enabler. It sets an unconscionable precedent. The fact is, the corrupt Iranian regime has made the US its whipping boy for 30 years running now.

Obama finally at last Tuesday's news conference finally stated: "appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the past few days". Better late than never. I wonder what the so-called experts felt about the President's words. What changed the picture that got Obama to use the kind of rhetoric the Europeans used 10 days earlier? I hardly believe that a belated 10-day denunciation of a repressive crackdown is any less "meddlesome". Now, personally, I think he was finally living up to his Cairo speech, but he should have done it days earlier. I call it Obama's Katrina moment.

Of course, Ahmadinejad was furious over Obama's choice of words and "meddling"  in the press conference and demanded an apology. Of course, in the eyes of Democrats, Ahmadinejad made the ultimate smear, by daring to compare Obama with George W. Bush... (I wonder if the Angry Left will get a clue and figure out that the bad guy is Ahmadinejad...)

What's even more bizarre is that same day the State Department still had not withdrawn its "hot dog diplomacy" invitations to Iranian diplomats for the Fourth of July... What part of what happened after the election in Iraq honors the principles of our Declaration of Independence? The unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If you were going to invite any Iranians to a Fourth of July "hot dog" lunch, you should first make sure they follow the dress code--green armbands required. It does look like the State Department finally withdrew these invitations Wednesday.

Even more repression over the last few days: apparently four Iranian soccer players who wore green wristbands have been banned for life from the sport. There are reports that Mousavi is effectively under house arrest and it looks as though the dictatorship is looking to arrest him and charge him with crimes related to the uprising. Then there are troubling allegations made by individual tweets in Iran (NOTE: it's difficult to corroborate these allegations):

Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish quotes a dramatic phone-call broadcast on CNN of a protester describing the horrific scene. "All of a sudden some 500 people with clubs came out of [undecipherable] mosque and they started beating everyone. They tried to beat everyone on [undecipherable] bridge and throwing them off of the bridge," the woman said. The Lede backs up this story, saying that several Iranian bloggers have reported hearing gunshots at the rally. One tweet picked up by the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan is the most disturbing of all, "In Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher . . . Fighting in Vanak Sq, Tajrish sq, Azadi Sq - now . ."

It does look like Obama is finally beginning to find his voice. At today's press conference with German Chancellor Merkel, he said the following:

I think what's absolutely clear is over the course of subsequent days, that Moussavi has shown to have captured the imagination or the spirit of forces within Iran that were interested in opening up,and that he has become a representative of many of those people who are on the streets and who have displayed extraordinary bravery and extraordinary courage.

I continue to believe that ultimately it's up to the Iranian people to make decisions about who their leaders are going to be.  But as I said this week and I've said previously, a government that treats its own citizens with that kind of ruthlessness and violence and that cannot deal with peaceful protestors who are trying to have their voices heard in a equally peaceful way I think has moved outside of universal norms, international norms, that are important to uphold.

And Chancellor Merkel and I share a -- share the belief that what's happened in Iran is unacceptable when it comes to violence against its own citizens and we call on the Iranian government to uphold those international principles...

I don't think -- I don't take Mr. Ahmadinejad's statements seriously about apologies, particularly given the fact that the United States has gone out of its way not to interfere with the election process in Iran.  And I'm really not concerned about Mr. Ahmadinejad apologizing to me.  I would suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad think carefully about the obligations he owes to his own people.  And he might want to consider looking at the families of those who have been beaten or shot or detained.  And that's where I think Mr. Ahmadinejad and others need to answer their questions.

Miscellany: 6/26/09

A Victory Against School Bureaucracies Run Amuck

Safford Middle School administrators had uncovered a problem involving the circulation of prescription strength ibuprofen. In questioning students caught with the drug, one of the kids identified a friend, Savana Redding, as her source. Savana denied the allegation. A male school official searched Savana's backpack but found nothing; he then had a female staffer take Savana into the school nurse's office and conduct a strip search, which also yielded no evidence.

I do not know further specifics. I'm inferring there weren't other witnesses; presumably the school official had reason to believe that the accusation wasn't self-serving, and the search was motivated by evidence beyond simply "she said, she said", e.g., if suspect's family had an existing prescription for ibuprofen. But putting ibuprofen, a common anti-inflammatory drug for general aches and pains available over-the-counter (Advil, Motrin), in the same class as, say, Ritalin? And doing a strip search for it? Imagine what they might do if you're caught with aspirin...

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday 8-1 in Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. April Redding that the Safford Middle School had violated Savanna Redding's Fourth Amendment rights against "unreasonable searches and seizures". Exactly right. I do applaud schools for being vigilant in the war on drugs, but one must exercise judgment and sensitivity and learn how to pick one's battles. Treating ibuprofen as an equal drug, in my view, undermines the legitimate case against prescription drug abuse. I also would like to see any strip search of a female minor to be a method of last resort, and ideally parents should be brought into the picture before it ever gets to that point.


The King of Pop is Dead

I am not doing a tribute post for Michael Jackson like I did for Farrah Fawcett. There are just too many troubling allegations involving Michael Jackson, as a grown man, befriending unrelated young teenager boys (instead of more normal adult relationships) and those multiple baffling national TV interviews where he insisted that sharing his own bed with unrelated children was a natural, beautiful thing. There were rumors concerning a settlement Jackson made with a young man's family years before the infamous child molestation trial. In the latter case, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers, and I have to respect the verdict, because I didn't hear all the court testimony and I did not review the evidence. Jackson could not deny knowing the boy because he had appeared with him during a televised interview. My understanding is that the main accuser's fingerprints were found on pornographic materials found in the Jackson's home, something consistent with child grooming behaviors. There's no doubt that the motives of the accuser's mother were called into question, especially the fact that she pleaded the Fifth Amendment with respect to a question concerning welfare fraud (the defense's primary argument was that the allegations were initially made to extort Jackson).

There will be plenty of people to sing Michael Jackson's praises. In fact, I have a very large pop music collection, and I own copies of a Jackson 5 anthology and a greatest hits album over his solo career, not to mention a copy of Thriller given to me by a brother-in-law. "Never Can Say Goodbye", "I'll Be There", and "Ben" were earlier hits I liked; "Billie Jean" was a brilliantly crafted pop song, and "Man in the Mirror" is on my Ipod Shuffle. There is little doubt of Jackson's musical genius. I think, however, Jackson set an unrealistic goal of trying to top the prodigious commercial success of Thriller.

I personally didn't like Jackson for a couple of other incidents. The first dealt with the supergroup USA for Africa song "We Are the World". John Denver, probably (along with Barry Manilow) the iconic male vocalist of the 1970's, wanted to be part of the project and was rejected;  this was particularly egregious is because no other American performer was as identified with world hunger as John Denver:

John called himself a "concerned citizen of the earth". He was asked to serve on the Presidential Commission on World and Domestic Hunger. He was one of the founders of The Hunger Project, an organization committed to the sustainable end of chronic hunger.

John Denver toured African countries devastated by drought and starvation as a representative of UNICEF. He performed benefit concerts for global hunger and environmental efforts, and was even awarded the Presidential "World Without Hunger" award.

 It seems the excuse was that John Denver's record sales were sagging, and they had to make room for other, then prolific, chart-topping  pop singers like Dan Aykroyd, Jackie Jackson, Harry Belafonte, Bette Midler, Sheila E, and Lindsey Buckingham. The intentional snub of John Denver was unconscionable. Let's put it this way: there are more John Denver songs on my Ipod Shuffle than Michael Jackson songs.

The second thing I didn't like was the fact that Michael Jackson refused the sell the rights of Beatles songs, which he had acquired, back to Paul McCartney. My hope is that in the disposal of Jackson's estate (from what I've heard, Jackson was technically insolvent) McCartney will get a fair opportunity to regain rights to his own songs.

I feel more sadness than anything else. I don't think he ever got to grow up as a normal boy, he lived life in a bubble, and I wonder if some of his bizarre behavior was an unrealistic desire to recover his lost youth. I think that he got incredibly wealthy and powerful at an early age and probably surrounded himself with yes men, whom didn't push back when his behavior started deviating social norms (e.g., the infamous dangling of his child over the balcony so the fans could see the baby better? However, on other occasions, he zealously insisted on privacy for his children, even having them wear masks in public.)

My thoughts and prayers are with his grieving, surviving family members and his children. I have no doubt about Michael's love for his children.

Should South Carolina Governor Sanford Resign? No

Some people are making invalid comparisons with other political figures caught in sex scandals. Let's consider Bill Clinton. The issue with Clinton was not his adultery per se; it had to do with infidelity with employee subordinates, which is why he was required to testify in an Arkansas court while President. Former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer had sex with a call girl, and he was the former state attorney general whom, in fact, was supposed to prosecute these organizations. Gerry Studds, a gay Congressman from Massachusetts, was repeatedly reelected after news surfaced in 1983 over having had sex with a 17-year-old page a decade earlier, a minor and a subordinate. (To be fair, the House did censure him.) Former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey had adulterous gay sex with a man whom he had appointed as homeland security head. There's a qualitative difference between these cases and a private consensual affair.

This does not excuse Governor Sanford's lapse of moral and political judgment. The moral lapse is particularly unconscionable given his focus on traditional family values. Why, especially after Governor Palin's experience last year with her private email account being compromised, Sanford would have put into writing his feelings about this Argentinian woman, something which would have played right into the hands of his political enemies? Sanford also went on to unnecessary detail on his personal life in the press conference, where, most notably, his wife was absent.  If he felt a need to discuss the affair, he should have simply said, "My wife and I are separated. I made a decision to save my marriage and went to Argentina to break things off in person with the other woman."

But the real lapse in judgment was leaving the state without a clear point of contact and shutting off his cell phone. For all we know, he could have had a catastrophic health problem while in Argentina, and also the state could have faced some major natural disaster in the interim. I don't think there was anything wrong which the governor's vacationing in Argentina; I do think there's a problem with how he did it. I'm not sure whether it was simply a case of forgetting to put his cellphone back on or whether he simply didn't want to draw press attention as to why he was in Argentina.

Is it an impeachable offense or one demanding the governor's resignation? No. In a country where, unfortunately, half of marriages end in divorce, we don't ask breadwinners in the private sector to resign from a job because of marital problems, and these relationships don't have the additional stress of living a politician's life in a fish bowl. I believe that Mark Sanford is an outstanding politician making principled stands on behalf of fiscal conservatism. (I am aware that he has his own political enemies, including Republican leaders in the South Carolina legislature.) I'm willing to give the governor the benefit of a doubt in making a simple mistake in judgment, because he reportedly seemed surprised about the uproar over his absence when he checked back with his office. No harm was done during his absence, except perhaps to his political future. I think the reaction you are seeing in South Carolina from both Democrats and Republicans is simply political opportunism. The public humiliation he has gone through, mostly self-inflicted, is punishment enough.

Farrah Fawcett: No longer Charlie's Angel: God's Angel

Farrah Fawcett was an American actress, primarily known for her breakthrough work as original cast member Jill Munroe in the iconic TV series Charlie's Angels, nominated for a Golden Globe for her work there and multiple Emmy and Golden Globe nominations for other television projects, in particular, The Burning Bed and Small Sacrifice, and motion pictures (especially Extremities). Every young man of the era (myself included) was captivated by her all-American good looks, including her classic poster (above photo) which shattered all sales records.

As impressed as I am by 62-year-old Farrah's professional accomplishments, I am even more impressed with her valiant struggle against cancer and the remarkable chronicle she captured of her fight, determined not to compromise the integrity of the project, even keeping the cameras on as she was overcome with nausea and briefly turned away. NBC-TV broadcast "Farrah's Story" this past spring, and it was one of the most compelling projects I have ever seen. It gave us a rare insight into her remarkable character, her strength, her spunkiness, and her love for her son Redmond and longtime companion, actor Ryan O'Neal. My thoughts and prayers are especially with them and with her family, especially Mr. Fawcett, whom has now lost a second daughter to this awful disease.

One issue I want to raise in the context of the documentary is the fact that Farrah Fawcett decided that she couldn't get some of the treatments which she asserts worked for her in the US and quickly bonded with a female German specialist. This is particularly relevant in discussion government involvement (e.g., FDA) in matters involving drugs and treatment. In my judgment, we need to look at lowering related barriers to entry to innovative health care products, techniques, and technologies, in particular, streamlining FDA processes in order to shorten the critical path to marketplace availability. I am also concerned, in the context of Obama's so-called health care reforms, that we may be trying to punish success in the American pharmaceutical industry. In addition, we must be careful of any back-door measures towards a national health care system which controls costs by rationing services--such as those available to Farrah, which probably allowed her, during periods of remission, to extend her quality of life.

Rest in peace, sweet Farrah. You are no longer just one of Charlie's Angels. You are God's angel now.

Miscellany: 6/25/09

Tragedy on the Red Line Metro

As someone who has lived in Maryland but worked in DC (within a few blocks of the White House), I have spent hundreds of dollars in Metro fares and parking. I myself have never taken the Red Line, but Fort Totten is a terminating point for the Yellow Line and a key transfer station with the Green Line; I've found myself on many occasions waiting at the Fort Totten station for the Green Line to take me the rest of the way to Greenbelt. Hearing that this tragic incident on June 22 occurred as both southbound trains approached the Fort Totten station made it more personable to me. I cannot count the number of times where my trains stopped between stations precisely for the safety reasons resulting in the Red Line crash. The last thing I've heard is that there was some (undiagnosed?) software problem with the striking train (which should have stopped automatically); the train operator had to engage the emergency break. It's not clear whether there was a brake failure or if the brake was applied too late. There were known issues with the kinds of cars on the striking train and the brake maintenance was overdue. My thoughts and prayers go out to families of the casualties.

It goes without saying that we don't expect public transit managers to cut corners on maintenance and known issues. As an IT professional, I'm curious as to the nature of the problem, but I'm also interested in terms of human factors issues. For example, it's very important for operators, pilots, etc., to maintain operational skills and not depend for the most part on automated mechanisms: You do not want operators with rusty skills all of a sudden having to perform crisply and accurately under challenging circumstances.

Dennis Miller Defending Sarah Palin

I've been listening to some older post-election conservative comedian Dennis Miller podcasts, and I got exasperated with some of Miller's comments on Sarah Palin. Miller, along with his slobbering-love-affair colleagues at Fox News, suggested that Sarah Palin was the only reason that McCain did as well as he did last November. I think he was being serious (you never can tell with a comic doing a radio show heavily weighted on politics, but he has repeatedly praised Palin). Any regular reader of this blog knows that I am not a Sarah Palin fan, but let's deal with reality. I am sure that Sarah Palin helped motivate the base, but basically McCain won solidly red states which would never have voted for the most liberal Democrat since McGovern. He would have won those states no matter whom the Veep was. People seem to forget BEFORE McCain selected Palin at the end of August, he had slipped ahead of Obama 46-44% in the national Gallup Poll. He was leading in swing states like Colorado and New Mexico, which Bush had carried in 2004, but which he eventually lost by a significant margin.

Do I mean to imply Sarah Palin was the only reason McCain lost? No. I think in the aftermath of the economic tsunami most Americans were concerned with economic security and the safety net, which Democrats have emphasized in their agenda. John McCain did make a puzzling decision to suspend his campaign, and the McCain campaign found itself at a deep disadvantage in funding in the battleground states; Obama's funding advantage was so massive that he could afford to take the offense into red state territory, including McCain's home state of Arizona, leaving the McCain campaign on the defensive needing to defend what should have been safe states, never going on the offense with the exception of a play for Pennsylvania.

But make no mistake: 60% of Americans felt that Sarah Palin was unprepared to be President, and not a few people, including Colin Powell, felt that McCain had largely thrown away his experience argument by picking Sarah Palin. This may of not been as big a factor as it was except for the fact that McCain is over 70 years old, and whether or not the argument was ageist, McCain did have an issue with a significant number of people worried about his age to begin with.

The point is--McCain ran into problems with independents and moderates, many of whom were turned off by a largely negative campaign, including Sarah Palin's role in pursuing it. To a certain extent, I can't blame Sarah Palin for that; it often falls on the Veep candidate to play bad cop. Oddly enough, it was never intended to be that way. I feel McCain saw in Palin a kindred soul: she was a reformer and a bipartisan leader.

On a different show, Miller was talking to a Reagan biographer and gingerly asked what Reagan would have made of Sarah Palin; the guest made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that other than her surface charm and charisma, Sarah Palin was no Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan had fleshed-out, articulate policy viewpoints. (Miller did agree that Sarah Palin's inability to cite a Supreme Court decision beyond Roe v Wade bothered him but was willing to cut Palin some slack under the circumstances.) Ronald Reagan not only read newspapers and magazines, but wrote syndicated columns and delivered radio commentaries. He impressed Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman If you read Ronald Reagan's 1975 interview with Reason Magazine or, say, his National Review reflections on the failure of 1973's California Proposition 1, the contrast with Sarah Palin's abysmal national interviews is manifest; there is no meandering rhetoric, recurring sound bites and bumper-sticker insights.

Mark Sanford: An Astonishing Political Swerve

Fox News had been tracing the unusual circumstances of South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, probably on everyone's top 5 list or so of potential challengers to Obama in 2012. [He would have been a formidable candidate with 3 Congressional terms and 2 terms as governor.] Then he disappeared last Thursday through Father's Day weekend, purportedly to do hiking along the Appalachian Trail after the end of a contentious session with the South Carolina legislature. (In essence, Sanford, who did not want to accept federal stimulus bill money, was forced to do so.)

The governor left last Thursday and apparently shut off his cellphone for a few days, last using it near the Atlanta airport. South Carolina law enforcement tried to contact him by cellphone without success on Friday. The GOP lieutenant governor and a state senator raised questions over the weekend, but the governor's office on Saturday said there was no reason for concern. On Monday the situation escalated and included a weird revelation that Mrs. Sanford said she didn't know where her husband was, that he hadn't spend Father's Day with his sons.

I watched the puzzling press conference on Fox News this afternoon and did notice when at one point he said something to the effect of letting the chips fall where they may. I had no idea what he was about to admit to: an affair with an Argentinian woman, and he went on a trip to see her.

I'm not sure why he admitted the adultery, but people were writing his political obituary before the speech was completed. A social conservative like Sanford admitting adultery faces a political death sentence because American voters hate hypocrisy. There are other weird parts to this story, including the release of a couple emails or letters between the governor and his mistress.

I'm mostly concerned about the fact that he did not keep in touch with proper authorities. I do believe strongly in married men honoring their vows to their wives. However, unless his private life affects his job performance, I do think we should keep private lives out of the media. I do think Mark Sanford is an outstanding politician whom made a mistake and deserves a political future, but I think any talk of him being on the national ticket in 2012 is now dead.

Will Obama Betray the Marytrdom of Neda Soltan?

Iranians are looking not to Barack Obama 

but Neda Soltani for inspiration 

in their power struggle with the regime

Masoud Golsorkhi, guardian.co.uk

The Obama spin machine and its allied bloggers are working overtime trying to explain Obama's troubling handling of the recent Iranian Presidential election.



Debunking the Obama Administration's Rationale for Politically Expedient Foreign Policy

First, they are arguing against the US meddling in Iranian internal affairs, noting that the US hands in the past are not entirely clean. Of course, the anti-American regime made relevant charges anyway, even though the US had no voice in cleric-approved candidate selection, the election or scoring of results. But the fact of the matter is that Vice President Joe Biden went to Lebanon in May just before the elections and made it clear that victory of a Hezbollah-led coalition, essentially a proxy for de facto Syrian and Iranian interference in Lebanese internal affairs, would have repercussions in Western aid. This played directly into the hands of anti-Western propagandists of the Hezbollah, but the pro-Western coalition won a clear majority. No doubt the experience of the internationally isolated Hamas-led Gaza Strip had not gone unnoticed. However worthy Biden's objective, the Obama Administration cannot claim neutrality as a consistent policy with respect to elections.

Second, the Obama Administration has claimed that it doesn't have enough evidence regarding the Iranian election to make a judgment. Let's first start with Iran's inflation rate, which according to its own central bank, is 23.6%, a slowing growth rate (despite oil exports) of 3.2%, down by over 50% over the last 2 years, and a 17% unemployment rate. What incumbent American President would win by a landslide  running on those numbers?

In fact, polls in Iran seemed to indicate a tightening of the race; three pre-election polls I've seen showed Ahmadinejad leading in each, but his percentage of votes decreasing by recency, i.e., 58.6, 44.8, and 34%, the latter with a significant portion of  "undecided" voters. (I do not have enough information to validate these polls, but a tightening race is consistent with American voting patterns.) I will say that in US experience, an incumbent politician polling under 50% heading into an election, with a large number of undecideds and an above-average turnout, almost inevitably loses; he or she almost certainly never wins in a landslide. The point is that the incumbent is well-known, and undecideds/independents normally break in favor of the challenger (because committed voters have already declared for the incumbent). I also believe there is a socially desirable bias in favor of Ahmadinejad in these polls (meaning his support was overstated).

What's particularly compelling is a rigorous statistical analysis from Chatham House, investigating the vote changes from 2005 to 2009. Among other things, the authors debunk a myth about Ahmadinejad's strength in rural areas; they also point out that a number of voters in these areas are from minority groups unsympathetic to hardliners like the incumbent, e.g., Arabs and Kurds. They point out (1) two conservative (i.e., Ahmadinejad-leaning) provinces had more than 100% turnout, a physical impossibility; (2) Ahmadinejad swept rural provinces which rejected him four years ago and which also rejected conservative candidates in two previous elections; he more than doubled the number of conservative voters since his first election in 2005, and in a third of the provinces, not only would Admadinejad have to carry all new and non-reformist voters, but he would have had to take away almost half of all reformist voters from the prior 3 elections; (3) there is no statistically significant relationship between increases in turnout and any one candidate (i.e., an Ahmadinejad "surge"), and the massive increases in voter participation and a disappearing variance in regional turnout percentage over 2005 are implausible.

In fact, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, spokesman for the hardline conservative Guardian Council has admitted that 50 cities showed more votes than registered voters, possibly accounting up to 3 million votes; this concession is in response to over 600 allegations of voting irregularities filed by the opposition. But Ayatollah Khamenei already shut the door last Friday, attesting to the results. (The Council has just ruled out a revote, which Mousavi and others have demanded, claiming no "major fraud" occurred.) You would think that a number of unelected clerics attesting to the validity of fraudulent results would find their own moral authority undermined; how did voter fraud occur in the first place without the implicit knowledge and consent of the clerics?

Third, they are responding to the earlier, more critical response by the Europeans, arguing apples and oranges, pointing out, unlike the Europeans, America does not have diplomatic relations with Iran. That seems  disingenuous, because, in fact, America has not been similarly restrained on other matters, including Iran's nuclear ambitions, and it doesn't explain why America didn't lead or at least coordinate an earlier, joint statement of condemnation of the Iranian crackdown on nonviolent demonstrators, protests being a right included in the Iranian constitution, with her European allies.

Fourth, the administration claims that the election doesn't make any difference: pick your poison, because, in fact, Mousavi in his earlier career as the [now defunct] prime minister pushed for the Iranian nuclear program. It is true that the unelected Iranian clergy do filter candidates, but there are differences in leadership. Whereas I agree that the US government should not endorse a candidate, but I believe, from Obama's recent speech in Cairo, one of the major candidates clearly addressed his key concerns more directly. Consider the following abridged excerpts:

• "Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong." FACT: Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel. FACT: Mousavi acknowledges and condemns the Nazi genocide against the Jews.
• "There will be many issues to discuss between [the US and Iran], and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect." FACT: Ahmadinejad was quoted in April saying he was not prepared to talk to the US without preconditions of his own. FACT: Mousavi welcomes an opportunity to talk to the US.
• "I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere." Well, apparently except it comes to the Iranian dictatorship's crackdown on nonviolent demonstrators. Tell me, Obama, what was it about videos playing on computer screens across the world over a week ago that held your tongue for the better part of a week? Is what you said in Cairo, "Words? Just words?" Ahmadinejad is not change; he's just more of the same. In fact, Mousavi promoted a number of of proposals during the campaign designed to reassign control of police to elected officials, transparency of the budget, private ownership of the media, and disbanding of the morality police.
• "You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party." What part of brutal suppression of the peaceful Iranian demonstrators and the hardline conservative streamrolling of dissent relative to the fraudulent election don't you understand, Mr. President? Paying lip service in a speech in Cairo doesn't mean anything when you fail to speak up quickly and forcefully against the tyranny of the Iranian dictatorship in even this measured test of democratic principles...
• "Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential." Mousavi pledged to reform existing laws in order to eliminate discrimination (the glass ceiling) and violence against women and to relax restrictions on women's choices in apparel and appearance.

Fifth, the administration at points seems to be impatient with the election controversy, considering it as little more than a distraction from their desire to negotiate with the hardliners over Iran's nuclear program as soon as possible. But the Obama Administration needs to reflect very carefully on the precedent it's making or the message it's sending by basically throwing protesters under the bus. What we are seeing in the streets is not simply voters dissatisfied with the results of an election such as the disputed Florida vote in the 2000 American Presidential election. And it's counterproductive; for example, Mousavi has hinted that he would be willing to look at more cost-effective means of nuclear power technology, including American suppliers.

The Obama Administration is on the Wrong Side of History

In sum, I consider the response of the Obama Administration to be a textbook example of "too little, too late".   I understand that there are a number of policy experts (Kissinger and others) whom agree with the measured response of the Obama Administration, whom consider the manipulated election a fact of life that's not going to change and will do little more than poison the setting of future negotiations with the actual Iranian power brokers. I think they've completely misread the situation. This is not about Mousavi. This movement has gone beyond Mousavi. We are now hearing the cries of a new generation, no longer satisfied with half measures of liberty, with a government lacking transparency and the rule of law, and the real power is held by clerics accountable to no one, where even modest or unintended deviations from expected norms of conduct and appearance are treated mercilessly as crimes by an intrusive, stifling government. We have a young generation tired of the wars, polarizing rhetoric and international isolation. For the most time I can remember, over the past week I have seen Iranian tweets on the Internet or shouting on the streets: "Death to the Ayatollah" and "Death to Ahmadinejad".  I think this frustration has been building for some time now. I cannot speak for the demonstrators, but I think they saw as the final straw the complicity of the clerics in validating a stolen election having undermined their moral authority and claim for power.

The Green Revolution

The blood shed by Neda Soltan and other Iranian patriots of the new green revolution is like the blood shed by our forefathers in the battle for American independence. Neda is Iran, but even more than that: she is also our sister and our daughter. Her blood and our blood are one, for we share a common bond: unalienable human rights and the right to pursue our dreams. Our peoples have both yearned for freedom from tyranny. This fight must be decided by the Iranian people themselves; it may be a long, difficult struggle with inevitable setbacks along the way, but I assure my fellow Iranian republicans that the fight is worth it. We honor the valiant struggle and sacrifices made by our Iranian brothers and sisters bonded by the ideals of democratic republicanism. The genie is out of the bottle: the autocratic powers that be cannot contain the spirit of the Green Revolution. Long live the Green Revolution!


The Tragic Murder of Neda Soltan

Neda, Angel of Freedom
Martyr for Democracy

Neda, an Arabic word used more commonly in literary rather than spoken Farsi, conveys the spiritual meaning of "call" or "voice".

According to friends, family, and witnesses:

On June 20, 2009, Neda [Agha-Soltan], a [27-year-old] philosophy student, was sitting in her car in traffic on Kargar Avenue in the city of Tehran, near the Amir-Abad area, accompanied by her music teacher and close friend, Hamid Panahi. They were on their way to attend a march in protest of the issues surrounding the 2009 Iranian presidential election. Having gotten out of the car because of the excessive heat, she was allegedly targeted and shot in the chest by plainclothes Basij paramilitaries who were attempting to subdue the protesters. Neda’s last words were: "I’m burning, I’m burning!"

Neda, We Will Never Forget

RIP, Sweet Angel

Sister's Eulogy 

I am here in order to tell you that she died in her father's arms.

I am here in order to tell you that my sister had big dreams.

I am here in order to tell you that my sister was very modest [in her dreams].

She longed - just like me - after one day feeling the wind in her hair, and just like me she loved poems by Farukh, a Persian poet, and she...longed for freedom and equality.

She longed after one day being able to say I am Iranian; with her head held up high.

She longed after one day falling in love with a man with a [inaudible] haircut, giving birth to a daughter, singing lullabies at her cradle, or to plait her child's long hair.

My sister died because she was not allowed to live like a human being; my sister died because injustice would not end; my sister died because she loved life so much, and my sister died because she cared lovingly for her fellow humans well-being.

All our brothers and sisters in Iran: You are not alone!

My thoughts and prayers are with Neda's grieving fiancé, Caspian Makan, and surviving, heartbroken, loving family. Her life was done all too soon. May there come a day, not only in Iran but the world over, that we learn from Neda's passing, that violence is never the way to settle differences of political opinion, and I am convinced that God is deeply offended by those whom blaspheme by murdering the innocent in His Holy Name. Neda was a beautiful rose whom had just begun to bloom.

"Neda (You [Iranian dictatorship] Will Not Defeat the People!)"
Song/Lyrics by Johnny909

Neda was a young girl
She would not wear the hijab
She walked out on the streets of Tehran
To join the madding crowd

She felt a burning fire in her chest
And her blood began to flow
You will not defeat the people
When their lust for freedom grows

Down down go the concrete statues
Watch the faceless soldiers run
You will not defeat the people
With the bullets from your guns

Neda was a young girl
Her eyes were black as coal
She walked out on to the streets of Tehran
To take back some control

Watch her father with her face in his hands
Scream her name out to the sky
You will not defeat the people
When they learn that they can fly

(First verse again...)

You will not defeat the people
When it's freedom that they know
You will not defeat the people
Crying Neda in the streets
You will not defeat the people
Crying Neda in their sleep.