Earth Day 2006

Tomorrow is Earth Day (Thanks Google.) With the price of gas skyrocketing, although I'm not what you would consider to be a green nut, I will take this time to push for alternative energy strategies as a way to preserve the environment (even if someone where to take the stance global warming is not scientifically proven, don't we want to error on the side of the environment?) and possibly help disarm international oil economic and political conflict. Our country should lead in alternative energies just from an business and security standpoint and I'm really puzzled as to why we don't.

Facial Hair, Jet-Packs, and Sen. Edwards on Rocketboom: Oh My!

Since this polilog has been domant for so long, I thought this mention might be a lighthearted way to get back into things (No, that's not a typo; I'm trying to introduce a new term that would be shorthand for describing a political blog in the same way people call law blogs, blawgs. I originially wanted to go with plog, but that word is apparented used by Amazon.com to denote personal web logs). Now I was tempted to get back into the polilogosphere a week or so ago when Cheney was out hunting wascally wawayers, but that story just went over the top, and it almost seemed pathetic to try and make a post about it. Instead I'll direct any possible reader still left to the Rocketboom interview of Sen. John Edwards.

It's a fun little piece for their Casual Friday edition. Obviously for such a prominent politicians, it was an interesting side interview that asks questions and prompt talk that is a little off-kilter. If you read the comments, there are a lot from Republicans and a lot from people thinking it was a tad immature. I disagree, I think the situation called for a low-key series of questions. I mean, what was she going to do? Go Barbara Walters on him and press him as to whether he will consider running for President again in 2008? Four things that stood out to me, no five

1. My first thought was that she was interviewing one of the characters from Will and Grace. I'm not sure of their names, so I don't know which one, but his hair is a bit shorter and it makes the resemblance appear pretty striking. I never saw it before.
2. He seemed a little tired. He might have just been having a long day, and I think this is what people mean in the comments by saying they thought his body language indicated displeasure at the "middle school" questions. Nah, I think just a little tired.
3. He sounds like Clinton more and more. I really think he should have been used more towards the end of the 2004 campaign. For some reason they didn't want the focus to be on him, and that took a lot of the charisma away from the public eye. People love to have chemistry with political figures; almost everyone loved Clinton for his swagger. They could have peddled Edwards as the future for the next 16 years, it wasn't overshadowing Kerry.
4. I thought it was cool that he made a Jetson's reference to flying cars.
5. I too remember when everyone was sure we would have jet packs and space colonies with zero-G rooms located at the center of the bicycle-spoke designed, orbiting communities. At least we're working on hybrid cars.

Anyway, enjoy the interview. It's light-hearted, it's Friday!

Special Election: November 2005 Edition

Ideally every voter would take the time to inform themselves, but I currently attend law school and majored in political science and yet still had to spend copious amounts of time trying to wade through this stuff over the weekend just to get a straight breakdown of what these propositions really mean. Anyway, this is my take on some of the propositions that I feel are important and for a counter view, I have linked a great pod cast at the end of the blurb with contrasting viewpoints to keep up the spirit of this blog in showing the other side. The most important thing is that people take the time to vote.

Here is the website for California’s Secretary of State, it contains summaries of all the propositions: http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/. Moreover, note the links to the respective parties to the right in case you want to see how the party lines are corralling for votes.

These propositions are the ones getting the most attention and have become the most confused thanks to spin campaigns on both sides of the aisles, here are the Bartender’s takes:

Prop 74: (No). This is the first education proposition on the ballot and the popular catch is that all it does is raise the time it takes a teacher to get tenure from 2 to 5 years so that it is easier to weed out the bad teachers. However, this isn’t a fair assessment of the true ramifications of this proposition. What this proposition does is allow experienced teachers to be ousted for virtually any reason in order to lower payrolls and bring in inexperienced teachers who themselves might be axed just before the 5 year limit when most teachers make a transfer to another district to lock in their years of experience. This is actually the opposite effect of what the governor would have the public believe as our children will lose out on the best teachers with these new mechanisms for evaluation. The catch phrase about this proposition effecting only new and “bad” teachers is a red herring.

Moreover, even if that were all that this proposition was about, it would still not make sense to keep teachers on probation longer than two years when most jobs kick off the temporary training wheels after a mere 6 months. Finally, it is a myth that teachers can’t be removed under the current system once they are “locked in” after two years. There are mechanisms for principals to recommend teachers for additional training to help them get better and they certainly can be let go if they do not improve. This proposition is really being pushed to help retire our most experienced teachers faster so that we can bring in newer teachers who will subsequently be left without mentors who could have nurtured them in those first few years while they are learning to be great educators. So this is a bad proposition.

Prop 75: (No). This is the proposition that requires written consent by public union members before their dues can be used for political contributions. Despite what you might think about unions as a whole (because the existence of these groups is not at issue), in any group of people organized under a common entity as many of our public workers are, there is a huge collective action problem. Everyone assumes the next guy will take initiative. Well to solve that, you have unions speaking as one voice and meant to generally represent the majority feeling on a topic. So when teachers for instance, see a proposition such as 74 that will hurt them on down the line by forcing them out once they become “overqualified,” they are sufficiently organized to do something to combat this concern.

Well, this proposition dismantles leverage against political initiatives because of the hurdles it places in the way of organizations which would have to annually seek individual approval and while it seems beneficial to allow some people to opt out, that just completely deflates any power any of these groups have because you have a collective action problem again where each individual needs to rely on all the others to proactively participate rather than being able to delegate to one body. Plus and more significantly, now each of these members will potentially be subject to harrassement for not opting in. Either say no to unions or allow them to function normally. For now, maintaining the status quote gives public employees a fighting chance against government attempts at cutting their funding. So this too is a bad proposition.

Prop 76: (No). This proposition allows minimum funding to schools to be bypassed and allows the government to be able to avoid having to repay shortcomings. I have virtually nothing to say to this proposition except that it makes no sense that when we are in a budget crisis to start axing education first. Quality education is what makes our country great, and especially at the lower levels I believe it is key to solving problems often fixed with bandages like affirmative action later on. Give everyone the opportunity to a good education when they are young and you will not have such disparity between students in different socio-economic conditions later in life.

Why? Because if you start dropping the minimum funding for public schools then affluent parents start moving their kids to private schools and those at disadvantages will be left with the scrapes not taken away by the state in a crunch. This is absolutely the wrong way to go about balancing the budget. In fact, read into this proposition and there is even more to suggest how this just screws the public schools in poor neighborhoods while at least offering some protection to those in areas with affluent bases.

Prop 77: (No.) This is the redistricting proposition. Redistricting is a joke that is used consistently by whichever party is in power to contour elections in their favor. I honestly don’t know enough about the whole process to offer an effective solution that won’t make my home town this weird little island of wealth tenuously attached to another area of affluence in wealth yet set into the middle of a completely different district of minorities and poor people. People in my hometown still interact daily with the people in neighboring cities and they all share the same local concerns, but those local goals aren’t facilitated by sharing a common representative, no political interests in Sacramento are facilitated by making things easy for incumbents.

Bottom line, there is no accountability in this approach to re-districting. You have retired judges who are probably appointed to these posts based on their political contacts and whose choices can’t be scrutinized directly by voters for at least a whole election cycle. If they do something that really galvanizes voters, a whole election cycle has to pass before voters can reject the proposals directly and even then those elected under the changed districts get to serve a full term. At this point I would be shocked if truly scrupulous lines are able to be drawn without the aid of a computer.

To be honest, I don't know enough about the prescription drug programs (Props 78 and 79) at this point to make a valid determination either way. It worries me a bit after the energy debacles anytime the government is trying to cut deals with companies, although eventually I would just as soon have a universal prescription drug program for anyone who wants in.

Prop 80: (No). Well, see, I don’t support everything down a clear party line (watch me jump back to my support of the market in regulating energy), in advocating a no vote on this proposition. This is the energy one, by the way, and for me the key wording is that it restricts consumers from more of a choice in where they get their electricity from. To me it is good to have a little competition in this field-which is actually why I think the government should get in on the healthcare arena too, in order to offer competition to the private businesses-because everyone knows that private industry should be able to offer better rates than anything government run, right? So I think this is a good proposition. I think our current problems were caused by the government negotiating bad deals, not that there should be complete deregulation, but I think people in this case might do a better job negotiating by subscription.

On Prop 73, I would note that this proposition is too difficult to navigate in the confines of this blog, however it is important to consider because of the potential for the abortion issue to come back to the states if Roe v. Wade or its progeny are overturned.

In conclusion:

So those are my takes on the above propositions. I’ll disclaim right now that I am by no means a legislative expert and just made the best analysis I could through a combination of reading the language of each proposition presented on the website of California’s Secretary of State, and then by also reading the literature presented on both the California Democratic Party website and the California Republican website. Of course like any good American, I look forward to anyone proving me otherwise on any of these positions because with new information we are always entitled to re-access our outlook (Read: If I’m ever up for a federal appointment, realize that these opinions reflect my current mindset based on the best information available and are not necessarily my future, objective opinions based on new information or arguments). I’m just trying to summarize for those who might not have the time to do so themselves and are interested in the take of a simple law student.

For counterarguments see: http://www.bruinstandard.com/podcasts.shtml, and click on the second podcast (the first is good too though).

Oh yes, and our notorious mayor’s race here in San Diego. Frankly I am not pleased with either candidate, however I feel that it’s not fair that when Donna Frye offers a viable solution in the form of raising taxes a half percent that she plummets in the polls. Yes, obviously not a great solution, but we need to be realistic about the state of our city and how to rectify a huge scandal before we lose our mantra as America’s Finest City. It would be unfortunate if all of the great public works projects which are going to spur growth in the long term have to come grinding to a halt because there is no money in the city coffers. What’s done is done and to answer Jerry Sanders who says San Diegans shouldn’t have to foot the bill for past mistakes with a higher tax, I say: why not? We voted in those officials to begin with, so now we must rehabilitate and move on. Plus on a more light hearted note because our city has taken some serious blows: she can surf, that’s cool like Clinton playing the saxophone but without the likelihood of her getting into trouble with any interns!

Black Gold in Alaska! The Senate Endorses Power, Greed, and Stagnation!

Drilling in Alaska (Warning, this is long and rant-like, though structured around the theme of: power, greed, and stagnation-oh my!)

I absolutely can’t believe that our senators voted to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve for oil drilling-and there has been little reaction in opposition or outrage-am I way off base here? This is perhaps the worst revelation to come out of an era characterized by an administration full of mishaps. The blatant political posturing behind this vote bleeds of self-serving image-building to thwart complaints that the government is doing nothing to augment rising gas and heating costs. It smacks of yet more opportunity for the oil industry to capitalize on what can only be considered a renaissance period since the new guard took office, and finally it is another endorsement of a commitment to maintain this status quo of reverence for the almighty oil barrel rather than propel our country into an era beyond dependency on fossil fuels.

I’ll stop right here if yesterday’s action is seriously going to have a positive impact to help Americans get through this winter, especially in disaster recovery zones. I mean, that’s why this was done right? To help people now, to make it seem like the do-gooders in Washington are making things better. Of course they understand that not everyone has a travel allowance or receives stock dividends from oil companies to help offset those higher utility bills. Clearly that’s why they are opening up one of our national treasures so that we can start extracting oil in TEN YEARS. The vast network needed to bring the operation to full capacity wouldn’t even be running at peak levels until 2025! Even then, it will barely make a dent in the oil projected to be consumed by our power-hungry nation at that point.

So I’m pretty sure I’ve got the image thing down right. Sure, it takes time to build these things-I have no doubt that if it could take less than five years to have this thing up and running, it would happen tomorrow. It has to start somewhere and this is a great time to get the ball rolling as everything else in the news is bad from Iraq to Argentina. Why not suggest that help might be on the way? Obviously and somewhat understandably, for those living on the fringe, a lower gas price is more important than environmental preservation in a faraway region. However, the key is that this won’t help anyone, and when it does start to “help” satisfy our thirst for oil, its effect will be barely negligible. Given this, it makes much more sense to in the very least protect an asset that we can all share and take pride in for generations to come-the oil will run out someday. I have never been to the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, but I’m glad we have it as our answer to the Serengeti and maybe someday I’ll get to see it. Shouldn’t our elected officials be helping make the best choices for citizens, not squandering a national treasure for something that really only pays off in cheap political returns for their seats, their power.

>

Then there is the greed. Oh, I’m so glad the oil is staying in America! Now what does that mean? Our oil companies will be getting richer through this lucrative opportunity, only it will be at a lower cost because they’ll have less to take out in tariffs and other logistical obstacles because the oil won’t be processed through foreign subsidiaries or countries. It’s not like keeping this in America is really some sort of honorable compromise or trade-off for the loss of irreplaceable environmental resources. Rather, it is just an easier opening for oil companies to exploit and profit from-AND this caveat sounds good when feeding it to the press and the general citizenry.

Again, I’ll try to counter balance this argument: I am all for capitalism. If there is a commodity out there and you are the first to get to it and find a niche, then isn’t that the American dream, to work your way up and be the best. Humans are a warrior culture. However, opportunism out of control borders on anarchy. Politics is the division of scarce resources and the government is there to regulate this distribution. People should be allowed to do what they want and succeed as they will as long as they aren’t directly hurting other people. Oil companies already get carte blanch over their ability to manipulate their business as it is from the well to the well-off. There is little to be gained in this instance except padding in a few pockets and a lot to be lost for every citizen on the whole, and the government should do its part to protect this scarce resource.

Finally, the stagnation issue. Why are we constantly recycling our efforts in the energy sector towards fossil fuels? I’m so glad we’ve ascended to a point where oil can be drawn from wells in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner, Mr. President. How come we haven’t become a global leader in alternative energy? It will be pathetic if by the year 2025, we have not made any progress in this field. I have no problem with free trade and even outsourcing. I think it makes sense and in the long run, in theory at least, it should help consumers globally once laws and specialization have reached equilibrium.

However, we are lagging in the specialization component of that equation, and I think energy could be a field that our nation could excel in. To get back to my redundant questions above, I know there are many complicated reasons we are still hung up on oil with no serious moves to do anything else. Namely, see power and greed above and for the oil companies: why mess with a good thing? Well the other 99% of the population not holding an office in Washington, getting campaign contributions, or receiving dividends from black gold should be infuriated that our leaders in both government and industry haven’t taken more initiative and instead have given us excuses. Notice I have barely even touched the obvious reason to oppose this: the environmental factor.

Here’s the thing: really in the end, it’s too easy to complain about greed and corruption from people in positions of wealth or power. This cacophony will always exist-it’s not like I don’t want to be successful either. So forget that, I am just using those points as a framework for what this comes down to: it’s a cost-benefit analysis spun horribly in deception. There are few, if any, true or immediate benefits to drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness that was set aside for future generations to enjoy and have pride in. I have seen pictures, I have heard stories, and I want to go there: it is beautiful-amazing.

The costs of even the best case scenario: ugly pipelines and platforms and roads crisscrossing the landscape and please don’t try to make them blend into the environment. They did that with the cell phone transmitters in my hometown and those palm trees look like crap, worse than just putting the tower up and being done with it. In the worst case, there is a huge ecological disaster and we lose part of our last frontier forever. (And of course these crafty politicians, who got this past any filibuster by attaching it to an untouchable budget bill, will be unscathed because they aren’t going to be in office in twenty years from now when a million barrels of oil a day are coursing through pipes along some of our last untouched beaches).

>

Ironically before I saw the news, I was reading a recent issue of National Geographic featuring Africa. The coincidence is that I looked for a long time at a picture of a girl skipping over oil pipes running through her Okrika, Nigerian village with shrubs and life bustling around it. But you know how when you are a little kid taking a trip to an art museum and the curator says close your eyes and then open them and whatever you focus on first is what the good artist meant to be important in the painting? Well, the pipes sure stood out in this photo and I don’t need anyone to tell me that that is not what is supposed to be the focal point of the Alaskan coast.

We have some bad artists in Washington. We all have our opinions that may differ, but I can honestly find no truly redeeming benefit to the enormous cost this allowance will toll on the environment just by existing. And wow are those two Republican Senators from Alaska loyal to their party or what?-aren’t their constituents just beating down their doors? I’ll admit, I might be missing the local dynamics, because for all I know Alaska is in favor of this move since it may well open up lots of jobs for locals. (What, eco-tourism isn’t beating out the drilling industry in the revenue department?) I just found it curious how the leaders of the opposition were from Washington state and Oregon and the local representatives involved seemed to be all for this. I just know that I would be less than pleased if we decided to start drilling in Yosemite. And as much as I love Yosemite, I have to believe the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is ten times better if anything because it’s so raw.

The link: Senate Endorses Oil Drilling in Alaska Wildlife Refuge. Amazingly, I couldn’t even find the equivalent story on New York Times online.

Oh, So This is What Democracy Looks Like!

Just wanted to draw attention to this article on cnn.com:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/international/middleeast/07shiites.html?hp

It describes the scene in Basra now that the Shiites have control of the government and are trying to entrench a fundamental philosophy in the various cities. Granted, if this is what the people voted for, as called for by their constitution, so be it. Though somehow I don't think this is what we had in mind when we "liberated" the people of Iraq. That was, after all, our primary mission after the WMD thing fell through, right? Now however, music bazaars are shut down, girls have to go back to wearing robes after being able to wear jeans previously in what was described as a libertine city prior to the elections in January.

The point is that we can't nation build. No country can nation build, the cultural nuances are too dynamic to capture on paper and too powerful to direct. I think this President even stated in the 2000 primaries that he is not a nation builder. I can't believe that line never became his version of "read my lips, no new taxes." We have tried and failed, predictably, at molding this torn country into a model of American Democracy. Plus, this was the alternative to just quietly turning the joint into a giant oil factory or portrait of revenge.

Now granted, in the spirit of The Democracy Shot, I want to objectively consider the other side, and I realize the Administration probably never guessed that things would be so hard in Iraq with insurgencies and the like (we've never seen this happen before, have we?). Moreover, I'm still not really sure why we went into Iraq. It wasn't for the immediate goodwill of the Iraqi people that's for sure because there are a lot of other repressed people in the world living in far more dangerous environments to our security that we could have tried to liberate. Oh, and the oil thing must not have been the motive either, just check out gas prices. However, I will not dismiss the idea that if they could, the White House would love for everyone in Iraq to live in peace and harmony. Why not, right? Better poll ratings. Unfortunately, now it's like there are two Irans, we just have soldiers in one so we can make sure they don't go off the deep end with nukes in the name of fundamentalism. Thank god we had Russia to keep us in check.

Anyway, I still dream of one day walking through Basra, iPod blaring Miles Davis into my ears as I pass in front of the Ministry of Religious Affairs, now converted into the Bureau of Tourism. My wife will not be wearing veils, until we get back home anyway.

But you know, as I said in muted sarcasm in the first paragraph, this is their constitution right? No election is perfect, but if this is what a majority of the population wants, then that is a price of democracy. I think my main problem is with us for expecting a transition to America, as opposed to a free Iraq. Hey, I was in the minority in the last election. Maybe next time right? I'm probably not going to be thrilled with the next nominee for the Supreme Court, but my guys aren't in the majority currently. Oh, and the Basra vacation scenario was just because I like the name of that city. It sounds like an exotic, resort-type city. Mosques are nice too, though.

So I guess I am disappointed that Iraqis in Basra who want to have a music store can't and even though I am opposed to the war, if we are there I guess I really wish we could bring that type of freedom to those who want it. But we can't, it isn't our place. I'll get over it, and I guess I'll even admit that I wouldn't want Iraqis to come over here and install a less than conservative justice...they'd never get it right. No one can.

K.I.S.S.

In light of the recent vacancy on the Supreme Court, I would like to submit to the President some of the qualities I feel are important in the selection of a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor. It's a "keep it simple stupid" list of things I, as a citizen, would like to see in a justice. The role played by these philosopher kings, nay demi-gods in recent years has become monumental. I don't think Chief Justice Marshall ever foresaw the court being as influential and powerful as it has become in the last decade, when he wrote Marbury v. Madison.

1. You've got to pick someone with a cool name. Their name has to have authority and catch people's attention when it is attached to an opinion. This request is not solely in jest. It will make everyone feel better regardless of what side of an opinion you are on if you have a name like Dorothy Lombard Street.

2. Pick a non-judge. This is going out on a huge limb because there is no chance to remove, say an intellectual from the vacuum of academia and delve into how they handle themselves on the bench. However, if your vetters are good enough, you can avoid a virtual civil war in the senate chambers because the unknown will not draw nearly as much fire. Of course, there is no reason to worry about a battle during the confirmation process because this is a serious matter. This is why there are checks and balances. However, why not try to bring in a different viewpoint by nominating an academic, a former politician, an artist, an astronaut, etc.

3. Pick someone interesting. I personally warmed a lot to Secretary Rice when I learned she had been a concert pianist since age four and had volunteered to play in a charity concert early this month in support of the granddaughter of a democratic member of congress whose had pulmonary hypertension. It would be interesting and more diverse if the next justice had some type of parallel, but quieter career for the citizenry to "discover." (As if being an accomplished legal mind is not enough).

4. Pick a good writer. Much like many of the other suggestions and for the sake of future law students, this will bring much goodwill towards the new justice. Now, it will be hard to find another Justice Holmes, but if someone between Bob Dylan and Justice Brennan could be found, I think it would get people more interested in the law. We want the citizenry to be informed right?

5. Don't pick a woman, unless the best candidate available is a woman. Somehow I think it categorizes Justice O'Connor more than she deserves to merely label her seat as a "woman's" seat by default, to be replaced accordingly. It should be a seat for a great American, as should any seat up for grabs. I was blown away watching her old interviews today. No wonder Rehniquist asked her out back at Stanford, she was so smart and poised in her responses. However, although there should be women and minorities on the court to appropriatey represent the best possible candidates, I would just hate to see someone nominated to fill a political quota.

Anyway, just some things to keep in mind. I think Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a shrewd political move, definately outside the box, but I leave it to you Mr. President. So keep it simple, stupid.



Addendum on Senator Clinton:

To elaborate on Senator Clinton as a candidate, politically this would do a lot for the President. Instantly he would probably get his say on any other vacancy for the court during his term which could be up to three more chances, and certainly at least one more (Although realistically probably every Senator would disagree on this nomination, until they considered some of the following ramifications-though would they really crucify one of their own? Easier nomination? Shocking nomination? Awing nomination?). He doesn't lose anything in particular because she would likely vote similarly to Justice O'Connor. Moreover, he gains in the political field because Republicans would get another seat in the Senate, he knocks out the likely biggest name democratic candidate for the 2008 election, and again more goodwill for his reputation as a coalition builder just as new polls are showing people are fast getting tired of some of his other decisions (Mainly because people would not know what to think initially).
Moreover, Senator Clinton meets many of my K.I.S.S. requirements. She has the long, attention grabbing name. She is not a judge, but did go to law school and was a practicing lawyer before being First Lady and a Senator. Her relationship with her husband, former President Clinton is enough of a parallel career to keep everyone interested in her and the court. I honestly don't know how good of a writer she is, but I think she is poised in public appearances and she has written numerous books so she should at least do an average job in this department, and in the very least bring a different style to her opinions since she is not a career judge. Finally, I said don't pick a woman just to replace Justice O'Connor's gender. While I'm not the huge Hillary-supporter some might expect from someone touting her nomination (I actually would like this outlandish move just to remove her as a potential candidate for President), I think politically if the President seriously considered this move, Senator Clinton might actually be the best candidate given all the angles available. Plus, I don't think anyone looks at Hillary first and thinks "woman." (I don't mean this in a bad way, but I just think she has basically moved beyond such a definition in the public eye, in a good way-the way a nominee should be treated and considered.)
So you probably heard it here first, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Politics at Its Worst

Why does Governor Bush want to open an investigation into the events that led to Terri Schiavo's comatose state? The answer seems clear, and it's downright disturbing: political retaliation.

Just days after the results of an autopsy were released that basically justified all the expert testimony offered on behalf of Ms. Schiavo's husband to conclude that her vegetative state was irreversible, those who petitioned to keep her alive (read: mainly Republicans trying to retain their votes on the conservative right) are reeling and need a foothold. However, besides the fact that this information is moot and sidesteps the main issue of who actually had the right to make the final call, it is just ugly that Ms. Schiavo's memory is once again being used as a political weapon. Further, her family on both sides would almost certainly like to put this ordeal behind them. Who cares who was right about the limited functions of her brain at this point?

I think I'm most disappointed because I actually was warming a little to this Bush sibling. He always seemed to presented posed, intelligent answers in his growing time in the national spotlight. However, to suddenly launch a probe that is not even mildly disguised as a desperate attempt at saving some political face by going on the offensive so that the last thing in the general population's mind will be this hint of doubt annoys me more than Katie Holmes' conversion to Scientology. The moral of the story all along should have been that this is a private issue and the decision was for the husband to make.

So if Mr. Bush would try to let this poor family recover and just take the "political" hit that was actually cultivated by the Republicans themselves in taking all their evasive actions, then I promise not to second-guess Ms. Holmes' decision. Of course, I'm just joking around and I think Mr. Bush or at least some of the voters driving his interest are dead serious and they need to find something new to probe.

The link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/17/schiavo.governor.ap/index.html