"doesn't matter how well you starter does or how many runs you score, if you can't keep a team like Kansas City who can't score at all from scoring, in the middle of the ballgame, you got a problem."
Thanks Jeff... would have never guessed.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Syntaxman: Please save ESPN's Jeff Brantley
In the spirit of the "Superman: The Movie I Probably Won't See," I offer a plea to Jor-L to birth a Syntaxman to save Baseball Tonight's Jeff Brantley, who emphatically remarked this evening with regard to the woes of the middle relief corps of the Cincinnati Reds:
Thanks Jeff... would have never guessed.
Thanks Jeff... would have never guessed.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Iraq: Cut and Run or Stay and Bleed?
As you've likely heard, the issue du jour is whether to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Politicians eyeing the White House in '08 have each staked out a strategic peninsula, careful to look tough but not fence themselves in to any substantive policy that is either too radical or too conservative. Frankly, I wish the debate could move past the "cut and run" sloganeering and the vague pledges of Republicans to "stand down when the Iraqis can stand up." In my mind, and I'm sure in some of yours, the truth is that American troops will be in Iraq long after "W" is gone.
You see, we've only just begun in Iraq. Despite the laughable protestations of Republican hawks and Bush apologists that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil, we all know that it at least played a role in the decision to invade. That's the only aspect of the invasion I think was arguably justifiable. The oil that fuels the American economy is under Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and, in smaller amounts, other countries in the Middle East. Iraq happened to be the easiest target, both politically and militarily. The US maintains a cozy economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, but domestic political pressures there forced the royals to boot the American military out of the country. Iran, while certainly scoring high on a political axis, scored very low on the military axis because it is a giant, rugged country with a military that has not suffered under draconian sanctions for the last decade. Iraq scored high on the military axis and, given a little selective use of intelligence information and some fear mongering, became a "slam dunk" on the political axis.
Once we had conquered the Iraqi military and gained control over the country's oil fields, Haliburton set about building a sprawling, high-technology fortress that will act as the American embassy in Iraq. American contracts have also been let to build large, seemingly permanent military air bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it conceivable that we would pay for all of this improvement to infrastructure, built to American specification, and then abandon it a few years later? It simply would not make sense-- even to the freewheeling spenders in the Bush administration.
You see, we've only just begun in Iraq. Despite the laughable protestations of Republican hawks and Bush apologists that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil, we all know that it at least played a role in the decision to invade. That's the only aspect of the invasion I think was arguably justifiable. The oil that fuels the American economy is under Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and, in smaller amounts, other countries in the Middle East. Iraq happened to be the easiest target, both politically and militarily. The US maintains a cozy economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, but domestic political pressures there forced the royals to boot the American military out of the country. Iran, while certainly scoring high on a political axis, scored very low on the military axis because it is a giant, rugged country with a military that has not suffered under draconian sanctions for the last decade. Iraq scored high on the military axis and, given a little selective use of intelligence information and some fear mongering, became a "slam dunk" on the political axis.
Once we had conquered the Iraqi military and gained control over the country's oil fields, Haliburton set about building a sprawling, high-technology fortress that will act as the American embassy in Iraq. American contracts have also been let to build large, seemingly permanent military air bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it conceivable that we would pay for all of this improvement to infrastructure, built to American specification, and then abandon it a few years later? It simply would not make sense-- even to the freewheeling spenders in the Bush administration.
Moreover, both Iraq and Afghanistan act as extraordinarily important strategic location for combating (figuratively, for now) the growing influence of both India and China. By having substantial air and ground resources stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has implicit leverage in the regional politics of Southern Eurasia, with nations like Syria, Iran and what, if anything, might be left of Palestine bending under the yoke of American influence and threat of direct military intervention.
Also, recent history teaches us that American troops shouldn't leave Iraq or Afghanistan. It wasn't long ago that we funded both Saddam (against Iran) and the Afghan Mujihadeen in their battle against the Soviet invaders. In each of those instances, the forces we armed were subsequently used against us. Despite the nearly continuous stream of mistakes, disappointments and outright stupidity that emanates from the Bush White House, I firmly believe that they would not be dumb enough to rebuild infrastructure and rearm local security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and then leave those resource-rich nations with no military to protect the newly acquired American interests.
These are the facts as I see them. As alluded to in the opening paragraph, I wish that these facts could be acknowledged and for the debate to mature from sound bites to policymaking. The policy question is simple: does the United States need control of the oil in these regions to maintain its place as a world superpower? In the short term, that answer is clearly yes. In the long term, however, oil is a non-renewable resource and one day, sooner or later, it will run out. Every country will be faced with an uncertain future and the potentially catastrophic consequences of an industrialized world economy that suddenly runs out of fuel.
If the United States wishes to maintain its influence over world affairs, it must address this eventual crisis with a thoughtful and long-ranging solution. Getting in front of the parade on a new source of energy (whether solar, hydrogen, wind or nuclear), putting substantial resources behind that solution and acting as the lead manufacturer of the fuel, byproducts and services is the only way the United States can maintain its standing as a first-world country in an oil-deprived world.
So, should we withdraw the troops? Absolutely; but just not now. For now, we must stay and bleed, both personally with our troops and financially with our wallets. The only palatable cut and run scenario is to withdraw after adopting a bipartisan energy policy that promotes the vast and rapid development of new sources of energy. Ergo, if you really want to support the troops then support the American creation and production of alternative energy sources and, please, support it now.
These are the facts as I see them. As alluded to in the opening paragraph, I wish that these facts could be acknowledged and for the debate to mature from sound bites to policymaking. The policy question is simple: does the United States need control of the oil in these regions to maintain its place as a world superpower? In the short term, that answer is clearly yes. In the long term, however, oil is a non-renewable resource and one day, sooner or later, it will run out. Every country will be faced with an uncertain future and the potentially catastrophic consequences of an industrialized world economy that suddenly runs out of fuel.
If the United States wishes to maintain its influence over world affairs, it must address this eventual crisis with a thoughtful and long-ranging solution. Getting in front of the parade on a new source of energy (whether solar, hydrogen, wind or nuclear), putting substantial resources behind that solution and acting as the lead manufacturer of the fuel, byproducts and services is the only way the United States can maintain its standing as a first-world country in an oil-deprived world.
So, should we withdraw the troops? Absolutely; but just not now. For now, we must stay and bleed, both personally with our troops and financially with our wallets. The only palatable cut and run scenario is to withdraw after adopting a bipartisan energy policy that promotes the vast and rapid development of new sources of energy. Ergo, if you really want to support the troops then support the American creation and production of alternative energy sources and, please, support it now.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
The American Consumer: A Real Weapon of Mass Destruction
Whilst the debate gets underway on whether you support the troops, the mission, or both the troops and the mission, I'm hoping that someone will address an immediate threat to our future: the sorry state and perilous path of the American consumer.
Articles citing disturbing short-term trends in the economy are aplenty and many speculate on an impending recession spurred by declining asset prices, yet there is very little commentary from politicians or the daily media on how the economy will be affected by the current (and worsening) state of the debt-laden American consumer. As explained below, a continuing deterioration in the short-term health of the American consumer will dramatically affect the economy. In the long-term, a significant decrease in the borrowing and spending by American consumers may either induce or further accelerate a recession or perhaps depression.
To begin with, we must first understand the significance of the American consumer to the American economy. Approximately two-thirds of all economic activity in the United States is undertaken by the individual consumer-- you, me and the three hundred million other Americans. As a unit, we are the single fiercest economic force this plant has ever seen. However, as discussed below, our purchasing power has been waning and our debts have been mounting. Still, the American consumer forges on, emboldened by the incessant siren's song streaming from every imaginable commercial concern.
"The More You Buy, the More You Save!"
I heard that bit of American commercial wisdom in a radio advertisement. Probably wouldn't have worked quite as well on television-- can you imagine the facial contortions necessary to turn that phrase? The more I buy, the more I save? Does that also mean the less I buy, the less I save? What if I don't buy anything? I don't save anything?
What's plainly clear to me is that if I don't buy anything, I save what I already possess. However simple it seems to comprehend, the logic of that formulation seems to be lost on many Americans. How warped our little minds must be to equate saving with consuming. However, Americans as a whole are doing exactly that: spending more than we are saving (if we are saving at all). It's been widely reported that in June 2005 the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a report indicating the personal savings rate (roughly the percentage of total dollars spent over total dollars earned) of Americans had become negative. This was the first time that the indicator had reached negative territory since the Great Depression, and it has remained negative for the last eleven months, dropping to its lowest level of -1.6% in April 2006, the most recent report released. The report for May will be released on June 30. Check back for an update. [Update: May personal savings rate: -1.7%]
While the declining personal savings rate is surely a cause for concern, the indicator will inevitably be corrected through the washing out of the credit pool. Those with the means will begin saving more as interest rates increase and the once-meteoric rise in asset prices continues to taper off. However, there will also be a significant number of defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies. Consumers who are "leveraged 'till doomsday" will begin seeking those remedies in greater numbers as the Federal Reserve continues to raise the base interest rate to 5.25% and perhaps beyond. Oddly enough, total consumer credit in this country, estimated by the Federal Reserve to have currently reached a record $2.17 trillion, rose by 5.9% in April! [Update: The Fed said May's 2.4% increase in consumer credit followed a huge 5.2% rise in April. The slowdown occurred because of weakness in auto loans, which offset the jump in credit card borrowing. Borrowing on credit cards and other categories of revolving debt shot up at an annual rate of 9.9% in May, the biggest surge in this category since a 13.5% increase in October 2004.]
It's also estimated that American households on average carried $9,312 in credit card debt in 2004, the latest year for which statistics are available. Many of the rates for credit cards are keyed the rising base rate, and as the base right rises, so to will the APR on credit cards and adjustable rate mortgages (where default rates are rising dramatically). Given the recent "advances" in personal bankruptcy law, those Americans who do seek bankruptcy protection to prevent foreclosure will effectively be shut out of the financial system for at least the length of their repayment plan and likely longer. Debt slaves don't make good consumers.
Perhaps Bush and his "braintrust" could get something right and convince us that paying our credit card bills helps fight terrorism. However, given the deficit Bush has run up with the public's credit card, it's unlikely that even his whizbang team of spinners could put a shine on that pile. To the extent that consumers do begin to pull back their spending or consumer credit defaults, the Democrats would be wise to shift the debate to the sagging economy. While Democrats do not have a particularly shining economic record historically, they have never spent money as recklessly and partisan as the current administration, both domestically and internationally. As Bush and his cronies are so fond of saying, "9/11 changed everything." Apparently that includes Republicans, who appear to now support big government and a gross lack of fiscal discipline, including a national debt of $8.3 trillion.
Unfortunately, some "fool" is still arguing that old chestnut that deficits don't matter-- that's not the issue. The issue is that the deficit is growing unnecessarily in a time when the overall economy is stumbling and its main engine, the consumer, is drowning in an ocean of personal debt. In this environment, it is deplorable that the Bush administration is spending untold billions in its pseudowars and squandering billions more domestically with poor oversight while the Republican Congress approves outright pork projects.
Ultimately, for the personal savings rate to increase, the amount of money in the economic cycle must decrease. A decrease in the amount of capital circulating in the economy means a slowdown in economic activity and a concomitant decrease in production. If that slowdown in production lasts long enough, then you've seen a recession, and if it lasts longer, a depression. Commentators are just getting started on whether there will be a recession, though it is now clear that the likelihood of such an economic decline is no longer considered remote.
At a minimum, the writing is on the wall for at least a temporary pullback in consumer spending, which hopefully shows up in the personal savings rate report for May. The longer the indicator remains negative, the deeper the hole becomes and the longer the recession or depression will endure while consumers struggle under mountains of debt. A prolonged depression would also affect the increasingly global economy and may allow emerging powerhouses like China and India to capture further gains in global market share. The potential implosion of the American consumer is a real threat, and if that implosion occurs during a downturn in the business cycle, the economic effects would be similar to the detonation of a real weapon of mass destruction at Wall and Broad streets. Such an implosion would significantly depress or even eliminate growth in the American economy for the next several years.
At a minimum, the writing is on the wall for at least a temporary pullback in consumer spending, which hopefully shows up in the personal savings rate report for May. The longer the indicator remains negative, the deeper the hole becomes and the longer the recession or depression will endure while consumers struggle under mountains of debt. A prolonged depression would also affect the increasingly global economy and may allow emerging powerhouses like China and India to capture further gains in global market share. The potential implosion of the American consumer is a real threat, and if that implosion occurs during a downturn in the business cycle, the economic effects would be similar to the detonation of a real weapon of mass destruction at Wall and Broad streets. Such an implosion would significantly depress or even eliminate growth in the American economy for the next several years.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
The Curse of Rocky Balboa
We've all heard of curses in the sports world. There used to be one that haunted the Boston Red Sox, but that curse was broken in 2004. Not to be outdone, the Cubs have their own curse, as do the St. Louis Cardinals (later broken in October 2006), anyone or anything touched by basketball legend Elgin Baylor and the entire city of Philadelphia, apparently suffering under an umbrella curse that affects all of their sports teams. Well, I'm proud to coin the newest addition to the landscape: the curse of Rocky Balboa.
You see, Rocky Balboa is the quintessential Part-American success story, a linguistically challenged, down-on-his-luck Italo-Philadelphian boxer, portrayed effortlessly by the linguistically challenged Sylvester Stallone. The first movie, Rocky, actually won two Academy Awards (Best Picture and Best Director) in 1976 and netted Sly a nomination for Best Actor. Following that success, there have been several iterations of the Rocky franchise which, along with the first film, have grossed in excess of $500 million in aggregate. The plot line for the subsequent movies did not stray much from the original: Rocky takes extraordinarily dramatic punishment and, in some cases, a loss, before triumphantly stomping a mud hole in each successively larger opponent. With that beating complete, the villains who opposed Rocky have only begun to suffer-- for they have now been infected with the curse of Rocky Balboa.
You see, Rocky Balboa is the quintessential Part-American success story, a linguistically challenged, down-on-his-luck Italo-Philadelphian boxer, portrayed effortlessly by the linguistically challenged Sylvester Stallone. The first movie, Rocky, actually won two Academy Awards (Best Picture and Best Director) in 1976 and netted Sly a nomination for Best Actor. Following that success, there have been several iterations of the Rocky franchise which, along with the first film, have grossed in excess of $500 million in aggregate. The plot line for the subsequent movies did not stray much from the original: Rocky takes extraordinarily dramatic punishment and, in some cases, a loss, before triumphantly stomping a mud hole in each successively larger opponent. With that beating complete, the villains who opposed Rocky have only begun to suffer-- for they have now been infected with the curse of Rocky Balboa.
The first victim of the curse was Carl Weathers, who played heavyweight champion Apollo Creed. Creed wins a heart-wrenching battle in Rocky I, but later returns for multiple beatings in Rocky II and Rocky IV. If that wasn't enough for Carl Weathers, he later lost an arm in an unforgettable scene in the 1987 hit Predator.
Beginning with the third Rocky movie, new villains had to be introduced to provide some false hope that Rocky would finally get the beating that he deserved. In Rocky III, Hulk Hogan makes an appearance as a heel, but the real hay makers landed on the inimitable mug of Mr. T. Not that either Hogan or Mr. T needed much help in failing, but the curse has pushed Hogan back to the disdainful world of television wrestling and displaced Mr. T from once-budding star bodyguard to pitchman for collect phone call commercials.
Rocky IV's villain, Dolph Lundgren as the Cold War villain Ivan Drago, also stumbled following his stint as Stallone's appointed punching bag. His next role was as He-Man in the Masters of the Universe, and then he was The Punisher. Need I say more? Okay, he was also engaged to Grace Jones, who left an indelible mark on the silver screen with her work in Conan the Destroyer.
All was well and good at this point, as the villains were only taking a symbolic beating as victims of the Rocky Balboa curse. What happened next was, well, simply breathtaking. The curse of Rocky Balboa first manifested itself physically in the form of Tommy "The Duke" Morrison. Morrison, an undefeated professional boxer, took on the role of villain in Rocky V. Less than a year after that film was released, Morrison took a monumentally viscous beating at the hands of "Merciless" Ray Mercer. Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, you can now share in the joy of witnessing that savage beating by pressing play in the frame below:
Following that pummeling, Morrison's career never regained its upward trajectory as he toiled against good fighters (including Lennox Lewis and a sideshow event with George Foreman) for inferior purses and largely unrecognized titles. He later tested positive for HIV and spent a little time in the pokey on drug and weapons charges.
[Update: As of October 31, 2006, Tommy Morrision is now applying for a boxing license in Nevada to begin a comeback. Morrison's attorney now claims the Duke never had AIDS/HIV, alleging that "his prefight blood test for his 1996 bout... resulted [in] a false-positive or was rigged by a rival promoter out to get him." Morrison was quoted as saying, "A lot of people doubt that I have anything left. But one thing they're forgetting is that I haven't been fighting for 10 years. I've been resting. I'll go down in history. It's going to happen. Then I'll become a legend." That's right Tommy, after you go down in history you become a legend. But to become a legend, you can't just fight bums. Instead, you'll have the tall task (pun intended) of defeating behemoths like current IBF heavyweight champion, the 6'6" Dr. Wladimir Klitschko and current WBA heavyweight champion, the 7'+, 330 pound Nikolai Valuev. Morrison was last listed at 6'2", 224 lbs.]
So, given the history of the curse of Rocky Balboa, it should come as no surprise that the villain for Rocky VI (titled Rocky Balboa), Antonio "The Magic Man" Tarver, has recently fallen victim to the curse of Rocky Balboa. This evening he took a convincing beating (and lost me $20) at the hands of Bernard "The Executioner" Hopkins. The fight was never close and one should expect that Tarver will probably hang the gloves up soon. It clearly isn't going to get any better for him-- just ask Tommy Morrison.
In addition to the Rocky Balboa curse, Tarver likely suffers from the bad karma generated by the name of his character, Mason "The Line" Dixon (really, no shit), in the upcoming Rocky Balboa. There had to have been gross negligence at multiple levels of the production and corporate regime to permit a black character to be named after a surveying reference most renowned for its role in the Missouri Compromise slave debate and resulting Civil War. That's just plain stupid and Tarver, along with everyone else involved in Rocky Balboa, should be cursed for that kind of boorish idiocy. As a public service, we ought to get Ray Mercer a few rounds with Stallone and those Sony Pictures executives.
Comments welcome. Curses not.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Jason Grimsley: Seeing the Forest Surrounding the Tree
By now, you have likely heard at least one utterance of the name Jason Grimsley. He's the middle relief pitcher from the Arizona Diamondbacks that was recently served with a second search warrant seeking evidence of narcotics possession and money laundering at his Scottsdale home.
According to the affidavit filed with this most recent search warrant, agents from the IRS and FBI intercepted a shipment of Human Growth Hormone that was addressed to arrive at Grimsley's home via the USPS. On the 19th of April, one day after that package was allowed to arrive at Grimsley's home, IRS agents executed an "anticipatory search warrant" at Grimsley's home, confronted Grimsley with an accusation of guilt and persuaded him that, instead of having his home searched, Grimsley would be transported to a secondary location where he would be, in the words of the agent's later affidavit "extensively debriefed."
At his debriefing, Grimsley apparently spilled the beans on his own torrid affair with all sorts of bizarre chemicals, including things called Deca-Durabolin and Clenbuterol. Grimsley also reportedly divulged the names of numerous other players, though Grimsley's lawyer, Edward Novak, denies that. ESPN (my least favorite news outlet) reported that Novak also believes that some unidentified federalis wanted Grimsley to wear a wire and seek statements incriminating Barry Bonds in the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Keith Olbermann has implicated Albert Pujols thru a gentlemen he refers to as, and this is allegedly sourced, Albert's "soul brother." Jesus Christ in a birch bark canoe.
Instead of getting caught up in the whirlwind of speculation, I prefer to focus on some rather interesting, and apparently unreported, facts in the Jason Grimsley story. I'm not muckraking this trick and I won't judge whether he'll pay in any afterlife for his alleged betrayals, but I will focus on Grimsley's behavior and the extraordinary ride he has had from confession to impending incarceration.
Grimsley was first confronted by IRS agents on April 19th, 2006. He continued to pitch for the Diamondbacks for the next fifty some-odd days, including dealing four innings of scoreless relief the day after the "debriefing." Amidst the stress of having, figuratively, his nuts in the IRS vice, Grimsley managed to log 20 innings, posting a 1-1 record and lowering his ERA from 10.57 to 4.88. Not bad under pressure. There's been no report as to when Grimsley eventually decided to tell the Feds to stick it. I'm betting it was right before what will now be known as his final game, May 31 at Shea Stadium, where he took the loss after allowing one run in the home half of the 13th.
Second, Grimsley allegedly sought and was granted a release from the Diamondbacks after the Feds served the second warrant on his house yesterday. ESPN has reported that the Diamondbacks are paying Grimsley the remainder of his salary as a condition of his release. I can't decide how to feel about that-- do you scorn the MLBPA contract clause requiring guaranteed money or the Diamondbacks for not fighting the clause in the case of a likely-to-be convicted substance abuser? My guess would be that every contract (except maybe that of Barry Bonds) has an explicit provision that denies compensation for a player released upon the discovery of illegal substances. Perhaps the Diamondbacks didn't want to be seen as bad guys. In any event, Grimsley got paid for cheating.
[UPDATE: Apparently Ken Kendrick, managing general partner of the Diamondbacks read my post here and has now decided that Grimsley will not be paid the remainder of his salary, noting that "it's a moral issue." Being the "morally superior" jerkoff that he is, Kendrick finished his remarks by blaming Grimsley for the team's recent slump, stating that "our team hasn't played the same since the day this thing happened. You can see it out there."]
[UPDATE #2: Grimsley's agent Joe Bick has stated that he will fight the Diamondbacks decision, though he'll have to wait for Ken Kendrick to come down off the cross before he can climb up there. Also, think of the tough decision that has to made at the MLBPA: do you file a grievance on behalf of an admitted cheater? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.]
The IRS affidavit also states that Grimsley cited widespread amphetamine use among players that was supported by the their teams. The affidavit alleges that Grimsley quipped that "until last year, Major League clubhouses had coffee pots labeled 'leaded' and 'unleaded' for the players, indicating coffee with amphetamines and without." (page 15 of 23 of affidavit). I have not seen any other news source report these lines of the affidavit. If this claim is true, the controversy has only begun.
Finally, in an unrelated issue, this is the most revolting image I've seen in a long time. Nothing obscene or graphic, just unadulterated humanity that should be viewed only with utmost caution-- it could knot your stomach.
Comments welcome.
The IRS affidavit also states that Grimsley cited widespread amphetamine use among players that was supported by the their teams. The affidavit alleges that Grimsley quipped that "until last year, Major League clubhouses had coffee pots labeled 'leaded' and 'unleaded' for the players, indicating coffee with amphetamines and without." (page 15 of 23 of affidavit). I have not seen any other news source report these lines of the affidavit. If this claim is true, the controversy has only begun.
Finally, in an unrelated issue, this is the most revolting image I've seen in a long time. Nothing obscene or graphic, just unadulterated humanity that should be viewed only with utmost caution-- it could knot your stomach.
Comments welcome.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Amending the Constitution: Procedure, Unresolved Questions and Fun Facts
With the recent media blitz surrounding the Federal Marriage Amendment (a/k/a the same-sex marriage ban), I went back to the books to refresh my memory on the process for amending the Constitution. My hope is that this post helps educate you not only to the ratification process, but also to assuage any fears you may have of an imminent Constitutional crisis.
Procedure
As set forth in Article V, the Constitution may be amended in one of two ways: either a resolution proposing an amendment to the States is passed by 2/3 of each House of Congress and then approved by 3/4 of the States' legislatures or Conventions, or, 2/3 of the States mandate that Congress call a national Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments and any such amendments so proposed must receive the approbation of at least 3/4 of the States' legislatures or Conventions. Each Amendment to the Constitution has originated through a joint resolution in Congress. With the exception of the Twenty-First Amendment (ratified thru approval of Conventions in the States), each Amendment has been ratified thru approval by 3/4 of the States' legislatures. Ratification of any amendment proposed today requires approval by 38 of the 50 States.
Unanswered Questions
Interestingly, Article V does not set forth any guidelines with respect to the composition of or voting requirements for a national Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. There is much controversy as to how such a convention would operate, how its delegates would be chosen, the necessary vote required to propose a particular amendment, and many other lingering questions.
In addition, the customary practice in Congress has been to interpret the Constitution's 2/3 requirement for sending amendments to the States as 2/3 of those members present (assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast) and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress.
Article V also does not set forth the ratio required for the approval of amendments presented to the States by either Congress or a Convention. It does not seem consistent that the ratio required for ratification in each State should be simple majority when the ratification process at all other stages requires a supermajority. This is especially true when one considers that under a simple majority approval model, it is mathematically possible that only 37.6% of the people in the country could amend the Constitution. That is, if 50.1% of the people in 3/4 of the States approved an amendment, then the Amendment would be ratified and control 100% of the people.
Fun Facts
The last Amendment to the Constitution, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, was ratified in 1992. The Amendment, which prohibits the alteration of the salary of members of Congress until after an intervening election of House members has occurred, was proposed to the States by the First Congress in 1789. The Supreme Court held in Coleman v. Miller that unless Congress specifies atime limit within which the state legislatures (or conventions held in the states) must act upon the proposed amendment, then the amendment remains pending business before the state legislatures (or conventions) until such time as the requisite number of States either ratifies or defeats the proposed amendment. Due to this odd quirk, there are still four amendments pending before the States-- Article One of the original Bill of Rights (proposed in 1789), the Titles of Nobility Amendment (proposed in 1810), the Corwin Amendment (proposed in 1861) and the Child Labor Amendment (proposed in 1924).
Procedure
As set forth in Article V, the Constitution may be amended in one of two ways: either a resolution proposing an amendment to the States is passed by 2/3 of each House of Congress and then approved by 3/4 of the States' legislatures or Conventions, or, 2/3 of the States mandate that Congress call a national Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments and any such amendments so proposed must receive the approbation of at least 3/4 of the States' legislatures or Conventions. Each Amendment to the Constitution has originated through a joint resolution in Congress. With the exception of the Twenty-First Amendment (ratified thru approval of Conventions in the States), each Amendment has been ratified thru approval by 3/4 of the States' legislatures. Ratification of any amendment proposed today requires approval by 38 of the 50 States.
Unanswered Questions
Interestingly, Article V does not set forth any guidelines with respect to the composition of or voting requirements for a national Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. There is much controversy as to how such a convention would operate, how its delegates would be chosen, the necessary vote required to propose a particular amendment, and many other lingering questions.
In addition, the customary practice in Congress has been to interpret the Constitution's 2/3 requirement for sending amendments to the States as 2/3 of those members present (assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast) and not necessarily a two-thirds vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress.
Article V also does not set forth the ratio required for the approval of amendments presented to the States by either Congress or a Convention. It does not seem consistent that the ratio required for ratification in each State should be simple majority when the ratification process at all other stages requires a supermajority. This is especially true when one considers that under a simple majority approval model, it is mathematically possible that only 37.6% of the people in the country could amend the Constitution. That is, if 50.1% of the people in 3/4 of the States approved an amendment, then the Amendment would be ratified and control 100% of the people.
Fun Facts
The last Amendment to the Constitution, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, was ratified in 1992. The Amendment, which prohibits the alteration of the salary of members of Congress until after an intervening election of House members has occurred, was proposed to the States by the First Congress in 1789. The Supreme Court held in Coleman v. Miller that unless Congress specifies atime limit within which the state legislatures (or conventions held in the states) must act upon the proposed amendment, then the amendment remains pending business before the state legislatures (or conventions) until such time as the requisite number of States either ratifies or defeats the proposed amendment. Due to this odd quirk, there are still four amendments pending before the States-- Article One of the original Bill of Rights (proposed in 1789), the Titles of Nobility Amendment (proposed in 1810), the Corwin Amendment (proposed in 1861) and the Child Labor Amendment (proposed in 1924).
Read more of Today's Effort by clicking here.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
What you know, or what you're told?
I couldn't resist posting this piece I found at slate.com Of course, all presidents have spun the truth, but I believe Bush simply takes it to a new level-- lying, either without knowledge or remorse (and, perhaps, both). Truth is clearly at a premium in Washington and unvarnished information is seen less frequently than an atheist politician. The collection and dissemination of both public and private information is dominated by fewer and fewer interests each day, making the open and deliberative society sought by Bill Moyers an impossibility.
If you need more evidence that we now live in an age where access to primary source information is dwindling, witness the Bush administration's overzealous use of the "state secrets" doctrine and gross extension of the national security classification scheme that has led to the classification of twice as many government documents in 2005 as in 2001. The numbers used in that comparison do not include the documents classified by the Vice President's office, which has refused since 2002 to report the number of documents it has classified. It also does not include the number of documents seized from the National Archives and "ununclassified." It seems that any information you now receive is either diluted or inflated, but never pure. And that's only the information that's not classified.
Take, for example, a recent FOIA request to the FBI for any documents pertaining to connections between Al-Qaeda and certain charitable organizations. The FBI's response: we don't have any documents relevant to that query. A similar FOIA request to the CIA seeking documents relevant to the relationship between Bin Laden and Mullah Omar (head of the deposed Taliban) was denied on the basis that "it is the CIA policy neither to confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any CIA records." Essentially, then, the CIA's policy is not only to flatly deny FOIA requests without justification, but to simply pretend that they do not have any records whatsoever.
Your thoughts, as always, are welcome. Use the comment link at the end of this (and every) post.
When Presidents Fib
Little lies matter, too.
By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 6:41 PM ET
John Snow leaving the Treasury Department was an open secret for many months. There seemed no end to the list of names floated as possible replacements. First it was going to be Chief of Staff Andy Card, then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, then Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and then former Commerce Secretary Don Evans. The manager at my Starbucks may have gotten feelers. When the president was asked at his press conference last week whether he had any indication Snow intended to leave, I thought he might say, "Is he still in my Cabinet?"
We now know that would have been a reasonable answer. Four days earlier, Hank Paulson had agreed to replace Snow. Bush also could have simply said yes, because as Snow later put it, Bush knew for some time that he was thinking of doing so. Instead, the president answered in a way that was not, to use a White House term, reality-based. "Has he given you any indication he intends to leave his job any time soon?" Bush was asked. The president responded: "No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job."
The New York Times called this answer "artful." That's not the word I'd use. Artful should be reserved for things that hide the truth but don't deceive. A hat is artful. A toupee is a lie. Bush's answer was toupee-like. Even if it was technically true that Bush had not talked to Snow about "resignation," the president knew his confected statement was deceptive. I'm reluctant to call it a lie, but the president abused our trust.
We allow presidents a measure of obfuscation because in public they must give nuanced answers in some sensitive areas like national security. On personnel matters like this one, the public's right to know is not done grave harm when a president is less than candid. Bush is also protected by a less-honorable Washington tradition: the departure fiction where even if someone has been fired, he is described as having gone at his own behest, often to spend more time with his family.
Such wiggle-room prerogatives allow the president to duck many questions, as he has in the past. When the press has tried to ask about his flexibility on a particular piece of legislation, he has refused to speculate about what compromise he might accept, saying, "I won't negotiate with myself." When reporters try to get him to make news, he regularly refuses to "play that Washington" game. Richard Keil of Bloomberg was certainly trying to get Bush to play a round of that game by asking him to talk about Snow's intentions. But when asked in March about staff changes and calls from outside his administration for a shakeup, the president was careful to give nothing away without fibbing. "I'm not going to announce it right now," he said. "Look, they've got some ideas that I like and some I don't like. Put it that way."
These are unhelpful answers but they're not deceitful. There are times when administration officials have told me the back story behind a non-answer and it all makes sense. In this case, though, the president jumped over the menu of bland dodges available to him and picked the least truthful statement short of "Secretary Snow is staying." When asked about this answer yesterday, press spokesman Tony Snow explained that the president didn't misspeak. He was worried about spooking financial markets and wanted Paulson's background checks to go through before he announced the change. The president was also likely being sensitive about John Snow, who has been a dead man walking for so many months. Bush wanted to give him a proper send-off.
But those motivations don't explain why the president avoided the gentle euphemism and instead reached out to mislead. Snow ultimately fell back on the Clinton defense. "It was very carefully worded," he said of the president's answer. That's not encouraging. When a person hears a question, dissects it, and fashions an answer on the spot that deceives, it suggests a lot of practice and comfort with fibbing. This is a problem area for Bush: Fifty-six percent of the country does not find him trustworthy, according to recent polls.
In Washington, we often say politicians are "misleading." That's the kind of thinking President Bush usually resists. He often talks about his Midland, Texas, heritage when he wants to convey his moral compass. There, a man's word is sealed with his handshake. In Midland, they would have called what Bush said about John Snow a lie.
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent. He can be reached at
slatepolitics@gmail.com
If you need more evidence that we now live in an age where access to primary source information is dwindling, witness the Bush administration's overzealous use of the "state secrets" doctrine and gross extension of the national security classification scheme that has led to the classification of twice as many government documents in 2005 as in 2001. The numbers used in that comparison do not include the documents classified by the Vice President's office, which has refused since 2002 to report the number of documents it has classified. It also does not include the number of documents seized from the National Archives and "ununclassified." It seems that any information you now receive is either diluted or inflated, but never pure. And that's only the information that's not classified.
Take, for example, a recent FOIA request to the FBI for any documents pertaining to connections between Al-Qaeda and certain charitable organizations. The FBI's response: we don't have any documents relevant to that query. A similar FOIA request to the CIA seeking documents relevant to the relationship between Bin Laden and Mullah Omar (head of the deposed Taliban) was denied on the basis that "it is the CIA policy neither to confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any CIA records." Essentially, then, the CIA's policy is not only to flatly deny FOIA requests without justification, but to simply pretend that they do not have any records whatsoever.
Your thoughts, as always, are welcome. Use the comment link at the end of this (and every) post.
When Presidents Fib
Little lies matter, too.
By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, May 31, 2006, at 6:41 PM ET
John Snow leaving the Treasury Department was an open secret for many months. There seemed no end to the list of names floated as possible replacements. First it was going to be Chief of Staff Andy Card, then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, then Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and then former Commerce Secretary Don Evans. The manager at my Starbucks may have gotten feelers. When the president was asked at his press conference last week whether he had any indication Snow intended to leave, I thought he might say, "Is he still in my Cabinet?"
We now know that would have been a reasonable answer. Four days earlier, Hank Paulson had agreed to replace Snow. Bush also could have simply said yes, because as Snow later put it, Bush knew for some time that he was thinking of doing so. Instead, the president answered in a way that was not, to use a White House term, reality-based. "Has he given you any indication he intends to leave his job any time soon?" Bush was asked. The president responded: "No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he's doing a fine job."
The New York Times called this answer "artful." That's not the word I'd use. Artful should be reserved for things that hide the truth but don't deceive. A hat is artful. A toupee is a lie. Bush's answer was toupee-like. Even if it was technically true that Bush had not talked to Snow about "resignation," the president knew his confected statement was deceptive. I'm reluctant to call it a lie, but the president abused our trust.
We allow presidents a measure of obfuscation because in public they must give nuanced answers in some sensitive areas like national security. On personnel matters like this one, the public's right to know is not done grave harm when a president is less than candid. Bush is also protected by a less-honorable Washington tradition: the departure fiction where even if someone has been fired, he is described as having gone at his own behest, often to spend more time with his family.
Such wiggle-room prerogatives allow the president to duck many questions, as he has in the past. When the press has tried to ask about his flexibility on a particular piece of legislation, he has refused to speculate about what compromise he might accept, saying, "I won't negotiate with myself." When reporters try to get him to make news, he regularly refuses to "play that Washington" game. Richard Keil of Bloomberg was certainly trying to get Bush to play a round of that game by asking him to talk about Snow's intentions. But when asked in March about staff changes and calls from outside his administration for a shakeup, the president was careful to give nothing away without fibbing. "I'm not going to announce it right now," he said. "Look, they've got some ideas that I like and some I don't like. Put it that way."
These are unhelpful answers but they're not deceitful. There are times when administration officials have told me the back story behind a non-answer and it all makes sense. In this case, though, the president jumped over the menu of bland dodges available to him and picked the least truthful statement short of "Secretary Snow is staying." When asked about this answer yesterday, press spokesman Tony Snow explained that the president didn't misspeak. He was worried about spooking financial markets and wanted Paulson's background checks to go through before he announced the change. The president was also likely being sensitive about John Snow, who has been a dead man walking for so many months. Bush wanted to give him a proper send-off.
But those motivations don't explain why the president avoided the gentle euphemism and instead reached out to mislead. Snow ultimately fell back on the Clinton defense. "It was very carefully worded," he said of the president's answer. That's not encouraging. When a person hears a question, dissects it, and fashions an answer on the spot that deceives, it suggests a lot of practice and comfort with fibbing. This is a problem area for Bush: Fifty-six percent of the country does not find him trustworthy, according to recent polls.
In Washington, we often say politicians are "misleading." That's the kind of thinking President Bush usually resists. He often talks about his Midland, Texas, heritage when he wants to convey his moral compass. There, a man's word is sealed with his handshake. In Midland, they would have called what Bush said about John Snow a lie.
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent. He can be reached at
slatepolitics@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Community
