Monday, January 30, 2006
The Alito Vote
While the vote on the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is not until tomorrow, it was effectively decided today when the Democratic filibuster was defeated by the embarassing margin of 72-25. Tomorrow Alito will be confirmed with between 58 and 65 votes and the country will have taken a significant step toward being a worse place to live.
Make no mistake about it, Alito will vote regularly with Scalia and Thomas on the court. The center of the gravity on the court has shifted from the practical Sandra Day O'Connor to the more reliably conservative Anthony Kennedy. If anyone between Kennedy and Stevens on the ideological spectrum retires, the swing vote will be John Roberts. The court is very unlikely to rule against the Bush Administration on any war powers issues. The court will possibly curb the federal government's authority to regulate the economy while enhancing its power to prosecute whoever it wants to without fears of pesky constitutional objections. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned but will be eroded. States rights will be invoked when convenient and ignored when inconvenient.
There are a lot of people to be angry at over this confirmation process. But first some praise. Last week I was ready to admit I was wrong when saying the Democrats would try a filibuster. But the much derided Ted Kennedy and John Kerry led an attempt to stop the nomination. Sometimes lost causes are worth trying because they are only lost because everyone assumes they are. This turned out not to be one of those cases but huge huzzahs for Kennedy, Kerry and the other 23 Senators who voted for the filibuster (particularly the Senators representing me and Samuel Alito's family, Lautenberg and Menendez).
Now onto spewing venom. I am most angry at the 19 Democrats who voted against the filibuster. I understand that some of them are from very conservative states. But there are some (very few!) times where courage is required and you go with your party against your constituents. This was one of those times and the lack of courage from conservative Dems like Landrieu and the Nelsons is appalling. Even more appalling are those Dems from purple or blue states who voted against the filibuster like Lieberman and Cantwell. The Republicans would never (Never Never Never!!!!) lose a single member in a vote like this. Lieberman did not show courage or conviction in this vote. He showed that he is no longer a Democrat and I'll be rooting for his primary opponent.
I am also angry at the moderate Republicans, particularly Lincoln Chafee. These Republicans want it both ways. They want to say they are pro-choice and pro-environment but they don't want to buck their leadership. They are kidding themselves if they don't think Alito would reverse Roe v. Wade. I hope Chafee loses his primary or his general election. I'm less angry at McCain because at least he doesn't pretend to be liberal on social issues. Still he has to ask himself about voting for someone who would happily overturn his torture ban or at least refuse to hold the President accountable for ignoring it.
Finally I'm angry at the Bush Administration for making it so hard to be a moderate. Many of the Senators I mention above are ones I agree with on many issues. But by campaigning hard against Democratic moderates (like Max Cleland) and putting the fear of primary challenges into Republican moderates, they are clearing out the middle of the political spectrum. They have turned a minuscule electoral advantage into sharp turn toward very conservative policies. The only way to stop them is by fighting as hard as possible. Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean understand that as does liberal bloggers like Kos. It's time that moderates realize this too.
Make no mistake about it, Alito will vote regularly with Scalia and Thomas on the court. The center of the gravity on the court has shifted from the practical Sandra Day O'Connor to the more reliably conservative Anthony Kennedy. If anyone between Kennedy and Stevens on the ideological spectrum retires, the swing vote will be John Roberts. The court is very unlikely to rule against the Bush Administration on any war powers issues. The court will possibly curb the federal government's authority to regulate the economy while enhancing its power to prosecute whoever it wants to without fears of pesky constitutional objections. Roe v. Wade will not be overturned but will be eroded. States rights will be invoked when convenient and ignored when inconvenient.
There are a lot of people to be angry at over this confirmation process. But first some praise. Last week I was ready to admit I was wrong when saying the Democrats would try a filibuster. But the much derided Ted Kennedy and John Kerry led an attempt to stop the nomination. Sometimes lost causes are worth trying because they are only lost because everyone assumes they are. This turned out not to be one of those cases but huge huzzahs for Kennedy, Kerry and the other 23 Senators who voted for the filibuster (particularly the Senators representing me and Samuel Alito's family, Lautenberg and Menendez).
Now onto spewing venom. I am most angry at the 19 Democrats who voted against the filibuster. I understand that some of them are from very conservative states. But there are some (very few!) times where courage is required and you go with your party against your constituents. This was one of those times and the lack of courage from conservative Dems like Landrieu and the Nelsons is appalling. Even more appalling are those Dems from purple or blue states who voted against the filibuster like Lieberman and Cantwell. The Republicans would never (Never Never Never!!!!) lose a single member in a vote like this. Lieberman did not show courage or conviction in this vote. He showed that he is no longer a Democrat and I'll be rooting for his primary opponent.
I am also angry at the moderate Republicans, particularly Lincoln Chafee. These Republicans want it both ways. They want to say they are pro-choice and pro-environment but they don't want to buck their leadership. They are kidding themselves if they don't think Alito would reverse Roe v. Wade. I hope Chafee loses his primary or his general election. I'm less angry at McCain because at least he doesn't pretend to be liberal on social issues. Still he has to ask himself about voting for someone who would happily overturn his torture ban or at least refuse to hold the President accountable for ignoring it.
Finally I'm angry at the Bush Administration for making it so hard to be a moderate. Many of the Senators I mention above are ones I agree with on many issues. But by campaigning hard against Democratic moderates (like Max Cleland) and putting the fear of primary challenges into Republican moderates, they are clearing out the middle of the political spectrum. They have turned a minuscule electoral advantage into sharp turn toward very conservative policies. The only way to stop them is by fighting as hard as possible. Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean understand that as does liberal bloggers like Kos. It's time that moderates realize this too.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Living Wage
The question of minimum wages is one that is sure to set economists debating. Last week's Sunday Times magazine had an interesting article on the "Living Wage." Across the country states and municipalities are implementing Living Wages higher than the federal minimum wage. Some of these apply only to state and local employees and contractors but some, like the one put in place by Santa Fe requires all local employers to pay employees at least $9.50/hour.
Economic theory is relatively clear on what should happen when the minimum wage is raised. Employers will cut back the number of workers that they hire. In the early 1990s, two economists at Princeton University published a study arguing that this was not what happened. Ever since the empirical basis for this study has been the subject of considerable debate and no resolution has been reached (the Times makes it sound like the study is well accepted).
I tend to side with the skeptics. Raising the minimum wage increases the costs of employers. They will then have several choices. They can employ fewer workers. They can settle for smaller profits. They can raise prices. Or they can try and cut costs in other areas (such as employee health insurance). Employers will only accept lower profits if the other options are infeasible.
Assuming then that some workers will lose jobs and others will lose benefits this still leaves the question of whether a minimum wage is good policy and if so, should it be so high as to constitute a living wage. The article describes how advocates have successfully framed this as a moral question. I don't really buy the moral implications (paying someone $7/hour is immoral?) but that said, I do think a living wage is good policy.
I think it is simply impractical and unwise to have large segments of the population earning too little to support themselves with. These individuals will come to rely on the state or charities for some form of support (health care, food stamps, heating assistance) if their jobs do not pay enough to cover basic necessities. Thus, while we may be increasing the # of unemployed, without a living wage, we are not doing much to decrease the # of people dependent on the government. And those across the ideological spectrum should agree that dependence on the government should be minimized.
Furthermore, work needs to mean an ability to support yourself. Part of the problem with the old welfare program was that recipients had no incentive to find a job. Welfare reform was designed to take care of part of that by reducing government benefits. The other piece however is making sure that those with jobs can support themselves. The vast majority of people want to work to support themselves. We should make it easier for them to do so by making sure that work pays more than $5.15/hour.
Economic theory is relatively clear on what should happen when the minimum wage is raised. Employers will cut back the number of workers that they hire. In the early 1990s, two economists at Princeton University published a study arguing that this was not what happened. Ever since the empirical basis for this study has been the subject of considerable debate and no resolution has been reached (the Times makes it sound like the study is well accepted).
I tend to side with the skeptics. Raising the minimum wage increases the costs of employers. They will then have several choices. They can employ fewer workers. They can settle for smaller profits. They can raise prices. Or they can try and cut costs in other areas (such as employee health insurance). Employers will only accept lower profits if the other options are infeasible.
Assuming then that some workers will lose jobs and others will lose benefits this still leaves the question of whether a minimum wage is good policy and if so, should it be so high as to constitute a living wage. The article describes how advocates have successfully framed this as a moral question. I don't really buy the moral implications (paying someone $7/hour is immoral?) but that said, I do think a living wage is good policy.
I think it is simply impractical and unwise to have large segments of the population earning too little to support themselves with. These individuals will come to rely on the state or charities for some form of support (health care, food stamps, heating assistance) if their jobs do not pay enough to cover basic necessities. Thus, while we may be increasing the # of unemployed, without a living wage, we are not doing much to decrease the # of people dependent on the government. And those across the ideological spectrum should agree that dependence on the government should be minimized.
Furthermore, work needs to mean an ability to support yourself. Part of the problem with the old welfare program was that recipients had no incentive to find a job. Welfare reform was designed to take care of part of that by reducing government benefits. The other piece however is making sure that those with jobs can support themselves. The vast majority of people want to work to support themselves. We should make it easier for them to do so by making sure that work pays more than $5.15/hour.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
1968 and RFK
I recently watched the American Experience documentary (ok, rewatched . . . for the 5th or 6th time) on the Kennedys. I was struck by how increasingly pivotal the events of 1968 (not just my birth) were in our nation's history.
Turning points in history are occasionally obvious as in the case of the 1860 election and the start of the Civil War and the 1932 election and the beginning of the New Deal. When Robert F. Kennedy was killed in 1968, just two months after Martin Luther King was gunned down in Tennessee, a similar turning point was reached. While many (including some of those interviewed in the documentary) may have had some sense that the country was headed for dark times, I don't think anyone knew how the very fabric of American politics and society had changed.
Robert Kennedy, by the time he ran for President in 1968, was extremely liberal. His candidacy was fueled not just by the Kennedy mystique but by overwhelming support among the poor and disenfranchised. It is impossible to know whether he would have beaten Nixon in the fall but given that no Kennedy had ever lost an election, clearly he might have.
That was the last time that a true liberal has had a chance to become President of the United States. While Walter Mondale and George McGovern got their party's nominations their overwhelming defeats are the stuff of legend. If Kennedy had won, perhaps liberalism would still be in the state of disgrace it currently is. But perhaps Kennedy would have gotten out of Vietnam faster and figured out how to trim the worst excesses of welfare without abandoning society's least fortunate.
I do not consider myself a liberal (although Rush Limbaugh surely would). Liberalism's demise however has left our body politic fundamentally unbalanced. There are conservative voices and moderate voices. As a result government has grown fundamentally more conservative over the past three decades. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid are in serious trouble because of years of purposeful neglect. Government functions like emergency relief and homeland security are weakened by a politics that demeans government.
Assassinations often have unintended consequences the most famous example being the murder of Caesar leading to the final dissolution of the Roman Republic. As it recedes in time, the importance of the assassination of RFK only grows in its significance, perhaps even beyond that of his brother.
Turning points in history are occasionally obvious as in the case of the 1860 election and the start of the Civil War and the 1932 election and the beginning of the New Deal. When Robert F. Kennedy was killed in 1968, just two months after Martin Luther King was gunned down in Tennessee, a similar turning point was reached. While many (including some of those interviewed in the documentary) may have had some sense that the country was headed for dark times, I don't think anyone knew how the very fabric of American politics and society had changed.
Robert Kennedy, by the time he ran for President in 1968, was extremely liberal. His candidacy was fueled not just by the Kennedy mystique but by overwhelming support among the poor and disenfranchised. It is impossible to know whether he would have beaten Nixon in the fall but given that no Kennedy had ever lost an election, clearly he might have.
That was the last time that a true liberal has had a chance to become President of the United States. While Walter Mondale and George McGovern got their party's nominations their overwhelming defeats are the stuff of legend. If Kennedy had won, perhaps liberalism would still be in the state of disgrace it currently is. But perhaps Kennedy would have gotten out of Vietnam faster and figured out how to trim the worst excesses of welfare without abandoning society's least fortunate.
I do not consider myself a liberal (although Rush Limbaugh surely would). Liberalism's demise however has left our body politic fundamentally unbalanced. There are conservative voices and moderate voices. As a result government has grown fundamentally more conservative over the past three decades. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid are in serious trouble because of years of purposeful neglect. Government functions like emergency relief and homeland security are weakened by a politics that demeans government.
Assassinations often have unintended consequences the most famous example being the murder of Caesar leading to the final dissolution of the Roman Republic. As it recedes in time, the importance of the assassination of RFK only grows in its significance, perhaps even beyond that of his brother.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
24
I understand that the new season of 24 with Kiefer Sutherland has recently begun. While I've never seen the series, I have to imagine that it was much like 24 hours in my life from Monday night to Tuesday night. Move over Kiefer!
10:00 pm -- Exhausted from a day of child rearing and both somewhat sick, my wife and I observe our new bedtime and turn out the lights.
11:00 pm -- We are awoken by violent coughs emanating from our son's room. We go in and he is bawling and coughing and struggling to breathe. We run into the bathroom and turn on the shower to steam it up as advised by Dr. Spock. Meanwhile we call our doctor who tells us to go to the hospital if he continues to struggle.
11:10 pm -- The lack of delivery of our new hot water heater from Sears curses us as our hot water runs out. The boy is better but still struggling to breathe somewhat.
11:20 pm -- We arrive at the hospital.
11:30 pm -- Boy is given a steroid (hopefully he won't be tested by major league baseball) and some cool misty air to breathe. He likes the medicine but not the cool air which he continues to push away.
1:00 am -- Now that he is out of immediate danger, the hospital appears to have forgotten about us. We are very tired.
1:30 am -- His blood test comes back. They give him some tylenol and give us a couple of doses of the steroid and send us on our way.
2:00 am -- Back in his bed we get ready to return to ours when my wife remarks "doesn't it feel cold in here?" I am ready to dismiss this as our usual difference in temperature preferences when through my haze I notice that it is quite cold.
2:05 am -- The furnace isn't working. The pilot light is on but no hot air is coming out. We relight the pilot light several times to no avail. The dog is very excited by this new turn of events and wants to engage in some late night stuffed rabbit fetch playing. I am not amused.
3:30 am -- After searching through the instructions and online advice manuals, we call the gas company. They will come between 3 pm and midnight. My wife moves into the baby's room with the space heater. The dog and I get under the covers. It is 23 degrees outside.
6:00 am -- The boy's late night has not deterred him he wakes my wife up and she feeds him a bottle.
7:00 am -- I drearily wake up. My wife graciously tells me to go back to sleep. I ungraciously do so.
7:45 am -- The boy is yelling so I wake up and feed the dog.
8:30 am -- Time for a nap. We all 4 huddle in the boy's room and sleep for an hour.
10:30 am -- My wife takes the boy to the pediatrician. I walk the dog, try the furnace again (include the well worn furnace repair technique, kicking it) to no avail and get ready for my first day of class of the semester!
Noon-2:00pm -- In a fashion that would make Kiefer Sutherland proud, I madly prepare for class, copying sylabi and articles and looking over my notes.
2:50-4:10 pm -- Class goes smoothly and I do not collapse. Meanwhile no sign of the gas company. The boy is feeling better but is still coughing a lot. I buy a cool mist humidifier on the way home.
6:00 pm -- As the house begins to cool again, panic sets in. We make a hotel reservation then cancel it. We get another space heater from a neighbor. The gas company says they will be here within two hours.
8:00 pm -- The boy is set up in his tent (as advised by the doctor) with the humidifier blowing in cool air. The doorbell rings, the dog barks waking up the baby but soon all is well. The furnace guy is here.
8:15 pm -- The furnace guy condescendingly explains that some limit has been reached shutting off the furnace. He shows us the hidden reset button (not shown in any manuals). The heat is on!!!
8:30 pm -- The local Chinese food restaurant delivers within minutes as always. All is well.
10:00 pm -- We collapse.
10:00 pm -- Exhausted from a day of child rearing and both somewhat sick, my wife and I observe our new bedtime and turn out the lights.
11:00 pm -- We are awoken by violent coughs emanating from our son's room. We go in and he is bawling and coughing and struggling to breathe. We run into the bathroom and turn on the shower to steam it up as advised by Dr. Spock. Meanwhile we call our doctor who tells us to go to the hospital if he continues to struggle.
11:10 pm -- The lack of delivery of our new hot water heater from Sears curses us as our hot water runs out. The boy is better but still struggling to breathe somewhat.
11:20 pm -- We arrive at the hospital.
11:30 pm -- Boy is given a steroid (hopefully he won't be tested by major league baseball) and some cool misty air to breathe. He likes the medicine but not the cool air which he continues to push away.
1:00 am -- Now that he is out of immediate danger, the hospital appears to have forgotten about us. We are very tired.
1:30 am -- His blood test comes back. They give him some tylenol and give us a couple of doses of the steroid and send us on our way.
2:00 am -- Back in his bed we get ready to return to ours when my wife remarks "doesn't it feel cold in here?" I am ready to dismiss this as our usual difference in temperature preferences when through my haze I notice that it is quite cold.
2:05 am -- The furnace isn't working. The pilot light is on but no hot air is coming out. We relight the pilot light several times to no avail. The dog is very excited by this new turn of events and wants to engage in some late night stuffed rabbit fetch playing. I am not amused.
3:30 am -- After searching through the instructions and online advice manuals, we call the gas company. They will come between 3 pm and midnight. My wife moves into the baby's room with the space heater. The dog and I get under the covers. It is 23 degrees outside.
6:00 am -- The boy's late night has not deterred him he wakes my wife up and she feeds him a bottle.
7:00 am -- I drearily wake up. My wife graciously tells me to go back to sleep. I ungraciously do so.
7:45 am -- The boy is yelling so I wake up and feed the dog.
8:30 am -- Time for a nap. We all 4 huddle in the boy's room and sleep for an hour.
10:30 am -- My wife takes the boy to the pediatrician. I walk the dog, try the furnace again (include the well worn furnace repair technique, kicking it) to no avail and get ready for my first day of class of the semester!
Noon-2:00pm -- In a fashion that would make Kiefer Sutherland proud, I madly prepare for class, copying sylabi and articles and looking over my notes.
2:50-4:10 pm -- Class goes smoothly and I do not collapse. Meanwhile no sign of the gas company. The boy is feeling better but is still coughing a lot. I buy a cool mist humidifier on the way home.
6:00 pm -- As the house begins to cool again, panic sets in. We make a hotel reservation then cancel it. We get another space heater from a neighbor. The gas company says they will be here within two hours.
8:00 pm -- The boy is set up in his tent (as advised by the doctor) with the humidifier blowing in cool air. The doorbell rings, the dog barks waking up the baby but soon all is well. The furnace guy is here.
8:15 pm -- The furnace guy condescendingly explains that some limit has been reached shutting off the furnace. He shows us the hidden reset button (not shown in any manuals). The heat is on!!!
8:30 pm -- The local Chinese food restaurant delivers within minutes as always. All is well.
10:00 pm -- We collapse.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
First Day of Alito Hearings
As an academic still on Winter Break, I had the opportunity to watch much of yesterday's hearings on the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It was the first confirmation hearing I'd really watched much of since Clarence Thomas (not sure how I watched those given that I worked in the real world then). What follows are my observations.
-- The New York Times stole my first observation in an article this morning. While I agreed with almost everything that Sens. Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer said, I have a feeling that their eloquence wasn't going to convince anyone on the fence. The only one who is going to convince people to support or oppose Alito is Alito. Long monologues by the Senators do little to help the Democratic cause. They need to keep Alito on the defensive instead of letting him pick one thing out of a ten minute speech that is easy to argue with. The best questioners in my view were Specter, Feinstein, and Feingold.
-- The Democrats should also drop the Vanguard issue. Alito should have recused himself, he admits it, end of story. No matter how hard they work the Democrats are not going to tie Alito to the anti-corruption mood engulfing the Capitol. He's not a corrupt person.
-- I did learn two things during Schumer's long speech that were interesting. First Alito has overruled precedent many times while on the Third Circuit meaning we should ignore his lip service toward stare decisis (has a Latin phrase ever been used so often in a two day period?). Second, Alito called Bork one of the best nominees to the Supreme Court in the twentieth century.
-- I like the focus on executive power and Alito's tendency to rule for the government and big business. This is why Bush nominated him and the best reason for the Senate to oppose him.
-- I like Alito even less today than I did yesterday and am even more convinced that his rejection is very important. Unfortunately I have seen little to inspire my confidence that such an outcome is any more than 50% likely.
-- The New York Times stole my first observation in an article this morning. While I agreed with almost everything that Sens. Kennedy, Biden, and Schumer said, I have a feeling that their eloquence wasn't going to convince anyone on the fence. The only one who is going to convince people to support or oppose Alito is Alito. Long monologues by the Senators do little to help the Democratic cause. They need to keep Alito on the defensive instead of letting him pick one thing out of a ten minute speech that is easy to argue with. The best questioners in my view were Specter, Feinstein, and Feingold.
-- The Democrats should also drop the Vanguard issue. Alito should have recused himself, he admits it, end of story. No matter how hard they work the Democrats are not going to tie Alito to the anti-corruption mood engulfing the Capitol. He's not a corrupt person.
-- I did learn two things during Schumer's long speech that were interesting. First Alito has overruled precedent many times while on the Third Circuit meaning we should ignore his lip service toward stare decisis (has a Latin phrase ever been used so often in a two day period?). Second, Alito called Bork one of the best nominees to the Supreme Court in the twentieth century.
-- I like the focus on executive power and Alito's tendency to rule for the government and big business. This is why Bush nominated him and the best reason for the Senate to oppose him.
-- I like Alito even less today than I did yesterday and am even more convinced that his rejection is very important. Unfortunately I have seen little to inspire my confidence that such an outcome is any more than 50% likely.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Baseball Hall of Fame
The choices for this years inductees to the Baseball Hall of Fame will be announced this week. For the first time in recent memory there may be no one elected (there may be some Negro League inductees announced next month). Is there anyone deserving of induction? Few questions engender so much disagreement among fans and with many candidates with credible arguments, the debate this year has been particularly intense. Those who do not make it this year face an uphill battle next year as Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn and Mark McGwire become eligible.
For those candidates returning to the ballot I refer readers to my post last year. I continue to believe that Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith, and Goose Gossage should be inducted. I remain on the fence regarding Alan Trammell and Bruce Sutter so I would probably not vote for them. Are there any first year candidates worthy of consideration? There are three that are at least worth thinking about.
Will Clark presents the most interesting case among the newcomers. For the first 6-7 years of his career, he was one of the top hitters in the National League and considered a very good fielding first basemen. He then declined but not a lot and finished his career with seven more decent seasons. His career counting stats include over 2100 hits and over 285 homers. His averages are more impressive with a .384 OBP and .497 slugging. Despite these #'s, I think his career was a bit too short and bit too unspectacular to merit the Hall.
Albert (Don't call me Joey) Belle at the peak of his career was a better hitter than anyone else on the ballot. He was downright fearsome in the mid 1990s. He was also a first class jerk. Despite this, if his career had gone on longer we'd be preparing for his induction and dreading his speech. Instead a hip injury ended his career at age 34 and his HOF chances disappeared because of it.
Orel Hershiser also had a remarkable peak, far better than any other pitcher on the ballot. Anyone who saw him in 1988 will likely swear that no one has ever pitched better. He never reached that peak again though, never winning 20 games or coming close to a Cy Young season. He reached the title of wily veteran with the Indians of the mid 1990s but wily veterans get respect not Hall of Fame inductions.
So my ballot would read Blyleven, Gossage, and Smith. I think Sutter will be the only one who is actually inducted with Gossage coming somewhat close.
For those candidates returning to the ballot I refer readers to my post last year. I continue to believe that Bert Blyleven, Lee Smith, and Goose Gossage should be inducted. I remain on the fence regarding Alan Trammell and Bruce Sutter so I would probably not vote for them. Are there any first year candidates worthy of consideration? There are three that are at least worth thinking about.
Will Clark presents the most interesting case among the newcomers. For the first 6-7 years of his career, he was one of the top hitters in the National League and considered a very good fielding first basemen. He then declined but not a lot and finished his career with seven more decent seasons. His career counting stats include over 2100 hits and over 285 homers. His averages are more impressive with a .384 OBP and .497 slugging. Despite these #'s, I think his career was a bit too short and bit too unspectacular to merit the Hall.
Albert (Don't call me Joey) Belle at the peak of his career was a better hitter than anyone else on the ballot. He was downright fearsome in the mid 1990s. He was also a first class jerk. Despite this, if his career had gone on longer we'd be preparing for his induction and dreading his speech. Instead a hip injury ended his career at age 34 and his HOF chances disappeared because of it.
Orel Hershiser also had a remarkable peak, far better than any other pitcher on the ballot. Anyone who saw him in 1988 will likely swear that no one has ever pitched better. He never reached that peak again though, never winning 20 games or coming close to a Cy Young season. He reached the title of wily veteran with the Indians of the mid 1990s but wily veterans get respect not Hall of Fame inductions.
So my ballot would read Blyleven, Gossage, and Smith. I think Sutter will be the only one who is actually inducted with Gossage coming somewhat close.
Friday, January 06, 2006
The Alito Fight Begins
Amidst the al the recent headlines about Iraq, Ariel Sharon, Jack Abramoff (snicker snicker), that horrible mine story in West Virginia, and wiretaps, the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito begin on Monday amidst less fanfare than anticipated. That will almost surely change as the hearings progress.
A couple of months ago when Alito was nominated I argued that the Democrats should oppose Alito. Little has happened to change my mind. Alito's appointment would be very bad for individual rights, civil rights, and and anyone who believes that the President should have limitations on his power. He will also be an opponent of Roe v. Wade but I doubt his vote would be decisive on that issue.
Soon after that post I was discussing Alito's nomination with a friend. We agreed he was qualified (unlike say, Clarence Thomas) so the question comes down to opposing him on ideological grounds. I argued that if a nominee falls outside the theoretical 20th and 80th percentiles of American legal thought than he/she could be considered extreme and opposed justifiably. The revelations about Alito's positions when he worked for the Reagan Administration give me confidence that he is outside this extreme.
Of course if the court was made up of 8 liberals, or even 8 moderates, I could probably be convinced that in the interest of a diversity of viewpoints, Alito should be confirmed. The problem is that the court already has two judges at the conservative extremes, Scalia and Thomas, and none at the liberal extremes. Alito's appointment to succeed O'Connor further tilts the court in an extremist direction.
Alito should be denied confirmation. What will happen? That is a much harder question. Monday may be crucial as Arlen Specter, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, will have the floor. His support is necessary for Alito. If he seems satisfied by Alito's responses to his questions then Alito's chances go up significantly. Without Specter it is hard to imagine the Democrats can find the six Republicans to beat a nomination without a filibuster. While I think it is worth filibustering if this does occur, it is not clear what will happen if the Republicans try to break the filibuster. The subject of a future post perhaps.
A couple of months ago when Alito was nominated I argued that the Democrats should oppose Alito. Little has happened to change my mind. Alito's appointment would be very bad for individual rights, civil rights, and and anyone who believes that the President should have limitations on his power. He will also be an opponent of Roe v. Wade but I doubt his vote would be decisive on that issue.
Soon after that post I was discussing Alito's nomination with a friend. We agreed he was qualified (unlike say, Clarence Thomas) so the question comes down to opposing him on ideological grounds. I argued that if a nominee falls outside the theoretical 20th and 80th percentiles of American legal thought than he/she could be considered extreme and opposed justifiably. The revelations about Alito's positions when he worked for the Reagan Administration give me confidence that he is outside this extreme.
Of course if the court was made up of 8 liberals, or even 8 moderates, I could probably be convinced that in the interest of a diversity of viewpoints, Alito should be confirmed. The problem is that the court already has two judges at the conservative extremes, Scalia and Thomas, and none at the liberal extremes. Alito's appointment to succeed O'Connor further tilts the court in an extremist direction.
Alito should be denied confirmation. What will happen? That is a much harder question. Monday may be crucial as Arlen Specter, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, will have the floor. His support is necessary for Alito. If he seems satisfied by Alito's responses to his questions then Alito's chances go up significantly. Without Specter it is hard to imagine the Democrats can find the six Republicans to beat a nomination without a filibuster. While I think it is worth filibustering if this does occur, it is not clear what will happen if the Republicans try to break the filibuster. The subject of a future post perhaps.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Spying Debates: Real and Rhetorical
The big story over the past month has been the revelation that the President has authorized NSA to tap phone calls in which someone in the United States is one of the parties. The rhetoric has been hot as the Bush Administration, particularly from Emperor Palpatine, I mean VP Cheney, who has argued that the taps are needed in the war on terrorism. President Bush will do anything he needs to in order to protect this country.
The Administration, as it has done on nearly every debate since 9-11 wants to make this a debate about security. In this case they are fully willing to engage in a debate about the tradeoff between security and privacy, believing, perhaps correctly, that the American people are willing to side with security (especially since few think it will be their phones that are tapped).
The correct balance between security and privacy is a fascinating question. It has the advantage for the Bush Administration of being a question that no one outside the highest reaches of government has sufficient information to analyze and answer correctly. How do we know how much privacy needs to be sacrificed in order to protect us, we don't have classified information on possible threats? All we have to go on is the Bush Adminsitration telling us "Trust us, we need to do this."
While it is a fascinating question, it is not the correct one. The Bush Administration could do all the tapping it wants; all it needs to do is to get a warrant from the FISA court which grants warrants in 99.5% of cases. So it is not really our security that is at stake. Instead it is the more abstract principle of presidential power.
The Bush Administration wants to bypass the FISA court (and Congress) simply because they believe they shouldn't have to ask permission to do anything related to the war on terror (or anything else for that matter). As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, Bush/Cheney wants the executive branch to have unfettered power, particularly in this area. Even if the court will agree with them that tapping phones is necessary, they may not agree on something else so the precedent should not be set that judicial permission is needed.
Fortunately, if there is one thing that Congress does not like, regardless of party affiliation, it's not being told about something or being told that they don't need to be told about something. Arlen Specter has already stated his intent to hold hearings on the NSA spying and the program will become a big part (maybe as big as abortion) of the Alito confirmation hearings. For an Administration that was reeling from story after story in 2005, this is not the best way to start off 2006.
The Administration, as it has done on nearly every debate since 9-11 wants to make this a debate about security. In this case they are fully willing to engage in a debate about the tradeoff between security and privacy, believing, perhaps correctly, that the American people are willing to side with security (especially since few think it will be their phones that are tapped).
The correct balance between security and privacy is a fascinating question. It has the advantage for the Bush Administration of being a question that no one outside the highest reaches of government has sufficient information to analyze and answer correctly. How do we know how much privacy needs to be sacrificed in order to protect us, we don't have classified information on possible threats? All we have to go on is the Bush Adminsitration telling us "Trust us, we need to do this."
While it is a fascinating question, it is not the correct one. The Bush Administration could do all the tapping it wants; all it needs to do is to get a warrant from the FISA court which grants warrants in 99.5% of cases. So it is not really our security that is at stake. Instead it is the more abstract principle of presidential power.
The Bush Administration wants to bypass the FISA court (and Congress) simply because they believe they shouldn't have to ask permission to do anything related to the war on terror (or anything else for that matter). As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, Bush/Cheney wants the executive branch to have unfettered power, particularly in this area. Even if the court will agree with them that tapping phones is necessary, they may not agree on something else so the precedent should not be set that judicial permission is needed.
Fortunately, if there is one thing that Congress does not like, regardless of party affiliation, it's not being told about something or being told that they don't need to be told about something. Arlen Specter has already stated his intent to hold hearings on the NSA spying and the program will become a big part (maybe as big as abortion) of the Alito confirmation hearings. For an Administration that was reeling from story after story in 2005, this is not the best way to start off 2006.
