Jean Schmidt's Oath

Turns out Jean Schmidt, the Ohio Congresswoman that won a special election this year against a Iraqi war veteran, and who is no infamous for saying this:

A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.

Well turns out this was not the first thing she said. In fact it was the second. Hilariously, this was the first thing she said:

This House has much work to do. On that we can all agree. We will not always agree on the details of that work. Honorable people can certainly agree to disagree. However, here today I accept a second oath. I pledge to walk in the shoes of my colleagues and refrain from name-calling or the questioning of character. [emphasis added.] It is easy to quickly sink to the lowest form of political debate. Harsh words often lead to headlines, but walking this path is not a victimless crime. This great House pays the price.

Somebody alert Jon Stewart (that is if he hasn't already crucified her on this).

-Mr. Alec

Machiavelli

I am curently reading some of Machiavelli in one of my classes. It is especially exciting because the professor is the translator of the texts and is unquestionably knowledgable on the subject matter.

Anyways, I re-read one of my favorite Machiavelli quotes that I thought I should share. It has nothing to do with his political philosophy. It is from a letter to a friend where he is describing his life in exile and the creation of the Prince. Enjoy.

“When evening has come, I return to my house and go into my study. At the door I take off my clothes of the day, covered with mud and mire, and I put on my regal and courtly garments; and decently reclothed, I enter the ancient courts of ancient men, where, received by them lovingly, I feed on the food that alone is mine and that I was born for. There I am not ashamed to speak with them and to ask them the reason for their actions; and they in their humanity reply to me. And for the space of four hours I feel no boredom, I forget every pain, I do not fear poverty, death does not frighten me. I deliver myself entirely to them.”

-Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince. University of Chicago Press. 1995. Appendix: Pg. 109-110.

Obsesity Racket?

Eric Oliver is contending that the purported obsesity epidemic in the United States is all a farce. He makes this claim in a book, aptly titled Fat Politics. His claim seems logical:

The idea that Americans’ increasing girth is a catastrophic disease is largely a myth promoted by the weight loss industry and diet doctors, writes Oliver in a new book, Fat Politics; the Real Story behind America’s Obesity Epidemic. “It is our panic over our weight gain rather than the weight itself that is probably causing the most harm,” Oliver argues.

Oliver contends there is no scientific evidence to suggest that people who are current classified as “overweight” and even most Americans who qualify as “obese” are under any direct threat from their body weight.

This is partly because the current standards of what is “overweight” and “obese” are defined at very low levels — George Bush is technically overweight while Arnold Schwarznegger is “obese.” But it is also because most people confuse body weight with the real sources of health and well-being, such as diet and exercise.

In most cases, the relationship between fat and disease is simply an association, he explains. People who are overweight may also have heart disease, for instance, but there is no proof that being overweight causes the heart disease, he said.

“There are only a few medical conditions that have been shown convincingly to be caused by excess body fat, such as osteoarthritis of weight bearing joints and uterine cancer that comes from higher estrogen levels in heavier women, although this can be treated medically without weight loss,” he said. “For most medical conditions, it is diet, exercise, and genetics that are the real causes. Weight is merely an associated symptom.”

Yet Americans continue to be told that they need to lose weight, Oliver believes, partly because weight is so much easier to measure than diet and exercise. It is also because of American values that consider overweight a sign of sloth and thinness a mark of social status, Oliver said. “But the most important factor,” Oliver argues, “behind America’s ‘obesity epidemic’ is the weight loss industry and public health establishment.

Weight loss is a multi-billion dollar industry in America, Oliver notes, and this industry is trying to put a health spin on what is a largely cosmetic product. Diet doctors and weight-loss companies have established organizations with names such as the American Obesity Association to promote their interests. That group convinced federal health officials to designate obesity as a disease in 2004 and has lobbied for tax deductions for obesity treatments. Yet the American Obesity Association is largely funded by weight loss companies, including, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, Hoffman- La Roche (makers of the weight-loss drug Xenical) and Slim Fast.

This does not really seem like a book worth buying, but definately one that ought to have been written. The proofs often used for the obesity epidemic rely on nothing more than inferences, far less than ought to be neccesary to prove the weight of the claims made. He may be right, he may be wrong, but it does not really matter, I just like to know that no one is entirely correct on the matter.

-Mr. Alec

Pentagon waste

Something tells me this will not generate nearly as much outrage amongst conservatives as the UN Food-for-Oil scandal did which essentially shows you that their outrage had little to do with the prevalence of scandals in bureacratic organizations and everything to do with it having to do with the UN and Kofi Annan.

Damn hypocrites.

-Mr. Alec

France Riots

I noticed that Kevin is cooking up a great post on the economics involved in the French riots (for a little more discussion on this Gary Becker and Richard Posner both had great articles here and here about how the tradeoffs of France's socialist model are real and unacceptable).

But I want to just throw out there that it would be a terrible result of this rioting if the French government accepted such violence as a proper mechanism for social and economic change. Apparently this is not unusual. Richard Posner explains in his column this week:

French truckers and farmers are notorious for direct action, as in blocking roads, in order to enforce their demands. In 2003, a plan to reduce civil servants' pensions provoked wildcat strikes by tens of thousands of civil servants. Why the French have this propensity I don't know (it probably is not French economic policies, which are similar to those of most European countries), but it suggests a lower riot threshold than in the United States.

Granted that France is in need of serious social and economic reform. But if it continually caves to people seeking change through extra-legal action then it only incentivizes further illegal action.

Here is hoping that France first establishes its laws before it talks about concessions to its justifiably angry minorities.

-Mr. Alec

Abortion and the Bible

The New York Times had a very interesting article that summarized the three bible passages that allude to the issues involved in the abortion debate. The conclusion is that essentially the bible is very inconclusive. There is even one passage that seems to indicate that the woman's life takes precedence over the fetus.

But that just begs the question of why the bible is an authority on this issue or those outside of its explicit scope.

Worth reading.

-Mr. Alec

Strife in the White House

This just in! There is division in the White House over how to set detainee policy. Turns out there are some crazy people in the State and Defense department that want language, "from the Geneva Conventions prohibiting 'cruel,' 'humiliating' and 'degrading' treatment" inserted into the policy. The hilarious thing is the justification for inserting such wording into the policy:

Advocates of that approach...contend that moving the military's detention policies closer to international law would prevent further abuses and build support overseas for the fight against Islamic extremists, officials said.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How long has it been since Abu Ghraib? How long has it been since the start of the War on Terror? Why has it taken so long for any sort of strife over this policy to develop? How stupid are these people that they are just realizing that possibly the international community would like it if we did not overtly act like an out of control global hegemony.

Gar.

-Mr. Alec

Bush's Political Stock

Remember how when Roberts was nominated over the summer, many Democrats (not the elected officials, the ordinary people who just happen to vote for that party) point out that they had little reason to object to the Roberts nomination because Bush had won the Presidency and he was now just nominating a conservative like he had promised.

That was before Hurrican Katrina, Fitzmas, and the debacle that was Harriet Miers. I think that by far the best indicator of Bush's severly diminished political stock is that no one is saying that now. Alito seems to be in the same mold as Roberts but the media is making a far bigger deal about it this time around. Now you can attribute that to media bias but this time around, it just seems like critics of Alito are going to have more traction then they ever did against Roberts (not that this traction will amount to anything).

It will be interesting to see how Bush responds to this. He has never really had to overcome any type of strife in his administration. David Brooks had an excellent article last week about how Reagan responded to the Iran-Contra scandal by cleaning house and reinvigorating the White House.

On Dec. 31, 1986, Robert Novak and Rowland Evans wrote a column with the headline "The Reagan Presidency Is Dead." Halfway into its second term, the Reagan administration was beset by the Iran-contra scandal. Its legislative agenda was in tatters. Morale was low, and the decision-making process was in chaos.

Ronald Reagan had to decide whether to hunker down in the storm or break out of it. Pat Buchanan, who was the communications director, recommended that the president bring a special counselor into the White House to handle Iran-contra and bring an objective perspective to the administration's troubles.

Reagan agreed. David Abshire, then the ambassador to NATO, was hired and given complete autonomy.

Abshire describes his job in his new book, "Saving the Reagan Presidency." He had four tasks. First, puncture the bubble of intellectual conformity that marks every administration by breaking the spell of groupthink and self-serving spin. Abshire had direct access to the president, and in his 12 one-on-one meetings with Reagan, he was able to say things he could never have said in larger meetings. Even so, Reagan found it very hard to admit that what happened in Iran-Contra actually happened.

Second, iron out the feuds and tensions (between, say, Defense and State). Third, repair relations with Capitol Hill. Congress dominates all second terms, and any president who doesn't adapt will fail.

Finally, Abshire helped kick-start a new policy agenda. The old chief of staff, Don Regan, was fired, and Howard Baker was brought in. Reagan gave a contrite speech taking responsibility for Iran-contra, and his approval rating jumped nine points.

New initiatives to end the cold war were launched, including the speech calling on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. Domestic ideas, built around an economic bill of rights, were floated. The administration never fully recovered, but the last two years of Reagan's term were productive, and, in the way Reagan dealt with Gorbachev, historic.

The Bush administration is not in quite the same bind the Reagan administration was in. There is no one big scandal (sorry, Plamegate is not it). But at key moments - Social Security, Katrina, Harriet Miers - the president has been uncharacteristically out of step with the American people. Second-term-itis is setting in.

Brooks' obvious conclusion is that Bush should do as Reagan did. I don't see that happening from the president who would have stuck with Miers out of dedication to her as a friend, but it may end up being the only option. We'll see what happens.

-Mr. Alec

Supreme Court

I know that I definately dropped the ball in the Miers process. I probably will have to do the same with Alito given how much busier I am during the academic year (as opposed to the blog-filled non-academic periods). All I really want to point out is two things. First, don't listen to me, just go to Volokh Conspiracy, they had something like 35 posts Monday. They were really on top of pointing out how a McConnell nomination was not going to happen. They also had a blurb from this article by the always intriguing Cass Sunstein. Cass summed up Alito in a manner I have heard twenty times before:

A reading of the opinions of Samuel Alito reveals that he is an unexpectedly interesting judge, with a conservative record that shows a very different tone from that of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. He does not press ambitious claims, and each of his opinions is firmly anchored in the law. At the same time, his overall pattern of votes shows a great deal of deference to established institutions.

Unlike, say, Justice Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and Judge Michael Luttig, Alito avoids theoretically ambitious claims. He rarely asks for large-scale reorientations of the law. His opinions are both measured and low-key. He does not insist that the Constitution must mean what it meant when it was originally ratified. If each opinion is read in isolation, the evaluation, even for those who disagree, would almost always be this: solid, more than competent, unfailingly respectful, and plausible.

So basically this leaves us where Roberts left us over this summer: with the impression that he is a qualified pick (he has the pedigree Miers did not) with a conflicted judicial record. This is probably where Bush wants us to be, and I honestly don't think its a bad place to be. Much better than a Luttig or Owens alternative.

-Mr. Alec

The legal implications of a Roe reversal

Over at the fantastic Crescat Sententia, Will Baude takes a look at Roe that differs from many that only look at the political implications of a Supreme Court reversal. His conclusion seems to be that two interconnected ideas. First, that overturning Roe would not free legislatures to finally act in a perfectly democratic way. Second, the Supreme Court would not rid itself of any burden by overturning Roe. It would instead have to rule on a host of seperate matters that would define the reach of seperate state legislatures.

Check it out.

-Mr. Alec