Dang! He didn't invite me to Camp David
I see in the New York Times that Schroeder is visiting Bush, and everybody's on their best behavior. Bush found the European fellow entertaining:

The chancellor has got a good sense of humor, and therefore, he is able to make me laugh. And a person that can make me laugh is a person who's easy to be with.

Well, there you go. Reporter Richard Stevenson notes that Schroeder said "We both have an interest in seeing a stable and democratic Iraq develop," and that Germany is cooperating with the U.S. on forgiving Iraqi debts. But Stevenson ends his article with this inane observation:

But if Mr. Schröder had any illusion that he had been welcomed into Mr. Bush's inner circle of favored foreign leaders, it might have been shattered had he hung around a little longer. Then he might have seen Mr. Bush's helicopter fly the president away for a weekend at Camp David, the retreat to which Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and other leaders from abroad have been invited in the past few years as a reward for steadfast support.

No Super Secret Clubhouse for you yet, Gerhard! Dubya is still checking you out. But if you're really, really, really good (drumroll...) -- Crawford! posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:15:00 AM -- |    

 
Den of thieves

Each 10 oz. mug comes in a matching gift box and makes a perfect gift to share your passion for Christ. Dishwasher safe. Microwavable.

leather/pewter

no scourges or whips currently in stock.

(via Tyler Cowen)

posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:55:00 PM -- |    

 
Joshs say FMA is DOA
Via Brett Marston, I see that Josh Chafetz believes the Federal Marriage Amendment may not even make it out of the Senate; he's compiling a detailed list over at OxBlog, and believes there are already 39 Senators firmly against it, well over the 34 senators needed to block the amendment.

Josh Marshall points to a similar conclusion by Democratic Underground (DU) netizen "Bleachers7," who was confident enough to quit once he/she reached 34 confirmed opponents; details here.

Both lists assert that Republican honor roll Senators opposing the FMA include Lincoln Chafee, Sue Collins, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, and Lamar Alexander. Alexander is from Tennessee, but I confess I'd always thought of him as a bit of an empty red flannel shirt. No more. Richard Lugar, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Olympia Snowe come up as question marks or "cop-outs" in the Chafetz tally.

On the other hand, (nominal) Democrat Zell Miller supports the amendment, while Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and Fritz Hollings are listed as "cop-outs" in the Chafetz tally and don't appear on the DU list either. Prominent Senate Democrats Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and John Edwards are all against the amendment. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 AM -- |    

 
FMA roundup
Well, I've savored a little victory, but a much bigger fight lies ahead. Among other things, I think the Federal Marriage Amendment is a stalking horse for introducing religion and religious convictions into a document designed to be free of them. It must be stopped.

Brett Marston rounds up some of the pro and con opinions about Bush's support for a Federal Marriage Amendment. Apparently, some conservatoids think the FMA doesn't go far enough! I thought about leaving a message on some of these folks' sites, but didn't. Probably should have, probably will. Marston is always good for a long view of things, and notices that the online discussion has informed a lot of people early on about the basics of the debate, e.g., the deliberate vagueness regarding civil unions.

Peggy at Moveable Beast has a couple of posts up (1, 2). Be sure to read the first one. In the second one, she quotes Congresswoman Musgrave, who is sponsoring the current language of the FMA, and claims that states would be able to legislate same sex civil unions despite the Amendment's language. Musgrave, on the Larry King Show:

KING: Congresswoman Musgrave, do you favor civil union?

MUSGRAVE: I do not support civil unions. However, the language, the intent of my amendment reins in the federal judges and the state judges, so you cannot have state courts imposing civil unions. But it's respectful of legislatures that would choose to do that.

KING: So in other words, if a state -- if your -- if Colorado wanted that, it could do that legislatively.

MUSGRAVE: It could do that legislatively. I'd fight the good fight in Colorado to oppose it, quite frankly, but this is respective of a legislature's ability to do just that.

(Respective? --ed.) It seems to me that doesn't do much good in the long run if the courts aren't allowed to enforce it. And this whole magical "intent" business just does not square with the words, and is lame in the first place. Furthermore, even if they came up with FMA 2.0 that left a clear avenue for civil unions, I'd still object; just what business does the word "marriage" even have in the Constitution? What's next? Bedtime prayers? Transubstantiation?

Elsewhere, libertarian uberblogger Glenn Reynolds is against the amendment, too. And Andrew Sullivan is by turns depressed and angry; the sense of betrayal is so strong that ... well, never mind. So there's, what, 30% of daily US blog traffic right there, I suppose.

Maybe it's the blogging echo chamber, but I think the Bushies have outsmarted themselves. Bush has certainly irrevocably lost what respect I had for him. But more importantly, remember that these are people who snuck in to office four years ago on a wing and a prayer. I think the last thing a lot of those last 4 or 5% of Bush's voters want to be reminded of is what a tool for the Christian Right Bush is; if this FMA goes forward, they'll be reading about it day after day after day. As Josh Marshall and others have pointed out, it's interesting that DeLay and others in the Republican leadership are making "maybe not right now" sounds.

Finally, some petitions:

Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment Petition

DontAmend.com: "I pledge to not vote for, or otherwise support, any politician who [supports the FMA]..."

MillionForMarriage petition

lawfullywedded.com, via reader Ray Eckhart, who describes author Chuck Muth's perspective as "Goldwater Republican." Have a look.


=====
EDIT, 2/26: "con" to "pro and con."

posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:20:00 AM -- |    

 
Hey, Scalia: can you say "seven to two"? Say it with me: "seven to two"
7-2!!!! That's the margin the Supreme Court rejected (pronounced "reeeee-JECTED!") Mr. Davey's position by in the Locke v. Davey case I wrote about a while back. Joshua Davey wanted the Court to uphold a lower court's ruling requiring the State of Washington to release state scholarship money for his theological training.

Via MSNBC, excerpts of the majority opinion (Acrobat .PDF file) by Chief Justice Rehnquist(!):

Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor. Indeed, majoring in devotional theology is akin to a religious calling as well as an academic pursuit. [...]

[The state of Washington] imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite. It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit. The state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction. [...]

And the subject of religion is one in which both the United States and state constitutions embody distinct views -- in favor of free exercise, but opposed to establishment -- that find no counterpart with respect to other callings or professions. That a State would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings is a product of these views, not evidence of hostility toward religion.

Ha! Read the whole thing! It gets better; Rehnquist throws in some history of opposition to established religion in the United States for good measure. Some of this reminds me of what I thought once upon a time:

It isn't Joshua Davey's choices that are being regulated, it's Washington state taxpayer monies. Josh can still go get himself educated.

Hmm. Maybe I'm in the wrong line of work -- here's something else I wrote a day earlier:

Unfortunately, [UCLA law professor Eugene] Volokh predicts that the Supreme Court will narrowly uphold the Ninth Circuit Court's decision, with Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Stevens dissenting. So at least it may be a tough call for today's Supreme Court. Meaning, I think, it ought to be a slam-dunk "no." But that's another story.

Heh. Volokh got Justice Scalia's and Thomas' votes right, of course. You'll need to search elsewhere for a summary of their unpersuasive whines and quibbles. 7 to 2! 7 to 2! 7 to 2!

Seriously, of course, go check out Brett Marston or Eugene Volokh for What It All Means, if and when they get around to discussing this. As Volokh put it, the Supreme Court used the Cleveland schools case (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) to say states don't have to exclude religious institutions and programs from generally available voucher plans -- a decision I wish they hadn't made. Today's decision may suggest that states don't have to include them either.


=====
EDITS, 10PM:"Much... sounds" to "Some...reminds"; "--" connection to "here's something".
UPDATE, 2/26: Professor Volokh is disappointed with the decision, while Professor Marston welcomes it, if (thankfully) less effusively than my end zone dance above. Brett agrees with Jack Balkin that the case will have limited impact; Volokh insists that the ruling legitimizes "discrimination against religion."

A NECESSARY NOTE: I've met Professor Volokh once, and he was a gracious, pleasant person to talk with, and is of course intelligent and articulate as well. The "whines and quibbles" paragraph above was (a) meant to apply to Scalia and Thomas, not Mr. Volokh, and (b) sophomoric in tone and empty of substance. I regret I wrote it. Not one of my better posts, overall.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:45:00 PM -- |    

 
Wal-Mart In The News
Back during the California governor recall, I noticed Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante was making an issue of Wal-Mart, claiming the megacompany was

underpaying their people and then as a result give them official documents to go and apply for food stamps and public health care. That's a burden that taxpayers can't afford any longer either.

Now there's a little more detail to work with. I learned via the Center for American Progress that Congressman George Miller (D-CA) and the Democratic staff to the Committee on Education and the Workforce just released a new report about the company titled "Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart" (Acrobat PDF file). From the press release:

The report shows that taxpayers would have to pick up $420,750 per year for a hypothetical Wal-Mart store employing 200 people. These costs (which will vary based on the number of people employed in any one store) include:

$36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families;

$42,000 a year for Section 8 housing assistance, assuming three percent of the store’s employees qualify for such assistance;

$125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, assuming 50 employees are heads of household with a child and 50 are married with two children;

$100,000 a year for additional Title I education funds, assuming 50 Wal-Mart families, each with an average of two children, qualify;

$108,000 a year for children’s health insurance costs, assuming 30 employees, each with an average of two children, qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); and

$9,750 a year for subsidies for energy assistance for low-income families.

Kind of a different spin on "welfare to work" -- call it "work to welfare." But wait! That's not all!

The report also provides a comprehensive review of Wal-Mart’s numerous anti-worker practices, including union-busting activities, discrimination against women and disabled workers, violation of child and undocumented labor laws, unpaid overtime, and unsafe workplace policies, like locking workers into stores overnight. Wal-Mart has been the subject of thousands of lawsuits and critical media scrutiny on all of these issues. The Washington Post just reported on labor abuses in China at the hands of Wal-Mart.

I'm aware that Wal-Mart's low prices are a benefit to its customers. But at some point, you have to reject the idea that the ability to buy an everyday low priced pair of tube socks -- or watch Wal-Mart's stock price grow -- is the height of economic wisdom and elementary fairness. Wal-Mart does what it does because it's big, well organized and designed to make money. That doesn't give it license to treat its workers like dogs -- not to mention flat out steal from them (by docking hours). Those workers deserve to be treated like human beings; that means making sure they have a fair chance to organize as well.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times' Edward Alden and Neil Buckley report that Wal-Mart is poised to be the biggest business donor to the 2004 election campaign:

After years of little involvement in federal politics, the Arkansas-based retail giant is currently the largest corporate donor through its political action committee (PAC), having doled out nearly $1.3 million to federal candidates until the end of January, according to Politicalmoneyline.com. (link added)

posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:17:00 AM -- |    

 
That's what I would do, too
You've got to kind of like a guy who takes stock of his situation, considers all the alternatives, and decides to spend what little time he has left in Hawaii. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:29:00 AM -- |    

 
NAVAH, again
Another contemptible murderer killed eight Israelis last weekend, and wounded fifty more. You can help the victims and/or their families by supporting NAVAH.

NAVAH distributes monetary support that will help victims get through the beginning stages of their recovery and continue to assist them during their rehabilitation. In general, most of the victims of terror are ordinary Israelis, with few financial resources. Help us to help them.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:04:00 PM -- |    

 
German 9/11 Motassadeq verdict may be reversed
SPIEGEL reports on an ongoing legal drama in Germany that has gone unnoticed so far in the U.S.: the German supreme court in Karlsruhe may well throw out Moroccan national Mounir Al Motassadeq's conviction for 3000 counts of accessory to murder in connection with the 9/11 attacks. The decision is expected on March 4.

As with the Mzoudi case, captured terrorist Ramzi Binalshibh plays a key role in the legal battle. The fact that the United States refuses to make him available to the German legal system, where he might be able to provide exculpatory evidence for Motassadeq (and Mzoudi) is a central point for the German supreme court. From a Berlin Morgenpost report at the end of January:

"If official agencies block evidence and thus prevent a complete gathering of evidence, an especially careful honoring of their evidence is not called for," said presiding judge Klaus Tolksdorf. His colleague Walter Winkler agreed: "The question in such a case, in which the accused is deprived of exculpatory means, is whether the accused can be the loser at the end of the day."

From the defense point of view [Binalshibh] testimony would have been of central importance to the trial. "There was no better witness than Ramzi Binalshibh", said attorney Josef Gräßle-Münscher. His Hamburg colleague Gerhard Strate emphasized that because this important exculpatory witness was not heard, the "right to a fair trial" guaranteed in the European Human Rights Convention was damaged.

It's not clear to me why Binalshibh would say anything other than what was needed to spring two (alleged) co-conspirators. But the German judges would presumably have had the sense to take Binalshibh's testimony with a pound or two of salt -- if they were allowed to hear it. There must have been some way to provide the German legal system access to Binalshibh while meeting U.S. needs for security: closed-circuit hookup to Guantanamo, closed German courtroom, penalties for breaking whatever agreement is reached...something.

There would even have been a German precedent. Once upon a time, German legislators and courts were quite willing to make new rules as they went along as they dealt with the Rote Armee Fraktion ("Baader Meinhof") terrorists. The results were the Stammheim court and prison complex and designer laws temporarily limiting access to the captured terrorists. Similar measures, updated to the current situation and technologies, might have been a way around the impasse -- assuming there was enough German political good will to work with, of course.

It's cases like this one and the Mzoudi case earlier that can't help but raise doubts about the Bush administration's legal strategy. It's possible but seems unlikely the Bush administration has no firm opinion on the guilt of these two individuals. It seems more likely they do think these two belong behind bars; in that case, they're certainly not doing enough to help keep them there.

Motassadeq is definitely an unpleasant young man. In his New Republic article about Hitler and current-day Hitlerism, Omer Bartov writes: Ralf Götsche, who shared the student dormitory with Motassadeq, testified that the accused had said: "What Hitler did to the Jews was not at all bad," and commented that "Motassadeq's attitude was blatantly anti-Semitic." That doesn't prove he's guilty, of course, but it does suggest he's just the kind of shriveled nut you'd expect among the 9/11 killers. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:48:00 PM -- |    

 
American sharia
David Neiwert sounds the alarm about the "Constitution Restoration Act of 2004", sponsored by the assorted kookier Senators of the Republican and Democratic parties (James Inhofe (R-OK), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Zell Miller, (D-GA) among others). The heart of the act reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Neiwert's post (found via SouthKnoxBubba) is extensively linked, have a look for yourself.

The language above reminds me of the Federal Marriage Amendment in again (1) wanting to legislate away the division between church and state, specifically by (2) purporting to direct the courts whether and how to judge cases before them.

Neiwert also introduces me to the terms "Theocratic Dominionists" and "Christian Reconstructionists," new labels for the old idea of an American society based on God's laws as understood by the self-appointed godliest among us. Again, follow some of the links in his piece, especially this one -- Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence -- written in 1994 by a Mr. Frederick Clarkson. Clarkson explains:

A key, if not exclusively Reconstructionist, doctrine uniting many evangelicals is the "dominion mandate," also called the "cultural mandate." This concept derives from the Book of Genesis and God's direction to "subdue" the earth and exercise "dominion" over it. While much of Reconstructionism, as one observer put it, "dies the death of a thousand qualifications," the commitment to dominion is the theological principle that serves as the uniting force of Christian Right extremism, while people debate the particulars.

Were it not for the Senate speeches and legislation Neiwert presents, and the closely researched details in Clarkson's article, I'd be tempted to write much of this off as conspiracy theories. Instead, I'm forced to conclude there really is a cultural guerilla war going on -- or a cultural coup d'etat waiting to happen. posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:44:00 PM -- |    

 
Kerry, Bush, Viet Nam
Via Aziz Poonawalla, this excellent Mother Jones side by side comparison of what Kerry and Bush were up to back then.

This is much more useful than sifting through ragged records to try to determine whether or not Bush was "AWOL." Even if he wasn't, it was Kerry ducking bullets in the Mekong Delta, vs. Bush in the "Champagne Unit" in Texas.

I don't think Kerry's military service magically qualifies him to be president. It does unmagically qualify him to tell the Bush campaign to s.t.f.u. about his opposition to the Viet Nam war, given the safe, privileged position their guy watched it from.


=====
UPDATE, 2/23: It figures that I'd write about this before reading Kerry's Saturday press release, where he's (of course) much more presidential: "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did." posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:33:00 PM -- |    

 
Nader: bring him on
Back in July of last year, Michael Tomasky (soon to be editor of the American Prospect) recommended a different approach to a Nader candidacy:

So here's a thought for an enterprising Democratic candidate: Attack Nader right now, and with lupine ferocity. Say he's a madman for thinking of running again. Blast him especially hard on foreign policy, saying that if it were up to the Greens, America would give no aid to Israel and it would cease to exist, and if it were up to the Greens, America would not have even defended itself against a barbarous attack by going into Afghanistan. Have at him, and hard, from the right. Then nail him from the left on certain social issues, on abortion rights and other things that he's often pooh-poohed and dismissed as irrelevant. Cause an uproar. Be dramatic. Don't balance it with praise about what he's done for consumers. To the contrary, talk about how much he's damaging consumers today by not caring who's in charge of the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. [...]

Nader is obviously out to kill the Democrats. The collateral damage, to regular citizens whose lives are directly affected by which party is in power, is not his concern. He has long since quit caring about that. It's time a Democrat killed back. (via Matthew Yglesias, emphases my own)

Admittedly, this was advice about what to do before Nader entered the race. Still, I like it.

I think that having Kerry-or-Edwards share the spotlight with Bush on the one hand and Nader on the other could have the effect of making the Democrat the reasonable middle of the road alternative for reasonable American voters. Democrats should seize the chance to take on the "Christian"/Bush right and the Nader "it's got to get worse to get better" left -- and beat them both. As far as Nader goes, that would be stronger and better than pretending he doesn't exist.

=====
UPDATE, 2/23 - Details, details: Mark Schmitt ("The Decembrist") points out that Nader has to get on state ballots first, and that's very hard to do as an independent. Good point -- and a familiar looking headline, too: great minds think alike, and mine besides. Incidentally, here's where to learn about his blog's name. (via Electrolite) posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:52:00 PM -- |