Telling Stories

Post Racial? Not so Fast

To those of you naive enough to believe that Obama's election had moved us past racial discrimination, here's a little reminder that we've still got a long way to go:

After spending eleven days in a federal custody following their arrests for allegedly a torching a predominately black church Nov. 5, three Springfield men were released Monday on $100,000 bail each.

That's Springfield, Massachusetts.  I know that Springfield is kind of dumpy, but it's still one of the bluest of the blue States.  If this can happen here, it can still happen anywhere.

The Pentecostal church was burned down a few hours after Barack H. Obama was elected as the nation's first black president.

Quick aside: notice how, all of a sudden it's OK to use Obama's middle initial and middle name?

In documents unsealed after the trio's arrest, an FBI agent said two of the defendants expressed racial motives for setting fire to the 18,000 square-foot building. . .

The three men face a 10-year minimum mandatory prison sentence if convicted on civil rights arson charge.

You can cure racist.  But in the case of this threesome, you can't cure stupid.

Strange Cuisine (Or, Some Things are Just Not Worth Eating)

I would commence by saying "this would be funny if it wasn't true" but this is both sad, true, and funny:

Blowfish testicles poison 7 diners in Japan

Unlicensed chef prepared delicacy eaten by thrill-seeking gourmets.

It's usually not a good sign when you need a license to cook some kinds of food.

TOKYO - Blowfish testicles prepared by an unauthorized chef sickened seven diners in northern Japan and three remained hospitalized Tuesday after eating the poisonous delicacy. . .

[Police officer Yoshihito] Iwase said the seven men ordered sashimi and grilled blowfish testicles at the restaurant Monday night.

Shortly after, they developed limb paralysis and breathing trouble and started to lose consciousness — typical signs of blowfish poisoning — and were rushed to a hospital for treatment, Iwase said.

A 68-year-old diner remained hospitalized in critical condition with respiratory failure and two others, aged 55 and 69, were in serious condition, he said.

The lessons from this story?  First, don't eat poisonous animals.  Second, don't eat testicles.  Third, don't eat testicles from poisonous animals.  And finally, don't eat testicles from poisonous animals, especially those whose name have the word "blow" in it.

Bipartisanship, Republican Style

Via the NYTimes:

Republicans plan to test President Barack Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship as his $825 billion stimulus package heads to the floor of the House of Representatives this week, with the House Republican leader saying Sunday morning that many in his party will vote no unless there are significant changes to the plan.

It seems that the Republican's definition of bipartisanship is "you yield until I feel comfortable."  But it gets better:

While the plan can potentially pass the Democratic-dominated House without Republican support, it will continue to face opposition when it comes before the Senate, said Senator John McCain of Arizona, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.” At least two Republicans will need to approve the bill for a filibuster-proof majority vote of 60.

Senator McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr. Obama in November, said that he planned to vote no unless the bill were changed.

“We need to make tax cuts permanent, and we need to make a commitment that there’ll be no new taxes,” Mr. McCain said. “We need to cut payroll taxes. We need to cut business taxes.”

John McCain?  Oh, you mean this John McCain:

As Wall Street's roller-coaster week unfolded, John McCain's views on the economy went through about as many gyrations as the Dow Jones industrial average. Brace your neck for a quick recap.

Monday: Speaking at a rally in Jacksonville, McCain declares that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Coming as the Dow plunges more than 500 points and Lehman Bros. goes belly up, this makes McCain sound somewhat out of touch.

Tuesday: McCain explains that he meant to say American workers are fundamentally sound, and the economy itself is in "crisis." But, he adds, this crisis does not warrant bailing out insurance giant American International Group, which should be allowed to fail. McCain adviser Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO, unhelpfully opines that no one on either presidential ticket would be capable of running a company such as H-P.

Wednesday: After the government takes over AIG, McCain says the rescue was regrettable, but unavoidable.

Thursday: McCain, who over the years has described himself as a deregulator, recasts himself as a pro-regulation, anti-Wall Street populist. If he were president, he says, he'd fire Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, a former Republican congressman confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate in 2005.

Granted, McCain, who has been running more on the strength of his foreign policy credentials than on his economic expertise, is entitled to change his mind as new facts emerge. And granted, Democrat Barack Obama also has scant experience dealing with financial crises. At this point, though, it looks as if cleaning up the economic mess will be the next president's top priority. The Republican candidate's erratic performance this week was far from reassuring.

Emphasis added.  I don't think Obama won the election on a promise to take advise from John McCain on economic matters.

Burris Loses His Illinois Supreme Court Case; Still Should Be Seated

Ronald Burris lost his petition before the Illinois Supreme Court.  As a lawyer, it's one of those strange situations where the party who "lost" is probably just as well off now as he would have been had he "won."

Here's Burris' case before the Illinois SC, in a nutshell: He went to DC to get seated but he was turned away because his certificate of appointment lacked the signature of the Illinois Sect'y of State.  So Burris went to the Illinois SC with a writ of mandamus, basically trying to get the court to direct the Illinois SoS to sign the certification.

Burris lost.  But the reasons for his loss actually strengthen the odd that he will eventually prevail and get seated.

The Court found two key things:

The issue presented by this original action for mandamus is whether Jesse White, the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, is required by section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) to countersign and affix the seal of the state to the document issued by Governor Rod R. Blagojevich on December 31, 2008, certifying the Governor’s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate. For the reasons that follow, we hold that section 5(1) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) is inapplicable to the Burris appointment, and that no further action is required by any officer of this state to make that appointment valid. We further hold that the only ministerial act required of the Secretary of State in this case is that he register the appointment in accordance with section 5(2) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)). The Secretary of State having performed that responsibility on December 31, 2008, the writ of mandamus is denied. . .

Because gubernatorial appointments only require issuance of an actual commission when the governing law so provides and because no provision of law makes issuance of a commission necessary for the validity of a gubernatorial appointee to a United States Senate vacancy, no commission was required by law to effectuate the appointment of Mr. Burris to the United States Senate. And because the Secretary of State’s “sign and seal” duty is triggered only in cases where commissions are required by law, it necessarily follows that the Secretary of State had no duty to sign and seal the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor in this case.  Under section 5(2) of the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), the Secretary of State’s sole duty was to register the appointment, which he has done.

Emphasis added.  In other words, Illinois SoS did what was required of him to do and did not need to do anything else.

The second thing is, perhaps, more important:

In their pleadings, Petitioners [Burris, et al.] suggest that the United States Senate has taken the view that the Governor’s signed, hand-delivered certificate of appointment is insufficient to meet the requirements of the Senate’s own internal rules. We note, however, that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the seventeenth amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution.

Emphasis added.  Both points are worth considering separately.  First, the Court is absolutely correct that Rule II of the Standing Rules of the Senate does not require that the certificate of appointments made in situations such as Burris' - and, eventually, for Hillary Clinton's replacement - be signed and sealed by the state's Secretary of State.  This was news to me, because Reid's position is that such signature was required.

Rule II of the Standing Rules of the Senate state, in relevant part, as follows:

1. The presentation of the credentials of Senators elect or of Senators designate and other questions of privilege shall always be in order, except during the reading and correction of the Journal, while a question of order or a motion to adjourn is pending, or while the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum; and all questions and motions arising or made upon the presentation of such credentials shall be proceeded with until disposed of.

2. The Secretary [of the Senate] shall keep a record of the certificates of election and certificates of appointment of Senators by entering in a wellbound book kept for that purpose the date of the election or appointment, the name of the person elected or appointed, the date of the certificate, the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing and countersigning the same, and the State from which such Senator is elected or appointed.

3. The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or an appointment is to be made so that they may use such forms if they see fit.

Emphasis provided.  It is clear that nowhere in Rule II is there a requirement that the forms contain the signature of the state's SoS.  Further, it is evident that the States don't need to use these forms at all.  As the Court correctly noted, the requirement that the signature of the governor and the secretary of state be included in the certification is "merely a matter of tradition."

Now, if this isn't shattering enough, the next sentence is the final nail in the coffin: the rules of the Senate are not above the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution, through the Seventeenth Amendment, vests the power of appointment on the States.

Burris' hand is so strengthened that if Reid and the Democrats persist in keeping him out of the Senate and he challenges that decision in Federal Court, Reid would lose.  If it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, it wouldn't even be a 5-4 or 6-3 decision.  I don't see how it would be anything other than 9-0.

So, if Reid wants to avoid further embarrassment, he should quit while he's not far behind, seat Burris, and live to fight another day.

Quote of the Day

Forgiveness is the price you have to pay for freedom.

Sylvia Boorstein, It's Easier Than You Think, (as told to her by Tom).

Stupid Columnists

There must be a publication out there where Maureen Dowd's column from yesterday's NY Times would fit quite nicely.  Vogue, Readers Digest, O, or maybe even GQ itself.  But the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times isn't the place I would expect to find such fine political analysis and advocacy in favor of making Caroline Kennedy the junior U.S. Senator for New York:

I found it bizarre that when Caroline offered to use her magic capital — and friendship with Barack Obama — to help take care of New York in this time of economic distress, she was blasted by a howl of “How dare she?”

People are suddenly awfully choosy about who gets to go to the former home of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Robert Torricelli.

First, nobody "blasted her" by a howls of how dare she.  If she cares to look at the polls that came out in mid-to-late December after she expressed interest and started campaigning/lobbying for the position you'll see that a plurality of the people were willing to give her a chance:

New York State voters split 40 - 41 percent on whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be a U.S. Senator, but they expect by a 48 - 25 percent margin that Gov. David Paterson will name her to the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Offered a choice, 33 percent of voters say Gov. Paterson should name Ms. Kennedy, while 29 percent say Attorney General Andrew Cuomo should get the nod. Another 4 percent pick Albany-area U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, while 24 percent want someone else and 10 percent are undecided, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

More on Panetta & the CIA

I mentioned here that I thought Leon Panetta for CIA Director was not a good idea given his relative lack of experience on intelligence matters.  I haven't changed my mind.  But some Leon supporters really have a funny way of framing their argument:

Former CIA officer and Time columnist Bob Baer sharply disagrees. He told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Tuesday, "She's wrong. We need an adult in charge."

"We need somebody with political influence in Washington, a player, an advocate for the CIA," Baer explained. "We had George Tenet all these years. He was essentially a staffer and went along with the torture, went along with the WMD -- the false reporting on that. We need a player, a former cabinet member who can deal with the president. He's a good pick."

Hmmm.  And all this time I thought the main qualification to be CIA Director was to know something about "intelligence."  Actually, to know a lot about intelligence.  But it gets better.

"He can go into the Oval Office, put his legs up on the desk, and say, "Mr. President, we can't do it this way,'" Baer said of Panetta. "A professional could never do that. And number two is he can stand up to Hillary Clinton ... and stand up to Bob Gates at the Pentagon."

So, what's the point supposed to be here?  That there's no "I" in "team" but there is an "I" in "CIA"?  If your job is to gather intelligence and inform the President and others of what you're finding so he can make an informed decision, why shouldn't you do it just that way - minus the legs on the desk - regardless of who you are?  What are they going to do?  Fire you?  If the last eight years have shown is that a firm, earnest approach as opposed to having a bunch of "yes men (or women)" around is the way to go.

But it also sheds some light on where Baer is coming from:

Panetta is experienced enough to understand that the CIA was the victim of political manipulation under the Bush Administration. It was the Bush White House that cherry-picked the intelligence on Iraq, not the CIA. Panetta will have the ear of the new President to walk him through all of this and to make the case that there is no point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Emphasis added.  And there's the key flaw in his argument:  if the problem - allegedly - was that the CIA was manipulated by the Bush White House, how does hiring Leon Panetta address that problem?  If his point is that he will convince Obama that not all is wrong with the CIA, well, you don't need an intelligence novice to do that.  If the problem was the White House, the solution has to be the White House, namely, how Obama and others treat the CIA in terms of the Agency's area of expertise.

Rather than making an argument for Panetta, the Times article underscores precisely why Panetta is a bad pick.

Blago and Burris

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last couple of weeks, I don't need to tell you what "Blago" did - allegedly - and who Burris is.  But, in a nutshell, here it is: Blago was caught on tape bragging about trying to "award" Obama's U.S. Senate seat . . . for some "consideration."  It appears that a mere "thank you very much" wouldn't do, and the feds say that he was - allegedly - out to get some cash out of it or maybe appoint himself.

After all this became public, Blago was all "what, me worry?" about this and nominated former Illinois AG Burris.  But the Dems in the U.S. Senate won't let Burris take his seat because it was Blago who did the appointing and not . . . someone else.

After being denied entry to the Senate chambers Tuesday, Roland Burris, the appointee of embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, indicated he's not giving up his fight for the seat once held by President-elect Barack Obama.

Followed by a swarm of reporters, Burris made his way through the Capitol and into the office of the secretary of the Senate on the first day of the 111th Congress.

The secretary of the Senate told Burris that his credentials were "not in order" and therefore he would not be allowed access to the floor.

Nancy Erickson, the Senate secretary, initially rejected Burris' appointment Monday because his certificate of appointment was missing the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

One of the Standing Rules of the Senate says that the secretary of state must sign the certificate of election along with the governor.

White has declined to sign the certificate, siding with some Senate Democrats who say Burris should not be seated because of the cloud over Blagojevich.

Emphasis added.

Listen, I know it doesn't look good.  But a couple of things must be said here: first, Blago hasn't been charged, much less convicted, of anything.  In fact, the feds have been granted three more months to indict Blago.

Consider Me Underwhelmed

The news just broke out that Leon Panetta will be nominated to head the CIA and that Dennis Blair will be nominated to become Director of National Intelligence.

Now, on Panetta, the key line is right here:

Mr. Panetta has a reputation in Washington as a competent manager with strong background in budget issues, but has little hands-on intelligence experience. If confirmed by the Senate, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe, but one that has been buffeted since the Sept. 11 attacks by leadership changes and morale problems.

Emphasis added.  So, now we'll get as the head of the CIA a fabulous and capable . . . manager.

Great.

It doesn't get any better with Dennis Blair either:

Would bring to the job: Intimate experience with intelligence during a 34-year Navy career. A brainy retired four-star admiral whose jobs included commander of the United States Pacific Command, he is also an Asia expert who is considered adept at running sprawling organizations, seemingly a prerequisite for heading an office that is still grappling with the task of fusing 16 spy agencies.

Doesn't sound too bad, right?  Well, then there's this:

Carries as baggage: Had to step down as president of the Institute for Defense Analyses amid concerns that his positions on several corporate boards constituted a conflict of interest. The Pentagon’s inspector general later concluded that he had violated the institute’s conflict-of-interest standards by serving on the board of a military contractor working on the Air Force F-22 jet while the institute was evaluating the program for the Pentagon. The inspector general found, however, that Mr. Blair did not influence the organization’s analysis of the F-22 program. Another possible hindrance: The selection of a retired admiral to the national intelligence post could fuel worries about the militarization of intelligence.

And there's this little tidbit from about ten years ago or so:

US officials say that this past April, as militia terror escalated, a top US officer was dispatched to give a message to Jakarta. Adm. Dennis Blair, the US Commander in Chief of the Pacific, leader of all US military forces in the Pacific region, was sent to meet with General Wiranto, the Indonesian armed forces commander, on April 8. Blair's mission, as one senior US official told me, was to tell Wiranto that the time had come to shut the militia operation down. The gravity of the meeting was heightened by the fact that two days before, the militias had committed a horrific machete massacre at the Catholic church in Liquiça, Timor. YAYASAN HAK, a Timorese human rights group, estimated that many dozens of civilians were murdered. Some of the victims' flesh was reportedly stuck to the walls of the church and a pastor's house. But Admiral Blair, fully briefed on Liquiça, quickly made clear at the meeting with Wiranto that he was there to reassure the TNI chief. According to a classified cable on the meeting, circulating at Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii, Blair, rather than telling Wiranto to shut the militias down, instead offered him a series of promises of new US assistance.

According to the cable, which was drafted by Col. Joseph Daves, US military attaché in Jakarta, Admiral Blair "told the armed forces chief that he looks forward to the time when [the army will] resume its proper role as a leader in the region. He invited General Wiranto to come to Hawaii as his guest in conjunction with the next round of bilateral defense discussions in the July-August '99 time frame. He said Pacific command is prepared to support a subject matter expert exchange for doctrinal development. He expects that approval will be granted to send a small team to provide technical assistance to police and...selected TNI personnel on crowd control measures."

Admiral Blair at no point told Wiranto to stop the militia operation, going the other way by inviting him to be his personal guest in Hawaii. Blair told Wiranto that the United States would initiate this new riot-control training for the Indonesian armed forces. This was quite significant, because it would be the first new US training program for the Indonesian military since 1992. Although State Department officials had been assured in writing that only police and no soldiers would be part of this training, Blair told Wiranto that, yes, soldiers could be included. So although Blair was sent in with the mission of telling Wiranto to shut the militias down, he did the opposite.

Indonesian officers I spoke to said Wiranto was delighted by the meeting. They took this as a green light to proceed with the militia operation. The only reference in the classified cable to the militias was the following: "Wiranto was emphatic: as long as East Timor is an integral part of the territory of Indonesia, Armed Forces have responsibility to maintain peace and stability in the region. Wiranto said the military will take steps to disarm FALINTIL pro-independence group concurrently with the WANRA militia force. Admiral Blair reminded Wiranto that fairly or unfairly the international community looks at East Timor as a barometer of progress for Indonesian reform. Most importantly, the process of change in East Timor could proceed peacefully, he said."

So that was it. No admonition. When Wiranto referred to disarming the WANRA force, he was talking about another militia force, different from the one that was staging attacks on Timorese civilians. When word got back to the State Department that Blair had said these things in a meeting, an "eyes only" cable was dispatched from the State Department to Ambassador Stapleton Roy at the embassy in Jakarta. The thrust of this cable was that what Blair had done was unacceptable and that it must be reversed. As a result of that cable from Washington to Roy, a corrective phone call was arranged between General Wiranto and Admiral Blair. That call took place on April 18.

I have the official report on that phone call, which was written by Blair's aide, Lieut. Col. Tom Sidwell. According to the account of the call and according to US military officials I spoke to, once again Blair failed to tell Wiranto to shut the militias down. In fact, Blair instead permitted Wiranto to make, in essence, a political speech saying the same thing he had said before. Here is one passage from the account: "General Wiranto denies that TNI and the police supported any one group during the incidents"--meaning during the military attacks. "General Wiranto will go to East Timor tomorrow to emphasize three things:...Timorese, especially the two disputing groups, to solve the problem peacefully with dialogue; 2) encourage the militia to disarm; 3) make the situation peaceful and solve the problem." At no point did Blair demand that the militias be shut down, and in fact this call was followed by escalating militia violence and increases in concrete, new US military assistance to Indonesia, including the sending in of a US Air Force trainer just weeks ago to train the Indonesian Air Force.

Emphasis added.  Panetta has no experience and Blair has ethical conflicts, can't/doesn't know how to follow directions, and somehow manages to convey the opposite of what he's supposed to be saying.

I'm not saying I'm worried about our intelligence, but somehow, I don't see the capture of OBL or the dismantling of Al Qaeda in the near future either.