Thoughts on Honduras

Well, I think it's fair to say that the recent actions taken by the current de facto government of Honduras under the leadership of Roberto Micheletti have exposed the authoritarian and autocratic inclinations of this usurper government. Many U.S. conservatives have supported the Micheletti government following its installation in the wake of the military coup against the controversial, but duly-elected left-leaning President Manuel Zelaya. They have argued that the ouster of Zelaya was constitutionally defensible in the wake of Zelaya's misbehavior (some would argue Zelaya's treason), and that the subsequent Micheletti government were each necessary to preserve freedom and democracy in Honduras. But now that the Micheletti government has unilaterally suspended civil rights and constitutional guarantees by shutting down opposition media outlets and by preventing rights to free assembly, all in the name of "order," its former supporters in the U.S. have now responded with a deafening silence. Since the Micheletti government showed its autocratic nature, there is simply no way that anyone can continue to argue that this government is acting out of a commitment to democracy and freedom. And lest anyone seek to argue that the Micheletti government is the better of two bad alternatives, I would simply point out that as manipulative as Zelaya might have been, he never responded to his opposition by suspending constitutional rights. His opponents were always free to speak out against him, to organize and protest his behavior, and to flood the airwaves and their print media outlets with their criticism. It is the Micheletti government that, when faced with the public expression of opposition in an organized and peaceful, but determined, fashion, resorted to the behavior of dictatorships.

Given recent events in Honduras, I'd like to revisit the whole context of this crisis and offer some of my own opinions which have been germinating for a while.

First, let me starty by suggesting that the situation in Honduras was and is not as clear-cut and black & white as folks either on the left or the right have made it. Here is some food for thought. First, regarding the original claim by the coup supporters that Zelaya was seeking to establish the mechanism for instituting a Hugo Chavez style dictatorship in his own country, I think it is important to note that Zelaya was not specifically attempting to extend his term of office. In fact, what gets obfuscated in the polemics, is that what Zelaya had actually proposed was to insert in the upcoming election a ballot measure that would have been a binding referendum on the Honduran people's opinion regarding support for calling a constitutional convention with the purpose of reviewing the constitution and perhaps proposing amendments to the constitution, one of which would have included the Constitutional provision that limited a President to one term in office. The Supreme Court ruling against Zelaya was that it was illegal for him even to propose a "binding" referendum. So Zelaya then changed the measure to be a "non-binding" resolution. Whether or not one thinks Zelaya was simply playing fast and loose with the intent of the Supreme Court's ruling is another question. (And I happen think Zelaya WAS playing fast and loose. But, hey, that's politics!) However, that said, in a country governed by the Rule of Law, the next step would have been for the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of this "non-binding" referendum. But they never got that far before the coup took place. Secondly, contrary to what is currently circulating among much of the uninformed punditocracy and blogosphere, the Honduran Supreme Court did not order Zelaya arrested and deported. That's simply an untruth. The Supreme Court declared Zelaya in violation of their original ruling and thus subject to arrest and a subsequent trial for this violation of the ruling. In other words, the Supreme Court basically declared Zelaya to be in contempt of court. What the Supreme Court did not do was to authorize any particular authority to arrest Zelaya. It did not call for the military to detain Zelaya. And it certainly did not order, nor did it condone, his unwilling exile from the country under force of arms. That was done unilaterally by the Honduran military with some vocal support by members of the Honduran Congress.

Second, the Honduran Constitution is unclear on who actually IS the proper authority to arrest a President accused of illegal activity and what is the proper way of bringing to trial a President so-accused. There is nothing in the Honduran Constitution that affords the Congress or the military any authority to act in the way that they did. In this regard, the Honduran Constitution really is a badly-flawed document. Neverthelss, the proper way to deal with this lack of clarity in such situations in a liberal democracy is not for the Congress to make a power grab, as it did, in its struggle with the Executive; but rather for Congress to legislate a process whereby a rogue President is brought to trial and formally impeached.

With regard to the formal U.S. government position on the coup, I would say that the position is not one of being pro-Zelaya and anti-Supreme Court, as some critics of the U.S. response have argued, but rather one of being pro-democracy versus anti-democracy. Here's the thing: how "democratic" can a country be considered if there are articles of its constitution that are simply un-amendable? Heck, even the most hallowed articles of the U.S. Constitution are not presumed to be un-amendable. Popular sovereignty (i.e. government of the people, by the people, and for the people), not to mention freedom, requires that no constitutional provision be sacrosanct such that it is exempt always and everywhere, forever, from popular sanction and approval. Imagine if the framers of the U.S. Constitution had written a provision into the document that basically stated that only property-owning white males had the right to vote in elections and that this provision could never be amended or repealed, and that any effort to do so would amount to treason. That is, in essence, what the Honduran Constitution says about Presidential term limits. There is something to be said (and perhaps not all good) about the quality of Honduras's democracy and the nature of freedom under a constitution that cannot be amended in some parts and which parts are thus completely and utterly beyond the scrutiny of the people whom the Constitution serves.

Finally, I would always urge folks to think about what is proper conflict resolution between the co-equal branches of government in a liberal democracy. If we would not tolerate the manner of dealing with our own President in the way that Honduras has dealt with its own President, then there is an inconsistency within our own notions of what constitutes proper democratic governance. And when it is coupled with the idea that Honduras can't be expected to live up to the same standards of democratic governance that we in the U.S. would expect because Honduras is, after all, a third world banana republic, then this inconsistency is also very relativist, not to mention patronizing. We should always expect that our democratic allies would not simply have the military round up the country's President in his pajamas, force him into exile, and install a new government over the course of 24 hours. The question I keep asking folks who supported this coup: Would we tolerate this if it happened in our own country? Or in Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, etc.? I doubt it. And why is that? The answer to this question is simple: we fashion ourselves as people more accustomed to dealing with such crises through a strict adherence to the Rule of Law and never through a reliance on the force of arms, much less through the use of the national military.

In short, if anyone supports a military ouster of a President, a President who was never given a fair trial under due process of the law with the right to mount a legal defense in a legitimate trial in front of a duly constituted jury, however that process might take shape, just because Honduras is a third-world basket case that doesn't know a better way to deal with such problems, then shame on you. We should expect more from our Democratic allies, and not settle for the REAL third world basket case solution (i.e. a military coup) that actually took place.

All this is not to say that I support Zelaya or even that I like the man. Frankly, I'm not much of a fan of his, nor do I think he's operating with any measure of sincerity himself. He certainly has demagogic and anti-democratic tendencies like Hugo Chavez. But, even still, I can't claim to be an advocate of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law if I accept the manner in which Zelaya, who, for better or for worse, was the duly-elected President of Honduras, was removed from office and thrown out of the country.

For a good summation of the case against the ouster of Zelaya on constitutional, and legal procedural grounds, go here.

Drew Brees and Target Practice

Here's why the Saints just might make it to the Superbowl this year:



Hot damn!

Football in NOLA - The Rare Trifecta

It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's always worth mentioning:

Tulane Green Wave 42, McNeese State Cowboys 32

LSU Tigers 30, Mississippi State Bulldogs 26

New Orleans Saints 27, Buffalo Bills 7

A good weekend for football in Louisiana.

My brief two-bit analysis: (1) Tulane wins against a ranked Division I-AA team. I guess chalking up a victory against any team is a good day for Tulane; but this one is nothing really to write home about. (2) LSU had an impressive goal line stand late in the 4th quarter; but this goal line stand should have been completely unnecessary. If LSU hadn't bungled what should have been a chip shot 19 yard field goal earlier, regardless of whether or not Mississippi State would have scored on its last major drive, the outcome of the game would never have been in question. LSU is lucky to be 4-0. If they don't improve in significant ways, they're gonna get eaten up by the big boys in the SEC. (3) On the other end of the spectrum, the Saints look surprisingly good at this point. They are playing solid, confident ball and are winning decisively.

Cuaderno Latinoamericano

Just wanted to take this opportunity to plug another blog project that is now up and running again. Cuaderno Latinoamericano is a blog focusing exclusively on Latin America that involved multiple contributors, all of whom are enrolled, or have enrolled, in one of my courses at Tulane University over the years. It's an experiment in utilizing the blog medium to get students to engage with Latin America on their own terms, for students to make use of blog technology and other current media to explore contemporary issues, culture, society, politics, basically anything of interest to students, that concerns the Latin American region. The quality of the posts vary, but the exercise inevitably enhances student exposure and attention to the region. And that is its principle purpose. Check it out and feel free to leave comments of encouragement or criticism. In doing so, you'll also become part and parcel of the education these students receive.

The Fruits of Glenn Beck

He and those like him from the anti-establishment, wacko, fringe rightwing nutcases have given birth. I fear this is the first of many such stories. For shame, Glenn Beck, for shame.

Zelaya Returns to Honduras

Breaking news has reported that ousted Honduran President, Mel Zelaya, has returned to Honduras and is, apparently, holed up in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa.

As of this moment, no one knows quite how Zelaya managed to get into the country. I have heard from some of my colleagues who have been reading up on the matter that he supposedly made it to the Brazilian Embassy by his own means and was not shuttled there by any foreign power.

This upsets the whole scenario in Honduras and will complicate the situation tremendously. The "de facto" Honduran government, which deposed Zelaya through a military coup, denies that Zelaya is in the country, yet has already declared a curfew in order to stem the tide of Zelaya supporters from occupying the streets of the capital, Tegucigalpa, at night.

How this will end is anyone's guess at this point, but it's certainly an escalation that doesn't promise peace. We shall see ...

Thought of the Day: How to Kill Obama's Health Care Reform

The absolute surest way to kill Obama's Health Care Reform plan is for Sarah Palin to come out and endorse it.

LSU vs. Tulane

I agree with John DeShazier:

The guess here is that LSU's athletic quality of life wouldn't noticeably diminish if it played a regular-season game in New Orleans once every three or four years. Its schedule strength isn't going to skyrocket by filling up on in-state opponents who aren't any more likely to pose a threat than Tulane.

And to claim it will enhance the LSU brand by playing North Carolina, or anyone else, at a neutral site or home-and-home is stretching for an excuse.

...

But more than 100 years and almost 100 games shouldn't go away so quietly. That kind of tie shouldn't be severed, not if the main reason is that one team never, ever wants to go on the road in the series.

As a Tulane employee, alum, and fan, I guess I'm a bit biased; but I'll add one more reason. Almost all of the LSU fans that I know from the New Orleans area (and MOST LSU fans live and work in the New Orleans Area) actually like the Tulane/LSU rivalry, as mismatched as it is these days. For one, even when LSU plays Tulane "on the road" in the Superdome, it gives LSU fans essentially another home game to attend. Most LSU fans in the New Orleans area are also fond of Tulane and like to see Tulane do well (except when Tulane plays LSU!); and playing against LSU is always a boon to Tulane's program, as much as it might seem like a throw-away for LSU. Finally, there are other things, such as tradition and support for Louisiana college athletics and simple rivalry fun for the fans that might mitigate against the purely financial argument that is driving LSU's decision to end the series. LSU might not make as much money keeping Tulane on the schedule, but I doubt it's losing money on the venture either. And it is impoverishing LSU fans, Tulane fans, and Louisiana college athletics in other non-material ways. It should take these other considerations into account. Otherwise, it just makes LSU seem mercenary and will drive Tulane fans like me, who appreciated LSU because it made room for Tulane, to think less of LSU all the way around. And for LSU to risk losing that portion of its fan base, no matter how tiny it might be, can't be good for the school in the long run and in other ways that have little to do with football.

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due: John Hawkins at Right Wing News and the St. Louis School Bus Beating Incident

I've been a fierce critic of conservative blogger John Hawkins of Right Wing News on many occasions, and especially on his schizophrenia regarding the subject of race. Given that, I think it is only fair and just that I take the time to point out that Hawkins was one of the few conservatives in the very early stages of the breaking story about the St. Louis School Bus Beating Incident who didn't instantly jump on the "racism" bandwagon. When it became clear that the incident was less about racial tension and seemed more about simple grade school bullying, conservatives like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh, who shamelessly race hustled this incident, were left with egg on their faces for their incendiary race-baiting that they still haven't apologized for or backed down from.

But John Hawkins, to his credit, didn't take the bait. On this instance, Hawkins demonstrated a measure of sanity and restraint that his fellow conservative bloggers and pundits failed to show. I think that deserves some positive recognition on The Huck Upchuck given how often I've criticized Hawkins here.

When the Beckolyte Hoi Polloi Speak ...

... they reveal their gobsmacking ignorance:



The section on the "Czar" phenomenon is especially revealing. These people are railing about things they literally know nothing about. It would be amusing if it weren't also so damn terrifying. And as much as I'm reluctant to say this, I am coming more and more to believe that the underlying hostility to Obama is rooted in deep-seated, almost subconscious racism. Especially when stuff like this keeps popping up with disturbing regularity. I have never seen people so afraid and so violently pre-disposed towards a President as I am seeing now.

Kooky is Right -- Rightwing, That Is.

I pity this kid:



Forget the whole thing about protesting Obama's inspirational and non-controversial speech to students. What this kid is learning is how to NOT be a critical thinker. He is, in effect, being subjected to an anti-intellectual brainwashing that is infinitely worse than anything that could ever come out of Obama's speech.

I mean, really, they both admit that there was absolutely nothing at all wrong about what Obama was going to say; and yet this Beckolyte dimwit of a father is instead going to take his son on "a field-trip the WW2 D-Day Museum in New Orleans to recognize the sacrifices of America's fallen heroes and celebrate the last time Americans fought against fascism." And this guy thinks he knows what "fascism" is?!? What the guy is doing is nothing less than fascist brainwashing. You think he's going to teach his son how to think for himself? Think again.

Kooky? For that we need look no further than this lunacy, which, of course, we find on the Northshore. Can't say I'm surprised there, though I do say that the irony of sending his kid to that socialist thing known as public school is still quite rich. And here's another puzzler: for someone whose father will not let Obama have "direct access" to him, how in the world does this kid even know what Obama's ideas are, much less arrive at some thought-out conclusion through independent study that Obama has some "kooky ideas"? You'd think he might have actually been exposed to some of Obama's ideas, as opposed to his father's "filtering" of Obama's ideas. I guess it's no wonder the kid thinks the "ideas" he hears are kooky -- that's because they are his dad's ideas, not Obama's. And on that score, I'd agree. Kooky, indeed.

Anh "Joseph" Cao and the Joe Wilson Rope-a-Dope

Frankly, I, like E, thought that the House Resolution chastizing Joe Wilson for his idiotic outburst was itself pretty idiotic. It just gave Wilson more of a platform to convert his idiocy into the defiance of a besieged underdog. The man made a pure fool of himself when he had his outburst, and that should have been enough in and of itself. The need to try to stomp on the man even more, and in a way that added no value to the progressive policy agenda in Congress, was petty and ill-advised.

But guess who among the Republicans decided to vote in support of this toothless and meaningless Resolution? Yep, you guessed it: Anh "Joseph" Cao.

Now on the surface, being one of only a handful of Republicans to vote for this Resolution might reinforce the "Resume of a Democrat" characterization of Cao.

But I have a different, somewhat more cynical take on Cao's action. Sure, Cao probably does believe in the need for a more civil nature of exchange and preserving a greater respect for the institutions of our government. That fits in with Cao's demeanor at one level. But I'd bet that Cao is also pleased that he has the opportunity to side with the Democrats and to take on his own party on such a relatively meaningless and purely symbolic resolution. The cynicism I see in this is that Cao gets to play up his "Resume of a Democrat" credibility on this matter to his constituency in Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District on such insignificant matters as a way to deflect from the fact that on the really important stuff, like Healthcare reform, stimulus packages, and bailout legislation, etc., Cao has been less than stellar in representing his constituency and in supporting Obama.

And though I like Cao, I am not willing to give him a break or pat him on the back on this one. He's got to show some courage in bucking the GOP on some of the tough, thorny, big issues before he gets any true kudos from me for representing the desires and interests of his largely progressive and Democratic constituency. Let's see how he votes on the Democratic healthcare reform proposal when it comes up for a vote.

Fielkow Says "No" to the N.O. Mayor's Race

Arnie Fielkow is out of the running. I think this is probably a wise move at this point. I like Fielkow. I will never forget Fielkow's early and decisive opposition to some hateful pieces of anti-illegal immigrant legislation that were proposed in the Louisiana State Legislature two legislative sessions ago. Fielkow has always been a friend and supporter of Latino causes in the city. And that has very much endeared him to me. But I think his recent waffling about whether to jump into the Mayor's race, even to the point of being unable to decide by his own self-imposed deadline, hurt his chances even before he would have started. It just doesn't look "Mayorial" to be so indecisive about something so important. So, I'm glad he's decided to sit this one out. He may, in fact, have written himself out of the picture completely, given that whoever emerges victorious this election cycle will have the benefits of incumbency to stretch the term to 8 years. And 8 years may be too long for Fielkow. But I still think it's the right move for him, and I respect him for it.

Quote of the Day: Nate Silver on FreedomWorks Teabagger Matt Kibbe's Inchworm

[UPDATE 8/16/10: Apparently, some dude named Peter Boettke recently linked on his Facebook page to the posting below that I made almost a year ago. I imagine he's also the person who left an "anonymous" comment in the comments to this old posting. I would refer Dr. Boettke, and all those who deign to visit my blog from his Facebook posting, to the original posting made by Nate Silver, which is what I'm referring to. Whatever you think of Silver's posting, the part I'm referencing below is quite funny. And I'm just commenting on this. Think of it as a kind of John Stewart or Stephen Colbert moment of sarcastic humor. As to the question of the "political rhetoric in an intellectual dispute," I have no idea what Dr. Boettke is referring to. My posting isn't about an "intellectual dispute." It's certainly not about policy. It's simply about another person's blog posting concerning a factual lie made by Matt Kibbe. Truly, what is "intellectual" about Matt Kibbe's claims regarding the number of people in attendance at the Tea Party rally last September? And as far as Dr. Boettke's complaints about "political rhetoric," all I have to say is that the rhetoric of my blog postings is generally mild compared to what I've heard coming out of the mouths and on the blogs of many Tea Partiers. If Dr. Boettke would like to have a serious policy discussion about "Obamanomics," I'd be happy to oblige. I'll even throw in some choice references to Friedrich Hayek!]

Statistician Nate Silver, commenting on teabagger leader Matt Kibbe's outrageously egregious lie about the number of attendees at the Washington DC teabagger rally, wrote:

But yesterday, someone told a real whopper. ABC News, citing the DC fire department, reported that between 60,000 and 70,000 people had attended the tea party rally at the Capitol. By the time this figure reached Michelle Malkin, however, it had been blown up to 2,000,000. There is a big difference, obviously, between 70,000 and 2,000,000. That's not a twofold or threefold exaggeration -- it's roughly a thirtyfold exaggeration.

The way this false estimate came into being is relatively simple: Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, lied, claiming that ABC News had reported numbers of between 1.0 and 1.5 million when they never did anything of the sort. A few tweets later, the numbers had been exaggerated still further to 2 million. Kibbe wasn't "in error", as Malkin gently puts it. He lied. He did the equivalent of telling people that his penis is 53 inches long.

Nate, Nate, Nate. Now you know that challenging a blustery macho teabagger's manhood is a really serious insult, and may result in some direct "expression" of 2nd Amendment rights. But the worst of it is in the one subtle detail that only a careful observer will catch. Silver's emphasis on the "thirty" in "thirtyfold exaggeration" is not coincidental. As Silver mentions in the title of his blog posting: "Size Matters; So Do Lies." What Silver is telling us, therefore, is that Kibbe's 53 inch penis size represents a "thirtyfold" exaggeration of its normal grandeur which, when you do the math, makes Kibbe's "Mr. Happy" a regular 1.75 inch worm! Ouch! How Nate Silver knows this is another matter altogether; but still ... for Kibbe, that's got to sting.

Hayek, the Rule of Law, the Bush Administration, and Torture

I am brushing up on my Friedrich Hayek these days, and I am reminded of Hayek's chapter on the Rule of Law in his famous book, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek would chafe at the Bush Administration's Department of Justice and the work of the Office of Legal Counsel in drafting bogus memoranda legitimizing (post-facto, even) the arbitrary use of state power in the interrogation of suspected Islamic terrorists. In fact, there is nothing freedom-loving at all in how the Bush Administration usurped popular sovereignty for its own secretive and power-grabbing ends. Think about the following passage from The Road to Serfdom as it may apply to the Yoo and Bybee memos in the Bush Department of Justice, memos which sought to grant post-facto juridical cover from the legal prohibitions against torture and an arbitrary exemption from what Hayek would call the Rule of Law:

The idea that there is no limit to the powers of the legislator is in part a result of popular sovereignty and democratic government. It has been strengthened by the belief that, so long as all actions of the state are duly authorized by legislation, the Rule of Law will be preserved. But this is completely to misconceive the meaning of the Rule of Law. This rule has little to do with the question whether all actions of government are legal in the juridical sense. They may well be and yet not conform to the Rule of Law. The fact that someone has full legal authority to act in the way he does gives no answer to the question whether the law gives him power to act arbitrarily or whether the law prescribes unequivocally how he has to act. It may well be that Hitler has obtained his unlimited powers in a strictly constitutional manner and that whatever he does is therefore legal in the juridical sense. But who would suggest for that reason that the Rule of Law still prevails in Germany?

To say that in a planned society the Rule of Law cannot hold is, therefore not to say that the actions of the government will not be legal or that such a society will necessarily be lawless. It means only that the use of the government's cooercive powers will no longer be limited and determined by pre-established rules. The law can, and to make central direction of economic activity possible must, legalize what to all intents and purposes remains arbitrary action. If the law says that such a board or authority may do what it pleases, anything that board or authority does is legal--but its actions are certainly not subject to the Rule of Law. By giving the government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal; and in this way a democracy may set up the most complete despotism imaginable. ...

The Rule of Law thus implies limits to the scope of legislation: it restricts it to the kind of general rules known as formal law and excludes legislation either directly aimed at particular people or at enabling anybody to use the coercive power of the state for the purpose of such discrimination. It means, not that everything is regulated by law, but, on the contrary, that the coercive power of the state can be used only in cases defined in advance by the law and in such a way that it can be foreseen how it will be used. -- [The Road to Serfdom, pp. 82-84 of the 1962 Phoenix Books edition. The italicized portions of the text cited above are mine.]

Now, Hayek was writing this with the legislative practices in Germany, Italy, and Russia prior to WWII in mind, practices that basically gave a semblance of legal cover to the dictatorial rule of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Though he doesn't mention specifically the similar practices of manipulation of the law from within the executive branch of government, I think it is a safe bet that Hayek would have been even more disturbed by the Bush Administration's behavior because its legal shenanigans in parsing the law so as to give post-facto cover to the illegal practice of torture did not even make a pretense to democratic sanction through an elected legislative body, but rather was conducted in secret within the executive itself. In essence, the Bush Administration's behavior was even more arbitrary and dictatorial than what Hayek was even imagining. In fact, I imagine that Hayek would have been shocked and mortified by the Bush Administration's behavior and would have been equally shocked and mortified that Americans claiming to be Hayekian conservatives and advocates of the ideas contained in The Road to Serfdom would defend the Bush Administration's behavior.

What Now Anh "Joseph" Cao?

I like Anh "Joseph" Cao. I voted for him in the last election and would even consider him seriously in the next one, strictly on the basis of his progressive attitudes on immigration and language access issues.

But I want Cao to know right now that I simply will not vote for a Republican, no matter how much I like him (or her), given the importance of maintaining some Democratic Party discipline in these trying times when Obama needs it most.

If there is a credible Democratic candidate, and there looks to be plenty to choose from, that person will win my vote over any Republican or Independent candidate, Cao included.

My advice to Cao ... if you want to have ANY chance with voters like me, you better switch parties. And fast.

Joe Wilson's "You Lie!": A Revisionist Interpretation

Joe Wilson has apparently fooled us all. When he yelled out at the President, "You lie!" regarding the President's claim that the healthcare reform measure does not permit undocumented migrants to partake of its benefits, the immediate thought was that Wilson was upset because he was an anti-illegal immigrant reactionary.

But, really, the evidence seems to indicate that he was upset because he is pro-illegal immigrant and found it maddeningly frustrating that Obama, by making such a claim, was refusing to embrace and own up to a shared commitment to providing benefits to illegal immigrants.

Surely, given that Wilson happily voted to commit taxpayer dollars in support of the healthcare of undocumented immigrants in the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, what else can be motivating Wilson's outburst?

Let's compare: the best-known of the healthcare reform proposals out there, HR 3200, contains a specific part, Section 426, which declares that illegal immigrants are not eligible for coverage under the bill. In fact, this particular section of the bill is titled: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens" and it reads: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." Furthermore, nowhere else in the bill that I can find is there language that mentions benefits specifically intended to cover expenses incurred by undocumented immigrants.

Now, the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act, which Joe Wilson voted for, contains Section 1011, which is titled: "Federal Reimbursement of Emergency Health Services Furnished to Undocumented Aliens," with language that clearly and repeatedly mentions benefits to the tune of $250,000,000.00 for each of fiscal years 2005-2008 that are specifically intended to cover expenses incurred by undocumented immigrants.

So, with such love by Wilson for spending taxpayer dollars on the healthcare of undocumented immigrants in the past, there's only one way to interpret his outburst this time around. He simply fantasized the inclusion of benefits to undocumented immigrants in the current healthcare reform bill because he desperately wanted such benefits to be in the bill, and he just couldn't accept the President's truthful declaration that such benefits were simply not there.

Federer the Magician

Incredible:

Football of the Fantasy Variety

I love football. I grew up playing football since I was 5 years old. In some years, I played for multiple leagues. I even got in trouble during my Freshman year of high school for playing both on the high school Freshman team AND the little league team at the neighborhood playground. Apparently, unbeknownst to me or my family, this was in violation of LHSAA rules and I caused my high school Freshman team to forfeit all the games I played in. I stopped playing competitive tackle football after High School, though I had been in a couple of flag football leagues since then. And even though my bum knees make it impossible now for me to continue actively playing even in flag football leagues, I remain a big fan of the sport. However, I do have to admit that my enjoyment of football these past few years has come not from following the rise and fall of particular teams, whether high school, college, or professional, but rather from the mix and match world of fantasy football.

This weekend marks the start of the fantasy football season in earnest, and I'm very much looking forward to it. I have three teams in three separate fantasy football leagues, and I always enjoy following all the professional games on Sunday to see how my fantasy teams perform.

Cass Sunstein and the Myopia of Conservatives

As someone who is familiar with Cass Sunstein's writings and who has read (and discussed) Sunstein's most recent book, Nudge, a collaborative effort with Richard Thaler, I have to say that I find the conservative opposition to Sunstein's appointment as the director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration's Office of Management and Budget to be very puzzling. Sunstein's basic thesis in Nudge was very much coming out of a libertarian tradition that prioritizes the freedom of choice and looks suspiciously on any practice or policy that might compromise choice beyond a fairly innocuous "nudge," whether that practice or policy originates in the state or the private sector.

Conservative columnist and pundit, David Frum, (currently a pariah among modern movement conservatives for his opposition to Sarah Palin and his criticism of the unthinking reactionary conservative bombast of folks like Mark Levin and Glenn Beck) has written an extremely thoughtful piece defending, with a persuasive conservative rationale, the appointment of Sunstein.

Here's part of what he said:

To anyone who knows anything – anything! – about what Cass Sunstein has actually written or actually said, it’s [conservative opposition to his appointment] a travesty and scandal. And ironically enough, if successful, it would have been a travesty and scandal in which conservatives would find themselves the main victims.

Had Cass Sunstein somehow been stopped, the next OIRA nominee would certainly have been less favorable to markets, enterprise, and competition. The next nominee would not have supported John Roberts and Michael McConnell, would not have chaired seminars with the American Enterprise Institute, might not have been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, and very likely would not have shared with conservatives so many of the values that Beck purports to uphold but in fact betrays.

I, too, think Sunstein is better for conservatives, by leaps and bounds, than any other potential Obama administration appointment. If conservatives want to be masochistic, and work to dump Sunstein in favor of someone more radical from the left, that's their prerogative. It just makes no sense to me.