Thursday, June 09, 2005

Quote for the Day, 6/9/2005   "Paranoia approaches common sense as the world goes crazy."   -Norman Mailer 3:59:16 PM    comment []

Feds Drop Tobacco Damage Request by 92%   It is no secret that the Bush administration has no fondness for the lawsuit against Big Tobacco; after all, what harm have they done, really?  Our new Culture of Life would be more expensive without cigarettes killing off hundreds of thousands a year.  The lawsuit against Big Tobacco has entered closing arguments.  The case has already, like it or not, been won or lost.  Big Tobacco is charged under racketeering laws; they are basically accused of being modern-day Al Capones.  The Bush administration has no chance, anymore, to prevent Big Tobacco from losing in court, if that's what’s going to happen…and it probably is.  The one thing they could do is try to contain the damage to these political allies and major Republican donors.  So, suddenly, during closing arguments, Justice Department lawyers have dropped their demand for damages from $130 billion to $10 billion.  That's a little over 92%.  How likely is it that this was done for political reasons?  A lawyer for the Justice Department simply does not make the decision to drop a damage request by $120 billion on his own.  The change at this point cannot affect whether the government wins or loses; it can only affect how much it costs Big Tobacco if the government has met its burden.  The change could only have taken place if the lawyer was ordered to make the change by the Attorney General or the President. That anyone else gets to make $120 billion decisions defies belief (actually, the idea that even the Attorney General could make the call without Presidential approval is absurd).  The judge presiding over the case actually said, "Influence was brought to bear on what the government's case is."  Even Big Tobacco's lawyers were stunned by the reduction in the damage request. The efforts by the administration to hinder the lawsuit began right at the start.  The case was brought by the Clinton White House; the Bush White House could not simply kill the case without political damage.  But Attorney General John Ashcroft repeatedly acted to kill the case, pushing for a settlement for a nominal cum, and when that failed,  cut the funding for the lawyers handling the case. An Associate Attorney General spent most of his career working for a firm that defends RJ Reynolds, on of the largest tobacco companies, and he was the senior Justice Department official in the courtroom yesterday, watching the arguments, doubtless to make sure the requested damages against his former clients got dropped.  I strongly suspect the racketeering charges against Big Tobacco will be affirmed by a judge.  The question now is, should new racketeering charges be brought against the Bush Justice Department, for their efforts on behalf of Big Tobacco and their Culture of Death? 1:55:40 PM    comment []

Republican Concedes Election 5 Months After Opponent Took Office   In a rare triumph for common sense, after a judge ruled against him, wealthy businessman and political novice Dino Rossi finally conceded defeat in last November’s election for governor of Washington.  The appeals process had by no means concluded; he could have appealed to the state Supreme Court, and then possibly even to the federal Supreme Court.  Of course, if the case had reached the US Supreme Court, and they agreed to hear it, another year might have passed by, by which point everywhere Mr. Rossi went people would have been whispering, "There goes the guy who thinks he's governor."  He would have become a cautionary tale; parents would have told their children that if they didn't stop throwing tantrums and accept reality, some day they might end up as crazy as Dino Rossi.  He also would have been absolutely finished in politics. Remember how much grief Al Gore took over waiting a couple weeks before conceding?  Rossi already waited much, much longer.  It would be hard to accept losing by less than a vote per precinct, but that's life.  He can, quite literally, afford to take the long view...he can run again in four years.  Mr. Rossi has already lost some stature by his extended litigation of the election, but he's a rich man; if he's rich enough, he can pay for ads that will buy it back. 5:00:17 AM    comment []

Stop Using Anonymous Quotes   People who defend the use of anonymous sources by pointing to Deep Throat make a fundamentally false case.  To my knowledge, Woodward and Bernstein never quoted Deep Throat in their reports on the Watergate break-in and the cover-up, and they didn't run a story that was based solely on his word.  He suggested fruitful avenues of inquiry to them, and they followed them up.  No one is suggesting that reporters can't listen to people.  They then found other people who were willing to talk, or a paper trail, or something, and then reported on it. These days, more often than not, the anonymous quote or report is the story.  That's what we read about or hear about on TV.  In our major newspapers, if the New York Times is any indication, close to half the front section stories rely on anonymous sources.  This is an absurdly large number.  Few of the stories are important enough to even consider lending someone this unwarranted cloak of anonymity, an anonymity which invites irresponsible and dishonest behavior.  Most reporters are disciplined and experienced professionals who work for comparatively low wages because they feel a sense of vocation.  So when journalists are among the least trusted and respected class of people, held in even lower regard than politicians, you have to ask why.  Anonymous sources are why.  Journalists have become regarded as untrustworthy because altogether too many of them are purveyors of gossip and lies, handed to them by men and women in the shadows, who can't be called to account for what they do or say. I have no problem with anonymous sources on background.  But if all a reporter has is simply an anonymous source, then what you have may be a story, but it's no kind of journalism. 2:38:36 AM    comment []