Why I don't trust Thomas

Whole aricle here...

"In Hamdi, Scalia and Thomas could not have been further apart. Scalia repeatedly invoked William Blackstone, the eighteenth-century expert on common law, to argue that Yaser Hamdi's detention was unlawful, and that the plurality opinion had not gone far enough in vindicating his rights. Thomas also disagreed with the plurality, but invoked the Federalist Papers to argue that it was vital to national security that the president's military decisions be free from judicial interference. Both justices were trying to resolve the case by turning to historical commentaries, and the traditions and practices of this country during previous wars; but their examinations led them to opposite conclusions: Thomas would have given nearly unchecked power to the president, while Scalia would have forced the government to bring Hamdi to trial."

Our Great City Council...

From the Union Tribune -

"December 22, 2004

In yesterday's special City Council hearing, City Attorney Michael Aguirre had testy exchanges with two city councilmen:

Aguirre and Councilman Scott Peters

Aguirre: "Can I just make one last quick comment on the conflict of interest? I have to make that decision (not to have the City Attorney's Office provide legal services for the subpoenaed city officials) now. I can't start to represent (city officials) and then make that decision later. I have to make that as a threshold decision and under the rules of professional conduct because if I start to go down that road, I can't pull back and represent."

Peters: "We're just going to have to leave it. I totally disagree with that. I think you can represent employees, council members (and) the city until you determine that an actual conflict exists."

Aguirre: "While I'm carrying out an investigation? And there is some possible wrongdoing by those individuals? No, I cannot."

Peters: "Not those individuals, but you can represent jointly an entity and its employees until you determine that an actual conflict exists. Then you can withdraw. That would be within the rules."

Aguirre: "Not while I'm . . . "

Mayor Dick Murphy: "Gentlemen."

Aguirre: "Just one second, mayor."

Murphy: "Mr. Aguirre, I run the meetings. It's Mr. (Councilman Brian) Maienschein's turn. You two guys can argue later."

Aguirre and Councilman Michael Zucchet
Aguirre: "I will remind you, Mr. Zucchet, that you are very closely associated with an individual who may very well be a subject of the criminal investigation. And in my judgment, you are apparently at this time representing that interest in the questions that you're asking. I would ask you again to desist and refrain from continuing down this road so that you save yourself from any further embarrassment . . . "

Zucchet: "Are we talking about legal fees for city employees?"

Aguirre: "That's what I thought we were talking about when the matter was called in by the mayor, and I'm hoping we can return to that."

Zucchet: "I think I've been asking those questions. Who is it you think I'm representing?"

Aguirre: "Mr. Zucchet, I think that the best way for me to handle this is that I've asked you to desist and refrain. I've given you as much information as I can. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about, and it won't serve any purpose for me to continue on in this line."

Zucchet: "You don't think the public deserves to know what you're talking about?"

Aguirre: "It's not really that. I just think it's a potential embarrassment for all of us to continue down this road. I've tried to fairly respond to your questions, and I've answered your questions, and I don't think that anything useful is coming from this discussion at this point."

"

City Finances

The best line in the newspaper today "...a note of caution about conducting this part of the public's business in public."

From the Union Tribune -

For most of the year, the federal investigations into San Diego's troubled finances have been discussed by the City Council behind closed doors. That approach will change today at a special meeting announced on short notice.

Every council member welcomed the new openness, but one sounded a note of caution about conducting this part of the public's business in public.

"It's politically attractive to want to talk about all of this in public, but I don't want to do anything that would compromise the city," Councilman Scott Peters said. "I'm not saying it would. I just don't know."

Parties?

This is a great article in the LA Times, about the which party owns san diego.

"SAN DIEGO — How did a last-minute write-in candidacy by a Democrat who owns a surf shop come within a few thousand votes of dethroning a Republican mayor in Republican-dominated San Diego?

Answer: This is not your grandfather's San Diego. Maybe it never was.

The Republican influence in San Diego cannot be denied, but it can be overstated. The same can be said for the achievement of Councilwoman Donna Frye in mounting a write-in campaign and bucking the Republican business-sector establishment.

But consider these facts: Five of eight members of the City Council are Democrats. That number will soon be six of nine when a vacancy is filled by a special election between two Democrats.

Democrats lead Republicans in voter registration by 39% to 34%. Twenty-two percent of voters decline to state a party affiliation, although many political operatives believe their views on environmental protection make them Democrats in all but name.

City voters backed John Kerry this month, Al Gore in 2000 and Bill Clinton in 1996."

Social Security

Here is comment on the side of Social Security you never hear.

From Kecin Drum -

SOCIAL SECURITY AND ME....Matt Yglesias makes an important point about Social Security framing today:

I'm not sure the older liberals who run the show quite understand how overwhelmingly important it is to keep the "there is no crisis" message front and center in the Social Security debate. Most of the young people I know -- including myself until very recently -- have been taken in by a decades-long effort on behalf of privatizers into believing that Social Security is in "crisis," and that if we do nothing the system will "go bankrupt" before we retire, meaning that the system will somehow collapse and we won't get any benefits.

This is true, and I used to be one of these people too. As a well-informed citizen, I knew that Social Security was unsustainable, that life expectancies were increasing, that fewer workers would be supporting more retirees in the future, and in general, that the program was facing a demographic timebomb that would cause it to go bankrupt within a couple of decades.

This was back in the mid-90s, and for some reason I took an interest in finding out more. So I wrote off for a copy of the trustees report, read up on tax policy and demographic projections, pored through various analyses, and — to my surprise — learned that the problem was either (a) fairly modest and quite solvable or (b) not a problem at all.

Social Security is going to get more expensive over time, but it's not going to keep getting more expensive forever. Starting in about a decade costs will go up, but then, after about 20 years, they'll flatten out. And the size of the increase, from about 4% of GDP to 6% of GDP, just isn't a crisis. What's more, when you start to study the trustees' projections, you realize that even their "intermediate" projection is pretty conservative. It's quite possible that if we leave the system completely alone it will be fine. And even if it's not, there's plenty of time to make the small tweaks necessary to keep it properly funded.

In other words, after actually studying the issue, I changed my opinion almost 180 degrees. Nothing is going bankrupt, benefits will continue to be paid forever, and future funding problems are both modest in size and not that hard to deal with.

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and now George Bush, each for their own reasons, have found it politically convenient to use Social Security as a useful bogeyman for scaring the public. The difference is that, unlike me back in 1995, they all know better. It's too bad they couldn't have figured out some real problems to focus on instead.

Missile Defense?

Form the Washington Post -

Opponents of the Bush administration's Star Wars missile defense system jumped all over Wednesday's failed launch, saying the setback showed the administration was rushing to deploy the system without adequate testing.

Au contraire, said a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency: The test was not a failure, it just was not completed. "We weren't able to complete the test that we had planned," Richard Lehner told the Los Angeles Times. "I definitely wouldn't categorize it as a setback of any kind. The test had been planned for a while so it's a disappointment for those of us who were working on it. We will isolate the anomaly and fix it."

See? Not a fiasco but actually a great opportunity. More like Monty Python's dead parrot, the famed Norwegian Blue, which we all know wasn't really dead, as the shopkeeper explained to the irate customer, but merely "kippin' [napping] on its back," and "pining for the fjords." Why, if the parrot hadn't been nailed to the perch it would have broken out and "Voom!" Or maybe gotten off the launch pad and hit that target.

Whatever it is, they don't pay Lehner nearly enough.

The Wrong Direction

From the Union Tribune -

Just when you thought it was bad enough at city hall, we now have a Mayor who would have lost the election if the voters for Frye filled in the bubbles.

"On a day when their colleagues said teamwork would be crucial, Mayor Dick Murphy and Councilwoman Donna Frye signaled that fresh uncertainty in the mayoral election could lead to even more tension at City Hall.

Hours after a review of disputed ballots in the election turned up enough to put Frye ahead of Murphy – if a court said they must be counted – the maverick councilwoman criticized the mayor at a news conference for not letting one of her aides into a media gathering Murphy had arranged that afternoon.

"The times have changed, and I really hope that he will wake up and realize that our actions are supposed to reflect the public interest, not personal vendettas," Frye said at the county Registrar of Voters office.

Acknowledging it was a "wrong call," Murphy's press secretary, Colleen Windsor, said last night she excluded the aide on her own, not for retribution but to keep the mayor on schedule with fewer people at the event.
"

property taxes are due today

SAN DIEGO – San Diego County property taxes are due today.

Payments sent via U.S. mail must be postmarked by 11:59 p.m. today, according to Treasurer-Tax Collector Dan McAllister. Late payers will be assessed am extra 10 percent charge.

Murphy

From the Union Tribune -

Mayor Dick Murphy has struck back at political challenger Peter Q. Davis by nominating a San Diego businessman and campaign supporter to replace Davis on the Port Commission.

The move was expected because Murphy took umbrage in October 2003 when Davis announced his intention to challenge Murphy's bid for re-election. Murphy appointed Davis to the Port Commission in 2002, and said Davis' candidacy left him feeling betrayed.

Davis harshly criticized Murphy's leadership during the campaign. He finished third behind Murphy and county Supervisor Ron Roberts in the March primary.

Murphy was sworn in as mayor Wednesday. Among his first actions was to recommend that Kourosh Hangafarin replace Davis.