PeterDavid.net

Or that the media will not point that out to them?

If the media doesn't point out a 180 like that, then someone's not doing their job.

PAD

So Wilson wants to sue 2 people that haven't been proven to have anything to do with the issue. I'm not saying one or both don't, but nothing has been proven. Not even by that brave reporter that went to jail to prevent giving out the name of her source (which she can't remember anyway).

Seriously, if the Democrats expect to regain any power, they've got to come up with something more than flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.

First, I'm not following. You're saying that one shouldn't sue someone if it hasn't been proven that they had something to do with the issue at hand? Wouldn't that pretty much put an end to all litigation? Isn't the point to determine if Cheney and Bush did have anything to do with it? If they had prior knowledge, and approved, Rove's actions?

Second, "the Democrats?" Where did I say the suit was being filed on behalf of the Democratic party?

Third, y'know, I heard much the same arguments back in 1974, when the GOP was trying to dismiss the notion of Nixon having anything to do with Watergate.

PAD

I'm saying wait until the criminal investigation is over, then go ahead and try to sue. If there are any facts that come out that either Bush or Cheney or even Rove and Scooter had anything to do with it, I hope they are tried and convicted of a criminal act. If they happen to get off, then by all means Wilson should go for the civil suit.

It just seems that the Democrats are looking for anything to try to hammer the Republicans. No rhyme or reason, just trying to throw one thing on top of another, no matter if it's accurate or not.

Sure, let him sue.

I'm not so sure that one can actually just sue people just "to determine if (they) did have anything to do with it?" There has to be at least a reasonable, uh, reason, if you expect it to get very far. Otherwise anyone could just repeatedly sue their enemies over and over again for increasingly creative reasons. As I recall, Paula Jones had to go through a few hoops to get her lawsuit and I imagine that Wilson wil as well...assuming he is serious and not just keeping his name in the paper (I take this as seriously as the claim that Kerry is thinking about suing the Swift Boat Vets).

Since PAD knows that it was Karl Rove who did it one wonders why he was left out of the suit. And here I thought it was Libby who was the focus of attention.

I certainly don't consider myself a "conservative force" so my not doing a reverse is no big but I'm guessing that in the unlikely event that Wilson goes ahead with this you might be surprised to find some big time conservatives positively salivating at the prospect of making him testify on his own behalf.

If the media doesn't point out a 180 like that, then someone's not doing their job

And this would be a surprise how, exactly? The media hasn't been doing a proper job for at least as long as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

TWL

I'm saying wait until the criminal investigation is over, then go ahead and try to sue.

So, no one should ever sue anyone until the criminal investigation is over? Is this just another one of those special rules that only apply for Bush?

It just seems that the Democrats are looking for anything to try to hammer the Republicans.

As Peter said, where does it say that the Democrats are behind this? From what he said, it looks like -unlike Paula Jones- Wilson is doing this all on his own.

No rhyme or reason, just trying to throw one thing on top of another, no matter if it's accurate or not.

Well if they are, they learned it in the 90s from watching the Republicans throw everything they could think of at Clinton.

BTW,

It">http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aIh7Ul2ZhzQE>It looks like Wilson is waiting until after the criminal investigation is over.

Okay, I must have screwed up the link HTML, so here's the URL:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aIh7Ul2ZhzQE

Umm....isn't Wilson a Republican?

Ummm, never mind....my mind was elsewhere.

THough the fact that Wilson worked with both Democratic and Republican presidents shouldn't mean that it's automatically a Democratic plot...

Oh, the Republicans will just use it as a reason to call for "tort reform".

It's not a Democratic plot. The Democrats are nowhere near that organized.

PAD

Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated--at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit--that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?

Actually, if they're smart, they'll make a better argument: that a President cannot be sued for actions committed while President, and AS President. There are a variety of legal doctrines which preclude civil liability of governmental officials for their actions in their official roles, even if those roles are performed poorly. For instance, if President Bush were to drive an automobile and cause a wreck, he could be sued under the Clinton precedent. On the other hand, Iraqi civilians cannot sue him for wrongful death based on his ordering an invasion of Iraq, even if it were to be proved that he knew there were no WMDs and went to war on a pretext. Releasing the identity of one of his subordinates-- a CIA officer-- would be more like the latter than the former. I'd be very surprised if Wilson got anywhere with such a suit.

Also, even if you get past sovereign and official immunity, there's a decent argument that Bush shouldn't be sued unless or until evidence is uncovered that does link him directly to the leak. Before filing a lawsuit, an plaintiff has to have a good faith basis to believe the allegations in the complaint are true-- you can't just sue someone as a fishing expedition and hope to find something in discovery.

So yes, I have a doubt. I think the conservative forces would very calmly walk into court with their lawyers and win quickly and fairly.

Speaking of tort reform, Kevin Drum had a thought provoking entry that lawsuits are the inverse of governmental regulations. THey both serve the same purpose in acting as a check on large organizations.

PAD:
"Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated--at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit--that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?"

I have no doubt whatsoever that a conservative will make such a statement. Whether or not the conservative in question has any clout is something else entirely.

The thing is that both Republicans and Democrats engage in this practice and, for that matter, many other practices that one will accuse the other of. That's why neither party can win my vote. They look to me like clones wearing different causes.

PAD:
"It's not a Democratic plot. The Democrats are nowhere near that organized."

This fact is indisputable. Their handling of the last presidential election is evidence of their lack of organizational skills, which only served to further erode my confidence in the Democrat Party.

If the Democrats could choose a solid, forward thinking candidate they might win my vote. Which is sad because I'd far prefer to vote FOR something rather than AGAINST something.

As to the topic at hand Mr. Mulligan is correct when he says that person bringing suit must be able to make at least a Prima Facia case for the proceedings to... um, proceed.

If the Democrats could choose a solid, forward thinking candidate they might win my vote

Wesley Clark for president 2008

The question then, David, would be, is leaking the name of a CIA agent acting in the official capacity of the office of the presidency, or is the act of a politician trying to dig up dirt on someone who had to nerve to publicly criticize his propaganda?

I'd lean towards the latter.

"The question then, David, would be, is leaking the name of a CIA agent acting in the official capacity of the office of the presidency, or is the act of a politician trying to dig up dirt on someone who had to nerve to publicly criticize his propaganda?

I'd lean towards the latter."

I'd agree. I don't see any purpose in revealing the identity of a secret operative. Such an act, made by anyone, of an active operative on mission would be an act of treason. The only saving grace here is she was not on assignment, but her outing has essentially eliminate a security asset of the country. The President serves the country, he doesn't own it, and he has the same obligations to observe the integrity of our security agencies that any other citizen has. If Bush knew about, or gave the order for the outing, that was any act of "presidenting," that was the act of a bitter politician getting retribution for what he percieved as a yapping dog. If true, then it amounts to him not being able to touch the man making the comment, so he gets to him the only way he can...by ending the career of the man's wife. Which, y'know, if that's true...what a spineless move.

On the other hand, I do think you need more to personally name him than just "he's at the top of the totem pole." There's not enough to implicate Cheney, and I doubt there will ever be any substantial evidence to implicate Bush. He's proven far too effective at not creating any ties of liability for pretty much anything he does, a trait he and Clinton (with a few spotty exceptions) share.

Seriously, if the Democrats expect to regain any power, they've got to come up with something more than flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.

And yet, that's exactly how the Republicans got into power, lead us to Iraq, and in trying to change things such as Social Security.

Actually, if they're smart, they'll make a better argument: that a President cannot be sued for actions committed while President, and AS President.

Well, guess what? The president isn't above the law.

Also, even if you get past sovereign and official immunity, there's a decent argument that Bush shouldn't be sued unless or until evidence is uncovered that does link him directly to the leak.

Well, apparently, the phrase "the buck stops here" no longer applies to the Bush Administration, if it ever did.

Bush has already flip-flopped on what he would do to anybody that leaked info in his White House, so why would he ever take responsibility for anything at this point?

"Bush has already flip-flopped on what he would do to anybody that leaked info in his White House, so why would he ever take responsibility for anything at this point?"

He's not going to. He probably has lived a life of avoiding responsibility. Why start now?

If he did somehow screw up and put in writing somewhere, or utter the command in the presence of someone not loyal to him, that's the only way a court would be able to force responsibility on him. And even then, unless it's in writing and absolutely no doubt that he was the source of the writing, I don't know that it would be a good precedent to be able to unseat a president based on "he said, he said" testimony. In fact, I think that would be pretty much the end of any real power the office of the President holds.

Wasn't Truman the one who coined the phrase, "The buck stops here"? Maybe that's why the Republicans don't believe in it. :)

And Bobb, "probably"? Bush has been dancing his way out of every jam his entire life.

Seriously, I don't there'll ever be a direct connect found to Bush. This will play out just like Irancontra, where some mid-level functionary will be designated the "loose cannon" and take the fall. "Scooter" seems to be the leading candidate since Turdblossom is too valuable in his role as Bush's brain. Scooter will get one of those special end-of-term pardons that all presidents give out and get his own talk radio show.

"Brownie" sure did a heck of a job taking that FEMA bullet, didn't he?

Craig quoted, um... someone:
Seriously, if the Democrats expect to regain any power, they've got to come up with something more than flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks.

Then he replied:
And yet, that's exactly how the Republicans got into power, lead us to Iraq, and in trying to change things such as Social Security.

If you mean the Republicans got into power because the Democrats seem insistent on doing nothing but slinging poo with sticks, I agree entirely. I have been desperately hoping the Democrats would learn from that and start trying to come up with real plans to address the issues, but they apparently like the poo-slinging plan too well.

Seriously, there are a whole lot of people like me who are dismayed at a good number of things that Bush is doing, but who don't see a good alternative with the Democrats. I'm not quite ready to go all doom-and-gloom, but if we don't get a third party or someone to reform one of these two parties into a fiscally-responsible, freedom-loving party (and soon), I'll be very, very pessimistic about the future of this country.

Fiscally responsible and freedom loving? You mean like the last Democratic administration that ended deficit spending and didn't try to or talk about limiting freedom of religion and speech? That was only about using justified, limited force where and when needed? That party?

If you mean the Republicans got into power because the Democrats seem insistent on doing nothing but slinging poo with sticks, I agree entirely.

Actually, that's how the GOP has managed to stay in power, but up until 1994, the Democrats were still a party about ideas: Healthcare reform, "reinventing government", etc. It's only after they lost power that they gave up on ideas.

I have been desperately hoping the Democrats would learn from that and start trying to come up with real plans to address the issues, but they apparently like the poo-slinging plan too well.

They see how well it works for the GOP, so they try to copy it. Unfortunately, they are torn between a desparate desire to score some kind of domestic victory against Bush and a fear of appearing weak on defense. Until they figure out how to put some real counter issues on the table, they are going to remain the minority party.

Right now their strategy appears to be wait until the Bush administrations incompetence and cronyism becomes unbearable to all but the most diehard GOP supporters and then rush on a white horse like a shining knight to save the day.

But the knight isn't worth much without his lance.

Problem is, unless Cheney decides to try and run, we won't be voting for the Bush administration next time around. The GOP has already started to distance itself from this adminstration, setting the table for a clean GOP slate come next election.

I doubt Cheney will run. His bad ticker aside, he'll probably be ready to start counting the value on his Haliburton stocks in his "blind" trust. It'll depend on who wins the GOP nomination. If it goes to someone perceived as a close Bush ally, like Frist or (God forbid) Santorum, they'll have to contend with accusations that they will be continuation of the cronyism and incompetence of the Bushites. Their best bet maybe to go outside the beltway and nominate another governor.

I think Frist is toast after his stock sale, and the Rove machine is far too occupied to try and clean him up. If the GOP was stupid enough to nominate Santorum, they'd more than deserve the ass-whuppin' that even Kucinich could give that lunatic. It will probably be someone like Giuliani, OR if they are smart the party will try and mend fences with McCain.

"Wesley Clark for president 2008"

Michael: As the volunteer head of the Clark campaign in my county, I couldn't agree more.

Sorry, Michael. I should have said, "...former volunteer head of the Clark campaign in my county..."

Thing about Frist and Rove is, most people that voted for them will probably pull a totally hypocritical "so what" and vote for them again. Frist sold stock that he knew was going down in value? There's a lot of people that think that laws against that are stupid...despite that it's cheating. And Rove, his actions increased GOP power in Texas. GOP voters are going to see this as a bad thing, despite the fact that he essentially defrauded/cheated? Assuming both actually did what they are accused of. It's not like either of them killed someone, so there are going to be a lot of people that will write this off as ticky-tack technical "mistakes" at worst, and partisan witch hunting at best. In other words, part and parcel for the kool aide drinkers.

People wonder why there's such a division in the country today, it's because people and voters keep ignoring the basic facts of reality, and voting for their "team."

"Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated--at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit--that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?"

Whether they use this argument or not, I don't think that such a suit should proceed. Hypocritical as it would be to make that argument, I agree with it...just like I agreed with it back when the Paula Jones suit was forced through. I always believed that that her suit should have been forced to wait until after President Clinton left office.

Don't get me wrong. I hate that George Bush is President and would be hard pressed to think of anything that he's done that I agree with in years, but I think that the Constitution should cover him, barring impeachment.

Just my two cents.

"Frist sold stock that he knew was going down in value? There's a lot of people that think that laws against that are stupid...despite that it's cheating."

Accounts that I've read say that anyone who was actually watching that stock would have seen the reports that insiders were selling off their interests (prior to Sen. Frist's sale) and dumped their interests as well. I think that if Frist actually used insider info on that sale, it will never be proved, because he didn't need insider info to make that huge money-saving decision.

Accounts that I've read say that anyone who was actually watching that stock would have seen the reports that insiders were selling off their interests (prior to Sen. Frist's sale) and dumped their interests as well. I think that if Frist actually used insider info on that sale, it will never be proved, because he didn't need insider info to make that huge money-saving decision.

Except for the fact that the stock was supposedly in a blind trust, which Frist wasn't supposed to know how much he owned or instruct the trustees to sell any of it. The fact that he has admitted to ordering the sale of the stock for whatever lame reason he gave, already shows a lack of ethics.

"Accounts that I've read say that anyone who was actually watching that stock would have seen the reports that insiders were selling off their interests (prior to Sen. Frist's sale) and dumped their interests as well. I think that if Frist actually used insider info on that sale, it will never be proved, because he didn't need insider info to make that huge money-saving decision."

I'm not sure that would matter. Trading laws are funny things...not sure how far from the source you have to be before your information doesn't count as "insider" for you to get burned. If it was that blatant, I'm a little surprised that trading in that stock wasn't frozen.

I was going to say that I understood blind trusts to mean that you were unable to exercise any control over what was sold, not sold, etc. while they were in said trust.

"Brownie" sure did a heck of a job taking that FEMA bullet, didn't he?

Not really, since he was hired back as a consultant and every other word out of his mouth is to blame someone else.

If you mean the Republicans got into power because the Democrats seem insistent on doing nothing but slinging poo with sticks,

pardon the digression, but i'm amused that we've gone from "flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks" to "slinging poo with sticks."

it's kind of like that game where you line people up and pass a message down the line whispering in each other's ears then see how much it's changed by the end of the line.

Bobb said:
"but her outing has essentially eliminate a security asset of the country"

Something that I heard a radio commentator mention (mentioning the absense of info on), is not only did it eliminate her as an asset, but there's also all of her contacts and resources who have now also been eliminated...and a number of them, likely in the realist sense of the word.

Let's not forget that these asses also revealed the identity of a highly-placed mole in Al-Queda, thereby pissing away more security assets for the sake of a news soundbite.

Robin S says "there are a whole lot of people like me who are dismayed at a good number of things that Bush is doing"

Then Robin S is part of the problem. Robin S is just as guilty as Bush. Robin S is aware of what they do wrong but enables them to do it by not standing up against them. If they're doing wrong, it's your party, take it back.

As for Frist...apparantly Senate rules say that you can know about what's in the blind trust, but you can't have direct control...but if you were to tell a friend to tell the broker to sell your stocks, that, by the letter of the law, is fine. And that's what it's going to come down to is that he defiled the spirit of the law, acted unethicly, but by following to the very letter of the rules, he'll get off.

It's not like either of them killed someone, so there are going to be a lot of people that will write this off as ticky-tack technical "mistakes" at worst, and partisan witch hunting at best.

Gosh, this sounds alot like Clinton's impeachment, doesn't it? Witch-hunting and all.

But that didn't stop the Republicans from pursuing that course of action, so I won't say that the Democrats shouldn't do the same with Bush's head on the chopping block.

Oh, and the best irony of it all.

White House under investigation.

House Majority leader under investigation.

Senate Majority leader under investigation.

All Republicans.

Yeah, I think we have a problem with morals as well as ethics in the highest ranks of our government.

Makes you wonder what happened to that guy we elected to "restore honor" to the White House, doesn't it?

"Makes you wonder what happened to that guy we elected to "restore honor" to the White House, doesn't it?"

Two things:

1) I sure as hell didn't elect him, and...
2) The honor to be restored is currently being held in a blind trust.

If the GOP was stupid enough to nominate Santorum, they'd more than deserve the ass-whuppin' that even Kucinich could give that lunatic.

Where on Earth did this idea of Santorum gwtting the nomination start? Were people at Moveon.org taking the brown acid? He's not even going to win relection to the Senate. Every poll I've seen of voters hopes for the next nomination have had him in teh single digits, assuming 0 counts as a single digit. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

As for whether the Democrats will be able to capitalize on teh Republicans problems the way the Republicans did back in 1994...I'd assume they should be able to. About the only thingthat holds me back from predicting a Democratic rout in 2006 is the fact that their supporters are so unenthusiastic about their team. It amuses me no end tyhat when the party goes down in flames Democrats curse the voters, impugn their intelligence, etc. yet look at how they describe their own party-- phrases like "incompetant" "gutless" "hopeless" "couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight". I mean, given the choice why would the uncommitted voter NOT go withthe team that has actual supporters, not the one who has a cheerleading section that is effectively shouting "Rah Rah Ree, the other side sucks marginally more than we do!"

Where on Earth did this idea of Santorum gwtting the nomination start? Were people at Moveon.org taking the brown acid? He's not even going to win relection to the Senate. Every poll I've seen of voters hopes for the next nomination have had him in teh single digits, assuming 0 counts as a single digit. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

That's really the point I was making, Bill.

Here's the thing about the Democrats (as I see it): The reason we bitch about our party is because we've watched the national leadership operate at varying levels of both incompetence (like being unable to mount a legitimate challenge to a very challenged presidential candidate) and sycophantic stupidity (like signing on to various like the PATRIOT Act that they later piss and moan about). We've got a lot to bitch about. One would hope that the uncommitted voter would look at the candidate, not the party which has the largest number of "yes" men.

Scavenger wrote:
Then Robin S is part of the problem. Robin S is just as guilty as Bush. Robin S is aware of what they do wrong but enables them to do it by not standing up against them. If they're doing wrong, it's your party, take it back.

1.) While I voted for Bush, he's not really part of "my party". I'm registered Democrat, and I tend to identify as independent.

2.) Other than speaking out when I think he's doing something stupid, exactly what do you propose I do? It's not like I can call a campaign office or write a letter threatening to withhold a vote, since Bush isn't worried about votes anymore.

Bobb wrote:
Fiscally responsible and freedom loving? You mean like the last Democratic administration that ended deficit spending and didn't try to or talk about limiting freedom of religion and speech? That was only about using justified, limited force where and when needed? That party?

I'm going to let the sentence about "justified, limited force where and when needed" pass, if you don't mind. Whether I've had that discussion with you or not, I've had it too many times in the past, and since I'm inferring that you don't believe that our current actions are justified or limited enough, I can't imagine that we'd ever reach any common ground on that front.

-----

Though I have serious problems with Clinton's foreign policy, I don't think he was as bad for this country as many conservatives seem to think. However, the fact that Clinton wasn't that bad doesn't change the fact that modern Democrats tend to push policies that I find abhorrent (or oppose policies that I like for no obvious reason other than that Bush proposed it). Still, for the sake of discussion, I'll take a look at Clinton's administration.

Clinton's administration saw some good things. The final welfare reform act didn't do as much as I'd've liked, but it was a step in the right direction, at least. The creation of AmeriCorps seems to be a good idea. The Line Item Veto would've been great if it hadn't been undone (partly by the actions of Robert Byrd, who apparently didn't want a president to interfere with his plot to have everything here in West Virginia renamed after him).

Still, I don't know if I'd say that administration was any more freedom loving than this one. I was going to go through several of the bills passed during Clinton's years that were definitely not maximizing freedom, but two specific ones stand out that worried me (in addition to the failed attempt to provide "universal health care"): The Brady Bill, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (the "Assault Weapons Ban") and the DMCA.

Hampering my ability to defend myself and making it illegal to trick a CD with "copy protection" into letting me burn it to MP3s for use in my personal MP3 player doesn't seem very freedom loving to me.

Both parties want to screw us over (see the bipartisan support for the McCain-Feingold travesty). They just want to do it differently. I wouldn't mind seeing the Democrats take Congress in 2006, provided they don't get the White House in 2008. I think having a divided government means we get less done, and that seems like a good thing to me.

indestructible man wrote:
pardon the digression, but i'm amused that we've gone from "flinging poo against the wall to see what sticks" to "slinging poo with sticks."

Yeah, that kind of wreaks havoc with any claim I had to reading comprehension, doesn't it?

I wrote Actually, if they're smart, they'll make a better argument: that a President cannot be sued for actions committed while President, and AS President.

CJR replied Well, guess what? The president isn't above the law.

Oh my God, I totally forgot that part. My prediction based on specific legal doctrines about governmental immunity pales next to your pithy platitude. What was I thinking? You went to a better law school than I did, right? It shows.

That's really the point I was making, Bill.

Oh I know, I wasn't accusing you of starting this idea. It's just that it's so out of the realm of reality and yet it keeps coming up...it's like a Republican contemplating what would happen if the Democrats decided to field a ticket of Al Sharpton and Ming the Merciless.

One would hope that the uncommitted voter would look at the candidate, not the party which has the largest number of "yes" men.

But when the candidate is held in a large amount of contempt by his own people...I'm saying that Democrats have got to take some responsibility for the sorry state of their party vis a vis winning. The idea that "Republicans are evil, Democrats are incompetant" is not a winning one for Democrats in a dangerous world.

it's like a Republican contemplating what would happen if the Democrats decided to field a ticket of Al Sharpton and Ming the Merciless.

Ming would never run with Sharpton. I'm holding out for the Zod/Ming ticket, personally -- but only if Ming is played by Max Von Sydow. Let the scenery-chewing commence!

TWL

Umm, at the risk of sounding like a Bush defender, there realy isn't a comparison here. Clinton was directly accused of something, and was brought to trial.

Bush's underling is being accused. There's no evidence -- or even an accusation -- against the president. He shouldn't go to trial.

[i]Hampering my ability to defend myself and making it illegal to trick a CD with "copy protection" into letting me burn it to MP3s for use in my personal MP3 player doesn't seem very freedom loving to me.[/i]

You can't seriously be comparing this to what's happened under Bush's administration? 'Cause I'm sure this happens all the time. "Uh, Mr. Crazy person trying to break into my house? Can you wait while I go get me a firearm? I have to wait 5 days because of that pesky Brady bill, so can you, like, come back on Tuesday?"

You want to get a weapon? Go get one. Making you wait to pass a registration check interferes not one bit with your right to bear arms.

And protecting copyrights? Are you serious? Show me where your license that you purchase includes unlimited use on your MP3 player. You bought a CD, and your license covers use of the material in the form you've paid for. Nothing more.

You're putting these up against the man that has all but said that he wants to put religious teachings into public schools, made it legal to have American citizens declared enemy combatants, held indefinetly without charges, and established the precedent to then have them shipped over seas and tortured? Who's attorney general has created an FBI task force who's stated goal is to crack down on legal adult entertainment?

Clinton may have placed some restrictions on the excercise of rights...Bush wants to pretend rights don't exisit. Why else do you think it's become a big deal that Miers has been said to support the landmark case that talks about rights to privacy?

Crap, my attempt to use italics didn't work. Phooey.

"Well, guess what? The president isn't above the law."

Should we call in Judge Dread? He IS the law....

Please note that this is all my prediction from a casual conversation without access to case files. I'm not trying to practice law through the blog. I'm actually treating this more like a bar or law school exam question than anything else.

Den (in quotes) and Bobb wrote, "The question then, David, would be, is leaking the name of a CIA agent acting in the official capacity of the office of the presidency, or is the act of a politician trying to dig up dirt on someone who had to nerve to publicly criticize his propaganda?

I'd lean towards the latter."

I'd agree. I don't see any purpose in revealing the identity of a secret operative. Such an act, made by anyone, of an active operative on mission would be an act of treason. The only saving grace here is she was not on assignment, but her outing has essentially eliminate a security asset of the country. The President serves the country, he doesn't own it, and he has the same obligations to observe the integrity of our security agencies that any other citizen has. If Bush knew about, or gave the order for the outing, that was any act of "presidenting," that was the act of a bitter politician getting retribution for what he percieved as a yapping dog. If true, then it amounts to him not being able to touch the man making the comment, so he gets to him the only way he can...by ending the career of the man's wife. Which, y'know, if that's true...what a spineless move.

I'd agree it's spineless if that's what happened. (I.e. that someone in the Administration leaked the name of a CIA agent as a retaliatory strike; we’ll have an idea whether that’s true when the Special Prosecutor releases his report. Incidentally, in a few minutes you’ll see why I think it’s hilarious that the Special Prosecutor is named Fitzgerald.) What I don't agree about is the civil liability for that decision. With my presently limited knowledge, I see two problems with that liability.

One is a proof problem. As I mentioned before, a lawsuit only begins when someone files a complaint in court. In order for a complaint to be filed, the attorney has to allege that he (or she, the practice of law being quite well integrated by now) has information sufficient for a good faith belief that the person being sued committed the tort (or breach of contract, etc.) alleged in the complaint. In this case, I have no idea how you get that information before the suit. Once a suit is filed, it is possible to seek "discovery," which is the legal procedure to compel your adversary to provide information that you hope to use against him. Ordinarily, at least in jurisdictions with which I am familiar, it is not possible to get discovery without a pending case, which opens up a chicken-and-egg (Catch-22 is probably a better comparison) problem for Wilson: without the information he could get through discovery there's no way to file suit against Bush, but there's no way he can get the discovery without filing a suit. What he can do is sue Rove, and hope he gets some useful information about Bush in the discovery about that suit; it's possible to add more defendants as the suit progresses. It is possible for a criminal investigator to get information without a pending case (although the probable cause necessary for a search warrant is more demanding than the standard for filing the lawsuit to begin with, it's sort of an apples and oranges comparison), which is presumably the reason Wilson is waiting until Fitzgerald is done, just in case he finds and publicizes something interesting.

The bigger (and in my mind at least, more interesting) issue is whether the President enjoys qualified or absolute immunity from suit. There is an old rule called "sovereign immunity." The sovereign (formerly mostly kings) could do no wrong; he was quite literally above the law. When the sovereign became identified with the state apparatus, the doctrine carried over. The Government of the United States cannot be sued without its consent; it has given its consent in a variety of contexts through the Federal Tort Claims Act, because otherwise a random citizen would be SOL when the mailman hit his car with his USPS truck. Only things enumerated by statute (including the FTCA) are deemed to be outside sovereign immunity. I'd be very surprised if the Congress had ever specifically waived sovereign immunity in this circumstance, so I very seriously doubt that the Executive Office of the President or the President in his official capacity could be sued in the Wilson case.

No big loss. Wilson is probably much more interested in suing Bush personally than the EOP or the Presidency itself. The problem is that governmental immunity does not end with offices: it extends to the holders of those offices. This includes occasions when the office holders do something absolutely wrong. Suppose I, as a prosecutor, simply forget to ask the court to award restitution to the victim of a break-in when the defendant is sentenced. The victim cannot sue the Office of the District Attorney for the reasons discussed above. How about suing me, personally? Was it my fault? Yes, in this hypothetical (not that I would ever do that in reality). Is the victim--or at least the victim's insurance company-- out some money as a result of my mistake? Yep. How much can I be sued for? Not a cent. I had 200 cases on my docket today. The court system would be paralyzed if I were looking over my shoulder and picking apart each individual decision because I might be on the hook personally for each decision I made in the course of my duties. Even if I made the right decision-- not all victims are innocent, not all their demands are reasonable, and I have a mandate to do justice to the best of my ability, not to act as the victim insists-- the nuisance factor of having to defend suits would make it impossible for me to work. Now if the time demands on a rural prosecutor would be egregious without immunity, imagine the demands on the chief executive of a 300 million person republic. He wouldn't even have time to attend all of his own depositions, let alone do any governing. There are good reasons for official immunity.

This may be a bit of a digression, but this is why we have an exclusionary rule in criminal law: evidence gained illegally cannot be used in the prosecution of the person whose right was violated. That was a solution crafted by the courts to address the problem of dissuading the police from "cheating;" it's not actually mandated by the Constitution. The courts could have allowed the evidence to be used, but allowed the police to be sued for malfeasance. This was the rule at common law, and was still the rule in Britain and her Empire (and a number of US States) at the time the SCOTUS adopted the exclusionary rule. (Britain no longer being an Empire, it's entirely possible they have changed their rule since. I have no idea.) When the exclusionary rule was being discussed in the Supreme Court a number of the justices derided the lawsuit alternative as ineffective, but the problem was really that it was too effective-- by the time the SCOTUS imposed it on the States, many of the States had already replaced civil liability for officers with the exclusionary rule, largely because cops cannot do their jobs if they are excessively worried about being sued if they screw up. (It's an error in perception by Justice Murphy-- he once wrote that "even if the plaintiff hurdles all these obstacles, and gains a substantial verdict, the individual officer's finances may well make the judgment useless" because cops have no money. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to him that the cop can't afford to be sued even for relatively minor amounts because cops have no money.) The exclusionary rule and qualified immunity for the officer is really the best solution.

Back to the subject at hand: how broad is the President's immunity? Well, remember the definition at the beginning of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about how big space is? It's big. It is all but insurmountable. One reason for giving the President absolute immunity is the practical barrier to civil suit I mentioned above-- the President cannot function if he is susceptible to lawsuits by 300 million potential malcontents while he is in office, or if he must fear the financial burden of even defending a large number of suits while he leaves. The second basis for immunity is separation of powers: any court that tried to engage in the regular determinations about the qualified immunity that I or other public servants possess-- i.e. that we have it barring "bad faith" misconduct-- would essentially provoke a constitutional crisis by applying that standard to the President. No court will ever-- or should ever-- pass judgment on the policy decisions of a President, even if he's alleged to have engaged in willful misconduct, such as sacking a career civil servant who gave damaging testimony before a Congressional committe. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=457&invol=731 Rove gets a less-robust form of immunity under Harlow v. Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800 (1982), so he might be in trouble, but Bush and Cheney are very, very, well protected. Clinton v. Jones did not overrule Fitzgerald; it didn’t have to because it raised such different issues. President Clinton was being sued for something that occurred before he took office; like Nixon, Bush or Cheney are mentioned as targets of a suit based on their alleged mishandling of secret information, and their alleged mistreatment of a woman who was their subordinate by virtue of their Article II offices. The Fitzgerald cases involved the deliberate screwing of a civil servant because of a public embarrassment that servant caused the Administration. Sound familiar? I don’t see how Wilson and Plame get anywhere with their suit. (Actually, I don’t know why Wilson is mentioned as a plaintiff at all; his wife was the victim. Let her sue one of the Assistants to the President.)

Crap, there was supposed to be an end italics tag after "Fitzgerald;" in the last paragraph.

And protecting copyrights? Are you serious? Show me where your license that you purchase includes unlimited use on your MP3 player. You bought a CD, and your license covers use of the material in the form you've paid for. Nothing more.

I think the complaint here is that copyright law has traditionally made an exception for "fair use" of a copyrighted work. Making a (small) number of personal copies-- backups and such-- has historically been considered fair use. Transmitting infinite copies on the internet clearly is not fair use. The problem with the DMCA is that it hosed consumers' ability to engage in the former in the zeal to prevent pirates' efforts at the latter. It's rather like carpet bombing California to kill the Zodiac killer-- it's excessive and there's no guarantee it'll work.

Bobb-if the use of tracks on an MP3 player is so heinous, why isn't THAT regulated?You know, have a waiting period for MP3 players like they have with firearms. Although, I agree with you that it's sort of a lesser problem to bring up when all the , er, stuff is flying around like , um, flying stuff.

And as far as Miers goes...isn't it sorta traditional that Supreme Court justices be, um, judges?

And as far as Miers goes...isn't it sorta traditional that Supreme Court justices be, um, judges?

Not really. Now, my knowledge of the rules about SC Justice nominations is far from absolute, but I believe that, in theory at least, the president could nominate Bucky the drive-thru guy if he wanted to. Doesn't mean he'll get confirmed, but I'm pretty sure the age and citizenship requirements are the only ones.

-Rex Hondo-

David, I'm not an attorney, but I do work for a regulatory agency and have spoken to our department attorneys about sovereign immunity at length. What you said is correct for the actions of a government official in their official capacity. However, I believe he can still be sued for doing things outside his official duties as president. Hypothetical: Let's say the rumors are true and he has started drinking again. Suppose during his next five-week vacation, he gets hammered and takes his truck out for a spin around Crawford. He hits and kills a man. Is liable for a wrongful death suit? That question has never been tested, but given the Paula Jones precedent, I don't see how he wouldn't be. Even though Clinton was sued for actions before he became president, in my hypothetical case, Bush was not acting as president when he hit and killed that man.

Oh my God, I totally forgot that part. My prediction based on specific legal doctrines about governmental immunity pales next to your pithy platitude. What was I thinking? You went to a better law school than I did, right? It shows.

The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office.

Oh, unless it's Clinton we're talking about.

I say no to that, and you decide to be a prick. Thanks for playing "Who Wants to be a Jackass".

I say we should elect Kurtwood Smith, but only on the condition that he must make all public apperances as the perz in the makeup he wore in Star Trek 6 as the prez of the ufp. Furthermore he behavior and mannerisms must be that of red from that 70's show. Yep that would show the world we mean business!!!!!!!

JAC

Red Forman for President: Because my opponent is a dumbass!

I'd vote for that ticket.

Stuff it! Lets go all the way here!

Go for the ticket of Christopher Walken and William Mapother. Watching the debates would be a blast and NO COUNTRY'S Leaders would screw with us after just five minutes of talking to either of them in a locked room.

Oh, and then they can get Steve Railsback as Sec. of State. The world would be ours!!!!

Why stop there I say next term we confuse the hell out of the rest of the planet. Let every living actor who has played the prez in tv or film to get a 1 week crack at it. Played more than once in different stuff, you get a week for each time. I particularly would look forward to Ronny Cox's (Captain Edward Jellico, now admiral thanks to PAD) 4 weeks in the white house. Also I think we should give a week as an honerable mention to Jerry Haleva. He hasn't plauyed a us prez, but he has played Saddam Hussein, and only Saddam Hussein 6 times since 1991. Imagine him giving the state of the week address on cnn. I'm telling you this plan gives up 4 years of comedy gold!!!!!!!

JAC

Only if they can play the President that they played on film. Sam Waterston as Lincoln giving the State of the Union Address on Iraq would be just too screwed up for words.

Hey, think of the fun we could have with all the SNL stars doing their presidents as President on a State of the Union. If nothing else, Chevy could use the work.

Ronny Cox also played the VP in Stargate: SG-1, so he'd get another week if say, Martin Sheen or Geena Davis died.

Yes, actually. Anyone not totally blinded by ideology would see that the two cases are totally different. And seeing as how this s0-called "conservative" courtvoted to allow the Jones lawsuit to go forward, I don't see anything differnt happening this time.
Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that liberals, including those on this board, will never admit that this was a partial "witchunt", eben if Rove is fully exonerated?

Oh, I have no doubt that there are those involved in this case who are in it for the pleasure of nailing Rove's head onto their wall.

But, what do you call witchhunt that actually finds a real witch?

Jerome, I don't know if it can be called a witchhunt, even a partial one. If a crime was committed a crime was committed. Let's wait and see what the prosecutor brings. One must admit that he has so far apparently run a fair investigation, free of the many leaks that one usually sees. He's no Ronnie Earl or whoever that goober down in Texas is who will probably end up making Tom Delay into a sympathetic figure before it's all over.

Now in the long run I have a feeling that prosecuting Libby or Rove for leaking classified data will have a chilling effect on our freedoms, especially if it turns out that the crime was more inadvertent than calculated--can you imagine anyone willing to speak to reporters about sensitive issues when they know that A-it might get them indicted and B-any talk of it being "off the record" is worth less than the paper it isn't printed on.

I also rather doubt that congress will pass a reporter protection bill when the purpose of such a thing would be to make it easier to investigate, well, congress.

But if Rove or Libby gets indicted the long term consequences will not matter--it will be a media feeding frenzy and the first "good" news for starving Democrats in a long time. Me, I think they are peaking early. By next year the Republicans may have had a chance to regroup and hopefully re-evaluate.

The worst thing for the Democrats would be for Cheney to resign, as some of the totally unsubstantiated rumors would have it. Assuming Bush doesn't tap Meirs to replace him, he could pretty much wipe the Plame story off the map with a chance to make history (Coff, Condi Rice, Coff).

Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that liberals, including those on this board, will never admit that this was a partial "witchunt", eben if Rove is fully exonerated?

Last I checked, this isn't a Republican spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky witch hunt.

IIRC, Fitzgerald is actually a Republican, and the Dems have nothing to do with this.

The only thing that really pisses me off about all of this is that it took this damn long for somebody to investigate it.

Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that liberals, including those on this board, will never admit that this was a partial "witchunt", even if Rove is fully exonerated?

So, a crime was committed (the outing of the undercover CIA agent), and therefore the independent counsels pursuit of said criminal (the one responsible for the outing) constitutes a witch hunt? I think not. Now, on the other hand, you mmight be able to make a case that all the grand conspiracy theories being espoused on various websites and blogs might constitute a 'witch hunt', but that's stretching it. Those sites really appeal to a very select group of people. You make it sound as if the Democrats are the one pulling the strings of the Patrick Fitzgerald. That sort of goes against the whole notion of "independent counsel". My point is this: It's no witch hunt, it's a criminal investigation.

"Now in the long run I have a feeling that prosecuting Libby or Rove for leaking classified data will have a chilling effect on our freedoms, especially if it turns out that the crime was more inadvertent than calculated--can you imagine anyone willing to speak to reporters about sensitive issues when they know that A-it might get them indicted and B-any talk of it being "off the record" is worth less than the paper it isn't printed on."

Inadvertent? Do you honestly think these people are that stupid? I sure as hell do not.

(a) Authorities.— Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an independent counsel appointed under this chapter shall have, with respect to all matters in such independent counsel’s prosecutorial jurisdiction established under this chapter, full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, and any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice, except that the Attorney General shall exercise direction or control as to those matters that specifically require the Attorney General’s personal action under section 2516 of title 18. Such investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers shall include—
(1) conducting proceedings before grand juries and other investigations;
(2) participating in court proceedings and engaging in any litigation, including civil and criminal matters, that such independent counsel considers necessary;
(3) appealing any decision of a court in any case or proceeding in which such independent counsel participates in an official capacity;
(4) reviewing all documentary evidence available from any source;
(5) determining whether to contest the assertion of any testimonial privilege;
(6) receiving appropriate national security clearances and, if necessary, contesting in court (including, where appropriate, participating in in camera proceedings) any claim of privilege or attempt to withhold evidence on grounds of national security;
(7) making applications to any Federal court for a grant of immunity to any witness, consistent with applicable statutory requirements, or for warrants, subpoenas, or other court orders, and, for purposes of sections 6003, 6004, and 6005 of title 18, exercising the authority vested in a United States attorney or the Attorney General;
(8) inspecting, obtaining, or using the original or a copy of any tax return, in accordance with the applicable statutes and regulations, and, for purposes of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations issued thereunder, exercising the powers vested in a United States attorney or the Attorney General;
(9) initiating and conducting prosecutions in any court of competent jurisdiction, framing and signing indictments, filing informations, and handling all aspects of any case, in the name of the United States; and
(10) consulting with the United States attorney for the district in which any violation of law with respect to which the independent counsel is appointed was alleged to have occurred.

Last I checked, this isn't a Republican spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky witch hunt.

I should probably clear this statement up:

Last I checked, this isn't a Democrat spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky/Jones witch hunt, which was initiated and pushed by Republicans all for the purpose of trying to get Clinton out of office.

Last I checked, this isn't a Republican spearheaded & controlled investigation, unlike the Lewinsky witch hunt.

As someone on another blog commented, if, by chance, there are no indictments in the Plame thing, watch how quickly 'Independent Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald' becomes 'Republican-appointed Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald'.

Inadvertent? Do you honestly think these people are that stupid? I sure as hell do not.

Belief is less important than proof, unless you're a creationist.

There's an interesting article by a woman who actually helped write the Agent identities protection Act-- http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9742

BTW, Knuckles, was that last post the Independent Council statute? Hasn't that expired? People keep talking about how significant it is that Fitzgerald has decided not to issue a report but without the statute I'm not even sure he could have legally done so. (the media has done a pretty poor job explaining the law in this controversy.)

Fitzgerald's grand jury is set to expire on October 28th. And yes, you are correct. Fitzgerald is a 'Special Counsel' for the Attorney General's office, NOT an independent counsel as I erroneously stated.

General Powers of Special Counsel

And as I recall, Fitzgerald is a member of the Republican party. However, his entire career (from what I've read) is one completely void of partisanship.

A few other big differences between this and the Clinton "witchhunt"-- there have been no attempts to assert legal privileges or attack the prosecutors.

Which may change and may not mean anything anyway, though it's the kind of behavior one might reasonably expect from someone who thinks they are innocent.

"...though it's the kind of behavior one might reasonably expect from someone who thinks they are innocent."

Or thinks they are above the law...

"if the use of tracks on an MP3 player is so heinous, why isn't THAT regulated?You know, have a waiting period for MP3 players like they have with firearms."

Have I missed an epidemic of killings (death by Ipod...film at 11). I'm not saying that I believe that k-mart selling a shotgun without an ID check and 5 day wait is going to lead to more shootings...although there's at least one case that I've read where exactly that happened...but I've yet to see a sustainable argument that such restrictions interfere in any way with someone ability to aqcuire firearms. So a regulation that may actually save lives, and imposes a minimal, if you can even call it that, inconcienenve on the acquisition of firearms, seems to be to be a good thing.

David, I understand that the chafing caused by the DMCA is derived from the conventional understanding of fair personal use and copying. The problem is that digital media is so much more accessible than magnetic tape. Before MP3 files, you could buy a CD, copy it onto a tape, and give your copy away. But all that would take time, and you had to have a pretty substantial set-up in order to mass produce illegal copies. With an MP3 file, you can convert your CD, post the file on line, and anyone with the proper software can get a same-quality illegal digital copy. The ease of proliferation is geometrically greater than the tape example.

Or thinks they are above the law...

That would be awfully stupid. Do you honestly think these people are that stupid? I sure as hell do not.

:)

"Ronny Cox also played the VP in Stargate: SG-1, so he'd get another week if say, Martin Sheen or Geena Davis died."

I'm not sure that could count as I was counting his apperance as pres in the Stargate SG1 ep 2010

lol
JAC

I think I may have just out geeked most of the people here

You have a much higher opinion of most of our elected officials than I do, that is clear.

Media Matters has posted a rebuttal to Ms. Toensing. This is not specifically regarding the article you linked to, but rather to her 'Hardball' appearance where she repeated many of the same claims she makes in that piece.

Jeff: I saw the movie once in the theatre. That was it. I've not been able to get into either show, so rather than thinking of it as 'geeking out', just think of it as 'talking over our heads'.

The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office.

I didn't say "should," although frankly I think the arguments in favor of immunity are pretty compelling. I said that he *is* immune from a variety of things under current law. That's one of those "reality based" issues that Democrats are so fond of. You don't like it, start a petition to amend the Constitution. Don't shoot the messenger, and before you start arguing legal theory with a lawyer, please consider the possibility that I know something you don't.

Oh, unless it's Clinton we're talking about.

I say no to that, and you decide to be a prick. Thanks for playing "Who Wants to be a Jackass".

You're just jealous because they made you retire as champion. In any event, you said "no" to a question the answer to which is at least a qualified "yes" and I called you on it. "Being a prick" != "having more information than you."

David, I'm not an attorney, but I do work for a regulatory agency and have spoken to our department attorneys about sovereign immunity at length. What you said is correct for the actions of a government official in their official capacity. However, I believe he can still be sued for doing things outside his official duties as president. Hypothetical: Let's say the rumors are true and he has started drinking again. Suppose during his next five-week vacation, he gets hammered and takes his truck out for a spin around Crawford. He hits and kills a man. Is liable for a wrongful death suit? That question has never been tested, but given the Paula Jones precedent, I don't see how he wouldn't be. Even though Clinton was sued for actions before he became president, in my hypothetical case, Bush was not acting as president when he hit and killed that man.

In that case, I think he's pretty clearly on the hook for both civil and criminal liability. That's different from what we have here. Assuming arguendo that Cheney himself was somehow involved in releasing confidential information, he had access to that information by virtue of his Article II position, and he has supervision of the agencies involved by virtue of his Article II position. The decision of what information to divulge to the press is an executive prerogative. If he release information the release of which is a crime, then he performed his job in an illegal fashion; but the upshot of the Fitzgerald cases is that the performance of an Article II job in an illegal fashion is not susceptible to criminal or civil prosecution. (I'm making the assumption that the Vice President would receive immunity equivalent to that of the President. I feel safe in that assumption.) At the very least it comes close enough to the line that I believe the court would punt and blame separation of powers.

Jeff,

Doesn't count unless it's under the "alternate realities clause" of office holding. 2010 got wiped out by the events in 2001. Maybe it needs to be thrown to the Independent Counsel.... err.. Special Counsel for a ruling on playability.

:)

Re: Jeff Coney's plan for "acting" presidents - well, lol, first off :) And hey, we'd actually get President Bartlett, as so many of us have dreamed .... And John Goodman, too, remember - President for a few days on West Wing, when Zoey was kidnapped. Could we do it with Congress, too? A week of Senator J. Billington Bulworth could be pretty interesting ....

Don't know if I could get behind a Zod presidential ticket (and it's odd that this comes up, because something made me think of Superman II, and that Zod-for-president site PAD alerted us to, at work earlier; so this is actually the second time today that I've considered the weaknesses of Kryptonian General Zod as a U.S. Presidential candidate. Talk about "geeking out" ....). For one thing, looking at the movie, he just doesn't stike me as all that bright ;). And, do we want a president who can be depowered by a bunch of flashing red lights, and can be removed from office by a "No Confidence" call from Natalie Portman's computer-doctored voice?

Red Forman for President! Den's slogan has sold me!

"...do we want a president who can be depowered by a bunch of flashing red lights..."

Hey, we got one that got depowered by a salty pretzel. Couldn't be that much worse.

:)

"Being a prick" != "having more information than you."

Actually, I think a great deal of current American society DOES equate the two, quite frankly. I don't know that it describes anybody here (I hope not and I certainly can't think of anyone), but how often are educated or knowledgeable people derided as "the elites"?

For that matter, our current president boasts about not reading newspapers, and his father boasted about how much he despised math and science in school (and then had the unmitigated gall to speak at a Caltech commencement, but that's another story).

And that's not even getting into the whole "science is really just another religion" bromide spread by the ignorant or the manipulative, or the insistence of the media to treat facts as only one side of a multi-sided story.

So, David, while I agree that knowing more than someone doesn't equate to being a prick (and is quite relevant to both our professions), I think a disturbingly large portion of the American populace would disagree with you -- "and they vote", as the saying goes.

TWL

Jerry C - This one's for you:

http://www.walken2008.com/

(and the Snopes page on this site:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/walken.asp )

Tim,

You know, while there is a great deal of truth in what you say, I think that for many people "being a prick" is not just a matter of being smart--it's more a matter of not being as smart as you think you are.

The BTK Killer-- now THERE was a prick. Standing up there lecturing the court like he was some kind of Dr Lector, when the reality is that he was a mediocre little no-talent who "earned" his fame snuffing out the light of people who were, however modest, infinitely better than he was.

The smartest college professor I ever had (Howard Nemerov--and no, I didn't fully appreciate my good fortune at the time)-- not even close to being a prick. The comparative economics guy who flunked anyone who was either too dumb or had too much integrity to tailor their essays to his 100% incorrect predictions of the future of the world--total prick.

Looking at the political arena it was pretty obvious that Howard Dean was much smarter than John Kerry but it was Kerry who got labeled as the prick. In my opinion this was probably due to a few factors--Kerry's patrician delivery, accent and, oh yeah, the fact that he was a prick. But anyway, the point is, I don't think that a majority of the public is actually hostile to intelligence and accomplishment. At least I hope not.

As someone on another blog commented, if, by chance, there are no indictments in the Plame thing, watch how quickly 'Independent Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald' becomes 'Republican-appointed Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald'.

Well, that's what I wondered at first (and I believe I stated as much on this site).

But the fact that Fitzgerald actually seems to be doing his job has lead me to change my mind about him.

Obviously, indictments against Rove & Libby would go a long ways as well. :)

That's one of those "reality based" issues that Democrats are so fond of.

That's funny, because I'm registered Independent. Both parties and shuffle off and die for all I care.

Being a prick" != "having more information than you."

Never said it did, did I?

And, as you've shown again, being a prick = pompous ass who makes poor assumptions about others.

The "having more information than you" I think that relates more to your ego than anything else. Unless you use that information to be a prick. :)

"Does anyone have the SLIGHTEST doubt that the exact same conservative forces which stated--at the time of the Paula Jones civil suit--that a president should be able to be sued while in office, will now say that Bush simply cannot be allowed to be distracted by a civil suit?"

PAD, I'm confused, how can a mere civil suit distract Bush? We have seen that a catagory 4 hurricane barely distracts him.

JAC

Maybe if you added soem shiny objests, or weapons of mass distruction, or better shiny womd, that might distract him

JAC

kunckles, no its ok! I am a big geek. Have you been to my web comic site? I have seen every ep of Stargate sg1, except the most recent 2. However I got the number of times mr Cox played the pres from the internet movie data base. Now I have to say having never met the man Ronny Cox may be the nicest guy ever, but considering the characters he plays, his last name is perfect.

Jeff Coney
www.hedgehoggames.com

But anyway, the point is, I don't think that a majority of the public is actually hostile to intelligence and accomplishment.

Man, what country do you live in?

-Rex Hondo-

Well, certainly this administration is...

Heh. This is apparently the background of the federal effort against avian bird flu:

"According to his official biography, Stewart Simonson is the Health and Human Services Department's point man "on matters related to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies." Hopefully, he has taken crash courses on smallpox and avian flu, because, prior to joining HHS in 2001, Simonson's background was not in public health, but ... public transit. He'd previously been a top official at the delay-plagued, money-hemorrhaging passenger rail company Amtrak. Before that, he was an adviser to Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, specializing in crime and prison policy. When Thompson became HHS secretary in 2001, he hired Simonson as a legal adviser and promoted him to his current post shortly before leaving the Department last year. Simonson's biography boasts that he "supervised policy development for Project BioShield," a program designed to speed the manufacture of crucial vaccines and antidotes. "That effort, however, has by most accounts bogged down and shown few results," The Washington Post reported last month."

And, of course, HHS funding for disease prevention has been slashed over the last few years...

Roger, I've no reason to doubt you but how much has it been cut? The only thing I've found was a complaint from the American heart Association that the 2005 budget only had a 2.6% increase which, while not enough, isn't a slash.

I would, however, much rather see disease prevention get preference over farm subsidies and transportation boondoggles. The administration has spent money like a drunken sailor in other areas, no reason to be stingy in this one.

Man, what country do you live in?

The one that is one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research. Look, things could be way better but it does no good to overstate the problems. If you think that the majority of the public is hostile to intelligence and accomplishment, please make the case.

Huge amounts of tax money are spent on new sports arenas, while schools continue to decay. And what money schools DO get, as often as not is spent on sports also.

The very fact that a man unqualified to manage a 7-11, much less a nation, is president speaks volumes.

The continuing "debate" over creationism in the classroom is hardly indicative of a nation where critical thinkers hold sway.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but we're poised to drop rather precipitously from our position of "one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research." People in some other countries are better educated and more driven.

I could probably go on, but I'd best get home and get some sleep.

In order:

1- We still spend a fortune on education. A good percentage of our population is college educated. Free education is available to all, not just the rich or elite.
College attendance in the United States has grown so rapidly over the past four decades that now 75 percent of high school graduates get some postsecondary education within two years of receiving their diplomas. Student aspirations are even loftier, with nearly 90 percent saying they hope to attend college.1 Older adults, too, have recognized the benefits of college study and account for more than one-third of matriculants.

2- One's opinion of Bush has no bearing on the subject. Th fact that the Democrats nominated perhaps the one guy who could be beaten by Bush is not an indication of their hatred of intelligence.

3- I welcome the debate. The evolution side will win. Really, it already has.

4- I'd ask you for 2 things--the date by which we will cease to be "one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research." and the names of the countries that will leave us in the dust. Otherwise I don't know how to respond.

If one is talking about China for example, it would create a bit of a conflict with points 1 and 2. --China does a much worse job of educating its entire population than we do (some parts are still incredibly backward) and a good proportion of the Chinese population still believes in traditional (ie nonscientific) medicine and superstitions

The one that is one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research.

Ah, so you live in South Korea then.

If you think that the majority of the public is hostile to intelligence and accomplishment, please make the case.

Exhibit A: Dover, PA

Exhibit B: McCllellan describing Harriet Miers as "uniquely qualified" for the USSC.

BTW, HHS has been a mess for years now. During the Anthrax scare and early years of the West Nile Outbreak, I sat in on several teleconferences in which Tommy "For the life of me, I don't know why terrorists haven't attack us through our food supply because it's so easy" Thompson. Thompson got his job because, when governor, he spearheaded welfare reform in his state. The amount of information he didn't know about public health issues was astounding.

A 2.6% budget increase, when faced with 3%+ inflation, is in fact a budget cut.

What great inventions and technologocal advancements has the US been responsible for lately? Spaceshipone is to me the most public example. Next thing that comes to mind is the Magic Bullet...that blender/chopper thing.

China and Japan seem to be on the brink of passing us. China may have piss-poor country-wide education for everyone, but they're getting world class education for enough to drive their technology sectors to be competitive with the US. The major differences betwee the US and the major eastern players? Discipline. They have it, we barely know what the word means. Our frontier heritage may have necessitated the growth of innovation, but we haven't been a frontier society for generations. We're soft, accustomed to pampering, and on an individual basis, have little incentive to seek to work to better our station, because our society has shown us that such improvements are something we're entitled to, simply for passing time.

It's not just China and Japan. All the big biotechnology advancements these days are coming out of Korea. And India has one of the best undergraduate engineering programs in the world today.

David Brooks had an excellent piece this week comparing the number of science and engineering degrees obtained by US citizens compared to other countries. I can't find it online, but the numbers for us were pitiful.

(Sorry for the delay; time's becoming rarer the last couple of days.)

Bobb wrote:
You can't seriously be comparing this to what's happened under Bush's administration?

No, actually, I'm comparing it to your "freedom-loving" assertion. Clinton's administration (partially (maybe even mostly) because it was hampered by having the opposing party in charge of Congress) may have been more freedom loving than our current administration (which, in turn, is more freedom loving than what today's Democrats seem to want), but it's a far cry from what I'd consider truly freedom loving.

Incidentally, yes, I consider the DMCA, Brady Bill, and the ignorant "Assault Weapons" ban to be much more frightening than telling children that some people believe evolution is guided by an intelligence. I think the ID thing is stupid (I'm more than capable of telling my children how I reconcile my mostly scientific bent with my religious beliefs myself, thank you very much), but I don't consider it a major infringement on my rights. It's certainly a far cry from establishing a state religion, which is really all the First Amendment truly bans anyway.

Assuming that the Republican candidate they were running against held to Bush's version of "conservative", I'd vote for a Democratic candidate if they'd promise (and who could be trusted to keep that promise) that they'd: (a) stay away from even the appearance of gun control (including any kind of registration), (b) refrain from stealing any more of my money than the government already does (or better yet, let me keep more of my money), and (c) not leave the Iraqi people in the lurch (even if we were wrong to invade (I don't believe we were), it would be wrong to abandon Iraq before they were ready to stand on their own).

If they'd also promise to cut spending significantly and work toward eradicating McCain-Feingold, I'd not only vote for them, I'd campaign for them.

David Bjorlin wrote:
This may be a bit of a digression, but this is why we have an exclusionary rule in criminal law: evidence gained illegally cannot be used in the prosecution of the person whose right was violated.

Huh.

Thanks for this. I'd never considered the exclusionary rule in that light before. I'd still prefer we keep the evidence, then prosecute the officer who broke the law (not let him be sued, but actually investigate and prosecute where necessary), but I wasn't aware of the reasoning behind it, and it makes a lot more sense now.

Rat wrote:
And as far as Miers goes...isn't it sorta traditional that Supreme Court justices be, um, judges?

I'm thinking that the number of Justices who were previously judges is 60-70%, actually. I can't promise that my memory's right (heck, as I've proven above, I can't even remember something written two lines above), but I'm certain it's close to that range, if not in it.

I can't believe I'm feeding the troll, but here we go:

I said, That's one of those "reality based" issues that Democrats are so fond of.

CJR replied That's funny, because I'm registered Independent. Both parties and shuffle off and die for all I care.

Actually, I said "Democrats." Not "you," because I have no idea what party if any you belong to and I don't want to make unfounded assumptions. (See below.) I never said you were a Democrat; I respect some Democrats.

I said Being a prick" != "having more information than you."

Never said it did, did I?

Your exact words were, "The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office. Oh, unless it's Clinton we're talking about. I say no to that, and you decide to be a prick."

So let's take a look at the transaction that you equated with my decision "to be a prick."
1) I made a prediction, in response to PAD's original comment, that the Republicans would not need to invert their Clinton v Jones positions because Bush and Cheney, unlike Clinton, would be sued over something that is alleged to have happened during (and in the course of) their Administration. I predicted that they would have an excellent chance of just claiming immunity and walking away. I assume that my comment is one of the ones you meant when you wrote, "The point some of you seem to be trying to make is that the president should be above the law (or immune from it) while in office. Oh, unless it's Clinton we're talking about."
2) I beleive this is the post that you mean by, "I say no to that": you made the comment that "Well, guess what? The president isn't above the law."
3) I fired back with two posts. The first one was fairly sarcastic, admittedly, but stood for the position that your little bromide didn't actually advance the discussion nor did it refute the prediction I made based on my training and experience. The second, very long post, explained in detail the basis for my opinion, and I provided citations and a link to the SCOTUS opinions that I think apply to this hypothetical. The President isn't above the law, but he is immune from prosecution in anything other than an impeachment court in a variety of contexts.
4) You called me a prick.

So yes, I'm standing by my claim that you called me a prick because I said you were wrong, and explained why you were wrong. Sarcasm is a well-established mode of discussion on here, so I don't feel that alone elevates me to prickdom.

And, as you've shown again, being a prick = pompous ass who makes poor assumptions about others.

Pot. Kettle. Black. I try very hard, when I make claims based on specialized knowledge, to back my claims up. In this debate and in the annual flamewar about Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr's opinion in Schenk v. United States, I provide citations and, where possible, links to the texts I mention. (Findlaw will let you look up most SCOTUS opinions based solely on their citation, but that lookup screen is kind of hard to get to. I paste the http address in my posts in an attempt to be helpful.) If you want to argue with me, fine, but if you don't put in as much effort as I do, don't expect me to make the "poor assumption" that your views are as valid as mine. I don't presume to tell PAD how to write fiction, I don't presume to tell a doctor how to diagnose diseases. Yet here you are claiming your uninformed use of cliches has some merit in a discussion about a specific legal doctrine, and you think I'm pompous?

The "having more information than you" I think that relates more to your ego than anything else. Unless you use that information to be a prick. :)

No, my having more information than you relates more to my spending three years in law school and seven years in law practice honing my ability to make legal arguments. As you demonstrate, no such training is necessary to be a prick.

Re: the exclusionary rule: Thanks for this. I'd never considered the exclusionary rule in that light before. I'd still prefer we keep the evidence, then prosecute the officer who broke the law (not let him be sued, but actually investigate and prosecute where necessary), but I wasn't aware of the reasoning behind it, and it makes a lot more sense now.

That's how Prof. Karlan explained it in my Criminal Procedure class, at least, and I think it's the best explanation for the system we have. I'd be more confident if I could ever find a judge actually coming out and saying that, but if nothing else it's a good explanation for why the SCOTUS always simultaneously insists that 1) the Constitution mandates some solution to the problem, not necessarily the exclusionary rule, and 2) we're going with the exclusionary rule.

Me- The one that is one of the leading sources of new inventions, technology and research.

Den- Ah, so you live in South Korea then.

Hoo boy, what does "one of the" mean to you? Because to me it means that yes, there are indeed OTHER countires that are ALSO leading sources of new inventions, etc.

I don't know whether or not South Korea has actually beaten us in the such things but that would still not invalidate what I said. You know, if you are trying to actually argue about us becoming so backward in science and all it would be a good idea to back it up with some statistics.

As for the Dover board...sigh, just because one board is stupid you think that's a reason to malaign a majority of the population (Which, if one goes back a few posts, is what we are arguing about here)? The vast majority of school boards are not like them. The attention it has gotten has mostly been negative. When the Kansas School board tried something like it the result was they all got booted out and replaced with smarter people. School boards are the bottom of the political food chain--if this is the best they can do we are not in trouble. (They are still worth fighting though)

A 2.6% budget increase, when faced with 3%+ inflation, is in fact a budget cut.

hardly a "Slash" though. Words have meanings.

What great inventions and technologocal advancements has the US been responsible for lately? Spaceshipone is to me the most public example. Next thing that comes to mind is the Magic Bullet...that blender/chopper thing.

Ipods. Lots of great nanotech stuff. Bioengineered food. Vancomycin. 2 of the 3 winners of the Nobel prize in physics. 2 of the 3 winners of the nobel prize in chemistry. 2 austrailians got the Nobel in medicine, breaking an 8 year streak of USA representation but I wouldn't panic and sell my biotech stocks just yet. (Oddly enough I don't see the South Koreans represented much.)

If you want to say that other countries are getting better at doing these things fine. That's a good thing. But the idea that we are no longer a world leader in science and technology is as unreality based as anything a creationist could come up with.

The Japanese economy has been a basket case for over a decade now. The days where people thought of them passing the USA are long gone. China does indeed do a good job of educating a small proportion of its population but so do we and without the weight of government oppression--I pity the poor Chinese researcher who can't access internet sites with forbidden words like "tibet" or "freedom" on them.

The major differences betwee the US and the major eastern players? Discipline. They have it, we barely know what the word means. Our frontier heritage may have necessitated the growth of innovation, but we haven't been a frontier society for generations. We're soft, accustomed to pampering, and on an individual basis, have little incentive to seek to work to better our station, because our society has shown us that such improvements are something we're entitled to, simply for passing time.

There will always be people who break the mold. One Bill Gates more than makes up for 10,000 Ward Churchills. The USA still has a much better liklihood of producing someone like that than China will ever have in the forseeable future.

Bill, I'd be more assured if the money was going for more pure and basic research and less on applied. And I'd be more assured if there were more homegrown scientists; much of the brainpower and new PhDs are immigrant.

From my vantage point in higher ed, I see that the cutting edge can move around faster than people might think. The US is dangerously complacent about their funding; much of it is aimed more at applied research than basic, given the dictates of corporate and government funding. I think it's telling that you point to Bill Gates, who is much more of a businessman and applications person, as opposed to someone who works in basic research (which is where all the applied stuff comes from).

Michael Brunner,

Thanks, I had no idea that was out there.

Hoo boy, what does "one of the" mean to you?Because to me it means that yes, there are indeed OTHER countires that are ALSO leading sources of new inventions, etc.

The US, however, is falling fast. As a nation that makes gods out of athletes but has media that treats scientists and creationists or scientists and political hacks appointed to doctor scientific reports as if both actually have equal validity has taken its toll. We are not the major leader in science and technology that we were even ten years ago.

I don't know whether or not South Korea has actually beaten us in the such things but that would still not invalidate what I said.

They have:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200510/200510200021.html

You know, if you are trying to actually argue about us becoming so backward in science and all it would be a good idea to back it up with some statistics.

As I said, Brooks actually published those statistics this week, but since the NYTimes charges to read their columnists now, you'll have to check back issues in the library.

But if you want to see some nice charts and numbers, here they are:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/new_96_report.htm#pictures

As for South Korea's representation at the Nobel Prize, their emergeance is a relatively recent phenomenon (5-10 years). The Nobels are not like the Oscars where awards are given out for what was published in the past year. It usually takes several years for the impact of discoveries to be fully appreciated.

If you want to say that other countries are getting better at doing these things fine. That's a good thing. But the idea that we are no longer a world leader in science and technology is as unreality based as anything a creationist could come up with.

The number of science degrees being handed out to Americans, however, is dropping and more Asian students are either staying in their home countries to get their graduate degrees or returning to their homeland after they graduate from MIT or Stanford because there are more jobs for scientists there then there was before.

Are we completely out of the race? No, but we are losing ground fast. The initial push in science education that started in the 50s has long since fizzled out and our current government is about as anti-science as you could possibly imagine. These and other cultural factors are taking their toll.

Pick the phone and call Microsoft's tech support line. That's an Indian accent you're hearing. A huge percentage of our software support and even coding and basic engineering has already been outsourced to India.

As for the Dover board...sigh, just because one board is stupid you think that's a reason to malaign a majority of the population (Which, if one goes back a few posts, is what we are arguing about here)? The vast majority of school boards are not like them.

You obviously have not been paying attention to the polls. If you were to put whether ID should be taught in science class to a referendum today, it would win hands down.

As for China, I don't want to sound like I'm defending their brutal censorship policies, but a science researcher is not going to be looking up Tibet while doing a literature search on biotechnology. The point is, they are educating enough of their 1.3 billion people to pull ahead of us in many major areas of basic research.

There will always be people who break the mold. One Bill Gates more than makes up for 10,000 Ward Churchills. The USA still has a much better liklihood of producing someone like that than China will ever have in the forseeable future.

You're confusing entrenpeneurialism with research. Bill Gates didn't invent Windows. He hired the people who could invent for him. And Microsoft is increasingly looking outside the US for the latest advancements.

But, don't take my word for it, here's what Bill Gates himself thinks of the current state of science in America:
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2005/07-18FacultySummit.asp

MARIA KLAWE: So let me ask you, when Microsoft -- I mean, are you finding enough people to hire in the U.S.?

BILL GATES: No, absolutely the answer is no. We have this interesting paradox where in China and India we can get lots of engineers but getting people who have sort of what we call program management type skills or general management type skills, it's very hard to find enough of those, whereas here in the United States we do pretty well at getting people with those skill sets, but then it's just the engineering we're very short of what we'd like to get. And so the competition for somebody who's got the right background is just phenomenal.

"in the annual flamewar about Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr's opinion in Schenk v. United States,"

(Bobb perks his head up)

Is it that time again already? I thought we just had this discussion...darn, where did I put my file with the opinions in it...?

Hey, guys? Can I just mention that aside from a few lashouts on everyones part from time to time, these are still the best political discussions I've had (or read, for that matter) online.

China does a much worse job of educating its entire population than we do (some parts are still incredibly backward) and a good proportion of the Chinese population still believes in traditional (ie nonscientific) medicine and superstitions.

I've been checking around - in all of the schools I've looked into, children are still being taught such things as that most scholars in the 1400s thought the world was flat (when in fact not only did they know it was round, they knew about how big it was - Colombus thought it was only 5000 miles around, not 25,000, and he was dead wrong the whole way), that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree (myth), and that Albert Einstein's only important work was the equation E=mc^2 (completely ignoring the work on the photovoltaic effect that won him a Nobel, as well as everything else in the Special and General Theories of Relativity). Our children are being taught all manner of nonsense about history, the sciences, literature (Hemingway was a lousy writer, who couldn't keep a sentence under sontrol with a whip and a chair, and feared multisyllabic words), and now, thanks to the proponents of ID, biology and cosmology.

As for the latter part of your statement, check out any of the burgeoning number of "natural health" stores out there, or go to your local Barnes & Noble and check out how many books they have on "natural healing." For that matter, find me a newspaper that would willingly skip its daily horoscope column, as if the stars and planets had nothing better to do than to form a private code telling you whether today was a good day to close a business deal.

Football players are treated as deities in high school, while the brilliant science nerds who will one day control their lives are marginalized. When was the last time you heard of a school holding a bake sale to raise money for sports equipment? When was the last time you heard of a jock being harassed mercilessly by the smart kids for admitting that the only thing he's ever read was the letters section in "Penthouse"?

And remember, one of the strongest arguments presented in those "man-on-the-street" interviews for supporting Bush back in 2000 was, "He's the kind of guy you could go have a beer with." This was considered a primary reason to elect someone as leader of the free world. And you want to claim that our country isn't veritably awash in anti-intellectualism?

jonathan, your examples do not support the idea that the u.s. is becoming less intellectual. why? becuase that simplistic nonsense has ALWAYS been taught in american schools - in fact, it used to be much worse. i was taught all of those things when i was in school more than 20 years ago, and i imagine if you looked at school books from the 40's, 50's, 60's, etc., you'd find much the same.

and "natural healing" is bunk, but at least now you can go into your bookstore and find books that call it bunk - 40 years ago, you wouldn't see any bunk-busting books on the shelves to combat the non-science.

and football players have ALWAYS been treated as deities in high school, at least since world war 2. my school system fired it's one music teacher (who worked k-12) for lack of funds, but was able to afford brand new sports scoreboards for football AND basketball. heck, the idea of the jocks being popular and supported and the smart kids being picked on has been around for long enough that it was a well-recognized stereotype when stan lee created a nerd named peter parker.

here's the rub - where are all these brilliant minds working? are they working in the u.s.? or for u.s. companies? i ask, because many of the brilliant thinkers in the u.s. from the past 50-100 years WERE NOT originally american. it used to be they were german, or russian. now they are chinese or indian. i agree that we, as a rule, have less discipline than an authoritarian regime that suppresses individual rights and freedoms, but i for one would not trade one of my freedoms for a better science education in china.

i would venture to guess that if you examined what is taught in the average chinese classroom you'd find a lot more aggregious mistakes than the few minor ones you listed above...

And I'd be more assured if there were more homegrown scientists; much of the brainpower and new PhDs are immigrant.

as opposed to our past scientific triumphs that were the result of good old american know-how. brought to us by good old americans like Werner Von Braun.

how many of our great scientists really have been homegrown?

Pick the phone and call Microsoft's tech support line. That's an Indian accent you're hearing.

Well, tech support in India, Sri Lanka, and the Phillipines is more about cheap labor.

But otherwise, yes, most of the actual creative work is being done in Asia.

While the U.S. is still a major innovator of new technologies, it doesn't always develop yhose technologies.

Things such as CD's, VCR's, & superconductors were created in the U.S., but other countries (usually Japan) developed those technologies into marketable products.

U.S. corporations are more concerned with immediate profit, & so spend less on R&D, while foreign corporations take a longer term viewpoint & invest in new technologies.

But even in innovation, the U.S. is starting to fall behind others. In the last 2-3 years South Korea has been especially busy in this area.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1012/p04s01-usec.html
=============

While China overall provides a poor level of education to it's people, when someone shows promise, they get the full education treatment.

There was an article on Yahoo recently about India & China each producing between 5 & 9 times as many engineering graduates as the U.S> is (If I can find the article & give a link. Right now I can't)

===================

As for U.S. anti-intellectualism, here's a few numbers:
* The United States is 49th in the world in literacy
* The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy
* Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year

More joy here:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1264/article12985.asp

==============

how many of our great scientists really have been homegrown?

George Washington Carver
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
Robert Goddard

And this is just off the top of my head. A little searching will likely reveal dozens, if not hundreds, more.

Well, Bob, who is asking you to trade? Tell me why we can't have our freedoms and a decent science education.

As for the specific fallacies like Columbus sailing to prove the world is round, yeah, that's been in schools for a long time. But that's not a science myth and it misses the central point.

In the 1950s, the Russians launched the first manmade satellite, quickly followed by the first animal and first human in space. This scared the crap out of the US government, so for the first time, science education became a national priority. Money and resources were pumped into science education and the number of students who graduated from US colleges with engineering and science degrees soared. Kids from all over the world wanted to come to the US to attend college.

Today, that priority towards science education has long since evaporated. In fact, we have an administration that is openly hostile to science. And I don't just mean government funding for science, but also practices like having political hacks doctor scientific reports and encouraging bringing nonscience into the science classroom. This is an administration that openly disdains and sneers at academic achievement as "elitism."

You can say that, "it's always been that way," but the truth is, we as a society did encourage kids to go into the sciences in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Yes, athletes have always been revered as gods, but we used to at least give some encouragement to the sciences.

As for those foreign kids who come over for graduate degrees, a funny thing has happened. It used to be, most of them would stay here after graduation and apply for a visa extension because this is where the jobs were. Now, most of them go back to India and China, because those countries are encouraging science and engineering.

We are not.

Amazing how a thread on the political ramifications of a criminal investigation has shifted to a discussion on the deplorable state of science education in this country.

Indestructibleman -- wins the award for best subtle use of a Tom Lehrer quote. :-)

Bill --

You know, while there is a great deal of truth in what you say, I think that for many people "being a prick" is not just a matter of being smart--it's more a matter of not being as smart as you think you are.

There are certainly varying levels of prickitude (for want of a better neologism) depending on one's attitude, but a great many people feel as if ANY indication of intelligence is "being talked down to".

Back when I was writing Trek reviews, I occasionally had people saying flat-out that they preferred someone else's because "they're shorter and they don't make me feel like I need a dictionary." I wasn't attempting to sound smart or to put on airs -- I was just writing as I normally write.

So while the way a smart person handles said smartness can certainly affect the amount to which they're perceived as being a prick, I think the basic tendency to equate the two is around in a lot, lot, LOT of people.

You say that you don't think a majority of people are opposed to intelligence. I disagree.

You say in re: the creationism debate,

I welcome the debate. The evolution side will win. Really, it already has.

No, it hasn't --