Politics Blog

Says he’s not ruling out either a gubernatorial or a presidential run.

As far as Rudy’s presidential aspirations, are they realistic?

I mean, honestly, can a pro-choice, big-city Mayor, from the Northeast, really hope to get through a national GOP primary season?

FWIW, me thinks that someone needs to explain to Rudy that four of the past six presidents were governors, right before taking office, and all six represented either the Southern or the Western parts of the country.

Just my two cents (1.35 after taxes).

— Jayson

The tragic (and to my mind, criminal) death of Terri Schiavo, along with new concern about the health of the Pope, brings to mind the continuing debate, now observed, now forgotten, of the value of Life. Whatever your opinion in a specific case, it seems fit to me that we should examine that basic question.

Biologically, the will to live is arguably the strongest instinct in any animal. This is why thoughts of suicide are presently considered a sign of mental illness, since it runs counter to the hard-wiring we live with. It’s also counter to almost every social order- suicide and death are signals of failure, resignation, and denial of community. Philosophically, the common theme has been consistently to prefer life – “Where there’s life, there’s hope” is an old and common saying, so pervasive that no one is sure of its origin or source.

Modern society has begun to war against that morality, however. “Suicide is painless” was the title song for the movie and television show “M*A*S*H”, and that theme has crept into the political dialogue, to the point that when Terri Schiavo’s case became a national debate, it was phrased as “right to die”, rather than “right to live”; the assumption was made not only that Terri wanted to die, but that it was morally right for her to commit suicide, even by starvation. Doctors sworn to Hippocrates’ admonition to “First, do no harm” are actually debating the practice of killing patients, sometimes by their choice, sometimes without their consent, under certain conditions. And lawyers schooled in a nation created by a nation founded on the premise of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and the protections of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in particular the 14th and the Bill of Rights, argue for the destruction of unwanted pregnancies and the extermination of people unable to speak for themselves. Guardians are now made Executioners in this obscene parody of justice and ethics.

But what is a life worth? A reader on one of the many threads about the Terri Schiavo case observed that by and large, it is the young and physically strong who believed the most strongly that Terri would want to die in such a condition. Those who are older and who have ourselves seen something of what happens in the world, do not jump so quickly at the prospect of leaving life, not from fear of death but love for the gift that is Life.

Back in 2001, my daughter came down with an illness, a fever which rose and fell, but always stayed above the 100-degree mark. The diagnosis came back as Biological Meningitis, but this was scant comfort, as nothing done could lower the fever. After the third straight day, the doctors warned my wife and me, that our daughter might die if they could not break the fever, and in any case would likely suffer brain damage. After the fifth straight day of high fever, anywhere from 101 degrees to 106, the fever finally broke, and my little girl recovered. Fully. I am not able to explain why she recovered fully, anymore than the doctors could ever explain why the fever resisted all efforts to lower her temperature, but I am very, very grateful to God for that grace. But even if my daughter had suffered brain damage from the disease and fever, there is no chance that I would consider her life any less precious, or any less important for me to protect. I love my wife and daughter more than myself, and if necessary I would die to save them. In sickness and in health, for better or worse, as the vows go, and it is true for my family as it is for my marriage. Anyone who will not keep that level of commitment should not offend God by pretending the words in the first place. Thank God no one was in a place or position to kill my little girl, no matter her condition.

A couple years ago, I collapsed at work, dizzy from a stomach virus. An ambulance was called, and they ran all sorts of tests, ignoring me completely, as if my personal and direct experience were worthless in the diagnosis and treatment. The nurses and doctors paid no attention to me at all, and in the end the whole episode was played out to its ludicrous and expensive conclusion, which finally discovered what I had been trying to say all along; if the doctors had just listened to me, they could have saved the insurance company (and my premiums) a lot of money, and themselves a lot of work and time. I know from direct experience, that when professionals do not listen to the source, they are arrogant fools, and there is no shortage.

A few months back, I was laid low with a nasty virus. I couldn’t stand, couldn’t eat, even water made me vomit. So I just laid on the bed, watching things go round and round by themselves. Talking was extremely difficult, and I was effectively helpless. It occurs to me, that if my wife had a mind like Michael Schiavo’s, she might have gotten me confined to a hospital bed with a feeding tube, and I might have ended up badly indeed. Think I’m exaggerating? Stick a finger down your throat and try to talk, and see how coherent you sound. Now, imagine you are under a drug regimen, so concentration and focus are made very difficult, and of course, if the person who put you into the hospital also enjoys control over your treatment and doctors, if you get doctors already convinced you’re a vegetable, it’s that much harder to fight for yourself. Now, imagine more than a decade of such experience, and if torture isn’t the word that fits, you haven’t been paying attention. This is not to berate the many fine medical professionals out there, or disparage the people who really are trying to do the best they can for their loved ones, but it begs the question, of how we really know whether the best interests are being pursued, when the range of options is allowed to include death, especially a lingering torture like starvation of food and water.

Pain and suffering is not a reason to die. Many of our veterans suffer life-long pain, and they go on living very productive lives, and their courage in bearing their pain is continuing proof not only of their integrity and purpose, but a boon to all those who meet them and can learn of heroism from a living example. Some have noted the case of Stephen Hawking; imagine if such a mind lived in a body paralyzed just a little more than it already is; a century ago, his condition might well have been diagnosed the same as Terri Schiavo. Only the truly ghoulish would suggest we should dispose of a person, simply because their body has limits! Admiral Nelson lost an arm, leg, and eye, but went on fighting. Helen Keller could neither see nor hear, yet she went on to write and teach. What cowardice indeed, and how small a vision, to think that a disabled body means a useless life!

And who shall set the standard for a life worth living, anyway? There are artists and writers, whose work is not fully appreciated until long after their lives have ended. There are many types of accomplishments, some of which need to be experienced to be recognized. How then shall anyone say ‘this one is productive and may live, but this one is unproductive, and shall be destroyed’? Who has the right to say that a hundred years is enough if you can still walk around and chat like a talk show host, but if you need a wheelchair or are quiet or seem a bit unusual, you are not worth the effort to keep around? Who has the right to say that a baby may only be born if he/she will be physically perfect, as some have now argued? Who has the right say that an infant must earn his first breath? Who, when it’s all considered, has the right to close off a life when there is any choice? We are none of us perfect, so when a decision is in doubt, why would anything but Life be the choice?

We have turned a corner. It remains now to be seen whether Hell or merely Purgatory is under our next step, but we are moving away from Heaven, if we dare to move away from Life.

— DJ Drummond

What follows is something I posted in July regarding the Berger document theft. I posted a link to it below, but after re-reading it, decided to re-post it in full here just to make my point about what an incredibly serious offense Berger committed.

One thing I have not discussed in detail, and have not seen discussed much elsewhere, is that the offense goes beyond the theft of the documents, but includes the act of obstructing the investigation of the 9/11 Commission.

Here is my take on the matter from July, based on my personal experience dealing with sensitive documents:

I know that the impending commencement of the Democrats’ convention will all but obliterate further media attention and discussion of this subject, but what follows is something I have been doing a lot of thinking about ever since the Sandy Berger story broke. For all the justified outrage over the lack of attention the story has received from the mainstream media, my outrage and dumbfounded wonder is based on the actions of Berger rather than how those actions have been covered or even what facts documented in the purloined documents could be worth breaking the law to hide.

In my former life, before I became a full-time-mom, I worked as a paralegal. For much of those ten years, I was a custodian of a depository of documents from a failed financial institution that was involved in complex, multi-party litigation. I was responsible, along with those working with me, for securing and cataloging the documents, working with the lawyers at my firm to identify and pull “privileged” documents, and setting up a process to produce the documents for discovery to dozens of visiting attorneys. I worked onsite with the documents producing them for discovery for just over a year, and then oversaw the moving of the documents and eventual transfer of them to the custody of the FBI who was investigating related matters. I was the primary individual responsible for the location and condition of those documents for approximately eight years and I took the responsibility very seriously.

The documents I dealt with, although many financial in nature, and all potential evidence in multi-million dollar lawsuits, were not top secret. They were not classified. There was never any remote possibility that if a document was lost or stolen or inadvertently released to an unauthorized agent, that anyone’s life would be in danger. There was no possibility that the security of the nation would be in any way jeopardized. But I still was very diligent in my handling of the documents and in the way they were allowed to be reviewed and copied. For that reason, I cannot imagine any of the lawyers I worked with, on our side or opposing counsel, stuffing documents into their briefcases without permission, much less their pants.

The fact that someone who was responsible, in large part, for the security of the nation, would remove classified documents (whether they be copies or originals) without permission, on several occasions, is difficult for my brain to process. Look, anyone I ever worked with can attest to the fact that I had one of the messiest desks and offices a person could have, but I never stuffed documents anywhere they didn’t belong. Certainly not in my pants. If the former National Security Advisor has such disregard for the integrity of documents and the rules and laws pertaining to their treatment, what can be said for his regard for the security of the nation and the safety those rules applying to classified documents protects? And what can be said about that former NSA’s boss who regards the entire matter as a joke? I think we can rightly conclude that for many in that administration, that is exactly what national security was – a joke.

– Lorie Byrd

From GOP and the City, there’s breaking news regarding John Kerry Heinz’s form SF-180.

* **

Speaking of which, and following up on the heels of Hanoi Jane’s “betrayal” admission, from earlier this week, one of this blog’s readers believes that, had Senator Heinz Kerry delivered this apology, several years ago, he would be president today. Now, personally, I don’t agree with that assessment, but I must say that such an apology would have been a heck of a lot better than his fatuous, grating “reporting for duty” shtick.

Hat tip on the SF-180 post - Maggie.

— Jayson

What follows is something I posted in July regarding the Berger document theft. I posted a link to it below, but after re-reading it, decided to re-post it in full here just to make my point about what an incredibly serious offense Berger committed.

One thing I have not discussed in detail, and have not seen discussed much elsewhere, is that the offense goes beyond the theft of the documents, but includes the act of obstructing the investigation of the 9/11 Commission.

Here is my take on the matter from July, based on my personal experience dealing with sensitive documents:

I know that the impending commencement of the Democrats’ convention will all but obliterate further media attention and discussion of this subject, but what follows is something I have been doing a lot of thinking about ever since the Sandy Berger story broke. For all the justified outrage over the lack of attention the story has received from the mainstream media, my outrage and dumbfounded wonder is based on the actions of Berger rather than how those actions have been covered or even what facts documented in the purloined documents could be worth breaking the law to hide.

In my former life, before I became a full-time-mom, I worked as a paralegal. For much of those ten years, I was a custodian of a depository of documents from a failed financial institution that was involved in complex, multi-party litigation. I was responsible, along with those working with me, for securing and cataloging the documents, working with the lawyers at my firm to identify and pull “privileged” documents, and setting up a process to produce the documents for discovery to dozens of visiting attorneys. I worked onsite with the documents producing them for discovery for just over a year, and then oversaw the moving of the documents and eventual transfer of them to the custody of the FBI who was investigating related matters. I was the primary individual responsible for the location and condition of those documents for approximately eight years and I took the responsibility very seriously.

The documents I dealt with, although many financial in nature, and all potential evidence in multi-million dollar lawsuits, were not top secret. They were not classified. There was never any remote possibility that if a document was lost or stolen or inadvertently released to an unauthorized agent, that anyone’s life would be in danger. There was no possibility that the security of the nation would be in any way jeopardized. But I still was very diligent in my handling of the documents and in the way they were allowed to be reviewed and copied. For that reason, I cannot imagine any of the lawyers I worked with, on our side or opposing counsel, stuffing documents into their briefcases without permission, much less their pants.

The fact that someone who was responsible, in large part, for the security of the nation, would remove classified documents (whether they be copies or originals) without permission, on several occasions, is difficult for my brain to process. Look, anyone I ever worked with can attest to the fact that I had one of the messiest desks and offices a person could have, but I never stuffed documents anywhere they didn’t belong. Certainly not in my pants. If the former National Security Advisor has such disregard for the integrity of documents and the rules and laws pertaining to their treatment, what can be said for his regard for the security of the nation and the safety those rules applying to classified documents protects? And what can be said about that former NSA’s boss who regards the entire matter as a joke? I think we can rightly conclude that for many in that administration, that is exactly what national security was – a joke.

— Lorie Byrd

The Pontiff’s condition apparently is very grave.

— Jayson

The unemployment rate declined, last month, from 5.4 percent to 5.2 percent. Below are the comparable rates of unemployment from the exact same stages of President Clinton’s and Bush’s second terms:

March 1997

5.2 = overall unemployment rate
4.5 = for whites
10.7 = for blacks
8.6 = for latinos

March 2005

5.2 = overall unemployment rate
4.4 = for whites
10.3 = for blacks
5.7 = for latinos

The economy created 110,000 W-2 jobs, last month, following a gain of 243,000 in the prior month (as revised). So far, this calendar year, the economy has created 477,000 W-2 jobs.

To put that latter number into perspective, in order for countries like France or Germany, for example, to create that many payroll jobs, in 90 days, their respective governments would have to declare that receiving welfare checks in the mail would hereinafter be considered tantamount to “working.”

There was a larger gain in total employment last month (including 1099 contractor jobs and self-employment), to the tune of 357,000 positions, following a decline in February.

On the other hand, 170,000 people left the workforce, entirely, in March. Alas, there’s no way to determine how many were Democratic Party strategists.

Both average hourly and average weekly earnings, for lower-tiered workers, increased last month.

Note: Additional datahere.

— Jayson

Can the liberal media not even muster a little outrage over Sandy Berger’s theft and destruction of classified national security documents? Could they just manage a fraction of the outrage they displayed over the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame claims?

From the AP story that Jayson linked, I do not know whether Berger will be required to disclose which documents he destroyed, but I am pretty outraged that he will be allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. I have quite a bit of experience dealing with large volume document production in civil litigation, as I have discussed in the past. When I first read of the Berger theft of documents I was amazed that such a thing could happen in a facility that is responsible for classified documents. Now I am amazed that a former NSA appears likely to get away with pilfering and destroying classified documents with a slap on the wrist. (And I am not the only one.)

If anything, Berger should be treated more harshly than a “common criminal” because there is no question that he knew what he was doing. I hope that part of his plea bargain at least requires him to reveal which documents were taken and which were destroyed, as well as the motives behind his actions. I don’t think there is much chance of that, but in my opinion, that is the least that he should be required to provide. This story says that “the charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum sentence of a year in prison and up to a $100,000 fine.” I think Sandy Berger will be getting off easy if he receives the maximum sentence considering the gross abuse of trust he committed. I am willing to bet that he does not see the inside of a jail cell for even 5 minutes, though. I would not even be surprised to see him show up on Meet The Press or CNN as an expert on national security criticizing the Bush administration. Outraged? Yes. Suprised? No.

— Lorie Byrd

The Pontiff’s condition apparently is very grave.

— Jayson

The unemployment rate declined, last month, from 5.4 percent to 5.2 percent. Below are the comparable rates of unemployment from the exact same stages of President Clinton’s and Bush’s second terms:

March 1997

5.2 = overall unemployment rate
4.5 = for whites
10.7 = for blacks
8.6 = for latinos

March 2005

5.2 = overall unemployment rate
4.4 = for whites
10.3 = for blacks
5.7 = for latinos

The economy created 110,000 W-2 jobs, last month, following a gain of 243,000 in the prior month (as revised). So far, this calendar year, the economy has created 477,000 W-2 jobs.

To put that latter number into perspective, in order for countries like France or Germany, for example, to create that many payroll jobs, in 90 days, their respective governments would have to declare that receiving welfare checks in the mail would hereinafter be considered tantamount to “working.”

There was a larger gain in total employment last month (including 1099 contractor jobs and self-employment), to the tune of 357,000 positions, following a decline in February.

On the other hand, 170,000 people left the workforce, entirely, in March. Alas, there’s no way to determine how many were Democratic Party strategists.

Both average hourly and average weekly earnings, for lower-tiered workers, increased last month.

Note: Additional datahere.

— Jayson