Before the Law

You heard it here first

Someday, sooner rather than later I hope, I will get back to real blog-writing; in the meantime another thought on the run . . . .   I  predict that very soon, Hillary Clinton will start "speaking truth to the American people" -- that is, start telling us something that we already know (because every thoughtful person knows it) but that doesn't get acknowledged publicly very much because of its political sensitivity.  It will probably, although not necessarily, be about gender relations -- "post-feminism" or something like that -- and it might not take the form of a particular speech (that might be too blatant even for her).   It won't be the substance that's important, but the tone -- "I am a real enough person to speak the truth without fear or favor," etc.  You heard it here first.   

The legitimate element of Clinton's campaign has consisted in attempting to draw a contrast between herself and Obama along the lines of:  sure he's eloquent,  but politics takes more than words, it takes monkey-grease, late nights on the job, and know-how.  The dark side has been her attempts, on one hand, to steal the things that have worked for Obama -- the "change" theme, and so on -- while, on the other, to smear him in ways that John McCain would probably not to sink to himself, but which will certainly benefit him handsomely in November if Obama ends up as the Democratic nominee (for a catalog of the more recent slime by Clinton and her proxies, see this Bob Herbert column from the NY Times).   The legitimate campaign theme hasn't worked too well -- after Bush it's certainly true that most Americans demand competence in their preferred candidate, but that's a necessary and not sufficient condition (we'd like a little inspiration, too), and despite her efforts to compare Obama to George Bush, she hasn't convinced anyone that Obama fails on that count.   And so, following Obama's much- and rightly admired speech on race yesterday, I expect that we will see the light go on over Clinton's head -- "ahh, being real, being thoughtful -- not being completely and utterly political! -- is working for him; hell, I can do that, too!"  And so I expect we'll soon be seeing the logical end-point of Clintonism: the greatness bestowed by rising above political calculation imitated in the service of sheer political calculation (along with, no doubt, the attempt to drag that genuine greatness back down into the  mud). 

A new role model for McCain

From today's New York Times:

Addressing a packed ballroom in Columbus, Ohio, Mr. McCain said to cheers that he would urge the nation not to be “deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history” and warned against risking “the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate.”

"Eloquent but empty"?  "Holiday from history"?  Apparently at least one of McCain's speech writers thinks that channeling the ghost of Spiro Agnew will help him compete with Obama's oratorical flair . . . .

Bush to New York: drop dead! No really, I mean it -- drop dead!

More from the Bush Administration in the category of, you couldn't make it up.  The NY Times headline is City Has Itself to Blame for Terror Cuts, U.S. Says, which is the Times's polite translation of the old Daily News headline from the Gerald Ford/Abe Beame era.  This time, however, considering the potential consequences, "drop dead!" seems a lot more literal . . . .

The meat of the story is that, in the most recent round of Department of Homeland Security anti-terrorism grants, New York City's allocation was slashed 40% from last year, while places like  Omaha, Louisville and Charlotte, North Carolina jumped 40%.  If that seems slightly irrational to you, then you may also be surprised to learn that Washington, DC was also cut 40% as well.  DHS's explanation is that New York's application was very poorly done, very poorly done indeed.  And it was faxed, if you can believe that, instead of being filed electronically, as the bureaucracy had specifically requested.  Oh, yeah, and one more thing -- New York has no national monuments or icons according to Homeland Security's risk analysis.  (Apparently someone at DHS later acknowledged that they might have forgotten about the Statue of Liberty.)  So you see, it is New York's own fault . . . .  All this after DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff announced in January that “[t]he department is investing federal funding into our communities facing the greatest risk and demonstrating the greatest need in order to receive the highest return in our nation’s security.”  More here and here as well.   

Well, at least they're consistent

As we know, terrorists, would-be terrorists, could-be terrorists, and couldn't-possibly-be terrorists are even more likely to use the internet for their nefarious (and their innocent) schemes than they are to use the phone lines.  Hence the Bush Administration's latest plan to track them all down, each and every one, the guilty and the innocent, to their terrorist and non-terrorist lairs, in this new medium as well: 

The Justice Department is asking Internet companies to keep records on the Web-surfing activities of their customers to aid law enforcement, and may propose legislation to force them to do so.

The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a meeting in Washington last Friday where they offered a general proposal on record-keeping to a group of senior executives from Internet companies, said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the department. The meeting included representatives from America Online, Microsoft, Google, Verizon and Comcast.  (NYT 6/2/06)

A DOJ spokesperson says that "[t]he Justice Department is not asking the Internet companies to give it data about users, but rather to retain information that could be subpoenaed through existing laws and procedures."  Somehow, given the Administration's recent record and stated position regarding its obligation to follow "existing laws and procedures" when it comes to invading Americans' right to privacy --  e.g., its claim to a constitutional right to conduct facially illegal wiretapping by the NSA -- I'm less than reassured.  Once these databanks are compiled, is there any doubt that the government (if not the DOJ then the NSA) will immediately begin to make use of them?