The Interocitor

Questions for Kerry

I think that a President Kerry and a Republican Congress would be predictably centrist on domestic issues, so the prospect does not entirely upset me, except perhaps for the matter of federal judges. But on foreign policy -- something that the President largely controls -- I have grave doubts about Kerry's judgment, and fear that things there might get entirely out of control.

Accordingly, I would ask Kerry two questions:

Senator Kerry, after you returned from Viet-Nam, where you were highly decorated, you became an outspoken voice for the oppostion to the war. What responsibility, if any, do you feel you have for the millions who were killed by the resulting Communist governments in Viet-Nam and, particularly, Cambodia and Laos?

Senator Kerry, while you voted to give President Bush war-making authority in Iraq, you have since claimed that you intended this only as leverage, and you did not expect Bush to actually go to war. If you had been President, would Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime still rule Iraq? If not, how would you have removed them, short of war?

Grocery strike over, union loses (so do stores)

The grocery strike is (probably) over after nearly 5 months. While it was a Pyrrhic victory for the stores, as they lost billions in sales, hundreds of thousands of customers, and reduced their already minimum public goodwill, it was a disaster for the union members.

After 5 months, the union settled for a pact that still contains the fractious two-tier wage and benefit scale, with only modest recovery on the health insurance front. Considering that workers had to live on half pay for those 5 months, each union member returns with little better than the original proposed contract, plus $5K-$10K in lost wages, mostly rolled into high-interest debt.

The Los Angeles Times has an excellent article today on the issue of two-tier wage scales -- an article that they should have published 4 1/2 months ago, but, being the Times, didn't. As I posted way back when, two-tier systems are inherently bad for all concerned. Not only do they create vicious divisions in the workforce, tempt management to lay off older workers, deny them overtime and generally favor the cheaper employees, but they create an internal partisanship that destroys worker morale.

On Friday, some UFCW veterans expressed dismay at the situation. They said a two-tier system would paint targets on their backs: Why would a manager, with his or her bonus tied to saving money, offer first-tier employees the chance to earn premium pay by working Sundays and holidays when bringing in a second-tier worker would cost so much less?

"I'll get my regular pay," said Rick Hernandez, a 29-year-old meat clerk from Venice, "but they might cut my hours because that would be the cheaper way to go."

[Stater Bros. Chief Executive Jack] Brown also said he would never ask store managers to show preference for new hires over veteran workers just to save money. "It would violate the trust we have here," he said.

The Times article also examines the history of two-tier, which was popular in the 80's but whose effects have led management to rescind most of these plans. Unequal pay for equal work is unworkable from nearly any viewpoint:

Two-tier contracts had widespread appeal in the 1980s, when deregulation and globalization began to squeeze large, established companies. They demanded concessions from unions, and unions found cuts easier to swallow if members already on the payroll were spared the brunt of them.

But most two-tier plans didn't last.

In 1985, for example, two years after American Airlines pioneered the dual structure in its contract with pilots, the union threatened to strike, saying the 50% wage gap between old hands and newcomers created conflict. The gap was narrowed through subsequent contracts and eliminated within a decade.

Regardless of the history, however, two-tier is a strategy the stores are pursuing nationwide, and, given the UFCW's balkanized structure, is winning in contract after contract. Look for more strikes elsewhere this year.

What, if anything, can the union do to combat this? Nothing for now. The UFCW is organized much as it was 30 years ago, when all the stores were local or regional chains. Each union local has its own negotiations, strategy and contracts and the "national" union is a best a loose confederacy. This makes them sitting ducks against the highly consolidated corporate alliance. Given that the AFL/CIO was utterly of no help to them, look for major UFCW restructuring in the near future. There's going to be labor trouble in the grocery industry for the foreseeable future, and only a real national union, possibly alligned with the Teamsters, can stand up to the grocery store alliance's labor monopsony.

Look for upheaval in the union management, with the old guard being replaced by people who understand the need for national clout, along with internal stress as the union tries to deal with the two-tier divisions. Not to mention the Wal-Mart challenge, which could make it all moot. Look also for changes in the store's management, notably Safeway's Steve Burd, who is going to have to explain to stockholders how he led the industry to this ongoing disaster.

Costa announces Lockyer recall effort

From California Insider:

Ted Costa and Howard Kaloogian, two men who helped get the Davis Recall off the ground before the professionals took over, are threatening this morning to recall Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer if he doesn't move quickly to stop the gay marriages ongoing in San Francisco. Kaloogian, a former assemblyman now running for the US Senate, made the announcement on Eric Hogue's Sacramento radio show, the same venue Costa used to solicit signers for the original petition to recall Davis a year ago. Costa was set to appear at a press conference with Kaloogian later today.

Gavin Newsom Amendment

It is quite likely now that the US Constitution will be amended, quite possibly before the November election, to bar gay marriages. The actual proposed amendment (from thomas.loc.gov; H.J. Res 56/S.J. Res 26) is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Most readings of this sugggest that this prevents Congress or any state legislature or initiative from enacting any law that allows other than "one man and one woman" from entering into matrimony. Some think it merely prevents judicial activism. I think the former is unfortunately correct.

Am I happy about this? Hardly. But I've been saying this was going to happen, and the San Francisco in-your-face challenge to existing law has made it nearly certain. Now Bush is formally requesting Congress to approve the amendment and send it on to the states.

A few months ago there was little chance the amendment would get out of Congress, but radicals in the gay community have forced the issue in ways that are annoying, offensive and undemocratic. People that have no big issue with gay marriage are now turning their backs. Gavin Newsom, et al, have made a mistake of historic proportions.

I truly hope that the gay community realizes the part it has played in this and comes to its collective senses before it's too late to stop this radical amendment. But I doubt they will. In fact, I expect actions that will make passage a quick slam dunk.

UPDATE: See also John Fund in the Opinion Journal

ANOTHER UPDATE: It seems that the amendment is failing, for now. Oxblog lists a nose count that indicates that 40 or so Senators intend to vote NO. However, this could well change if things get out of hand again. Since I'd prefer to see the amendment fail, I hope that people can avoid rocking the boat for a while.

Supreme Court case video

It seems that one Dudley Hiibel was arrested for refusing to "cooperate with an investigation" by not producing ID when requested by a police officer. It's slightly more complicated than that, but not very. The US Supreme Court will hear the case March 22. Details and police video here. Now even appellants have snazzy web sites. [Via How Apppealing]

SBC phone spam

I was enjoying the Do-Not-Call respite from phone-spam until about a week ago. That's when SBC, my phone and DSL company, began abusing the "own customers" exception of the Do-Not-Call law. Over the past week, I've gotten 2 or 3 calls a day from SBC-empowered boiler-room contractors, all offering me SBC products that I either already have (e.g. DSL) or don't want (e.g. 9-way voice message forwarding with remote callback or somesuch blather). I imagine that if I was home all the time, I'd get more.

Soon, the LA Times will start calling to offer me the paper that I've subscribed to for 35 years running, the Gas Company will be offering internet over gas lines, the bank will call me to offer their latest mortgage rate, and the local grocery store will be calling to tell me about their new special on Kleenex. All through 300 contractors, each armed with the same list. And we haven't even touched upon the political push-polling and "important message[s] for all seniors" that the election season brings.

Enough.

I suggest that all these DNC exceptions be limited to calls by company employees, and then only once per month. And if I hang up on that monthly call, TFB.

Lockyer's Ethics

Not being a lawyer, I don't know the ins and outs of legal ethics -- and maybe I've got this all wrong -- but I've always thought that attorneys prided themselves on the ability to separate their personal beliefs from the needs of their clients. In normal practice an attorney who publicly derided his client's pending case would face disciplinary proceedings, and rightly so.

Which brings us to Attorney General Lockyer, who is not only refusing to act to defend the laws of California, but is taking the Governor to task for attempting to do so. He goes so far as to accuse the Governor (his client) of inciting hate crimes:

In a fax Friday night to the home of a Lockyer aide, the governor wrote: "I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The message also said that San Francisco's actions to wed gay couples "present an imminent risk to civil order."

Lockyer called that statement "preposterous" and said it is the kind of "exaggerated, hot rhetoric" that risks stirring people up to commit hate crimes.

The next move, as Prestopundit notes, is now Schwarzenegger's. The Governor should act immediately, and in such a way as to highlight the Attorney General's dereliction of duty.

My suggestion? Hire an outside law firm to make the state's case, intervene in the current case as the chief Consitutional officer of the state, stating that the Attorney General is derelict and refusing to uphold California law for political reasons. Then he should file ethics charges with the State Bar against the Attorney General for putting his personal political ambition before his duties to the State.

Think of it as a PATCO moment.

According to journalist Haynes Johnson, the decisive manner in which Reagan handled the PATCO strike convinced many Americans that he was "the kind of leader the country longed for and thought it had lost: a strong president" -- in sharp contrast to the widely-held view that Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, had been too indecisive.

UPDATE: San Francisco authorties seem to have a fundamentally different viewpoint when it comes to other protests of unconstitutional laws, like, oh say, gun bans. Literally, they view such protests as a threat.

Lockyer, Arnold and SF

According to Saturday's LA Times, the Governor "directed the state Attorney General Friday to take immediate action to stop San Francisco's parade of same-sex marriages..."

In a strongly worded letter to Bill Lockyer, the governor said that because San Francisco's actions "are directly contrary to state law and present an imminent risk to civil order, I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy."

In a speech Friday night at the California Republican Party convention in Burlingame, Schwarzenegger departed from his prepared text to comment on the issue.

"We are seeing in San Francisco that the courts have dropped the ball," he said. "It's time for the city of San Francisco to start respecting state law."

The crowd of 700 Republican activists gave him a standing ovation.

Since Schwarzenegger is just about the most pro-gay-rights Republican one is likely to see, this action should be considered a centrist rebuke to the in-your-face strategy that the gay activists have been employing. Hardly suprising as I've repeatedly noted this strategy will backfire. It may backfire badly enough to enable the horrid Federal Marriage Amendment to pass.

The Attorney General's reaction? Here's what his spokesperson had to say:

"The governor cannot direct the attorney general," said Hallye Jordan. "He can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct 'Terminator 4.' But he can't tell the attorney general what to do. However, we are his lawyer, and we are moving as expeditiously — with deliberation — as possible."

With a lawyer like this, the Governor hardly needs an adversary. What Lockyer should be doing -- what he is Consititutionally required to do -- is what the New Mexico Attorney General did yesterday:

[A] county clerk in New Mexico's Sandoval County issued marriage licenses Friday to about two dozen gay couples, some of whom then exchanged vows outside the courthouse, as more same-sex couples lined up for a chance to tie the knot.

But New Mexico's attorney general issued an opinion later saying the licenses were invalid under state law, and the clerk stopped issuing them.

Arnold should put Lockyer's feet to the fire here, and demand he file charges against Newsom, et al, under Penal Code section 359 as xrlq has suggested. At the bare minimum he needs to intervene in the current lawsuit, and assert that substantial damage to the rule of law is occuring and demand an immediate injunction. Failing that, the recall process is still available.

I support gay marriage, but these dipsh**s are beginning to make me wish I didn't. I'm sure I'm not alone.

Update: See also Patterico's comments about "harm" and the rule of law.

More: Lawrence Simon says the same over at Amish Tech Support

California bond madness

Daniel Weintraub reports that the Prop 57 bail-out bond issue is trailing slightly. Since I'm probably going to vote No on that (and the other 3 as well), I'm not particularly upset. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "Deficits should hurt."

But what is surprising is that the Prop 55 school bond is leading handily. One would think that fiscal responsibility means not spending money you don't have when you can't pay for what you've already bought. Even the LA Times opposes these schools bonds, surely a first. If 55 passes and 57 fails, those school bonds will go for 13%. Some pain is needed, but this is masochism.

Canadian News

Instapundit links to a Globe and Mail op-ed about new Canadian Prime Minister Whatsisname's problems -- he seems to be catching all the blame for what the previous PM shoved under the rug. Fun stuff, but this led to a few other Canadian tidbits:

• Irony alert: Since Canada generally will not extradite persons charged with capital crimes if they face the death penalty (Charles Ng who killed a number of folks in Northern California being a notable exception, after many years of wrangling), one would think that they would never even consider extraditing a North Korean defector back to the Dear Leadership who is not charged with any crime, other than defection. Think again.



• Single-payer meltdown: Many Democrat presidential candidates advocate a "Canadian-style" single-payer Health Service to replace the current system in the US. How's that working out in Canada? Not well: see here and here. Money quote:

  When 40 cents of every dollar goes to health care, and those costs are increasing 8 to 10 per cent a year, we've got a problem. Our current system is not sustainable. So we've got to look at innovative ways to do that.

• Weird science: Researchers in Calgary seem to have a method of transferring information between silicon chips and living nerve cells, to the extent that the behavior of one can be influenced by the other. This may or may not be good news.

"Nixon's War"

According to Sean Hackbarth, John Kerry referred to Viet-Nam as "Nixon's War" in the Wisconsin debate Sunday. Since Nixon came into office in 1969, and the war started in earnest in 1965 (500,000 troops in-country by 1967), this is a pretty amazing piece of political spin. Most people remember it being Johnson, who was actually President at the time, as being repsonsible.

Now, one might ask, how does the media let this Orwellian rewriting of history slide? Surely they'd be all over the slip if Bush had made it. Say, if he had thought September 7th was Pearl Harbor Day or something....

What does the gay lobby think it's doing?

I don't have any problem, per se, with gays getting married. I see no threat to anyone. However, the current tactics being employed (e.g., painting all political opponents as bigots) are, at best, counterproductive.

I actually think that, in a few years, the POLITICAL process would move to the point that this would not be a huge issue -- much like abortion was trending toward in the 1970's. But forcing the issue now, and trying to use the courts to end run the political process will work about as well as Roe did -- IF they are lucky. More likely is a groundswell of opposition -- no one likes to be pushed and badgered into anything, especially when they find the whole thing a bit distasteful to start with.

I have two theories about this: Either the activists are politically tone-deaf and/or so isolated they don't see that they're harming their own cause, or b) they WANT the cause to fail to keep gays an isolated "oppressed" group for political reasons.

I imagine it's some of both, and I suggest that the saner members of the gay community might remember that Dr. King found dialog with white America far more productive than Malcolm's vitriol preached solely to blacks.

Day-by-Day seeks syndication

Chris Muir, author of the fine Day-by-Day comic strip, has, up to now, not sought newspaper syndication, despite many requests. This has changed, and Chris is seeking public support in getting his strip picked up for syndication. If you would like to see your local paper balance the Doonesburys and Boondocks of the world with something right of center, please write your local newspaper and suggest Day-by-Day.

For those who subscribe to the LA Times, one place to make the request is HERE. Maybe they could replace the execrable La Cucaracha (link intentionally not provided). Please write.

Edwards and the draft

According to dustbury, John Edwards made a comment on the Today show to the effect that he never served in the military since "the draft was pretty much done away with" when he became eligible. Dustbury suggests that he has his facts wrong as other people of the same age (50) did serve. I think Edwards has it about right, however.

I turn 50 in a few days. While I don't recall all the details, the draft WAS pretty much over when my year's numbers were pulled. By 1972, the war was winding down, the draft was being phased out, and it was decided that Selective Service would draw numbers for several more years -- just in case -- but they did not expect to call up anyone (and indeed called up few, if any) starting with either the '72 or '73 draft.

On top of this, many 18-year-olds were in college and had 1-S student deferrments. Since this meant that they could not easily be called up until a) they left school, or b) all the 1-A candidates had been processed, anyone still in college in the early 70's was never going to be called. People 50 today typically were in college from 1972-1976, and one would assume that Edwards attended college.

So, Edwards' comments (on this matter) are quite reasonable to me, although he probably should have mentioned the 1-S status if he had it.

UPDATE: According to the Selective Service site: "This lottery was conducted for men who would have been called in 1973 [men borrn in 1953]; however, no new draft orders were issued after 1972."

(via blogoSFERICS)

FMA and Blaine

One of the things that strikes me about the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is how closely it tracks the 1875 "Blaine Amendment" proposal in intent and purpose. The FMA reads:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The amendment is an attempt to block for all time both judicial tampering with the historic meaning of marriage, plus prevent any future democratic movement to alter same by popular will. The first goal is perhaps understandable and even laudable, the second is rather not. The proponents are largely motivated by a desire to isolate governmental approval or cachet from the practice of homosexuality, of which they generally disapprove. A noticeable portion of the proponents are rather more extreme, and would recriminalize the practice altogether.

In 1875, Senator James G Blaine* (later a Republican presidential candidate) introduced the following Constitutional amendment:

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

Details of the proposed amendment can be found here. Note the political cartoon from the time reprinted there, as it clearly demonstrates what the Amendment was actually about -- nativism and oppostion to Catholicism and other non-Protestant religions. At the time public schools were not free of religion. They were generally controlled by, and served the purposes of, the overwhelming Protestant majority. Readers over the age of 50 probably experienced some of this in their own public schools -- the practice did not die out until the Warren Court rulings of the 1960's.

In any event, large numbers of non-Protestant Europeans, largely Catholic Irish and Italians, were immigrating to the US and their children were entering public schools in droves. There was great pressure to either modify the religious curriculum to accomodate these Catholics, or to allow parallel public schools where Catholicism was taught.

The Amendment itself seems to be neutral, but given the presumptions of the time, it was hardly such -- government's limitations regarding religion were only to the extent that discrimination against particular Protestant groups was barred. Protestantism was natural and right, and alternatives were to not to be given government cachet. A recent (prevailing) amicus brief to the Supreme Court's Mitchell vs Helms decision recounted the following history:

As the Catholic population in the United States grew, “sectarian” took on an even more precise, and more pejorative, meaning. In response to the waves of immigration in the 19th century, Nativist groups such as the Anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant Know-Nothing Party grew in size and political power. These groups sought to ensure the ascendancy of their view of the common religion of the United States in the common schools and keep out “sectarian” competition, enacting measures such as requiring the reading of the King James Bible in public schools, and enacting measures barring any public funds going to “sectarian” schools.

The “Blaine Amendment” to the Federal Constitution, named after the notoriously Anti-Catholic presidential candidate James G. Blaine who proposed the measure in 1874, would have prevented any government funds from being used by “sectarian” (mainly Catholic) schools. The measure failed in Congress by a narrow margin, but by the early decades of the Twentieth Century, most states had either adopted, or had forced upon them by their Enabling Acts, similar provisions nick-named in Blaine’s honor. As the Arizona Supreme Court recently observed, commenting on its own “Blaine Amendment”, “The Blaine amendment was a clear manifestation of religious bigotry, part of a crusade manufactured by the contemporary Protestant establishment to counter what was perceived as a growing Catholic menace.” Kotterman v. Killian, 972 P.2d 606, 624 (Az. 1999) (citation omitted), petition for cert. filed, 67 U.S.L.W. 3671 (U.S. Apr. 26, 1999).

While the Blaine Amendment failed (by 4 Senate votes), forms of it were written into the state Constitutions of the majority of US states, and is still being used today in an attempt to prevent local school choice by religious and other school dissidents.

It seems to me that if it was a bad idea in 1875 to use the US Constitution to require states to discriminate against religious practices the national majority found unnatural and immoral, that it is similarly wrong to do the same regarding marriage. If one really wants to prevent judicial overreach, yet avoid adding an arguable bigotry to the federal Constitution, one would be bettter off with

Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed, in the absence of specific provisions, to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups, or to unions other than that between one man and one woman.

But the current FMA is as intolerant in word and intent as Blaine's was 130 years ago.

---

*Note: it is interesting to note that James Blaine lost the 1884 election by 1047 votes in the state of New York -- the destination of many Catholic immigrants.

How NOT to fix schools

The LA Times reports on the refusal of Tennessee schools to honor excellence by students.

A Tennessee law rediscovered in December has cast doubt on routine school activities, banning principals from recognizing student achievement until they receive express parental consent. The law surfaced after a parent complained about a list of straight-A students sent home in a newsletter, saying it hurt the feelings of students not included....

The challenge began when Eakin Elementary School Principal Roxanne Ross sent home a newsletter listing honor roll students who were to be recognized at an academic pep rally in late December. Soon after, an Eakin mother called the metro attorney's office, complaining that while her daughter was on the honor roll, the girl's friends were not, and the list had upset them. The parent complained that she had not authorized the publication of her child's name.

Attorney Rachel Fardon examined the Tennessee Code and discovered a strongly worded provision about schools' rights to release data: The law says a child's academic performance is as private as test scores, psychological treatment or parental income, and any publication requires permission from parents.

So, spelling bee winners are not announced, individual athletic scoring is not published, honor rolls are not issued and no student may be singled out for praise. Another nail into the coffin of common sense, and another setback to those that hope for a recovery of the public schools.

America's Debtor's Prison - Day by Day

Monday's Day-by-Day says it all. Don't think this doesn't happen.

Mars Rover movie role?

Has anybody noticed the similarity between the Mars Rover and Johnny 5 from "Short Circuit"? What's up with this?


Thanks to The Lopsided Poopdeck for the rover image

It could have been worse

All this folderol about Janet Jackson's breast is making me cross. What's the big deal? I mean, anyone who was actually watching the Super Bowl half-time show is already guilty of poor taste, and the breast thing was probably better than the average segment.

I'm just grateful that it was Janet and not Michael that was doing the flashing.

Unethical "ethics" charges

The LA Times today runs a front page story about the Cheney-Scalia duck-hunting trip, alleging some deeper unethical behavior by Scalia in being Cheney's guest on Air Force Two. Lots of quotes from the usual suspects (Sierra Club, etc) who want Scalia to recuse himself from the Executive Privilege appeal by Cheney of a lower court order ordering him to turn over private notes of White House meetings on energy policy.

What is entirely missing from the story is the Supreme Court gaming that is going on here, which the reporters are not only aware of, but are willing partners in. This isn't about "ethics" -- if this was Souter or Breyer involved not a word would be said -- it's about preventing Scalia's vote (a sure vote for executive privilege in any administration) from counting. If sucessful, we can expect much more of this crap in the future. With a Supreme Court often divided 5-4, recusal of one of the "conservative" majority could well result in a 4-4 no decision. This would cause the lower court decision to stand, which is what the gamers want in this case.

Now, this could be played both ways, with some of the more active liberal justices (e.g. Ginsburg) being flayed in similar manner for speaking out on issues like the Patriot Act, or for socializing with people or groups that have briefs before the Court. But bashing justices with silly trumped up charges to gain recusals in order to shape a rump majority -- or to prevent the court from reaching a majority -- is not only unethical in any sense of the word, but harmful to the institution.

But maybe that's the whole point: The next logical escalation of the politics of personal destruction and politicization of everything.

America's Debtor's Prison

Matt Welch writes about one aspect of America's "deadbeat dads" laws, where men who have utterly no connection with a welfare recipient or her children are, due to mere similarity of name, assigned fatherhood status and dunned to poverty (and worse) by a system that makes a travesty of "due process."

From personal connections to others trapped up in this system, I know that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Becoming a "deadbeat dad" is trivially easy -- sometimes all it takes is the assertion by the mother that child support has not been received, proof be damned. And once the system has its hooks in, there is very little to do but pay up. Which can be difficult for a minimum wage worker hit with a $30,000 bill accumulating at 12%, who now no longer can legally drive, work at a licensed profession (e.g. bartender, barber), is unbondable (security guard, bank clerk), and cannot appeal in any effective way. No lawyer is going to take such a hopeless case anyway, especially with so little chance of payment. Bankruptcy is not even an option -- specifically excluded. Any job they do get can be garnished at high rates, which drives them into the undergound economy. Illegal immigrants in their own country, deprived of nearly every priviledge of citizenship, including a passport.

This system needs massive reform. It is so stacked against the father (or alleged father) that there is no due process. Calling it debtor's prison is too kind -- you could appeal from that. In this system, state judges have no power to alter a judgement in many cases. And there is little mistake why it is the way it is -- see this quote from Sheila Kuehl, feminazi from Santa Monica:

"What makes a father?" California state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) said in an August 2002 interview with the Los Angeles Times, explaining why she was voting against [former CA State Senator] Rod Wright's latest reform bill. "This bill says the donation of genetic material makes a father. I don't agree."

Kuehl, a former family law attorney who cosponsored a law that reworked California's child support system in 1999, has been the single biggest opponent of paternity-related reform bills in the state....

Wright, who considers Kuehl a friend, says he tried several times to sway her with individual stories of innocent victims who'd been trampled by the current system. "Sheila said to me one day in a hearing room: 'You know, I understand that, through the convergence of science and thousand-year-old common law, we have to work toward a kind of balance. And I side with the kids; I don't really care about this guy.'" Wright chalks it up to the prevailing political winds. "If this was a case where women could be charged similarly," he says, "Sheila would be all over this like a cheap suit. It's really a case where it becomes a guy vs. a child. So it's like, 'Well, screw the guy.'"

Welch concludes with this:

But as long as state and federal laws remain as they are -- with low evidentiary thresholds for issuing paternity complaints, no proof of service required, the presumption of guilt in default cases, a series of short legal deadlines beyond which paternity becomes extremely difficult to challenge, and financial incentive for the government to keep naming dads and extracting money -- these cases will continue to come up. "I can see how so many men could be totally screwed right now," Pierce says. "You know, I was educated, I had a good job, I'd never been involved with the cops before, I had nothing to fear, nothing to run from. But still, I got tied into it....I can see where this stuff could create many victims."

Via Instapundit

Lack of posts

Sorry about the lack of posts the last week or two. I've kind of fallen into Patrick O'Brien's Aubrey-Maturin "Master and Commander" books, and haven't come up for air. Seventeen down, 3 to go. It's all Justene's fault, of course.

Daily News delivery area expands

I live in West LA, and the only newspaper that's been available here has been the Los Angeles Dog Trainer Times. However, effective next week, the LA Daily News will be an option. Hopefully this is the start of actual competition in the Los Angeles market. About bloody time.

Some sanity

I don't care much for the so-called Palestinian leadership, whose decent into random terrorism has obliterated any sympathy I once had for the Palestinian cause. If Israel took up the PLO bigwigs and hanged them tomorrow, I'd cheer. On the other hand, Prime Minister Sharon has never really given much indication he was seeking peace, Infitada or not. But today's news strikes me as an unexpected burst of sanity out of an insane part of the world.

JERUSALEM (AP) - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told his stunned Likud Party on Monday he plans to dismantle all Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip - his most specific comment yet on unilateral steps if peace talks fail, participants in the meeting said.

Sharon spoke to Likud lawmakers just hours after telling the Haaretz daily he has "given an order to plan for the evacuation" of the 17 Gaza settlements, which are home to about 7,500 Israelis.

"I don't know if it will be done in one go, or gradually, but over the course of time, it will not be right to continue Jewish settlement in Gaza," a Likud official quoted Sharon as telling the legislators. Sharon referred to Jewish settlement in Gaza as "a security burden and a source of continuous friction," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

For Israel to support a handful of settlers in an area where there is no tactical or strategic gain to be had, and huge risks, has always struck me as ludcrous. The only reason many of these people are there is an in-your-face assertion of Manifest Destiny -- the more vocal elements of the Transportation factions. Such settlements are utterly incompatible with any kind of lasting peace (which Transportation is not among).

Of course, the PLO reaction was as expected: "Jewish plot" or somesuch. No doubt the terrorists will bomb an orphanage to show their righteous anger. These people need to go, but their going will be made easier by Israeli actions that work toward peace rather than against it.