Inaccurate Bombing Reports

The current issue of New York Times Corporation’s Dennis Publishing's weekly newsmagazine The Week (July 6-13) has an obituary of General Robin Olds, a decorated US fighter pilot in WWII and Vietnam. The obit reports:

Olds, who died last week of congestive heart failure, was considered a military maverick said The Washington Post. He was grounded during the Korean conflict because he publicly complained about the inaccuracy of Allied bombing raids on German armament factories.

Those factories would be about 5300 miles away from any target in the Korean War. The Post’s obituary calls Olds a maverick but says nothing about his grounding. Unfortunately the lame website of “The Week” does not yet have this obit.

CORRECTION: Inaccurate blogging reports here as well. An alert reader points out that The Week is owned by Dennis Publishing, not the New York Times Corporation. My mistake. The reaon I thought so was because the magazine quotes the Times incessantly.

Trusting the Electorate

Two big news stories today in the Boston Globe:

On the Supreme Court decision the Globe’s story quotes the Chief Justice:

"To the extent the objective is sufficient diversity so that students see fellow students as individuals rather than solely as members of a racial group, using means that treat students solely as members of a racial group is fundamentally at cross-purposes with that end"

The Globe news story ignores Roberts’ summary line, but the Boston Globe editorial board cannot:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 5-to-4 decision.

This is a pithy slogan, but a gross oversimplification that ignores social reality.

No. It is a behavioral prescription, endorsed by law.

Conservatives should be grateful that Harriet Miers did not have a vote in this decision. And speaking of foolish politics, I wonder if Andrew Card also managed the Bush administration strategy on immigration? Yesterday that plan went down in flames on the Senate floor. The Globe’s coverage is humorous. Susan Milligan writes:

Some lawmakers said yesterday's vote is another example of the demise of bipartisanship, an old Senate tradition in which lawmakers from both sides hunker down to work out a solution to a major issue…

But Senate Republicans were split and 15 senate Democrats (plus Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders) also voted against the bill. As Milligan later reports:

Ultimately, a majority of lawmakers in both parties decided to kill a proposal that had been picked apart by interest groups across the political spectrum.

The bill was rejected by a majority of both parties? How could a Senate vote be more bi-partisan than that? As the story reports:

…the White House and lawmakers in both parties crafted during months of excruciating negotiations

These negotiations were kept as private as the 1993 formulation of Hillary Clinton’s health care. In both cases disregard for the value of public debate undermined voter confidence in the bill. The effective meaning of the “bi-partisanship” alluded to earlier is legislation without public discussion. That behavior may be necessary and is fully democratic when performed by elected representatives, but the cost is low public confidence in the product.

Duh.

Dean Barnett has a choice comment on the losers he calls THE IMMIGRATION BILL WATER-CARRIERS:

Lindsey Graham’s approval ratings in South Carolina have dipped to 31% because of his obnoxious antics while supporting this bill. Trent Lott has made himself a national laughingstock. Again. I know – dog bites man...

I’ll even make a bold prediction: Reading the writing on the wall, Senator Graham will decide that K Street beckons and remove himself from public life before his constituents do the deed for him. As for Trent Lott, how many opportunities should this guy get to embarrass himself and the party as a leader of the caucus?

Senators like Trent Lott, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, and of course John McCain, are embarrassing enough to drive registered Republicans into the closet.

Progressive Social Disarmament

Speaking of the dysfunctional Boston family which lost an 8 year old child because of children playing with loaded guns, Joan Vennochi advocates disarmament through gun control in today's Boston Globe:

Go ahead, rail against their dysfunction. That won't stop it.

I am not railing against their dysfunction, but rather at our society’s ever-growing disdain for social standards that stigmatize such behaviors. In our overarching need not to appear judgmental, we have instead successively abandoned social norms, lest our inflexibility lead us to make negative assessments that might damage someone’s self-esteem, or worse make us sound like racists.

We have completely confused the value and beauty of each individual with the social need for family structures that have a high probability of growing dependent infants into functional citizens.

A snippet from a Globe news story of this tragedy illustrates this confusion superbly:

But social worker Nia-Sue Mitchum of Lena Park Community Development Corporation in Dorchester, where Liquarry attended an afterschool program, said Gadson had been heavily involved in her children's care. "It's a beautiful family," Mitchum said. "His mother is really struggling hard to take care of all of her kids. She is working so hard to guide her kids."

Surprisingly, a Globe editorial reports on the family in more objective terms than the newsroom:

Police focused on 36 related individuals ages 6 to 59. Of the 36, 26 had been arrested and 20 incarcerated. Twelve of the arrests resulted in firearms charges. Only two of the seven children in the family regularly attended school. And even with intensive services, some members of the family remained beyond reach.

Over at the Boston Herald, columnist Margery Eagan writes:

It’s time social liberals (like me) joined with the right-wing, feminist-hating, sexually uptight nuts and called this what it is: a tragedy for children. That’s judging mothers, I know. Picking on people. Stigmatizing. Better late than never...

This is an argument for changing the status quo: to stop acting like it’s just fine for women - black, white, poor, rich - to bear children with no expectation that fathers even show up and no wherewithal to keep those children safe. When women do this not once but twice, or more, it’s no mistake. It’s almost a crime. Social liberals (like me) love to talk about government programs. But no program can heal the hurt from a parent’s neglect. We should stop pretending otherwise.

Should we go back to the 1950s then?

Liberals never tire of mocking the more conformist America the 1950s, but since that time our increasingly liberal social policies have systematically dismantled those social stigmas, all in the name of progress, inclusion, and diversity. After decades of “cutting down laws to get after the devil”, liberals now find themselves intellectually disarmed and facing social pathology that is more prevalent than ever.

Oh, THAT violence against women!

An AP story in today’s Boston Globe caught my attention with its catchy headline “Violence against women surges”.

Is it already time for the Super Bowl?

I recall reading such a report in the Globe just before the 1993 Super Bowl when a Boston Globe article helped to fan a media frenzy claiming that US domestic violence against women surges on Super Bowl Sunday. These claims later proved to be completely false.

Actually this story is about TALIBAN violence against women in Afghanistan, especially against women in high-profile careers.

Oh, THAT violence against women!

Other news reports using this AP story have kept the Afghan aspect in their headlines (click on the image below), but the Globe’s headline writer relegated it to a subhead. Not on message? Might remind readers why we fight?

"Nothing to see here folks. Move along now".

Radical Chic -- 21st century style

TJICistan fisks a Boston Globe article on self-righteous Harvard hunger strikers:

Personally, I’d consider that someone irrevocably committed a portion of their own trust fund or future earnings to less productive individuals as exhibiting “depth of passion”. Someone who snacks on maple syrup (from independent Vermont farmers), orange juice (organic, I’m sure) and water (Evian, or - at the very least, Brita-filtered) four[sic] 96 hours or so doesn’t really demonstrate “depth of passion” to me.

Nice job. See his post : "how to lose five pounds and feel totally self-righteous"

“The Corrupting Influence of Money in Elections”

In the very last paragraph of its front page story on yesterday’s US Supreme Court decisions, today’s Boston Globe reports (without naming it) that the Supreme Court had reduced the constraints of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” act:

In the other narrowly decided cases, the Supreme Court ruled that a Wisconsin anti abortion group should have been allowed to run ads before Election Day, thus undercutting a restriction in a landmark campaign finance bill, and Alaskan officials had the right to ban a student's banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" on grounds that it suggested support of drug abuse. The court also sided with developers in a case regarding the Endangered Species Act.

The Globe’s editorial board reacts far more strongly to the news than the Globe newsroom. In an editorial entitled “New rivers of campaign cash”:

[Chief Justice John] Roberts claims his ruling is an important blow for free speech. "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor," he wrote.

Then comes the Globe’s “but paragraph”. Note here how the Boston Globe editors would define free speech:

But Wisconsin Right to Life had ample options to speak under the law. It could have run the ads outside the 60-day window, or run the ads within the window without mentioning Feingold by name, or -- importantly -- it could have run the ads exactly as broadcast, so long as they were paid for through a political action committee, which can only accept voluntary contributions from individuals, up to $5,000 a year. The campaign finance law doesn't restrict the protected content of any ad; it just restricts who pays for it and how much.

McCain-Feingold restricts access to the market for speech, which paradoxically the Globe believes is essential to democracy.

McCain-Feingold is no panacea for the corrupting influence of money in elections. A record $2 billion-plus was spent on television advertising in the 2006 election, which didn't even feature a presidential campaign. Still, the court yesterday opened up another easy avenue to circumvent efforts to protect the integrity of democratic elections.

“The corrupting influence of money in elections”. A very telling phrase, that. Then what is the alternative to such spending? Should we mandate that all campaign information delivered through supposedly disinterested parties like PBS (!), the League of Women Voters(!!), and (ahem!) the Boston Globe? I’m delighted with Roberts’ sentiment. I’d prefer to allow more political speech rather than less.

Globally the means of mass communication are becoming far less concentrated. This is difficult for businesses with entrenched interests who historically have benefitted from that concentration. TV networks, radio networks, and newspapers (like the Globe) have lost value as their domination of communication media has diminished. Fundamentally, this change has allowed more people to participate.

Then why are many liberals appalled by this change? Only liberals with strong illiberal and authoritarian tendencies are in distress over this…epitomized by the Boston Globe Editorial Board.

And regarding those “river of campaign cash”, billions of dollars are spent every year in this country promoting automobiles, beer, soap, and consumer products. Is $2 billion “too much” to spend for choosing a so many elective offices? Who should decide how much is “enough”. Again, illiberal liberals will tell us that entrenched government should make these decisions. Fortunately, John Roberts, like our nation’s founders, wants citizens to make these decisions.

Low TIme

Time limits will make blogging tough for a few days. My apologies.

You can wade through the Boston Globe ongoing multi-part series about Mitt Romney and see if it convinces you that the Globe newsroom does not really hate the former governor. I am unconvinced. Why? The Globe’s history of Romney coverage like this , like this, and like this just to name 3.

If you also are pressed for time today, do read James Carroll’s essay today on the quest for perfection in athletics and otherwise. When James out of his Bush derangement rut he is much more thoughtful and readable.

Finally, regarding the recent Globe story about the Archdiocese of Boston’s new initiative to promote marriage was actually broken on the Archdiocese’s own website. You can see the cards that were handed out and also read the prayer, which of course the Globe will not print but instead will only excerpt.

Iowahawk Was Right!

An Op Ed essay in today’s Boston Globe discusses Osama bin Laden’s guardianship of the Al Qaeda “brand”. It makes bin Laden sound like an MBA who spent part of his career as a brand manager at P&G:

The reason for this delay [in absorbing other terrorist organizations] is to protect the value of the "Al Qaeda" brand name, which continues to carry the most weight in the global jihadist community.

Should Al Qaeda prematurely allow a group to adopt its name, that group may embark on actions contrary to Al Qaeda's ideology that could damage its reputation and embarrass its leaders. Al Qaeda needs to be sure that groups bearing its name operate in line with its long-term vision to protect its status as the leader of the global jihadist movement.

This was evident in the formation of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq until his death last summer, engaged in eight months of negotiations with the leaders of Al Qaeda before pledging his allegiance to bin Laden and merging his Tawhid wal Jihad group with Al Qaeda in October 2004.

Who knew? Life really does imitate Iowahawk, who wrote satirically in 2005 of Zarqawi (a.k.a. “Zarkman”) and his struggles with Al Qaeda’s corporate strategic plan entitled “Restoring the Caliphate: A TQM Roadmap For Strategic Empowerment.”

Actually the concluding paragraph of this Op Ed essay makes a lot of sense and is a worthwhile observation.

Though distinguishing between groups that are officially part of Al Qaeda and those that are not may seem like splitting hairs, recognizing that not all jihadist groups or individuals are members of Al Qaeda helps us to understand that the "war on terror" is not just a war on Al Qaeda or groups affiliated with it. Rather, the war on terror is a war on a global jihadist movement of which Al Qaeda is only a part, albeit extremely influential. The common thread between all jihadist groups is that they share a similar ideology. Because this ideology does not derive its legitimacy from Al Qaeda or bin Laden, the jihadist movement will continue to exist whether there is a group called Al Qaeda or not. It is this entire movement that must be debased simultaneously, not one single group.

But why save it for the end of the essay?

Rock 'em Sock 'em Professors

Boston University professor-blogger Richard Landes deconstructs a Boston Globe Op Ed column written by fellow BU professor Richard Augustus Norton. Notes Professor Landes:

Norton, an Anthropology and International Relations professor at Boston University, author of a new book, Hezbollah: A Short History, also has a website pretentiously entitled: Speaking Truth to Power from Boston, the classic phrase that people on the “left” congratulate themselves on doing to those in power who grant them the right to dissent. Try speaking truth to Arab “power” and see how your kneecaps feel.

Read the whole thing.

My name's Teddy. I carry a badge.

From a Boston Globe editorial today entitled "Financial Aid 101":

RECENT NEWS from the student loan industry has all the makings of a gritty detective flick. Some shady financial aid officials cut dubious deals with lenders at the expense of naive student victims. The seen-it-all detective is Senator Edward Kennedy.

Shady officials doling out money vs. Teddy as a tough detective? Perhaps the Globe has these folks cast in the wrong part.

One Picket Line Away From Progress

Some good news in today’s Boston Globe:

…the governor scored an important victory yesterday when the House approved another element of the municipal relief plan that would allow communities to reap significant savings on employee health insurance by buying it through the state's Group Insurance Commission. The state panel purchases health insurance for state employees and teachers at a lower cost than what most municipalities pay.

Good news. A small dose of rationality (economies of scale, really) might break out. But:

The House estimated that communities could save a total of between $120 million and $180 million annually by adopting the change. But because municipal unions could veto a community's shift to the state system, however, all cities and towns may not be able to tap into these savings.

And why would that be? The article does not say, but one might guess that the GIC deal is probably not as sweet as the existing deals that these unions have extracted from towns and cities over decades of 1-sided negotiations. But public sector labor unions standing in the way of community progress? I’m shocked!

We Thought Deval Would Be Different!

Today’s Boston Globe front page reports that Deval Patrick raises a quick $50k in political donations at a breakfast arranged by the CEOs of Liberty Mutual and NStar and attended entirely by executives of these 2 firms. Just a coincidence, but both firms are facing major state regulatory changes:

While not uncommon during previous administrations, Patrick's use of two heavily regulated industry giants to raise political funds stands in sharp contrast to his campaign promise to change the way business is conducted on Beacon Hill and to free politics from special interests…

Jeffrey M. Berry, a professor of political science at Tufts University, said the fund-raiser is a clear indication that Patrick has succumbed to the realities of political life, which includes what he called the unsavory campaign finance system.

"It looks like he's been housebroken," Berry said. "Words are cheap, and his rhetoric now appears to have been empty slogans. His supporters are going to be a little disappointed. But it is rare for politicians to follow through on changing politics as usual. Politics as usual has a lot of attraction once you are in office. Governor Patrick is not immune from the temptation."

As James Taranto says, “We’re so disappointed. We thought Democrats were going to be different!”. Liberty Mutual spokesman John Cusolito is also deliciously quoted:

"We encourage our employees to be politically active,"

No doubt they were encouraged to be active.

Note: Using the term "previous administrations" rather than "Republican administrations" above allows the Globe to report on this event without acknowledging that it gives evidence of moral equivalence between the major political parties. The "previous" 4 administrations were all led by Republicans.

Also in today’s Globe:

Don Mahmoud Abbas successor to deceased billionaire Yasser Arafat of the Fatah crime family, from behind the mattresses in his West Bank headquarters, echoed Israel’s long-held view of relations with Hamas:

"There is no dialogue with those murderous terrorists."

A Vatican marriage tribunal overturned the 1996 decision of the Boston tribunal to annul the marriage of Joseph P. (Joe-4-Chavez-Oil) Kennedy II and his first wife. With typical Vatican and Archdiocesan efficiency, the ruling was made in 2005 but the parties were only notified in May of this year.

Finally Globe political reporter Scott Helman notes:

…several instances of rival campaign operatives trying to bring Romney's faith onto the campaign playing field. Over the past year, staff or volunteers from at least three opposing campaigns have, at times subtly and at times not, spread negative information about Mormons in an apparent effort to damage Romney's bid for the presidency.

Hey, Scott! Don’t forget to count this tar-brush job from 8 months ago by the volunteers in the campaign against Romney centered in the Globe newsroom, and written by a Globe political reporter who (by some strange coincidence) is also named Scott Helman!

Don't Pester Them With Statistics!

Color me astonished by this report in today’s Boston Globe:

First-year students at Massachusetts public colleges who scored well on the high school math and English MCAS exams earn higher grades and more course credits than students with lower scores, and they are more likely to stay in school, a new study by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education has found.

The report, which for the first time tracked how Massachusetts high school graduates fared in college, offers evidence that performance on the high-stakes tests is linked to college readiness and bolsters the case that the state's academic standards are helping to prepare students for college.

It might, but the Globe story never gives readers the title of the report (let alone link to it), and you can’t easily find it on the website of the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education. In fact it looks like they haven’t updated their site much since 2003.

“Some” appears again in this story. This time in the person of a single state hack representative:

Some said the findings were predictable and showed only that brighter, harder-working students were more likely to succeed at college, not that the tests were improving education.

"I don't think anyone is surprised that students who do better on the MCAS exam do better in college," said Representative Carl M. Sciortino Jr. , a Medford Democrat who has filed legislation to stop denying students diplomas based solely on MCAS scores. "That means nothing in terms of producing better-prepared graduates overall."

“Means nothing”?

It means at least that MCAS results are correlated to some degree with college success. Could Representative Carl M. Sciortino Jr.(D-Medford) correctly answer MCAS questions on topics in statistics?

Historical Myopia

Please, not another Globe Editorial!

Last Sunday the Boston Globe published another historically myopic editorial entitled “Please, not another Cold War”. The event that precipitated it was George W. Bush’s dedication of a small memorial to the victims of Communism. The editorial rambles to the point of near derangement. There is already a superb take-down of the entire piece from the Charleston Daily Mail by Don Surber entitled “Boston Globe repudiates JFK”. So I will touch on only a single point:

Bush, dedicating the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, said 100 million people died because of that ideology. Nevertheless, some of those deaths were caused by US overreaction to its conflict with the Soviet Union, the focus of Kennedy's Cold War rhetoric in his 1961 address.

By the time Kennedy became president, the United States had created a nuclear arsenal, overthrown governments in Guatemala and Iran, refused to accept a settlement of the Vietnam conflict, and embarked on a domestic witch hunt against supposed communist sympathizers.

“Some” makes yet another appearance at the Globe.

Some?

Please be bothered to explain how many and which of these 100 million you mean, you cloistered, flabby-minded Morrissey Boulevard posturers!

The historical time-line above illuminates their error. Most of the victims of Communism died at the hands of Lenin and Stalin before 1945 and before any of the other events the Globe lists as causes. R.J. Rummel has created a table of Communist murders during the 20^th Century (it is here). His midpoint estimates are 35 million dead in China and 62 million dead in the USSR (Solzhenitsyn estimated 60 million in his “Letter to the Soviet Leaders”). Most of the these victims died in Stalin’s Gulag, which gradually wound down under Khrushchev after Stalin’s death in 1953. China during the 1960s was closed to and completely isolated from the West, but continued murdering at a prodigious rate through its 1960s collectivization.

What the Globe refers to so causally as deaths "caused by US overreaction to its conflict with the Soviet Union" were where? Cambodia and Vietnam? These represent a very small percentage of the total democide, and its quite a stretch to blame America for the behavior of the Khmer Rouge.

Last week the Globe editors were busy blaming the Jews for the bloodletting between Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Strip. Then on the Sabbath, the Globe editors blame Cold Warriors like JFK for the victims of Communism, even though nearly all these victims had died before the Cold War began.

This editorial makes me proud and happy to be a former Globe subscriber.

Informing or Advocating?

Ironically, the picture on the Boston Globe front page accompanying its story of the defeat of the marriage amendment (above left) apparently did not feature a same-sex couple. Instead the Globe chose to run a picture of a young man and woman embracing in celebration of the Legislature’s vote.

Now that the Legislature has voted down the amendment, same-sex marriage is certain to remain legal for years to come. Then why is the Boston Globe still averse to showing its readers certain images? The Globe’s coverage of same-sex marriage has especially lacked pictures showing males engaged in public displays of affection. Why? There were plenty of such pictures to choose from last week. Why didn't the Globe choose to lead with a picture such as the one on the right?

Some may believe that any discomfort caused by such images is purely a result of prejudice. Some may believe it is a result of cultural conditioning. Others may believe our reactions are hard-wired into our genes. Regardless, the Boston Globe has simply not printed such pictures.

Their choice seems hypocritical given the steadfast support for same-sex marriage so evident in the Globe's news coverage and editorials. That is, unless the Globe aims to advocate rather than to inform.

The Dan Rather of the Duke Rape Case

Duff Wilson of the NY Times begins his story on the Nifong disbarment by covering his own bloody tracks:

By DUFF WILSON

Published: June 16, 2007

RALEIGH, N.C., June 16 — In a case that has brought one surprise after another, a disciplinary hearing panel found Michael B. Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, guilty today of ethical violations while pressing a false accusation of sexual assault against three former Duke University lacrosse players. The panel then ruled that Mr. Nifong should be disbarred.

Well gaaa-ah-ah-leee! Surprise surprise!

Duff Wilson has served as one of Mike Nifong’s enablers in this case. Fortunately for Wilson, reporters can’t be banished from their profession for misconduct.

Nifong Disbarred

"The case we have here is a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct," [committee chairman F. Lane] Williamson said. "This should be a reminder to everyone the facts matter. It's not the allegation."

One can only hope that this message penetrates the fortifications guarding Duke faculty lounges.

Nifong Resigns, Duke Professors Keep Their Jobs

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong announced his intention to resign yesterday at his disbarment hearing. He did so in an appalling fashion, conflating his well-deserved suffering with the grief that his false accusations caused to the 3 defendants in the Duke rape case. He said:

For the last 14 months unintentionally my family and the families of David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty have kind of been kind of joined at the hip. Everything that affects one of us affects the other. I think that’s going to be the case as long as I’m the District Attorney in Durham. I think that I can’t do justice; I can’t do the right thing, if I allow that to continue. So it is my intention whether or not, whatever the decision is to me[sic], to resign as District Attorney of Durham.

It’s all on video here (the quote above is at about 6:00 into the segment)

Today’s Boston Globe carries a story on the hearing. Snippet:

Nifong denied that the months of withholding the DNA evidence -- which showed other men's DNA present but not that of the accused players -- was malicious. Instead, he said, it was a result of an oversight caused in part by his lack of careful notes.

As usual, Pulitzer-worthy blogger K.C. Johnson catalogs the history of Nifong’s stories on this topic at his blog Durham in Wonderland. Johnson's post provides far better perspective on this story than does the mainstream media:

Before this week, Nifong had offered 13 different explanations as to his failure to turn over the exculpatory DNA material. Upon which of the 13 would he rely to the Bar? None.

Instead, Nifong eventually settled on a wholly new defense: the DA assumed, he said, that the exculpatory test findings were included in the May 12 Meehan report—but since he never bothered to read the report, he never learned otherwise. How did this argument fit with Nifong reading into the record in September a Meehan letter explicitly saying that the report was limited; or with Nifong asserting on Dec. 15, after the hearing, that he knew the report was limited? Nifong never said.

Indeed, Nifong’s testimony suggested—in a best possible explanation—a stunningly lazy figure indifferent to justice. He sought indictments against Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty before even reading the transcript of the 4-4 lineup, which provided the only evidence against the duo. He launched his preprimary publicity barrage without reading any statements at all. And at no point in his career did he ever meet with defense attorneys who promised him exculpatory information.

The Duke rape case was as political a prosecution as any under Stalin. Meanwhile dozens of professors in the ultra-liberal Duke faculty were loudly cheering Nifong’s work from their ivory tower.

Nifong now faces disbarment and perhaps criminal prosecution. The Duke professors, however, are tenured among like-minded peers, where behavior such as they have shown is still honored.

"The Next Step"

Thursday, hours after the Massachusetts marriage initiative was voted down in the legislature, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby wrote:

It is only a matter of time before a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts finds a federal judge prepared to rule that under the US Constitution, their marriage license must be granted ''full faith and credit'' by every other state.

Only 2 days later a Globe news story reports on plans which will speed the litigation that Jacoby predicted:

Proponents said they will also eventually look to open the door to couples from other states to marry in Massachusetts. [Mark Solomon, campaign director of MassEquality] said there is overwhelming support in the Legislature to repeal the 1913 law that prohibits couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would not be legal in their own state. "The next step is to sit down with legislative leaders and the governor's people and talk about when it makes sense to advance that piece of legislation," said Solomon, adding that there are no immediate plans for such a meeting.

When would the Democrats on Beacon Hill decide that “it makes sense to advance that legislation”? No doubt the right time will be safely after the 2008 election, lest the party’s presidential candidate be “damaged” nationally by the Massachusetts party.

UPDATE: The International Herald Tribune (a New York Times paper) runs a whole AP story on this angle headlined "US gay marriage backers set sights on letting out-of-state couples marry in Massachusetts". The Globe buries it at the end of another story. Unsurprising.

No Intemperate Tantrums

As a “process conservative” there is no ground for complaint at yesterday’s work on Beacon Hill. Petitioners were due a roll-call vote and they received their due. Those who do not like the outcome are enfranchised citizens and may take action through the political process.

Taunting, triumphalism, demonization, name-calling, prophecies of doom or of Utopia should be avoided by all sides. The "professional journalists" at the Boston Globe provide a textbook example of such bad behavior by placing an editorial taunt as today's front page weather pun – forecasting a “Temperate Tantrum”. From the Globe’s news story:

The political leaders strongly denied the allegations, saying that they made their case based on the merits of the issue and their conviction that if the issue were on the ballot in 2008, Massachusetts would become a national battleground over gay rights, creating chaos locally and draining important resources from Democrats' national efforts, including winning the White House and retaining control of Congress.

The political calculus of the national Democratic Party was an important factor in the effort mounted. Just one political horse-trade is noted at the end of the same Globe story:

A few surprises, including news that Republicans Richard Ross and Paul Loscocco were dropping their support for the proposal, assured him that a victory was at hand. [Massachusetts Senate President Therese] Murray, too, felt the tension as she prepared to open the convention. "I can tell you right now that we did not know at 5 minutes to 1, when I went into the chamber, what the vote would be," she said later."But I was committed to taking the vote, and I figured we'd know the vote when we took it. We had no comfort level."

To reassure legislators who fear that the state's legalization of same-sex marriages could force churches to do the same, Murray said she would push for passage of a bill sponsored by Loscocco that would make it clear that religious institutions can refuse to recognize gay marriages.

Opponents will note whether such a bill passes, and will wait for it to be constitutionally challenged. Since the Goodridge decision Catholic Services has been refused a state license to perform adoptions because the agency chose not to place children with same-sex couples.

It's Always 20-20

Some superb hindsight in today’s Boston Globe editorial:

BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
“Senseless in Gaza”
June 14, 2007

[Gazans] long suffered from Israel's suffocating occupation, and then from Ariel Sharon's foolishly unilateral withdrawal in 2005, a move that allowed Hamas to bid for power with the misleading claim that its rockets and suicide bombings had driven Israeli soldiers and settlers out of Gaza.

But at the time the Globe editors saw a different story…

BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL
“The road through Gaza”
August 13, 2005

Begun as a unilateral move announced by Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the step has since attracted a level of coordination that is encouraging on its own terms. … The settlements have often been called facts on the ground. The withdrawal from Gaza, if successful, will be another important fact.

Even better is the way the 2005 Editorial began:

SOME ISRAELIS protesting the planned pullout from Gaza settlements are using scare tactics that are too common in the Mideast. ''A Jew-free Gaza welcomes Al Qaeda," shouted one banner at a massive rally in Tel Aviv on Thursday. Even some political leaders who should know better are fanning the flames. But to argue, as Benjamin Netanyahu did in resigning from the Cabinet, that disengagement from Gaza would create ''a giant base for terrorism" is to argue that there should never be a two-state solution to the conflict.

While in today’s New York Times a news story reports the fulfillment of Netanyahu’s warning:

Islam Shahwan, a spokesman for the Hamas militia, told Hamas radio triumphantly: “The era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived.”

Which is one way to say, “Welcome, Al Qaeda”. The Times story reports on some other ways:

Hamas militias overran Fatah strongholds in Gaza, dragging men into the street and shooting them…The scene in Gaza was one of prayerful celebration for Hamas mixed with revenge. Hamas fighters took over the Fatah-run Preventive Security compound, driving away in cars loaded with weapons, computers, office furniture and other equipment…Bystanders were shocked. Ghassan Hashem, 37, a civil servant, said, “I see Iraq here. There is no mercy. We are afraid. See how ferocious this fight was? There is no future for us.”

The Root Cause of the Beacon Hill Culture

It is same-sex marriage day in the Boston Globe (this blog spoke its piece yesterday). But note one point in Joan Vennochi’s column today:

Patrick and other same-sex marriage backers are running up against a strong argument from those who support the ban on same-sex marriage -- that the people have the right to vote on this controversial issue. The amendment is before legislators, after all, because petitioners gathered enough signatures to put it there.

Yes, but why wasn’t the Legislature confronted with the question before it became a constitutional issue? Why is our Legislature allowed to flee from votes on divisive questions like cockroaches leaving a lighted room?

The root cause for this (and for much of the unfortunate “Beacon Hill culture”) is the Legislature’s complete dominance by a single political party. This replaces inter-party debate and crafted political compromise with the culture of patronage that we all know and loathe. If the Leg was 85% Republicans, the policies would be different, but the culture would be equally disfunctional.

Our polity will continue with this unhealthy condition until the comatose Massachusetts Republican party wakes up. Don’t hold your breath.

Herman Melville Was Right!

Today’s Boston Globe has a remarkable story about a harpoon-head found in the flesh of a recently killed bowhead whale. The story reports:

The weapon was used more than a century ago by whalers from New Bedford, enabling researchers to estimate that the whale was at least 115 years old and providing more evidence for their long-held belief that the bowhead whale is one of the longest living mammals on earth, surviving for up to 150 years.

Herman Melville was far ahead of his time in this matter, as in so many others. A reference from his chapter in Moby Dick entitled “The Pequod Meets the Virgin” discusses the subject of embedded harpoons (scroll down to page 357). He writes:

It so chanced that almost upon first cutting into him with the spade, the entire length of a corroded harpoon was found imbedded in his flesh, on the lower part of the bunch before described. But as the stumps of harpoons are frequently found in the dead bodies of captured whales, with the flesh perfectly healed around them, and no prominence of any kind to denote their place; therefore, there must needs have been some other unknown reason in the present case fully to account for the ulceration alluded to. But still more curious was the fact of a lance-head of stone being found in him, not far from the buried iron, the flesh perfectly firm about it. Who had darted that stone lance? And when? It might have been darted by some Nor' West Indian long before America was discovered.

As for the reputed longevity of whales, here again is Melville (from page 459 in the online edition) in a very ironic chapter entitled “Does the Whale’s Magnitude Diminish? – Will He Perish?”:

Moreover: we are to consider, that from the presumed great longevity of whales, their probably attaining the age of a century and more, therefore at any one period of time, several distinct adult generations must be contemporary.

So much knowledge there was in Melville combined with an equal measure of premature wisdom! And he creates in Moby Dick a cast of characters that is a 19^th century version of the Rainbow Coalition: Ahab, Queequeg, Starbuck, Stubb, Flask, Tashtego, Daggoo, Pippin, Fedallah, and of course that fellow who gives himself the name of Abraham’s elder son.

Yet today in Massachusetts – here just miles from the very New Bedford and Nantucket docks where Melville left for his seminal whaling voyage –few if any public school curriculums include his masterpiece. It is too difficult. It uses too many words that are awkwardly out of fashion. It has all those biblical references and racial terms! And some chapters are inappropriate for high school class discussions! Today’s educators are stone deaf to Melville’s advice:

Is it not curious, that so vast a being as the whale should see the world through so small an eye, and hear the thunder through an ear which is smaller than a hare's? But if his eyes were broad as the lens of Herschel's great telescope; and his ears capacious as the porches of cathedrals; would that make him any longer of sight, or sharper of hearing? Not at all. - Why then do you try to "enlarge" your mind? Subtilize it.

A Process Conservative on Gay Marriage

D.R. Tucker wrote a thoughtful post on RedMassGroup concerning the debate over Massachusetts marriage law, to which I responded and will expand on here. Tucker wrote as a Libertarian questioning his own reasoning:

However, in the years since the [Goodridge] decision, I've sometimes found myself wondering: does my view reflect an unconscious prejudice towards homosexuals? I've always regarded myself as libertarian on the issue of homosexuality: I've never believed that one's sexual direction should have any bearing on the way one is treated by the state. While I profoundly disagreed with the legal conclusions of the majority judges in Goodridge, I certainly understood their motivation--a desire to legally declare that homosexual couples were not second-class citizens.

From the pure libertarian standpoint, that argument makes perfect sense, and thus marriage law like many other questions can separate libertarian conservatives from “social conservatives”. I am uncomfortable wearing the label of social conservative. If there can be “process liberals” concerning marriage law, then I would prefer to be labeled a “process conservative”.

The central point in this debate for me (and most often lost on both sides) is that there are and have been many different forms and practices of marriage throughout human history. Yet many of these remain illegal in our country without a peep of protest, although they could be defended under exactly the same “civil rights” argument that is being made now in favor legalizing homosexual marriage. Polygamy, marriages to close relatives, and some arranged marriages are 3 examples.

Polygamy is the best example since it is allowed now under religious and civil laws in many parts of the world but remains illegal here. Why is it not a constitutional civil right for consenting adults to contract marriage in the form of polygamy? Does our constitution mandate monogamy?

Charles Krauthammer summed up the polygamy argument best when he wrote:

In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

This line of argument makes gay activists furious. I can understand why they do not want to be in the same room as polygamists. But I'm not the one who put them there. Their argument does. Blogger and author Andrew Sullivan, who had the courage to advocate gay marriage at a time when it was considered pretty crazy, has called this the "polygamy diversion," arguing that homosexuality and polygamy are categorically different because polygamy is a mere "activity" while homosexuality is an intrinsic state that "occupies a deeper level of human consciousness."

But this distinction between higher and lower orders of love is precisely what gay rights activists so vigorously protest when the general culture "privileges" (as they say in the English departments) heterosexual unions over homosexual ones.

Attitudes of some gay activists have “grown” enough to become comfortable with polygamy. The same day as D.R.’s RedMassGroup post the Boston Globe carried a story about the polygamy-themed HBO TV show (“Big Love”) which included this snippet of support for polygamy on the part of the homosexual couple that created “Big Love”:

The show's creators [Mark V. Olsen and Will Scheffer], who are personal and writing partners, said the initial aversion they both felt toward polygamy has softened as they've worked on the show.

“When I started the series, polygamy was beyond the pale," Olsen said. "When we would hear women advocate polygamy and talk about how good their marriages were, I would say, 'Stockholm syndrome. You're brainwashed.' I don't necessarily feel that anymore. I certainly see abuses to it. But nevertheless, in its best-case scenario, I see it being a valid lifestyle.”

A “valid” lifestyle?

The process conservative rationale for supporting laws maintaining traditional marriage is not that alternative lifestyles are “invalid”. It is rather that certain lifestyles are preferred (or privileged) because elected representatives judge that it is best for our society that these lifestyles should become normative.

When laws privileging these are enacted by elected bodies through legislation, such laws can be quickly modified or reversed, also by legislation. If while the Goodridge case was being adjudicated, just 2/3 of the Legislature had stood for a bill legalizing gay marriage, it would have become law even over a veto by the Governor, and would remain law regardless of which way the Goodridge case was eventually decided. So one must ask of the legislators who today vote to support gay marriage where were they before the Goodridge decision? They were hiding from their responsibility and from their constituents, as I now suspect they are still hiding behind the robes of the SJC.

Our laws governing forms of marriage are not fundamentally civil rights matters but rather are essentially a means for elected governments to encourage certain forms of behavior in what they perceive to be the interest of the people. That is a legitimate function of government. People disagree about what behaviors should be encouraged, which makes this even more a matter that should be kept within the Legislature. But our Legislators lack the courage (or even the integrity) to address the question. Thus the electorate is now saddled with a constitutional fight over it.

Buyer's Remorse?

The Boston Globe editors write concerning their adored and endorsed gubernatorial candidate:

He says he supports MCAS, including a new science exam, as a high school graduation requirement. Yet he appoints one of the state's most passionate MCAS opponents to the policy-making education board. He complains that MCAS is now the sole assessment of student progress. Yet he must know that every school district also requires students to pass certain courses to earn their diplomas. He says he wants balanced views on the board in the interest of healthy debate. But he elevates the likelihood of clashes by tossing Kaplan in with current board member Sandra Stotsky, a take-no-prisoners warrior for high standards and strict teacher accountability. And to confuse matters even more, he has appointed one of the state's strongest MCAS supporters, former Boston school superintendent Thomas Payzant, to a panel to carry out his “cradle-to-career” education plan.

If there is a cogent philosophy here, it's well disguised.

Perhaps the Globe editors forget that Patrick’s campaign slogan “Together we can” lacked a predicate.

Verbal injustice

Today’s Boston Globe Editorial entitled “Poetic injustice” exposes an astounding level of ignorance concerning military history on the part of Globe editorial writers:

In five lines, Randall Jarrell writes a gruesome description of "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner," the soldier who crouched into the cramped spheres that hung from the bellies of World War II fighter planes to shoot at the enemy.

The warrior in this poem is properly called an airman, not a soldier. Likewise the plane he flies in, if equipped with ball turrets, would have to be a B-17 or a B-24 – the warplane is a bomber, not a “fighter plane”.

If the editorial writer was curious he/she could have Googled this information in 30 seconds. But why be precise when choosing words for a Boston Globe editorial? It’s the emotions and good intentions that really matter, right?

Robin Hood or “Robbin da Hood”?

The late Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen supposedly joked “A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Governor Deval Patrick has now shown that his appetite for lavish state spending is not limited to his car and office furnishings. Boston Globe columnist (and Democrat) Joan Vennochi describes our situation superbly:

The governor is proposing free community colleges, universal preschool, full-day kindergarten, 1,000 new police officers, an extended commuter rail line, a $1 billion biotechnology investment, and property tax breaks.

That's like pulling a new BMW into my driveway, putting Red Sox season tickets in the glove compartment, leaving the hottest cellphone on the driver's seat, filling the trunk with video games and DVDs -- and then asking my son if this dazzling array interests him. Of course it does. But just like the taxpayers of Massachusetts, he has no way to pay for it.

Not to worry, Joan. Another billion here and there could be voluntarily contributed by gamblers. But only if the judgmental moralistic obstructionists in the Legislature would stop their squirming over outdated concepts like "vice". Never mind that the one billion dollars already contributed annually via the Massachusetts State Lottery is primarily contributed by people with low incomes, the uneducated, and minorities.

“Together we can…empty their pockets even more”.

Errors of Omission

Often in the Boston Globe, it’s not what they say that counts. It’s what they don’t say.

Blogger Miss Kelly has followed developments at many Boston Islamic groups, including the ISB’s sweetheart land deal with the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Today she notes more than a few omissions from a Globe puff piece about a local imam with visa issues. She concludes with some of them:

Imam Masood and his wife and some of their children are living rent-free (with their utilities paid for) on a beautiful 52-acre estate in leafy, affluent Sharon,Massachusetts (the Lexington of the South Shore). The MAS has held fund-raisers for Masood, reportedly raising $40,000 at one fundraiser alone. A Sharon interfaith group has also raised money for the family. It must be very difficult for Masood and his family to be in limbo, but compared to probably anybody else in the country facing deportation, they're the luckiest ones.

By the way, Miss Kelly, above is the picture I would use for a puff piece.

A Congressional Website Ate My Homework!

From a recent Boston Globe correction:

Based on incomplete information on a congressional website, a graphic with a Page One story about a plaque commemorating the origins of gerrymandering wrongly said Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry and state Senator Israel Thorndike attempted to keep their Republican friends in power. They were members of the Democratic-Republican Party, also known as the Jeffersonian Democrats. The Republican Party was not founded until the 1850s.

The Globe’s error originated in the first version of the story that was posted on boston.com and reported:

In 1812, on the corner of Summer and Arch streets, Governor Elbridge Gerry and State Senator Israel Thorndike drew legislative districts -- one shaped like a salamander -- designed to keep their Republican friends in power. Gerrymandering was born.

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 and thus Republicans were as rare in 1812 as they are today in the Globe newsroom. This mistake was corrected in the story before it was later published in the Globe, but the error propagated to the caption of the graphic.

It is simply childish for the Globe to blame “incomplete information on a congressional website” for an error such as this, which could have been detected by a few seconds of fact-checking at Wikipedia (or by greater familiarity with 19th century US history). Why can't the Globe organization simply accept responsibility for their own mistake, even in something so small?

The Unmentionable

From today’s Boston Globe:

(Reuters) - Chinese authorities were investigating on Tuesday how an advertisement saluting mothers of students killed in the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown found its way into a newspaper in southwest China. The massacre is still taboo and the government has rejected public calls to overturn the verdict that the student-led demonstrations were "counter-revolutionary,"…

Yesterday was the 18^th anniversary of the massacre whose mention is now taboo.

In time the truth will out.

The Culture of Corruption is Now Passé

Congressman William Jefferson was indicted yesterday on charges of racketeering, money-laundering, and soliciting more than $400,000 in bribes. The US attorney for Eastern Virginia summarizes the charges by saying “Mr. Jefferson corruptly traded on his good office and on the Congress.”

Readers with memories that stretch back to before last November will recall that at that time the “culture of corruption” in Congress was daily front page news. However the story of Jefferson’s indictment does not make the front page of the Boston Globe, but only merits a brief AP story inside the paper. Whatever could account for the difference?

On a sadder note, Clete Boyer, the great Yankee 3^rd baseman of the early 1960s has died. A lifelong Tiger fan, I feared Boyer at 3rd. He was truly a star. Rest in Peace.

Heaping Hillary with Faint Praise

Six months before the 1^st presidential primary yet another Democratic presidental debate took place last night at St Anselm’s College in New Hampshire. The Boston Globe’s news and Op Ed writers have a series of blog-like posts in today’s paper, which mostly offer very faint praise to the junior senator from New York.

Peter Canellos:

Clinton spoke calmly and fluidly, and seemed at ease -- even likable, as she smiled at a question about her husband.

Even likable, Peter? What a stunning surprise! Perhaps Hillary should be nominated for an Oscar.

Joan Vennochi:

THE NEXT time the Democrats debate, they should pull out a chair for Bill Clinton. The former president is already with them in spirit. Why not get him there in the flesh?... For Hillary Clinton, this could be a plus with voters who yearn for the Clinton years. But it also focuses attention on a complicated political and marital relationship -- and is all about the past.

Susan Milligan ( writing in a news story):

The two-term New York lawmaker looked stoney[sic]-faced at Edwards during his remarks about the war, but avoided -- as front-runners tend to do -- attacking any of her primary opponents.

Clinton repeated her previous assertions that she was duped by the Bush administration into believing that the president would give the weapons inspectors more time to do their job. "This is George Bush's war. He is responsible for this war. He started the war. He mismanaged the war. He escalated the war. And he refuses to end the war," Clinton said, exhorting her fellow Democrats to remember they were united in their desires to end the war.

Scott Lehigh:

Obama's was a strong performance, one that gave away nothing at all to the front-runner, Clinton, who came off as smart and competent, but for all that, didn't turn in as many memorable moments.

A Boston Globe Editorial:

But it made at least one thing clear: dealing with the incumbent president's war in Iraq will be the defining issue -- and most divisive one -- for the Democratic candidates trying to succeed him.

The war will also become their responsibility, unless they expect it to end during the next 18 months.

Jeff Jacoby sums up pretty well:

...on the issue they spent the most time discussing -- the war in Iraq -- not one spoke seriously or responsibly about the consequences of an American withdrawal.

Ready for prime time? No, not yet. Fortunately, it isn't prime time yet -- the election is more than 16 months away. If you weren't tuned in last night, don't worry.

I wan't tuned in to it, and I don't buy the product popularly known as TV.