JustOneMinute

Just Shoot Me

Mike Huckabee shoots himself in the foot with a "joke" about Obama ducking a gunman.  Where is Dick Cheney with a duck-hunting invite when we need him?

Can't Slip One Past The Times

Another classic correction from the Times:

National

An article on Saturday about Senator John McCain’s criticism of Senator Barack Obama’s Middle East policy incompletely described Mr. Obama’s position on negotiating with the leaders of countries, including Iran, with which the United States currently has little contact. While Mr. Obama and his aides have indeed described various conditions and limitations on such negotiations, Mr. Obama himself, in a Democratic debate in July 2007, also said he would be willing "to meet separately, without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. (Go to Article)

Dean Barnett blasted the Times last Saturday; I was AWOL until Sunday.

The Times correction is especially timely (even if it took a week) since Obama has re-affirmed the commitment the Times could not discern last week:

The senator repeated his belief in engaging Iran in the way that past president like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan engaged foes and laid a framework for what he believes Iran must do.

"I understand George Bush’s secretary of defense suggests we talk directly to Iran, so I don’t know if George Bush is calling his own secretary of defense an appeaser,” he said. “"It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, then Iran can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions.”

Gates' comments have been clarified under duress but his original comments were hardly an endorsement of a 2009 Presidential meeting with no preconditions:

WASHINGTON: U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates called for more visits to Iran by U.S. citizens on Wednesday, saying private contacts might help bridge differences between the two countries.

Talking at the American Academy of Diplomacy, Mr. Gates said: “We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them. There are actually many Iranians who visit the U.S. We ought to increase the flow going the other way, not of Iranians but of Americans, and that may be one way of creating some space perhaps over some period of time.”

Gee - Obama pretty much making stuff up.  Who knew that the new politics was so like the old politics?  Should make adjusting easy!

The AllahPundit has lots more.

I'LL Take My Chances With Prosecutorial Discretion This Time

Nonsense from Farhad Manjoo of Salon on the MySpace Mom indictment:

The MySpace mom's prosecution threatens us all

No, it threatens any adult who creates a national sensation by cyber-stalking an emotionally troubled 13 year old and driving her to suicide. 

After walking us through the legal background, Mr. Manjoo wanders off the legal reservation:

There are no laws against cyberbullying, as Wired.com's excellent Kim Zetter explains. Drew's specific crime, according to prosecutors, stems from her alleged violation of MySpace's "terms of service" -- a lengthy legal document by which you implicitly agree to abide when you're using the site.

MySpace's contract sets down a big list of MySpace no-nos, among them:

impersonating or attempting to impersonate another Member, person or entity;

using any information obtained from the MySpace Services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person or entity, or attempting to do the same;

using any information obtained from the MySpace Services in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person or entity, or attempting to do the same;

Normally breaking these rules would result only in a breach of a civil contract with MySpace -- and, thus, no major punishment.

Here's where the law-stretching occurs: In breaking the contract with MySpace, prosecutors say Drew is criminally responsible. She can go to jail, in other words, for failing to heed the legal terms of a Web site she clicked on.

Not so, as the indictment makes clear - the legal theory is that Drew broke the MySpace rules in order to further a conspiracy to commit a separate civil offense, to wit, the intentional infliction of emotional distress.  That is two civil violations, not one.

Now, I am not going to contradict the experts who say that this application of the underlying law regulating computer use and abuse is novel, a stretch, and so on.  However, contra Manjoo, mere violation of the MySpace terms of service, or any other firms terms of service, would not create the grounds for prosecution under this theory - a perpetrator would have to violate a relevant TOS *and* then commit some separate tortious act.  Hence, overheated rhetoric such as this from Manjoo is nonsense:

This is very bad law. Nearly every site on the planet includes a lengthy terms page, many of them with terribly vague, over-broad proscriptions of the sort lawyers are very fond.

If prosecutors were given wide freedoms to charge folks who violated such things, there wouldn't be enough jails on the planet to house us hoodlums.

MySpace's TOS, for instance, also prohibits posting material that "constitutes or promotes information that you know is false or misleading." How many gossipy teenagers would be hauled into the pokey on that count alone?

Or, this: MySpace says that "band, comedy, filmmaker and other profiles" can't post stuff that "uses sexually suggestive imagery or any other unfair, misleading or deceptive Content intended to draw traffic to the profile."

Posting sexually suggestive imagery on MySpace is a crime? Mariah Carey's lawyers should let her know!

Until Manjoo expands those examples to explain the second civil violation (and I could get behind the idea that Mariah Carey's performances are a breach of something or other), he has nothing.  For example, knowingly posting gossipy but false information without any intention of inflicting emotional harm would be actionable how?  Answer - it wouldn't be.  As a practical matter, citizens should be as worried about Manjoo's faux prosecutions as they are worried about being busted for speeding at 60 in a 55 MPH zone.

So.  Do two civil violations normally sum to one criminal charge?  Who knows?  I can see this case eventually being tossed, but if the woman has to spend years and mega-bucks fighting it, well, boo-hoo.

I am troubled by the venue, however - all the activity occurred in Missouri, but Los Angeles got involved because of the physical location of the MySpace servers.  Since an important (and normally utterly un-American) goal here is to punish the accused prior to conviction, I suggest a change in venue - to Anchorage.

IN A CALMER MOMENT:  "A Man For All Seasons", about the tussle between Thomas More and some Brit king or other, was brilliant on the importance of upholding the law even when the outcome was undesirable.  I'll take two:

---

Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.

---

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Thomas More was a Great American, or could have been.  But his wisdom notwithstanding, some slippery slopes are worth standing on - I'll take my chances with this prosecutor on this case.

MORE:  Orin Kerr opines:

This case involves a terrible tragedy; I think what Lori Drew did is truly despicable. But the government's legal theory, based entirely on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, is very weak. Legally speaking, the prosecution is a real stretch. In my view, the courts should dismiss the indictment.  In this post, I'll explain why.

OK, So What Are The "Legitimate Claims" Of Hezbollah And Hamas?

David Brooks chatted with Barack Obama on Hezbollah and Hamas, with eyebrow-raising results:

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

As a former community organizer himself  I suppose Obama might admire the efficacy of the Hamas and Hezbollah street level operations.  But what "legitimate claims" does he have in mind?  Beats me.  The Confederate Yankee and Noah Pollak of Commentary are also concerned.

But I have a Bold Suggestion - since Obama is backing away from his "I'll meet with any rogue fool without preconditions" pledge anyway, why doesn't he announce one pre-condition - any bad boy dictators or lunatics who want to meet with Obama must load onto YouTube a video of themselves singing a chorus of Kumbaya.  That should be reassuring.

Disaster Relief - Myanmar And China

Americares is a terrific international and domestic aid organization currently focused on Myanmar and China.  If you have not heard of them, they are highly regarded for their good work and low expense ratio - less than 2% of donor dollars go to overhead, mainly because their staffers are paid a pittance (my wife works there).  Closer to home, Americares is also involved with tornado relief in the Midwest.

The story of their founding is a classic:

On April 4, 1975 a U.S. jet carrying 243 Vietnamese orphans crashed into the jungle outside Tan Son Nhut. A third of the children burned to death, many of the remaining victims were critically injured. Soon after, the Pentagon announced that it would not have the resources to rescue the children for 10 days.

The world received the news of the crash with dismay, shock, and a widespread sense of helplessness. One individual decided to take action. Robert C. Macauley, a paper broker from New Canaan, Connecticut immediately chartered a Boeing 747 to rescue the young survivors. Within 48 hours, the children were safe in California.

The rescue plan a success, Macauley now had to deal with a few financial issues, a minor detail in his philanthropic mind. Macauley did not have $10,000 in the bank to cover the down payment for the aircraft, nor the $241,000 for the remaining balance. To cover his expenses, Mr. and Mrs. Macauley took out a mortgage on their house. A fair trade, his wife Leila comments, "The bank got the house and Bob got the kids."

If you fly it, they will come; Times coverage from their archives is here and here.

Their current effort in Myanmar is described here; a snippet:

An AmeriCares emergency relief expert arrived in Myanmar and is assessing the situation and working to obtain clearance for our airlift of essential medicines
and medical supplies to land in Yangon. They are also working closely with the World Health Organization to help coordinate relief efforts and ensure the aid is distributed to the delta regions most affected by Cyclone Nargis.   Our relief expert on the ground has extensive experience in responding to the 2004 tsunami disaster.

...AmeriCares is mobilizing additional disaster relief experts to the region.  Our manager of emergency response has been in Bangkok working to procure additional emergency relief supplies and participating in logistics meetings with the UN and other NGO's to coordinate relief efforts staged out of Thailand.

AmeriCares is working around the clock to obtain additional visas into the country in order to distribute the first airlift to those most affected.  We are in the process of planning additional shipments of essential supplies, including water purification sachets and supplement anti-malaria medications, which are included in the first airlift.

Aid groups are having a hard time getting people and aid into Myanmar right now.

In China, Americares has people on the ground, as well as an unlikely ally - the  good people of Worldwide Wrestling Entertainment plan to put a smackdown on earthquakes (I guess they are ready to rumble, but don't say that).

It's for a good cause.  Thanks in advance.

Myanmar Relief

China Relief

Tornado Relief.

Profiles In Courage (Self-Portrait Sub-Division)

This is pretty funny - in a recent speech Obama practically separates his shoulder patting himself on the back for entering the lion's den and, in a Detroit speech from May 2007, telling automakers they need to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets:

"We're going to have do what I did when I went to Detroit and told the automakers that they're going to have to raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We can make more efficient cars right here in the United States. There's no way they have to be made in Japan. But, it requires that Detroit changes its ways. And I have to say that when I delivered that speech, nobody clapped. The room was really quiet. But that's OK, because that's part of what is the task of the next president."

There are just a couple of problems - the video of the Detroit speech is available, and in reality Obama was interrupted by applause at that point in the speech.  And why might he have been interrupted?  Well, Obama came laden with carrots as well as sticks; this is from the WaPo account of the Detroit speech:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) yesterday proposed federal assistance to help U.S. automakers cover the cost of their retired workers' health benefits if the companies invest in technology to improve their vehicles' fuel efficiency.

In a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, the Democratic presidential candidate offered a plan to ease the pain of U.S. automakers even as he reiterated support for higher fuel-efficiency standards.

...

Obama proposed that the government pay for 10 percent of domestic automakers' health-care costs for retired workers through 2017 if the firms plow half the savings into equipment for making more efficient cars and trucks. Obama's campaign estimates that this would cost taxpayers roughly $7 billion over the next 10 years.

In addition, Obama proposed tax incentives for retooling auto assembly plants and the extension of tax credits for hybrid vehicles beyond the current 60,000-cars-per-manufacturer limit. His campaign put the 10-year cost of his plan at $20 billion and said it would be covered by auctioning greenhouse gas permits under a cap-and-trade program that Obama also supports.

Let's hear it for taxpayer subsidies!  Greg Mankiw was scathing; the NY Times was laudatory, and barely mentioned the carrot part of the Obama speech.  However, they included this:

Despite Mr. Obama’s sometimes harsh words Monday, the diverse audience interrupted him 10 times for applause. “I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line,” said Peter Eckstein, a retired labor union economist from Ann Arbor, Mich.

He's a hero!  And I know it's true because I read it in the Times.

MORE:  The LA Times blog also has this, and also connects it to the Hillary-Bosnia story.  Do we detect the dark power of Sidney Blumenthal?

Maybe Try To Smile When You Say That

The Obama campaign rises to defend the Sister Grim:

“This is a shameful attempt to attack a woman who has repeatedly said she wouldn’t be here without the opportunities and blessings of this nation,” says Obama spokesman Sevugan. Read full response.

Responding to tart Tennessee GOP video/press release attacking Michelle Obama for saying she had not been proud of America as an adult before the campaign.

Has she really said that repeatedly?  Has she ever smiled when she said it?  I have often said something similar to "I wouldn't be here without the blessings of this great nation" while standing on a crowded subway platform during a July heat wave, which is her most common demeanor; check the New Yorker profile, or the Chicago Tribune, or TIME, or Newsweek.

But fair's fair - in this version of her stump speech she does admit that she stands on the shoulders of giants and has beaten the odds, just before explaining to her audience how unlikely it is that any of them will do so.

Does Karl Rove Still Have The Magic?

Back in 2004 the Massachusetts Supreme Court and Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco, launched a national conversation on gay marriage.  Now the California Supreme Court may provide Republicans the same favor (I deplore these distractions).  We will find out at about 1 PM EDT; the WSJ blog has the relevant legal background but omits a key political point - in 2005 [and 2007] the California legislature narrowly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage; Schwarzenegger vetoed it as contrary to the 2000 referendum [Excellent background from Eugene Volokh].

In a mad fit of shameless self-promotion, I will cite this old post from Feb 2004 as shockingly insightful, or anyway, inciteful - my gist was that "Loving v. Virgina", in which the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, was *not* an example of an activist court.  In fact, since many states had already repealed such statutes (and since Congress had recently passed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act), my contention is that the Supreme Court ratified a societal change that had already occurred.

That will be quite different from the situation in California, clearly.  But as to what the popular will is in the Golden State, who knows?  A 2000 ballot initiative barring gay marriage passed with 61%; as mentioned, in 2005 the legislature ignored that; and now a new ballot initiative (this time in the form of a constitutional amendment) is poised to go on the November ballot.  It does appear that the people will be heard and a full judicial cram-down avoided.

MORE:  Ruling is here (172 page .pdf).  From p. 7:

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

I am not a lawyer and I have not read the rest, but my quick impression is that this is a finding of a right within the California constitution to gay marriage both in substance and in form (i.e., it will be called "marriage"), which brings the attempt to amend the constitution by way of ballot initiative into play for this November.  Loose the hounds!

DEPLORABLE DESCENT INTO SNIDENESS - Nothing about this yet at Sully's site?  Geez.

Team Volokh is reading what I'm reading.

Eugene Volokh:

California Supreme Court Holds That California Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

Orin Kerr:

California Supreme Court Holds That There Is A State Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage in California

SNIDENESS REVISITED:  Lots of coverage by Andrew Sullivan (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); I liked this from his first post:

The most populous state now joins much of the rest of the Western world in bringing gay couples into the civic and human family as equals.

Really?  I would have inferred that they have joined Canada, Belgium, Holland, Spain and South Africa.  Not to overlook Massachusetts.  The list for civil partnerships is much longer, but that is not what this tussle is about.

I will agree with Andrew's point that this is not a clarion case of judicial activism, given the legislative support in 2005 and the high likelihood of a ballot initiative this fall.  Now, if the ballot initiative succeeds in amending the California constitution and the California Court strikes it down, we are into judicial wonderland.

SINCE YOU ASK:  My official editorial position has been that gay marriage is an idea whose time is coming (based on its strong support among the young and opposition among the elderly) and that it ought to arrive by way of the legislative process rather than by judicial fiat.

As to the merits, I have no idea how vast or trivial a social experiment we are talking about.  In Massachusetts and around the country black ministers were opposed - apparently they have had trouble promoting marriage to the young gangsta wanna-bes who are currently reluctant to do the white thing with their ladies; if marriage is further re-branded as a gay thing, they felt their challenge would be even greater.  Are they right?  And should we let the homophobia of a bunch of dysfunctional urban youth drive our social policy?  Or is this yet another liberal assault on the black family (To be filed under "What Else Is New?)

Well.  I think if we get to gay marriage by way of the tedious democratic process of mustering support and passing laws, we will be fine.  If we get there because some creative Obama judges, after contemplating the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution, come to the realization that our Founding Fathers really did endorse gay marriage, well, that will be divisive and a distraction.  And we don't want that.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I am dating myself here but I am easily old enough to remember when the motivation behind the push for gay marriage in New York City was to enable gay tenants to pass along rent-controlled apartments to their significant other.  A bit later the AIDS crisis prompted a push for gay marriage to allow a spousal access to health insurance.  So the current talk about the desire for access to marriage as a fundamental expression of true love falls a bit flat to these tired ears.

ENCORE:  David Brooks on the conservative case for gay marriage as a stabilizing institution, from Nov. 2003.

FROM THE CANDIDATES:  Ben Smith of The Politico has statements from the campaign.  I like this summary:

... JMart wisely notes: Because Obama is not where the far left wants him to be (marriage) and McCain not where the far right wants him to be (a federal ban), this is not something either will probably make front and center.

A GI Bill Compromise?

Smart and necessary for McCain.

A Helpful Matt Bai Skipper

Times contributer Matt Bai will have a long NY Times magazine entry this Sunday.  Apparently it is an upscale attempt to Swiftboat John McCain (You know I use that term mockingly) by de-legitimizing his wartime experience.  My advice to Attack Dems intent on this path - have fun storming the castle!

Fortunately, we can all skip directly to the vivisection - Karl at Team Protein, Michael Goldfarb, and Capt. Ed cover the bases.

Briefly, Bai ignores the good news out of Basra (deadline problems?) and McCain's extensive study of insurgencies in the Naval War College after Vietnam.

Don't Know Much About History (Last Chapter?)

The Minuteman gets results!  OK, really the Rightosphere, but let me savor the moment.  We have had some fun mocking Obama's ahistorical notion, offered as justification for his willingness to talk with Iran, that Roosevelt and Truman negotiated with our enemies (Stalin was still our ally against Germany at the time of Tehran and Yalta).

But in a statement reported today, Obama seems to have cracked open the old history books:

It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.

Obama invoked Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy during a victory speech following his win in North Carolina - presumably, he calculated that neither the moment nor the audience was right for an invocation of Nixon and Reagan as two of his guiding lights, and how many of his young supporters were likely to spot the error, or care?

Since Obama majored in international relations back in his Columbia days, I will opine that he knew he was blowing smoke with the "Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy" triumvirate, but liked its audience appeal.  That's new politics?

Good News From Basra

Betsy Newmark clips from the WSJ and the NY Times.

Almost Heaven, West Virginia

Hillary wins huge in West Virginia, with a 67-26 margin that doesn't count since it delivered by was older white people, some of whom are the sort of racists that would send a former Klansmen to the US Senate.  The critical significance of this result is explained by Matt Yglesias:

As the Clinton campaign sagely points out "no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916" and therefore Obama's primary loss shows that despite his large lead in the polls over John McCain, he can't possible win the election.

What's even more interesting is that no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Minnesota since 1912 (it went for Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party) so given that Obama won Minnesota and Clinton won West Virginia, McCain is guaranteed to win the general election unless the eventual nominee can somehow completely replicate the social and political conditions prevailing in pre-WWI America. The outlook, in short, is very grim.

If a vigorous discussion of Hillarity's renewed hope cannot hold people's attention, help me with this equally portentouus puzzle: is "Take Me Home, Country Roads" the best pick for state song of West Virginia (ignore this official list)?

Bonus Question - does John Denver score a second entry with "Rocky Mountain High"? 

And some real headscratchers:  First, I have a digitaly remastered version of Al Jolson singing "California, Here I Come", which can't be ruled out as a possible Best Song for California.  However, is Tony Bennet's "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" eligible?  It's really a city song, obviously, but if the judges let it in then they have to consider "New York, New York" as well.

Among Grand Champions it is very tough to beat "Oklahoma", but "Georgia On My Mind" could do it ("Midnight Train to Georgia" is a logical nominee and house fave, but we recognize our limitations, sometimes).

Some of these other states have songs that aren't obviously ghastly - Tennessee has "Rocky Top", and, if desperate, could share "Gimme a 'T" For Texas", and the Washington DC song ("Send In The Clowns") is a classic.  If folks have a great suggestion for New Jersey (A suggestion for a song) please share.  But that is where I am leaning for the big winner - Oklahoma.

OUTSIDE THE BOX:  Here it is - American President Idol!  The winner of each primary has to sing that state's song on national television.  Oh, you know that would be Must-See TV!  Must-See with the sound turned down, maybe...

History Is Bunk (Subcategory: Experience)

Dan McLaughlin writes on the importance of experience for a President; McQ provides the crib notes:

The "experience factor" is the most potent weapon the Republicans have to wield against an Obama candidacy. Sure there will be other factors which work against him as well, but in this age of terrorism and uncertainty (to include economic uncertainty), his lack of experience in just about every sphere should scare voters to death.

Obama's dazzle factor has, to this point, pretty well hidden his experience deficit. Now is the time to begin to bring out that deficit.

I deplore these distractions.