Calblog

Paying for Helen Loheac's Renal Failure

I’d like to thank Calbog for the opportunity to post here today and hope that I am invited back.I am also a regular to contributor to Independent Sources, a similarly minded blog. This posting concerns California’s Three Strikes Law and California’s aging prison population.

First off, here is why I like California’s Three Strikes Law:

* Three-strikes laws are effective because they target these repeat offenders who have proven unable to change their criminal behavior. If a criminal does not reform after two felony convictions, it is unlikely that he or she ever will.
* Besides keeping repeat criminals off the street, the threat of such 25-year to life sentence may stop a two-time offenders from committing a third felony.
* The threat of a three strikes conviction is an important law enforcement tool for police and prosecutors.

There are certainly costs associated with these benefits. Housing and feeding inmates is not cheap. That said, and just speaking for myself, I’d rather pay for their incarceration than be on the other side of one of their rapes/muggings/robberies. However, as the demographic bubble ages, so does the inmate population—leading to significant increases in providing medical care for these criminals.

The Los Angeles Times recently ran a feature story listing examples of taxpayers footing the bill for the medical costs of certain elderly prisoners. Looking at the costs of such incarceration makes one wonder if there shouldn’t be some way for the state to have the majority of the benefits of the Three Strikes Law without having to pay $436,000 a year for prisoner Helen Loheac’s renal failure and other such examples. The Times reported that hundreds of prisoners cost the state $400,000 or more a year.

Some states, Virginia, Maryland, Louisiana, North Carolina and Michigan, have implemented systematic release programs and California should too. California has a compassionate release program but it is not doing the job. The goal should be to remove prisoners that are high cost but low risk and move the burden off of the state.

Last year, California state legislatures passed a bill to open the compassionate-release program to permanently medically incapacitated prisoners in hopes of saving millions of dollars. However Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it because it didn’t contain any mechanism to return these prisoners to custody if they recovered or posed a threat to public safety—arguments that both make sense and would seem to be easily remedied.

I would hope in this day and age of budgetary crises, one area that wouldn’t be controversial or difficult would be figuring out a way to cut the state’s tab on health care to criminals. How about it elected officials, up to the task?

Natalee Holloway

When this story first hit the news, a couple of cable news outlets did a brief piece on the possibility that she had been kidnapped and forced into prostitution. This website summarizes the theory.

The speculation centers on another missing woman. Amy Bradley disappeared from a cruise ship in Aruba in 1998. Since then, there have been a few unconfirmed reports that she was in Curacao, working at a brothel, apparently unwillingly.

While there is no evidence that Natalee Holloway was abducted, much less forced into prostitution, there is also no evidence that she is dead. When they tested the "blood" evidence in the car of the three men, it was not blood evidence.

Aruba has not been known for a problem with sex trafficking. That does not mean it is impossible. The US State Department released its 2005 report on human trafficking and ranked various countries. John Miller, senior adviser to the U.S. secretary of state on trafficking in persons, commented on it.

Miller explained that the rankings given to each country are reflections of the efforts being made in the country to stop trafficking, not the size of the problem. Even Tier 1 nations, those receiving the highest ranking, are not exempt from the issue in his opinion. He said, “Tier 1 is only meeting minimum standards. Tier 1 doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem. I can tell you every country in this report in Tier 1 has a large problem.”

Aruba is not even listed in the report. The two brothers in custody are from Suriname, which may have a connection to the underground industry.

Even if there is no problem, 2 women in 7 years could have fallen into this situation without pinging on the radar screen.

Barack Obama: Senator ... Statesman ... Egomaniac

Peggy Noonan skewers a surprisingly narcissistic Barack Obama: (Hat tip Hugh Hewitt)

This week comes the previously careful Sen. Barack Obama, flapping his wings in Time magazine and explaining that he's a lot like Abraham Lincoln, only sort of better. "In Lincoln's rise from poverty, his ultimate mastery of language and law, his capacity to overcome personal loss and remain determined in the face of repeated defeat--in all this he reminded me not just of my own struggles."

Oh. So that's what Lincoln's for. Actually Lincoln's life is a lot like Mr. Obama's. Lincoln came from a lean-to in the backwoods. His mother died when he was 9. The Lincolns had no money, no standing. Lincoln educated himself, reading law on his own, working as a field hand, a store clerk and a raft hand on the Mississippi. He also split some rails. He entered politics, knew more defeat than victory, and went on to lead the nation through its greatest trauma, the Civil War, and past its greatest sin, slavery.

Barack Obama, the son of two University of Hawaii students, went to Columbia and Harvard Law after attending a private academy that taught the children of the Hawaiian royal family. He made his name in politics as an aggressive Chicago vote hustler in Bill Clinton's first campaign for the presidency.

You see the similarities.

Later Noonan continues ...

Mr. Obama said he keeps a photographic portrait of Lincoln on the wall of his office, and that "it asks me questions."

I'm sure it does. I'm sure it says, "Barack, why are you such an egomaniac?"

Christopher Cross cites the most offensive portion of Obama’s Times quote:

"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator," Obama said. "As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African-American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."

After having misappropriated Lincoln's legacy in a deeply flawed attempt at self exaltation, Obama can't pass the chance to spit on America's perhaps most-beloved statesman. All this from a pol who had heretofore mounted a brilliant PR campaign, passing himself off as a thoughtful, serious public servant; the darling of the 2004 Democratic National Convention; a U.S. Senator; a rising star destined perhaps for higher office. His latest comments, however, have unmasked himself as a fool such as no one would have previously suspected.

I couldn't care less what Obama the “law professor,” Obama the “civil rights lawyer,” Obama the moonbat-in-training, thinks about Lincoln as relates to Emancipation. At this point don't care too much for Obama period, as a politician or as a man. It is my great hope, however, that Obama's statements are often quoted as a reminder to his penchant for idiocy when—as seems likely—he seeks higher political office at some future time.

Dibs On Bedford Falls

Schwarzenegger's apocryphal Dibs on Nevada! well sums up the wild expansion of eminent domain, thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision.

A most amazing article reports on a city that concocted a new definition of "blight" specifically to target a section of well-maintained property for seizure through eminent domain. (Hat tip Wizbang)

It reminds me what might have occured in It's A Wonderful Life:

Bailey—[shouting into the phone] You'll NEVER get your grubby hands on the Building & Loan, Potter!

Potter—Building & Loan? Hah! You mean the soon to be former Building & Loan. I just got off the phone with the city planners, George, and you know what we agreed to? New building codes. Yes, indeed, George, and a new definition of "blight." George ‘Slumlord’ Bailey. Seems your measly, ramshackle Building & Loan is no longer up to code.

Bailey—You're a twisted man, Mr. Potter—

Potter—The Constitution provides for things like this, George. Pursuant thereto, Potter Bank is opening a new branch, a sound financial institution that will revitalize Bedford Falls from some backwater shantie into a thriving metropolis. You want that, don’t you, George?; Higher property tax revenues to benefit this town of yokels and garlic eaters you call your friends? Well don't worry, George, I've got the matter well in hand. I just spent top dollar buying the lot right out from under your crummy Building & Loan!

Bailey—Oh, you never miss a trick, do you Potter? Well it’s gonna be a cold day in—

Potter—Tell me, George, do you and that half-wit uncle of yours hear anything outside your window yet?

Uncle Billy—[bursting wild-eyed into the room] George! George! It’s terrible, George! Terrible! It's—

Bailey—Quiet, Uncle Billy! I've got Potter on the phone. There's a lot of clattering and rumbling outside, Mr. Potter. Could you speak up a bit? I can hardly ... I said I can hardly hear you over the racket.

Potter—Are you ok over there, George? That clanging noise wouldn't be the bulldozers, would it?

Bailey—Claaaaaaarence! HELP me Clarence! ... Make me unborn again!

Gambling At Gettysburg?

... We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this ... ah, hell; gentlemen, let's walk over to the Gettysburg Gaming Resort and Spa over there. Join me in trying out the 3,000 slots?

What the heck is going on? A proposed casino at Gettysburg?! What's next, a brothel on Little Round Top?; crack houses in the Peach Orchard?

No, this is obscene. A house of vice such as the proposed casino must not be allowed to desecrate the hallowed ground of which Mr. Lincoln so eloquently spoke.

Paul 'Tigger' Winchell, 1922-2005

In a mean 'ol world, Tigger was always a spot of joy. Farewell, Paul; TTFN.

(Hat tip Patterico)

Blanket Opposition To Capital Punishment Indicates Moral Weakness Lack Of Moral Clarity

(PLEASE SEE UPDATE BELOW)

I would not suggest that the use of capital punishment never raises valid concerns. In light of cases such as this, however, those who promote a blanket ban on capital punishment exhibit a lack (rather than the oft’ presumed excess) of moral strength, principle, and courage clarity. I say this regardless of the many and diverse persons and belief systems that would level—wrongly—this very charge of moral weakness lack of moral clarity at proponents of capital punishment.

Bottom line is this: No one can convincingly argue that BTK faces a more just, a more right, a more righteous punishment in Kansas that he would face in, say, Texas.

(UPDATE)

[Despite my best efforts, I'm somehow frozen out of posting comments to my own post. I will attempt to attach a comment here as an update to my post, in response to a Quaker who argued against capital punishment in my comments section. Hopefully it works ...]

I am a Quaker

I think that's great, and I say so without a shred of sarcasm. As a Quaker, you probably share a good 95% of my overall worldview. From what I know about Quakers, they are wonderful people. The world would be a better place if more people were Quakers.

Nevertheless, my basic assertion stands [albeit amended to refer to moral “clarity,” rather than moral “strength;” more on the reason for this amendment below].

When I call out "the many and diverse persons and belief systems" that in every circumstance oppose capital punishment, I refer to this group in totality, be they the ACLU, Mike Farrell, or the Pope. In any event, my perhaps bold charge that such evince a want of moral strength was not made for the purpose of giving personal offense, but to make a point.

But how is taking [BTK's] life away from him any better than what [BTK] did?

Such inability of opponents of capital punishment to discern the staggering differences between the two is something that has always mystified me. I’ve always wondered how someone can lecture on the inherent immorality of capital punishment, when they are by their own admission unable to see a moral difference between a murderer of innocents and the execution of murderers.

I guess I would answer your question with a question: Why can't you see a difference between the two?; I can see the difference, and it is vast!

The whole premise of my post is based on such principles as you set forth in your question cited above. Perhaps I should call it a want of moral clarity, rather than a want of moral "strength, principle, and courage." What I rather mean to suggest is that a blanket opposition to capital punishment indicates a bad position, not bad personhood. [PS—I have edited the title and text of my post to indicate moral “clarity” as opposed to such qualities as “moral strength,” etc.]

Capital punishment makes us all murderers.

I’m asking honestly if such philosophy is what passes for moral acuity among opponents to capital punishment. Is this the best argument that death penalty opponents can bring to the table? It is not. It is silliness. There are a number of assertions, of varying credence, that can be made against capital punishment—this is not one of them.

And what about more ambiguous cases?

As I said in my post, I would not suggest that the use capital punishment never raises valid concerns. My assertion is that the BTK case combines clear guilt and utter heinousness on such a level that—yes—I have a problem with moralizations against the death penalty, especially in such extreme cases as the one discussed here.

Moonbat Pamphleteers Foiled By On-site Shredders

What could be cooler than catblogging a litterbox made of shredded peacenik fliers? :-)

Read the whole story at LGF's Operation Simply Shred.

(PS--For much better formatted link, try LGF's link with comments [requires scrolling up])

Liberals Do The Terrorists' Bidding - SoCalPundit.com

By Kevin D. Korenthal - Special Contribution to CalBlog via SoCalPundit.com. Look for future postings by Kevin that will mainly focus on The California Special Election but will from time to time cover such issues as the national economy and the War on Terror.

This week we heard that a motley bunch of Europeans have gotten together to form a group that offers "aid and comfort" to the Islamofascists that the U.S. fights in Iraq and in the greater War on Terror. This is simply another admission by some leftists of what many of us conservatives have known for quite sometime. Liberals are rooting for the terrorists!

Among such conservatives is the default ideological leader himself, Karl Rove who called a spade a spade the other night when he pointed out that liberals advocated non-violent dealing with terrorists. Normally running from the liberal moniker it was surprising to many of us that Democrats rallied against Rove, calling for him to apologize or be fired by Bush for suggesting they (liberals) were/are weak on terror.

The faux-incredulousness of liberals masks a darker truth about the relationship American and global liberals play in the War on Terror.

Beneath the controversy of suggesting a perception other than that which is supported by the ideologues of the Democratic Party lays the truth that the liberal media and other elites have been talking down the U.S. effort in the War on Terror.

This is a reciprocal relationship, between terrorists and liberals; the terrorists keep the body count up while the liberals keep up the drum beat of bad news and accusations that American troops are everything but heroic in their execution of the orders of The President of the United States. It is their objection to George W. Bush that drives liberals to sell out our nation while the terrorists feed off the need to kill Jews and become the dominant ideological force in the world. It seems both groups oppose democracy as the dominant force in the world

Fortunatly for us, democracy is the dominant force in the world today. History has proven the two ideological entities, democracy and islamofascism can not exist together even in a world this big. President Bush, like it or not, represents the force of democracy today especially as it relates to a world, post 9/11 that has learned the lessons of simply turning a blind eye to terrorism. Democracy instructs we must fight, and fight hard the forces that seek to squash freedom under the thumb of tyrannical Muslim theocracy. Liberals don't get any of this and are therefore opposed to America using its unique strength to hasten the end of this sect of an otherwise (as Bush not me believes) peaceful religion.

Liberals are banging the drum of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and claiming terrorists deserve rights under The Geneva Conventions as a means to hobble the war effort. Because liberals wrongly believe American supremacy, not tyrannical fascist dictators are the epitome of evil; it is with the tyrannical fascist dictators they side.

I believe Africa and its dire straights will be big on the world stage in the coming months. There is a whole slew of tyrants in power over there today. It will be interesting to see if the same generation of liberals that got together to raise millions at Live Aid will be there (and here) now that it is time to hold accountable the thieves and scallywags that plundered every dollar.

Arnold's Ballot Measures

California Insider's got the poll numbers at the crack of dawn.

The news is mixed for Schwarzenegger. Teacher tenure is ahead by a wide margin. His budget reform and the redistricting initiative are losing badly.

The Insider also notes that support for redistricting reform goes up when voters understand the measure. Blogs can do that. Ted Costa, who has spearheaded the redistricting reform ballot measure, will be at the Bear Flag Summer Conference talking to bloggers directly.

Town Hall Tries Something New

A blog called Soapboxes where readers get to blog. I have not figured out the details of the system but it looks as if all (minus the trolls?) get on the Soapbox blog and the really good entries get on the main blog.

Better than the LA Times efforts to involve its readers?

Law Limits

Jeffrey Lewis of So Cal Law Blog has branched out into a new blawg, Law Limits:

focused on discussing the tools and rules that help reign in the remaining lawyers and lawsuits: malicious prosecution, abuse of process, anti-SLAPP procedures and legal malpractice.

Stem Cell Supporters Avoiding Nov. Ballot?

Chris Nolan at Politics from Left to Right suggests that the stem fell research opponents are cleaning up the oversight committee so voters don't get to do it:

Sen. Deb Ortiz has lost her show-down with the stem cell folks at the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine but the stem cell folks have decided to um, give careful and full consideration to her comments – almost a ballot initiative – on their conflict-of-interest rules and their open meetings. Looks like someone, someplace has decided to start playing their politics a little more smartly. Finally. The last thing state Democrats needed was a show-down over stem cells which, along with the parental notification initiative expected to be on the November ballot, could have brought out a rash of conservative voters to defeat the anti-union measures designed to weaken Democrat's strong-hold over state government.

Arnold's Approval Rating at All-time Low

California Insider reports that the Governor's approval rating has hit 37% among registered voters.

Any way you look at it, this is a disastrous way to start a special election campaign that is going to be a referendum on his leadership.

Of course, this poll is before the Governor starts a series of commericals charming those voters. When Davis hit rock bottom, he had trouble selling himself. Arnold doesn't have that problem.

Cross-posted to The Special Election Blog

Jim Rogan for California Supreme Court?

Clam's floating that rumor over at Patterico's.

Wikitorial dies

La Observed reports that the Wikitorial experiment at the LA Times has died.

Flag Day Dinner in Riverside

I drove 3 hours in rush hour traffic Friday night to attend a dinner co-hosted by the Riverside chapters of California Young Republicans and the California Republican National Hispanic Association. I qualify as neither but two bearflaggers, California Conservatives 4 Truth and Tan Horizons, were there. Truth be told, the traffic only accounted for 2 hours. Mapquest directed me to an exit that no longer exists. There went another hour.
I heard two excellent speakers. State Senator Bob Dutton and Michael Zak, author of Back to Basics for the Republican Party. I'll hand out the tidbits here. My review of Zak's book is up at Blogcritics. I expect it'll rile the left.

Dutton does what my daughter calls putting it into kid language. He'd make a fine blogger, explaining the budget and tax issues in a way that caused no one to glaze over. He talked about the importance of the special election and speculated that Arnold may not run again if the special election does not go well.

There's a new union forming -- Prison Inmates. One wonders what prison inmates would do with political clout. More blogging on that later.

The stem cell bond oversight committee has given out $3 million in contracts to campaign insiders without any open meetings. Dutton suggested the legislature may get the 4/5ths vote necessary to correct the initiative.

Zak is an excellent speaker (and available for other events). He has read 100s of sources and gleaned out the good stuff about Republicans, particularly the commitment to equality. As I watch the black woman Republican secretary of state, I agree with Zak. Check out the book's website.

Bear Flag League and the Special Election

Well over 100 members and no way to read all of them on everything. In the next day or so, we will unveil the Bear Flag League's special election coverage. One blog in which the League members will crosspost their special election posts. The special election matters. Not only will it put into law initiatives that appeal to the right-of-center but it is a test of Arnold's mettle. If the measures he supports do not do well, it will be difficult for Republicans to hold the one source of influence they have in this state.

Animal update

All the chickens survived the possum attack. Frick settled down enough that I could pick her up and determine that it was just feathers. No nasty cuts underneath.

We are fostering kittens, thanks to Mrs. Xrlq. They are 6 weeks old and we have about 2 weeks to socialize them. It has turned out to be easy except our 5 cats are becoming ornery.

At six weeks, they are all eyes.

Casa Calblog is temporarily home to 18 living creatures.

Update: 16. The two turkey chicks did not make it. No clue what their problem was. I tried to save the second one. It ate and drank and pooped. All my indications of health but it just got weaker and weker and died.

Predator attack

It is 2 am and we are in the middle of a predator attack. I was out at a dinner in Riverside and the kids were at Disneyland for the first day of summer. We got home after 11 and we'd be out since 7:30 in the am. I told the girls we could leave the chickens out.

I feel terrible about it. I know one of our chickens, a small black silkie, went missing last week but the other chickens seemed unperturbed and it had been a long time since we'd had any trouble.

The screaming started about 1. Here's the odd part: the 4 youngest who prefer to sleep on the patio, were still perched and fine. Oblivious. In the bushes next to the patio were the legs of the RIR, one of my two fullgrown tame ones. She looked like the Wicked Witch of the East. Feathers all around her.

She was still breathing! I sent daughter in for a towel. While I waited, this chicken started to move, righted herself, stood up and shook herself off. There was a bald patch on her rump but she looked ok.

I was so astonished that I just stood there. This chicken walked past me and indignantly walked around to the front of the house. I should have grabbed her but there was still noises around. I went back to the coop, where I heard noise.

I shone the flashlight in and there was the predator HANGING upside inside the coop, holding on to the netting. Scared the heck out of me. All my inexperience with wildlife caught up to me. I was
scared and I still am. I think it's a possum.

Madeleine was able to bring 3 chickens into the shower with the baby turkeys who are in a box. No ideas where the RIRs are.

In the midst of this, one of the cats got out. We lured him with a can of food and grabbed him and got him in but he went out again. So I am worried about him.

Husband and #1 daughter are out. They can hear a RIR. I'm too afraid to do anything. I feel awful about this.

The Downing Street Memo

Tim Cavanaugh over at Reason has the best analysis thus far of the Downing Street Memo non-story.

This has the potential to become a distraction for the Bush administration if the media chooses to focus on the "controversy surrounding the memo" rather than the substance of the memo itself presented plainly in its full context. Being true to form - the media will surely opt for the former. That's where the new media & blogosphere must come in.

The fact of the matter is, the Left doesn't want people to read the actual document itself. To have people actually read it will simply inspire them to shrug their soldiers. The "power" the memo has for the Left only stems from their ability to present it as a "secret" memo that is only known to a few leftist gatekeepers of information who will "boldly" explain its contents to the uneducated masses in order to teach them about how the Iraq war was based on a "lie".

This is the same dynamic that has played out with the Left's reaction to

the "neo-conservative" Project for a New American Century (PNAC).

The Left would like the world to believe that this is a secret cabal that drafted a top-secret plan that was only distributed to the upper echelons of the Neo-Conservative Conspiracy that is out to rule the world via a shadow government or through puppets in the White House. By alluding to a "secret document" concerning American policy in the Middle East, the Left can distort its contents and cast it as a corruptive anti-democratic force for evil in the world.

If people instead took the time to actually read the easily accessible documents, many (if not most) would likely come away with the impression that the Project for a New American Century is full of sensible ideas that lay out a compelling strategy for securing America's security while also advancing the cause of freedom throughout the world. That is not to say that the strategy doesn't pose some extreme challenges. But many will rightly conclude that alternative strategies for a post-9/11 world have yet to be put forth at all, so the Project for a New American Century deserves to be debated seriously - not mischaracterized as some grand conspiracy plan by those who operate from the shadows.

Of course everyone in this debate already knows intuitively what few will dare say: most of the conspiracy-critics of PNAC (as well as the Downing Street Memo) don't so much disagree with the strategy so much as the underlying assumptions that America and liberal democracy is force for good in the world. Their disagreement isn't about "how" America should best protect itself, it's about "if" America should protect itself. They do not engage the debate concerning "how" to spread secular-based democracy throughout the world. Rather, they reject the very premise that advancing such values is a pro-active good for the people of the world.

That is what the fuss over PNAC and the Downing Street Memo is really about, and everyone knows it (even if few choose to articulate it).

Bush's only serious mistake was to focus on the (sincerely believed) possibility of WMD's in Iraq as a form of crude shorthand to explain the reasons for going to war in Iraq. What was instead needed was for Bush to engage in a much broader and challenging debate with the American people that explained the broader and often esoteric ideas put forth by PNAC and why such ideas made the most since after 9/11. It admittedly would have required teaching the country to understand a more diffuse and complex level of "cause and effect" in world events than the obvious "we need prevent an atomic bomb from being dropped on New York" angle.

That certainly would have been a big challenge indeed for an MTV generation not in tune with the finer debating points of foreign policy think tanks. It would also have been a big challenge for a president who is seemingly more comfortable speaking in shorthand about most policy matters. But the potential dividends for sustained political support for the Terror/Iraq War would have been worth it - especially since the challenge of explaining these ideas are still needed today...Now, more than ever.

So the best way to combat this growing nonsense is to have many people as possible read the original unfiltered documents.

Since the Sunday Times of London could potentially take down their link one day (plus the fact that newsworthy government documents are not typically covered by today's oppressive copyright schemes), I have decided to reproduce the memo below in its entirety such that there will be more avenues of access on the Internet for people to discover the Downing Street Memo - and thereby discover for themselves just what a non-story this is.

Nobody who supports the Terror/Iraq War should be afraid of any of these revelations. To quote good 'ol "Honest" Abe Lincoln: "Let the people know the facts and the country will be saved."

Faster, please....

______________________________________________________________

THE DOWNING STREET MEMO

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Tyranny of Copyright - Part VII (the cake wars)

Sad - but an increasingly common story.

Be sure to read the comments on the linked post. I especially like the "know-it-all" law clerk Tshaka, who tries to "educate" all the poor ignorant masses who don't have any law training, only to get bitch-slapped at the end by a practicing attorney from the EFF. Classic!

(Part VI here.)

Patry confirms the prediction of Levine's Second Rule of Law

I have many serious disagreements with William Patry (more about that in future posts), but I think his prediction is right on the money that the Supreme Court will inevitably violate Levine's Second Rule of Law when it comes to its major copyright ruling in the next few weeks.

Not Guilty

I had muttered for some time now that they'd never find Michael Jackson not guilty. It's clear to me he's molested someone but there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he molested this boy.

Yet Calblog husband kept talkng about how he was sure MJ was going to jail. The case lined up better than I thought. The prosecutors seemed happy and Jackson got sick from the strain. As the days passed, and the police prepared for riots, it looked possible.

I hate having been right all along.

The Garden Project

Well, I was riveted by Window Manager's tale of his garden. I have also noticed that in CA, almost everyone does a little gardening. Perhaps someone can help with the Lemon Dilemma.

We have a large yard generally maintained by the weekly gardener. Over the years, we haven't done much. Some tasks have caught up to us. Some problems are new.

Our maintenance problems are twofold: Weeds have mixed in with the shrubbery and various people seem not to be sure which is which. The chickens have brought a new dimension, sometimmes overgrazing on the grass and attracting bugs. Those are the drudgery tasks and we make a little progress at a time.

Right now, though, we are struggling with the trees along the side yard. The oleander has grown larger than the original landscaping. As a result, the lemon has grown large sloping branches to the left, tangling with the liquid amber tree.

We began breaking down and removing the oleander. We don't really like it and the poisonous possibilities for the various animals add to its undesirability. The chainsaw broke and so only half of it is gone.

There's now room for the lemon to grow straight up. That leads to the dilemma. HOW DO I PRUNE THE LEMON? The fruit and the thickest foliage are on ends of branches 10-15' from the main trunk. If I leave it as is, the entanglement with the liquid amber, which is young and currently at the same height, will be bad for both trees as the liquid amber grows taller. If I remove the liquid amber the lemon branches will be too heavy to sustain themselves. So shortening the branches seems to be the solution, but most of what I have read says that either I should never prune the lemon, or I should have done it years ago.

Do you just hack off good branches and let the tree heal, assuming the long term benefit is better than the short term damage?

Who Felt the Quake?

We felt the quake. We reported our experience to the USGS. You should too.

UPDATE: About a month ago, the USGS put up their earthquake prediction map. Last night's map doesn't show much.

Bob Hertzberg Joins the Party

The Summer Conference, Preparing for 2006: Bloggers Gaining Access, is happy to have Bob Hetzberg as part of its lineup!

Hertzberg's blog was a centerpiece of his campaign and helped move him from obscurity to a leading contender. Few if any politicians in California have used the blog as effectively.

Click the paypal button on the sidebar to sign up. Click here or email justene -at- yahoo.com for more info.

Writers for less money

My thoughts exactly.

The War for the American Judiciary

More evidence to support my original thesis that the battle over the nation's courts is essentially lost - regardless of the nature of any recent or future appointments to the bench.

If (A) a "conservative" judiciary respects the concept of stare decisis, and (B) current court precedent has locked in a host of non-Constitutional liberal precedents (abortion, death penalty restrictions, "privacy" rights, etc.), then (A) + (B) = (C) conservative judges will be forced to uphold non-Constitutional provisions in the future (assuming they will even be able to be challenged in the first place - an unlikely proposition as my original post on this issue tries to explain.)

You can delude yourself into dreaming otherwise, if that makes you feel better though.

More observations on this subject here.

Intellectual Property - Instapundit sees the light

A few Instapundit posts in the past week that are worth a closer look:

Along with your humble blogger, Glenn too realizes that the current intelectual property scheme serves to supress market forces, rather than advance them.

Glenn also weighs in on the issue of how the modern patent system is actually curtailing technological progress.

However, he is being a bit naive to suggest that any progress on this issue can be advanced through a partisan political process. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will step up to the plate since they both enjoy sucking off of the tit of media conglomerate political donations. Any progress will have to come from a non-partisan grassroot effort (similar to how the fight over illegal immigration is currently shaping up).

The D-Grade Graduate

The latest whacked Kerry photoshop.

(I still miss Allah. Photoshop has never been the same since he closed his mosque.)

My surprise of the day

I was doing other stuff with Fox News on in the background as usual. Then Brit Hume announced that both Bush (GPA 77) and Kerry (GPA 76) did better than he did in college.

Ashcroft v. Raich - The Supreme Court on Federalism

After trekking through the 9th Circuit, the long awaited decision in Ashcroft v. Raich is finally here. (Along with a concurrence and a dissent or two).

Larry Solumn provides a good summary of the arguments here.

As is usually the case, the blogosphere has a much more in-depth and insightful analysis of today's Supreme Court decision than anything the mainstream media is dishing up. The mainstream media is treating Ashcroft v. Raich as primarily a story about drug policy. The blogs are correctly putting the emphasis on the larger issue of state vs. federal power.

The fact that Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas all voted allow states to have medical marijuana, while all the traditionally liberal jurists on the Court voted against it seems to prove that the Court didn't look at it as a drug case either.

Rehnquist wanted the Lopez and Morrison cases to signal a true substantive shift in the limits of federal power. That has been his greatest legacy on the Court, so its not surprising that he would be dissenting in this case (Though his refusal to join Thomas's dissent indicates that even he was skittish about the extent of the federalism revolution that some say he championed). The liberals have always had contempt for any meaningful notions of federalism, so of course they would uphold the Justice Department's efforts in wanting to stamp out state grown pot.

It is difficult to discern at this point if the decision will

immediately impact the medical marijuana distribution points in California and the other states, or if it will cause California to scale back its own studies of the subject.

The Supreme Court blog has the best analysis going on for this topic in terms of links and other posts regarding the decision. Be sure to read all of the posts there today (June 6) for more on this topic.

My thoughts:

Orin Kerr is right on the money when he observes that the real substantive debate on this issue can be found in Scalia's concurrence versus Thomas's separate dissent. I think the Scalia/Thomas decisions will prove to be the focal point for future court decisions on federalism issues. The majority opinion is rather flaccid and does not adequately describe how today's ruling is to be properly distinguished from the Lopez and Morrison cases. Perhaps this is to be expected since Steven's dissented on Lopez and also joined both of the Morrison dissents.

Since Stevens fails to articulate with any specificity how such Commerce Clause cases are to be distinguished in the future, and also curiously fails to explicitly call for overturning Lopez and Morrison in today's Raich decision, it could be argued that Stevens' majority opinion ends up violating Levine's Second Rule of Law - leading to further rulings based on the personal whims of judges rather than any notions of objective law. Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein seems to agree on this (although I think his swipes at Scalia are unjustified. Scalia felt that the case turned on the "Necessary and Proper Clause" rather than the "Commerce Clause", and thus didn't feel it necessary to waste space in providing a further in-depth discussion on the latter clause which had already been talked about at length in the principle majority ruling. Sam Bagenstos backs me up on this point and thinks Bernstein's comments in this regard are unfounded - as does Ann Althouse.)

Mark Tushnet also seems to agree that the majority of the Court has ignored Levine's Second Rule of Law in the realm of federalism (as I have argued they have done in a variety of other realms such as the ever flexible Establishment Clause).

In keeping with his reputation as being one of the worst offenders of Levine's Second Rule of Law. Justice Anthony Kennedy joined both the original Morrison and concurred in Lopez but provided no further insight as to why he joined today's majority in Raich that was written by a dissenter in those two previous cases.

It is because of the increasing tendency of the Court to ignore Levine's Second Rule of Law that some Constitutional scholars are concluding that its no longer practical to try and summarize the subject in any coherent way. The only way that your humble blogger can do it us to suggest that the individual whims of judges will split infinitely fine hairs on a case-by-case basis to achieve a results oriented jurisprudence based on their own personal preferences and influenced by everything except the text of the Constitution (i.e., National and international political developments). I don't even know how one would currently teach a law school class on Constitutional law with a straight face, but I'll save more on that for another post. Back to the main subject...

The reasoning behind Scalia's concurrence is a bit clearer - though Scalia's reasoning also proves Thomas's point in his dissent: "Under the majority's reasoning, Congress could not enact, either as a single-subject statute or as a separate provision in the CSA, a prohibition on the intrastate possession or cultivation of marijuana. Nor could it enact an intrastate ban simply to supplement existing drug regulations. However, that same prohibition is perfectly constitutional when integrated into a piece of legislation that
reaches other regulable conduct."

In other words, under the majority's (and Scalia's) reasoning, Congress can ban pot nationwide under the Commerce Clause - it just can't merely ban it's possession within 100 feet from a school. Thomas understandably thinks this is a silly form of reasoning - hence his conflict with Scalia who still manages to put forth a valid interpretation of the Constitution's text. (Jack Balkin has a great summary of this aspect of the decision here.)

Tom Goldstein also provides a useful 1-paragraph summary of the overall impact of the decision here. It seems that Lopez and Morrison weren't the radical decisions that my leftist law school professors all worried about after all. If they were, then the Court would have overruled the Wickard case since they would otherwise be clearly at odds with each other if Lopez and Morrison were interpreted in an expansive context. Marty Lederman gives more perspective on the reasoning of the Justices regarding the Wickard tension.

Again, Orin Kerr is right on the money when he describes the federalism principles as now having an effect that is primarily symbolic.

Just so there is no confusion however, I don't think that this ruling necessarily conflicts with Levine's Second Rule of Law. Ernie Young makes the case that it doesn't. David Barron also suggests not (though it is unclear if he is basing his predictions on current Commerce Clause jurisprudence or his own interpretation of the Lawrence case).

However, I maintain that any clarity in the area of Commerce Clause decisions will more likely be derived from the discussion found in the readings of Scalia's concurrence and Thomas's separate dissent rather than Stevens' majority opinion and the primary dissent from O'Connor.

Aruba: Land of the One Missing Tourist

The Calblog family has been to Aruba. It was yet another stop on yet another cruise, back when we took cruises. The last cruise, everyone had so much fun that the children forgot to spend any time with their mother. No cruises since then.

We went four-wheeling in Aruba. This is a popular shore trip. Rent a four-wheeler and there's one road that circles around the island through a variety of landscapes and tourist spots, including the Old Lighthouse that figures so prominently in the news stories of the missing teen.

We assumed our usual roles. Calblog husband drove. I sat in the front passenger seat pretending to be helpful -- "of course this is the right way" and "where do we want lunch? Why, wherever you want to have lunch." Madeleine sat in the back acting silly -- "of you take my picture against these red rocks, don't get the sky in because we want people to think I am really on Mars." Amanda did what she does whenever we visit a new place -- she asked "can we go back to the ship now?"

As might be expected, the four-wheel drive jeep was a rental. No one at the rental agency told us it had to be put into four-wheel drive. So we went happily four-wheeling in two-wheel drive.

Then we got stuck in deep sand dunes. Nothing around but more sand dunes. Calblog husband tried to drive. I continued to pretend to be helpful -- "perhaps we should dig" and "maybe it's like being stuck in snow." Madeleine acted silly -- "come on, take pictures of me standing on the roof". Amanda increased the frequency of her request -- "can we go back to the ship now?"

Then almost from nowhere came a handful of well-built young men who interrupted their surfing to help. They literally lifted the car out of the dune, showed us how to put it into four-wheel drive, and merrily went on their way with a wave and a smile.

That's the image I will always have of Aruba.

Cox Seat Safe for Republicans?

OCBlog, the place for coverage on the race to replace Chris Cox, says there should be no assumptions that this will be a sure thing for a Republican replacement:

It’s going to be a free-for-all in the Open Primary. Remember the length of the ballot for the Davis recall? I’m not sure we’ll have the same assortment of hopefuls, wishfuls, delusionals, and just plain certifiables, but I think that the primary ballot may get a bit crowded.

Figure at least a couple of Republicans. Just check the posts in this blog to see who's emerging from the crowd. Also figure that there will be more to come. Remember...this is a free-for-all akin to the recall election.

Like we can forget the recall ballot.

Moving towards a deadline for a special election

Soon after Arnold was elected, he made an end run around the Legislature and went to the California voters to pass bond measures to handle the budget crisis the way he wanted. He is threatening to do it again.

Next week is the deadline to call a special election. If Arnold calls one, voters will again vote on initiatives that Arnold wants. Two again undercut the power of the Legislature. One initiative gives the Governore more power over the budget.

Another initiative removes the power of the Legislature to redistrict. The expected impact is that districts will not be drawn to favor the majority party but instead will be drawn to reflect the electorate. Ted Costa, who pushed the recall through, has been spearheading the Fair Districts initiative. He'll be speaking at the summer Bear Flag conference.

Details on the initiatives here. Both are awaiting verification of the signatures, all of which have been turned in.

Grassroots Reporting

SoCalPundit attended the 1st annual meeting of The California Club for Growth PAC and has the full report here. Pictures too. On the Republicans in attendance:

Clearly not everyone shared the same opinions on policy and there was some very constructive criticism for the President and others.

Medical Marijuana Undercut by Supreme Court

By initiative, Califonia voters legalized the use of marijuana under a doctor's supervision. California voters cannot change federal law and today, the US Supreme Court held that federal law preempts state law and users of medical marijuana can still be prosecuted under federal statutes.

The majority opinion was written by John Paul Stevens followed well-established law on the preemption clause. The federal law preempts state law where the federal government has shown an intent to occupy that area of law. The federal drug laws do that and Stevens held that the proper remedy is for Congress to change the law, not to favor state laws in a preempted area.

Sanda Day O'Connor wrote the dissent. Apparently not agreeing that the federal government had preempted the drug arena, she argued for states' rights in setting their own criminal laws.

UPDATE: THe Modesto Bee has excerpts from the opinion. Justice Thomas also dissented.

Corporate Blogging Guidelines

Via Inhouse Blog, IBM's blogging guidelines. While all are good guidelines, more bloggers should pay attention to number 9 -- Find out who else is blogging on the topic, and cite them.

OC needs a new Congressman

Now that President Bush has appointed Congressman Cox of Orange County to head the SEC, the fun speculation begins on who will replace him. The best coverage is at the OC Blog.

More on the Laguna Landslide

Breaker watches the media watching the landslide.

Bloggers Likely to Win on Appeal

The Court of Appeals in California appears ready to overturn an order forcing bloggers to turn over confidential sources. Apple had alleged that the bloggers had published trade secrets. Apple argued and the trial court agreed that the allegation was enough to vitiate the bloggers’ rights under the First Amendment, the California Reporter’s Shield Law and other statutes. The trial court ordered the information produced and the matter was stayed pending the appeal.

While many rightly pointed out that the decision turned on the trade secret question, not the fact that it was bloggers in the crossfire, bloggers were concerned. The nature of the parties may have swayed the trial court to look more closely at the trade secret argument. Trade secrets are not new and there has never been a previous exception made to the protection of confidential sources for trade secrets. In addition, there was no guarantee that the appellate court would treat bloggers as the equivalent of journalists. Two groups of bloggers, the Bear Flag League and the specially-formed Online Journalists and Organizations, filed amicus briefs.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal issued an order indicating that it intended to overrule the lower court:

Respondent superior court is ordered to show cause before this court at a time and place to be specified by court order why a peremptory writ should not issue as requested in the petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition. Real party in interest may file a return in opposition to the writ on or before 7-5-05. Real party in interest may choose to treat its preliminary opposition as the written return. If real party in interest does not do so and instead files a written return.petitioner may reply to the return within 20 days after it is filed in this court. Any PARTY desiring oral argument shall so inform this court in writing on or before 7-5-05 by completing and returning to this court the attached "Request for Oral Argument"

While oral argument may change the Court of Appeal’s final decision, it is unlikely. The reasoning will be disclosed in the written opinion.

Looking for EVP

When you travel, you have lots of thinking time. So I was thinking about the paramormal event I attended a couple of weeks ago. There were other online press there. I wondered what they thought. Here's some of what they thought:

[T]here is no question that they get results. After a brief overview of the history of EVP, they played some of their more famous clips, including the ones that were used in the “White Noise” trailer. One of the better clips was a female voice saying, “It’s Frank” when a cat named Frank walked into the room they were recording at the time. -- Bullz-eye

Shortly before attempting to contact Clark Gable, Mrs. Butler relays to us a story about a famous musician recently contacted by an AA-EVP associate. When asked on the recording device "Is your name Ludwig Beethoven" the voice on the tape reportedly responded "Yes."

After a beat, it's explained to us that much is still unknown regarding the science. As putative journalist and aspiring professional writer, I remain impartial. -- UGO

Believe what you want, that’s it’s fake, or that these are just radio waves, whatever. The point is that these transmissions have no logical reason to be on these tapes. Maybe the fact that you can only hear the voices in playback will cause the peanut gallery to groan en masse, who knows. But, the Butlers are by no means flakes, crackpots, or scam artists. They are down to earth people who seem to be researching these phenomena out of their own spiritual and scientific curiosity, and not for celebrity or financial gain. -- Jo Blo

Being an avid "ghost" fanatic, getting the chance to check out one of the most haunted