John McCain: finished?

That's the impression one gets from HuffPost's picture of a dying campaign:

The McCain campaign's abrupt decision to lash out at Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper on abortion is a last ditch bid to revive a candidate whose poll numbers and financial resources are dwindling.

The McCain camp recognizes that its original strategy of establishing front-runner status and claiming the honored position of "next in line" is now in tatters -- leaving McCain with nothing but highly unpleasant choices.

I'd be surprised, except that during a speech to the summer research fellows at Ursinus today, Chris Bowers of MyDD (class of 1996) happened to mention that he saw Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani as the only candidates with a shot at the Republican nomination. Afterwards, when I asked him why he was counting McCain out, he argued that the McCain campaign's lean campaign funds ($2.5 in the bank after debts) would be insufficient to overcome the Republican base's natural hostility to the senator. (The "Lieberman of the Republican Party," as Bowers described him.) Given the polls, he's probably right.

Is Fred Thompson too lazy to be president?

I have to say, I am impressed by how quickly Fred Thompson has risen in the polls. As Fz points out below, Thompson is now even with Giuliani in the race for the Republican nomination. Will he be able to hold on to his commanding numbers? Tom Dickinson at National Affairs Daily has his doubts:

I fear, though, that Fred’s numbers are softer than his Dixie Drawl. While Thompson may play a Reagan Republican on television, his real-life record is that of a lazy man’s John McCain. Thompson co-chaired his friend’s presidential campaign in 2000, and helped fine-tune McCain’s conservative-detested campaign finance reform law. He’s also has a well earned reputation for laziness. “I don’t do frenetic,” he said recently, predicting a low-key campaign.

Newsweek has the rundown on Fred Thompson's reputation for being a little light on the work ethic:

The former senator turned "Law & Order" actor, who launched an exploratory committee last week, has been dogged by rumors that he doesn't have the work ethic for a long campaign. "The book on him is he's lazy," David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, said last week. The criticism seems fed by Thompson's time in the Senate, where he maintained a less rigorous schedule than his colleagues and was known to duck out of late-night debates. Of the 90 bills he introduced during his eight years in the Senate, only four became law.

Then there's this amusing quote:

In his yearbook at Lawrenceburg County High, Thompson put this quote next to his senior portrait: "The lazier a man is, the more he plans to do tomorrow."

Which completely sums up how I felt in high school. In any case, it does seem like the issue will be a problem for him. Over at Slate, John Dickinson argues that whether or not Thompson really is lazy (and Dickinson seems to think he is), the charge will hurt him:

Fair or not, the laziness rap against Thompson is like the rap that former presidential hopeful Sen. George Allen isn't a genius. Or that John McCain is a hothead. It's an unresolved issue waiting for its moment to become a crisis for the campaign. Thompson's spokesman, Mark Corallo, brushes off critics with a line Ronald Reagan used when belittling what he considered his opponent's hysterical distortions: "There they go again."

The laziness charge can be deadly because however much voters like the notion of no-sweat solutions, they also want to be sure that their president is up at night worrying about terrorist attacks so they don't have to. They also like to know they're getting their money's worth from their public officials. After the early-to-bed Bush administration, this may be truer than ever.

Yikes. And the laziness issue isn't his only problem. Check out what he had to say about abortion a while back:

I can't wait to see what happens when the campaign really heats up and Rudy McRomney let loose their attack dogs.

Thompson and Giuliani are Even

The still-officially-unannounced Fred Thompson is now tied with Rudy Giuliani as the Republican Party's front-runner, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll. The change from a week ago is remarkable. Just a week ago, the polling stood as follows:

Giuliani: 23%
Thompson: 17%
Romney: 14%
McCain: 13%

And now:

Giuliani: 24%
Thompson: 24%
Romney: 11%
McCain: 11%

This isn't all that surprising, actually. It has been noted that the front-runners in the Republican field all lacked decent conservative credentials (which has to make us wonder how they became front-runners). And the conservatives in the Republican bunch (e.g. Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, etc.) are all insane. So, the Republicans (or at least the so-called "base") are desperately craving a reliable conservative who also has a shot at winning the general election. They think they've found that in Thompson.

I'm not so sure, though. When Thompson is making claims that Scooter Libby was the victim of a severe injustice and should be immediately pardoned, he seems to be suggesting that corruption would be A-okay in a possible Thompson White House. Defending the Bush administration in any way will not get a candidate enough votes to win in 2008. I've said it before; if a Republican wants any chance of winning in 2008, he will have to come out swinging - against Bush. In this case, the Republican Party should not worry about its base, because no matter who the Republicans pick, the base will come around (what, do they think they're going to switch up and vote for the Constitution Party?), but the moderates and unaffiliateds (according to another Rasmussen poll, the number of unaffiliated voters is at an all-time high) are unlikely to vote for a candidate who defends the actions of the Bush administration. Although, as a side note, it would be interesting if the Republicans did choose a conservative like Thompson and if the Democrats chose Hillary; such a match-up would probably free up the most votes for a third party candidate like Michael Bloomberg (some interesting Bloomberg polls here - keep in mind, the polling area is New Jersey, and we all know those savages are by no means representative of anyone else).

If there is anything surprising about this poll, it is that Thompson is doing so well without having even announced (although, he's made an "exploratory committee," so I guess that's close enough). I would not be surprised to see him take even more votes away from McCain and Romney and possibly even some away from Giuliani.

But, as I've probably said before, national polls about presidential primaries can be extremely misleading. So, take from this what you want.

Powell attacks Guantanamo, Huckabee defends it

Colin Powell recently condemned our prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, saying:

If it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo. Not tomorrow, but this afternoon. Every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. And so essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open.

So Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee decided to step up to the plate and defend the infamous detention center:

I can tell you most of our prisoners would love to be in a facility more like Guantanamo and less like the state prisons that people are in in the United States. It’s more symbolic than it is a substantive issue, because people perceive of mistreatment when, in fact, there are extraordinary means being taken to make sure these detainees are being given, really, every consideration.

Now, I can't say I'm surprised by Huckabee's endorsement of Guantanamo, given that the Republican candidates are falling all over themselves to endorse the president's lawless approach to fighting terrorism. (Remember that debate where Mitt Romney exclaimed that he wanted to "double Guantanamo"?) However, I am a bit surprised by the tack he took. The argument that we should harshly interrogate/torture suspects at secret detention facilities may be immoral, but at least it makes a certain sort of twisted sense. And it shows the Republican base that you're ready to "get tough" on the evil terrorists. However, the "It's not so bad, people wish they were at Guantanamo!" argument doesn't pass the laugh test. (Hey, you know what you get in Arkansas prisons that you don't get in Guantanamo? Full access to the US court system.) It's the sort of thing I associate more with Rush Limbaugh (famous for his support of "Club G'itmo") than with a fairly respectable candidate like Huckabee.

Of course, he's not as bad as Duncan Hunter:

An Appeals Court Rebuke for Bush

It's nice when courts actually defend the Constitution, isn't it?

The Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Bush administration cannot hold Ali al-Marri as an enemy combatant (as always, I refer you to the Times). Despite what one may think, this does not have sweeping consequences for federal law for two main reasons. First, it is an Appeals Court ruling, which means it only affects the Circuit in which the case was tried. Of course, diverging Circuit rulings often go to the Supreme Court for resolution, and I'm inclined to think that the Court would agree with this Circuit ruling, but that's not the point of this post. Second, al-Marri is the only known "enemy combatant" being held on the mainland, and the ruling does not attempt to rule on the constitutionality of enemy combatants being held off the mainland (i.e. this has no implications for combatants being held in Guantanamo Bay).

Perhaps needless to say (as I am devoting a summer and two semesters' worth of research to showing that expansive executive power is harmful to the Constitution and to the country), I agree wholeheartedly with this decision. The indefinite military detention of "enemy combatants" is blatantly contrary to the rule of law. Allowing the president to circumvent to justice system by declaring a detainee an "enemy combatant" is simply (at the risk of sounding like a five-year-old) unfair. If there is enough evidence for the executive to want to detain someone indefinitely, I think there should be enough evidence to prosecute that person through the criminal justice system. The indefinite detention of combatants suggests to me that they are being held indefinitely rather than being tried in the courts because there isn't enough evidence to prove guilt. In other words, it seems like the executive branch is simply saying, "trust us, these guys are bad." And I'm not saying that they aren't; I'm saying that if they are, their guilt ought to be proven in front of a court or they should be released.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

Maureen Dowd on the Republicans and gay Arabic translators

In today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd has some choice words for the Republican presidential candidates regarding the gay Arabic linguists controversy:

Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, as the gloriously gay Oscar Wilde said. And gays are the sacrifice that hypocritical Republican candidates offer to placate “values” voters — even though some candidates are not so finicky about morals regarding their own affairs and divorces.

They may coo over the photo of Dick Cheney, whose re-election campaign demonized gays, proudly smiling with his new grandson, the first baby of his lesbian daughter, Mary.

But they’ll hold the line, by jiminy, against gay Americans who are willing to die or be horribly disfigured in the cursed Bush/Cheney war in Iraq.

Maureen Down has been justifiably criticized in the past for her tendency to devote whole columns to subjects like John Edward's hair. Despite the fact that she's a liberal, Dowd has a history of badly damaging the campaigns of Democratic presidential candidates. With both Al Gore and John Kerry, she used meaningless incidents (like John Kerry's windsurfing-in-spandex adventure) to push a consistent narrative: that the Democratic presidential candidate was a Big Phony. So it's good to see her snark turned on a worthier target.

On Racial Divisions

It is very rare that I support conservative commentators, but here is a decent article about the upcoming SCOTUS decisions on affirmative action.

The AA plans being questioned involve school districts creating optimum racial balances, and sending students, based on nothing but their race, far out of their way in order to achieve this balance. So, if a white student lives a block away from a school that has too many white students already, he can be shipped off to a school well over an hour away, again, based on nothing but his race.

I've tried to understand the "liberal" arguments about how affirmative action is necessary in a practical way; that we have not yet reached racial equality in this country. And I agree with the latter, I think it is foolish to suggest that there is not still a racial divide. However, it is also foolish (and far moreso) to suggest that dividing the races in this sort of way is the cure. As Chief Justice Roberts said (and I don't quote him in a good light very often), "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."

Of course, AA supporters will say that this is an attempt to end de facto racial divisions. In other words, even if there is not discrimination by law (de jure), there can still be existing discrimination (e.g. the coincidental - or perhaps intentional, they might say - creation of "black schools" based on high racial densities in a certain area). So, shipping white students into and black students out of these "black schools" can create more of a racial "balance," whatever that means.

Which brings up an important point - what is an ideal racial balance? Is it a reflection of the greater population? Or should black students make up a greater portion of the student body, in an attempt to get rid of any stigma that is associated with being a 10% or so minority?

Personally, I think the ideal racial balance is whatever happens naturally. Some people will probably want to throw rotten eggs at me, because after all, the same question can be raised: what is natural? Slavery wasn't natural; de jure segregation wasn't natural. How can we tell if government is detached enough to ensure that any lingering "segregation" is a more "honest" kind of de facto (after all, de facto is often used to suggest that there is a more sinister, untracable kind of discrimination rather than the far more blatant de jure)? And even if it is "honest," is it acceptable?

I think it has to be acceptable, since the only proposed "cure" does more harm than good. After all, let us imagine a white family being told that it has to send its kids 90 minutes away to go to school to achieve this allusive "ideal racial balance." Are they likely to say "Oh, that's just great!" or are they likely to form new negative feelings about affirmative action and/or minorities that they may not have even had before? I think the better odds are with the latter. Affirmative action pits races against one another in a way that is completely non-conducive to equality and understanding.

And I challenge one of the fundamental underlying assumptions of affirmative action: that diversity is good. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think it is bad, by any means. I have a neutral position toward diversity. Well, actually, I support true diversity, but racial diversity doesn't necessarily achieve that. For instance, in school settings, the Court has reasoned that racial diversity is good, because it can bring together many different viewpoints and foster a greater understanding of different people and different opinions. Fair enough, but that assumes that the different races will always have different viewpoints. But, to think that some of the unbelievably rich, affluent black kids I went to high school with brought some sort of unique "black viewpoint" is absurd. Certainly, one's race will affect one's viewpoints to a certain extent, but one's environment will do that even more. And, what's worse is that is also fosters the terrible notion that black students are there just to give the "black opinion."

I completely support intellectual diversity; it is the only way to receive a good education in my opinion, but assuming that racial diversity will attain that goal is, well, racist. It necessarily assumes that black people and white people have different opinions.

But, ultimately, at least in terms of legalities, it all comes down to the Constitution. I've never been one to read the Constitution too narrowly; I think a broad, "organic" interpretation is proper especially when the document is too vague to make any conclusions, but on racial matters, the Constitution is crystal clear. The 14th amendment demands "equal protection under the laws." Now, some will argue that de facto segregation is not "equal protection," and that we have to go against the 14th amendment in order to properly enforce it. In other words, we have to treat the races unequally in order to get to a point where we can truly and fully treat them equally.

I have problems with that. You can't put constitutional requirements "on hold." The Amendment doesn't say "do this when you're ready;" it says "do it." The Court, for instance, couldn't say "We're going to take away free speech until we figure out what free speech is; we'll get back to you in thirty years or so." Likewise, it can't (or shouldn't) say "Hey white people, hang on for a few decades while we try to figure this equal protection stuff out."

Ultimately, though, we just have to look at the situation, and I think logic sorts things out. Saying "You cannot go to this school because you are white" sounds awfully reminiscent of the "you cannot go to this school because you are black" type of business that was ruled unconstitutional in Brown v. Board. Of course, the intentions of the former are better, but the means to reaching that end are blatantly unconstitutional. Any law that says "you can or cannot do this simply because of your race" seems undeniably constitutional to me. It doesn't matter if the ends "justify" the means. The Alien and Sedition Acts may have been justifiable in that they could protect America, but they blatantly violated the First Amendment's requirement that Congress not restrict free speech. All laws have to conform to the Constitution; if you want to achieve a certain goal, you have to act within the bounds of that document.

Perhaps I should've noted this earlier, but whenever one discusses racial issues, there is always the risk of being branded "racist." So, if you have this inclination, please re-read the post and try to understand that there are no racist feelings behind this. Plus, I'm voting for Barack Obama, so get off my case.

Gay Arabic Translator: "I’m willing to serve."

A gay Arabic translator who was discharged from the Navy under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" writes in the New York Times today, asking for the opportunity to serve his country:

IMAGINE for a moment an American soldier deep in the Iraqi desert. His unit is about to head out when he receives a cable detailing an insurgent ambush right in his convoy’s path. With this information, he and his soldiers are now prepared for the danger that lies ahead.

Reports like these are regularly sent from military translators’ desks, providing critical, often life-saving intelligence to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the military has a desperate shortage of linguists trained to translate such invaluable information and convey it to the war zone.

...

I was an Arabic translator. After joining the Navy in 2003, I attended the Defense Language Institute, graduated in the top 10 percent of my class and then spent two years giving our troops the critical translation services they desperately needed. I was ready to serve in Iraq.

But I never got to. In March, I was ousted from the Navy under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which mandates dismissal if a service member is found to be gay.

...

In response to difficult recruiting prospects, the Army has already taken a number of steps, lengthening soldiers’ deployments to 15 months from 12, enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42. Why then won’t Congress pass a bill like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”? The bipartisan bill, by some analysts’ estimates, could add more than 41,000 soldiers — all gay, of course.

As the friends I once served with head off to 15-month deployments, I regret I’m not there to lessen their burden and to serve my country. I’m trained to fight, I speak Arabic and I’m willing to serve. No recruiter needs to make a persuasive argument to sign me up. I’m ready, and I’m waiting.

It's time to end our misguided policy of discharging gays from the military. It's wrong, it's unnecessary, it's counterproductive, and it ignores the fact that our closest allies, like Britain, have allowed gays to serve openly for years without incident. (I've covered this issue before.)

Will we come to our senses? It probably depends on the outcome of the next election. Every Democratic presidential candidate is in favor of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell and allowing gays to serve openly. All of the Republican presidential candidates, on the other hand, want to keep discharging gays from the military.

On Online Petitions, Being a Time-Honored American Tradition

Paris Hilton has posted a blog entry on her Myspace account urging her fans to sign an online petition, begging Governor Arnold Scwarzenegger to pardon her from her 23-day jail sentence:

[Paris Hilton] provides hope for young people all over the U.S. and the world. She provides beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives…

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT to save our Paris from ending up at the Century Regional Detention Facility! Please sign to tell The Honorable Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of the State of California, to think about the welfare of this young woman who has made a mortal error and deserves a second chance like so many others in our great nation have been served with after a mistake they have made . If the late Former President Gerald Ford could find it in his heart to pardon the late Former President Richard Nixon after his mistake(s), we undeniably support Paris Hilton being pardoned for her honest mistake as well [emphasis added], and we hope and expect The Governor will understand and grant this unusual but important request in good faith to Ms. Paris Whitney Hilton.

This is a spectacular idea. Online petitions have played an important, if not central, role in American social and political activism. Take, for example, the following instances from throughout history:

In our nation’s formative early years, the Marbury v. Madison decision established the concept of judicial review, the ability of the court to determine a law’s constitutionality. Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Marbury, saying it did not have the constitutional jurisdiction to reverse acts of Congress. Secretary of State James Madison, however, protested. Because the Internet had not technically been invented yet, Madison employed the colonial equivalent, a town crier, to make the rounds of Washington, D.C., asking residents to sign a petition against this “display of government impotence” that would upset the check-and-balance system constructed two decades before and “institute a tyranny of the legislature.” The petition also referred to Marbury himself as “weak-kneed” and “effeminate,” and insinuated that he was the “lamentable product of the union betwixt a venerous strumpet and her lascivious paramour.” Remarkably, the crier was able to gather 67 signatures before being tarred and feathered by an angry mob. Ashamed and intimidated, the Supreme Court reversed its decision, clearing the way for left-wing activist judges to slowly chip away at our sacred right to pray in public schools for generations to come.

More recently, Joshua Smalls, an 11-year-old from White Plains, New York, was served what he described as a “totally gross and disgusting” helping of cream-chipped beef by his mother, Rebecca Smalls. Joshua patently refused to consume it, defying first his mother’s threats of not receiving dessert and then her vow to revoke his X-Box privileges for a month. Finally, in a burst of frustration, he was sent to his room, where he logged on to Myspace.com and wrote a hurried blog entry detailing his mother’s atrocity and urging his friends to flood her Hotmail account with messages of protest. Within 24 hours, Mrs. Smalls’ inbox became clogged with no less than 324 emails from outraged pre-teens, to the point where she was unable to send or receive any emails until she deleted them. History does not record what became of Joshua Smalls, but one can only assume that his mother folded against the awesome wrath of the online petition.

The Sixties, as we all know, were a time of great social upheaval, especially for black Americans. In the midst of the chaos, two leaders for the African-American community stepped forward – Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Unfortunately, the men advocated two very different ideologies: King was a proponent of strictly nonviolent protest, whereas X stood behind a policy of aggressive self-defense. Thus divided, the African-American community suffered from infighting and insufficient momentum – that is, until Grace Bedell, a concerned citizen and professor at UC Berkley, used one of the first BBS systems in existence to create the first modern online petition. She garnered an impressive 26 signatures, which, when forwarded to Dr. King and Mr. X, so moved the two men that they put their differences aside and fought together for significant civil rights legislation and economic opportunities. Without the Bedell’s online petition, it is doubtful that the United States would be the harmonious racial utopia it is today.

And so, we salute you, Paris Hilton, in your attempt to escape the unfair repercussions of your actions. Indeed, while today they are persecuting you, tomorrow it could be any one of us. Well, any one of us who has been pulled over for drinking and driving. Twice.

Republican debate reaction

Yesterday, I read this post by Glenn Greenwald:

The great fraud being perpetrated in our political discourse is the concerted attempt by movement conservatives, now that the Bush presidency lay irreversibly in ruins, to repudiate George Bush by claiming that he is not, and never has been, a "real conservative." This con game is being perpetrated by the very same conservatives who -- when his presidency looked to be an epic success -- glorified George W. Bush, ensured both of his election victories, depicted him as the heroic Second Coming of Ronald Reagan, and celebrated him as the embodiment of True Conservatism.

This fraud is as transparent as it is dishonest, yet there are signs that the media is nonetheless beginning to adopt this theme that there is some sort of epic and long-standing "Bush-conservative schism." But very little effort is required to see what a fraud that storyline is.

One of the few propositions on which Bush supporters and critics agree is that George Bush does not change and has not changed at all over the last six years. He is exactly the same.

Or as Digby puts it more succinctly (quoted in the same article):

George W. Bush will not achieve a place in the Republican pantheon. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)

So I looked forward with great anticipation to seeing if this dynamic would surface in the Republican debate this evening-- and, lo and behold, it did. You see, the Republicans in Washington didn't fail because of flaws in their conservative ideology, they failed because they turned into liberals! And in a contest between "professional spenders" (the Dems) and the "amateur spenders" (the Republicans), the Democrats will always win, said Tommy Thompson. Apparently the answer for the Republicans is to take a turn to the right. Um, good luck, fellas.... let me know how that works out for you.

Family defends TB traveler Andrew Speaker; Stephen Colbert takes a vacation

Family members are defending Andrew Speaker, the man who recently traveled to Europe and back despite knowing he was infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis:

Cheryl Speaker said she wanted the world to know she and her family did not believe their acts were reckless.

"We are not people of reckless behavior," she said.

...

Questions exist about a meeting with local health officials before the trip to Greece. Officials say they told Andrew Speaker he would put others at risk by traveling abroad for the wedding and then returning home on a commercial flight.

"We asked him [the official] repeatedly during that meeting, 'Is he contagious?' All times they said, 'No, you're not contagious,'" Ted Speaker said.

Other family members agreed that no ambiguity had existed about whether Andrew Speaker could pass the illness along to others.

"Then he said of course, 'I prefer you not to travel. I prefer you just say here,'" Ted Speaker said. He said the official never gave a reason why.

"Well, are, are you just saying this to cover yourself?" Ted Speaker said he asked the official. "And he said, 'Yes,'" Ted Speaker said.

Ted Speaker claims to have an audiotape of the conversation. Here's a copy of the letter officials say they tried to deliver to Specter after their meeting on May 10:

The Fulton County Department of Health and Wellness (redacted) has been notified that you are planning to travel to Greece on May 14, 2007. As a precaution it is strongly recommended that you postpone your travel and see a (redacted) specialist in Denver, Colorado. In the event you do not comply with this recommendation the Fulton County Department of Health and Wellness (redacted) cannot be responsible for the exposure of this (redacted) to the public. It is imperative that you are aware that you are traveling against medical advice (AMA).

Andrew Speaker's family say they were never told he was a risk to anyone. So the situation remains unclear for now. In the meantime, Stephen Colbert went on vacation:

Bad Idea of the Week II : Tuberculosis Edition

By now you've almost certainly heard of the man infected with drug-resistant tuberculosis who traveled to Greece for his wedding despite being warned not to fly, and how he snuck back into the country through Canada because he was afraid he might die overseas. Well, he apologized today:

Andrew Speaker, interviewed on the “Good Morning America” program on the ABC network in his hospital room in Denver, said “I don’t expect those people to ever forgive me. I just hope they understand that I truly never meant them any harm.”
...

Jason Vik, 21, a passenger on the outgoing flight who just graduated from the University of South Carolina, Aiken, is now waiting for results of a TB skin test.

Mr. Vik spoke angrily about Mr. Speaker’s behavior. “He stepped on a plane with 487 people, one of the largest aircraft that Boeing makes, and he put us all at risk, just so he could go get married,” he said.

Hopping onto a plane while infected with drug-resistant TB? Apparently not even wearing a surgical mask to protect your fellow passengers? Congratulations, Mr. Andrew Speaker, that's good makes you the winner of my second Bad Idea of the Week Award. (You certainly outshine the guy who won the first one; all he did was blog during his malpractice trail.) You won't be able to hog it all for yourself, though; you have to share it with the border agent who let you into the country:

Congressional investigators, who will be holding hearings on the way the case of the man, Andrew Speaker, has been handled, say that the border agent at the Plattsburgh, N.Y., border crossing with Canada decided that Mr. Speaker did not look sick and so let him go.Russ Knocke, press secretary for the Homeland Security Department, would not confirm the agent’s rationale for releasing the man, saying only that the case was under investigation by its internal affairs and inspector general’s offices.

...

A day earlier, on May 23, the disease control centers alerted the Atlanta office of Customs and Border Protection, a part of the Homeland Security Department, that a man with a serious medical condition might try to enter the United States and the information was entered in the department’s computer system.

The department instructed any border control agents who encountered the man to “isolate, detain and contact the Public Health Service,” Mr. Knocke said.

Here's to you, Mr. Border Agent, for letting this man into the country because he didn't "look sick." That's the type of common sense we need more in America. After all, whoever heard of someone carrying a disease without showing any symptoms? It's about time someone put those quarantine-happy panic-mongers at the CDC in their place. Today they want to "isolate and detain" people with drug-resistant tuberculosis; tomorrow they'll be shipping kids with chickenpox off to Guantanamo. This act of courage earns you a share of my second Bad Idea of the Week Award.

UPDATE: Hello, Wall Street Journal readers. I'm glad you could stop by! (Thanks to Sphere.) Take a look around. Our focus here at One More Political Blog is primarily on international relations, American politics, and the law. Enjoy.

More on Ledbetter

Richard Thompson Ford has a good article on the Ledbetter decision over at Slate. He makes an important point that I ignored in my post below. Alito focuses on intent rather than consequences. In other words, an action is not discriminatory so long as it is not intended to be discriminatory (even if it has discriminatory consequences). The argument goes like this: while the initial pay raise may have been discriminatory, there is no reason to suggest that all subsequent raises were discriminatory (and this gets us back into the 180 day issue discussed in the post below). However, Ford makes a good point:

Ledbetter argued that she was paid less than that of her male co-workers because of her sex right up until she retired. To prove this, she showed that her employer intentionally discriminated against her at some point in setting her salary, and every subsequent paycheck was an application of the original set point. Who cares whether the subsequent salary decisions were intentionally discriminatory? Goodyear continued to pay Ledbetter less than her co-workers for the same work because of her sex. That's sex discrimination. When it first decided to discriminate against her should be irrelevant.

So, the Court is saying that discriminatory intent must be shown within the past 180 days. However, an application of that discriminatory intent may not itself be discriminatory intent. What are the implications of such an argument?

If an employer pays a woman less because of her sex, and isn't found out within the 180- or 300-day period, the employer can continue to pay the discriminatory wage. For employers, the lesson is obvious—hide your misdeed for six months and you're not only off the hook, you get to keep cheating. For employees, the lesson is equally clear: Sue early and often. If you suspect your boss might be discriminating with regard to your pay, you can't afford to wait around until you're sure.

This is simply absurd. An action can be representative of discrimination even if it isn't intended to be discriminatory. Even if Ledbetter received equal pay raises after the initial raise (which is unlikely), her salary still reflects discrimination. Indeed, the act of her receiving her unfairly low paycheck seems like discrimination to me. A decision to not give a woman a fair raise because she is a woman is discrimination, yes, but that is not the end of the discrimination. Continuing to support that decision by paying her less is discriminatory, even if it isn't intended to be.

Bad idea of the week: blogging during your malpractice trial

Apparently, if you are a pediatrician being sued for malpractice over the death of a 12-year-old patient, blogging about the trial is not the way to go:

It was a Perry Mason moment updated for the Internet age...

Was Lindeman Flea?

Flea, jurors in the case didn't know, was the screen name for a blogger who had written often and at length about a trial remarkably similar to the one that was going on in the courtroom that day.

In his blog, Flea had ridiculed the plaintiff's case and the plaintiff's lawyer. He had revealed the defense strategy. He had accused members of the jury of dozing.

With the jury looking on in puzzlement, Lindeman admitted that he was, in fact, Flea.

The next morning, on May 15, he agreed to pay what members of Boston's tight-knit legal community describe as a substantial settlement -- case closed.

The opposing lawyer was the one to discover that the doctor she was suing was none other than the anonymous Flea:

Elizabeth N. Mulvey, the lawyer who represented Vinroy and Deborah Binns and unmasked Lindeman as Flea, said she laughed when she read a posting at the start of the trial in which Lindeman nicknamed her Carissa Lunt, noticed that she bit her fingernails and mused, "Wonder if she's a pillow biter, too?"

Classy. No wonder the guy couldn't wait to settle. Somehow I don't think that sort of thing would play well with the jury.

On Ledbetter v. Goodyear

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the Court reached another 5-4 ruling; another one that would have gone the other way had O'Connor still been on the Court.

I always recommend reading Linda Greenhouse's articles, so here's her explanation.

And here is some commentary that I find rather agreeable.

Down to business. At issue here is how to interpret a statute involving sexual discrimination in the workplace. The statute requires that complaints be filed within 180 days of a given incident. So, if a woman thinks that a male candidate for a job was chosen over her simply because of gender, she has 180 days to file a complaint. Fair enough. But, this case involves pay raises, something that affected women may not know about until well after 180 days.

Some specifics to this case. When hired, Ledbetter's salary was the same as her male counterparts', but over time, she consistently received smaller raises, allowing for a rather drastic gap in pay. Indeed, at the time of the complaint, she was making $3,727 a month, while the lowest-paid man was making $4,286, and the highest-paid man was making $5,236. The discrimination seems undeniable.

However, in order to file a complaint, she would have had to have done so within 180 days of any of the "incidents," or in other words, any of her raises. But she had no reason to believe that her raises were discriminatory. After all, when I received my last raise, I was sworn to secrecy; I assume most companies have very similar policies. So, she had little to no way of knowing that there was even an issue within the given 180 days. Look at it this way; she could find out about blatantly discriminatory practices 181 days after they happened, but according to the Court's (majority opinion authored by the fresh-faced Samuel A. Alito) interpretation of the statute, she would not be allowed to pursue legal action.

Of course, the majority claims that they are simply enforcing legislative intent. They provide a "strict" reading of the statute; 180 days means 180 days. No "legislating from the bench!" But, I have a hard time believing that the legislature that crafted this statute would have meant that Ledbetter would not be able to pursue legal action. Indeed, a strict reading of the words of the statute requires that the Court rule the way it did, but a "strict" reading is not always the best way to find legislative intent. It is likely that no legislators envisioned this sort of a scenario, and thus they did not necessarily intend for this to be the outcome.

Of course, given that this is a case of statutory interpretation (i.e. not Constitutional interpretation), Congress can rephrase the statute and, for all intents and purposes, overrule this ruling. The Court has used this logic many times in the past: if you don't like a law and it doesn't raise any Constitutional questions, take it up with Congress, not us! Fair enough; this same logic has been used to do some great things (to allow for the New Deal, for instance - but they were saying "Congress clearly intends this, you insane judges have to stop coming up with non-existant constitutional concepts to back up your laissez-faire ideologies"), but this is different. This is strict for the sake of being strict (or for the sake of giving women the shaft). The statute is clearly designed to do away with gender discrimination, so the Court is using the statute's words to work contrary to the statute's goals.

Maybe it's just me, but isn't ensuring the statute's goals more important than ensuring a strict reading of the words?