I’ve always held out Arlen Specter (Sen. PA) as an example of everything a moderate should be. I’ve admired his insight and his dedication to principle in an unprincipled venue for years. But no more. Today his editorial in the Washington Post opened my eyes. It was disingenuious at best and at worst covertly partisan and manipulative. I’m not an experienced fisker, but let’s take a closer look at what Sen. Specter has to say.

Surveillance We Can Live With
By Arlen Specter
Monday, July 24, 2006
Washington Post

President Bush’s electronic surveillance program has been a festering sore on our body politic since it was publicly disclosed last December. Civil libertarians, myself included, have insisted that the program must be subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment.

Good lead paragraph. I’m nodding in agreement.

The president has insisted that he was acting lawfully within his constitutional responsibilities. On its face, the program seems contrary to the plain text of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which regulates domestic national security wiretapping. The president argues, however, that his inherent constitutional powers supersede the statute. Without knowing the exact contours of the program, it’s impossible to say whether he is right or wrong. But three federal appeals court decisions suggest the president may be right.

So far, so good. He’s just reporting the facts and making an attempt at some active listening with no value judgments. “On its face” is a hedge, however. The first of many to follow.

The integrity of our nation’s adherence to the rule of law requires an answer to the question of whether this program is legal. The protection of our nation’s security and individual rights requires a modification of the program if it is not lawful as currently fashioned. The challenge, which I have been trying to meet legislatively, is to structure a procedure under which the courts can adjudicate the lawfulness of this highly sensitive program while maintaining the secrecy the president contends is so important.

No major problems there. He wants what we all want, a determination of legality. However, he makes no call for an end to the program if it is illegal. Major hedge.

My bill, the result of months of negotiation with the administration, accomplishes this goal by authorizing consideration of the program by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the court created under FISA to consider warrant applications. The FISC has the expertise to handle this question. Its closed proceedings and unblemished record for not leaking would make full consideration both possible and secure. Not only would the bill permit a determination of the program’s legality but if it were found unlawful in whole or in part, a framework would exist for modifying the program.

Now we’re getting down to specifics. The result of months of negotiation with the administration? Since must someone doing something of undetermined legality agree to allow it to be considered as a point of law?

And the big one: having the case heard by FISC, a court which itself which may itself be a violation of the 4th Amendment. No. Matters of constitutionality are to be decided by the US Supreme Court. Balance of power, anyone?

Critics complain that the bill acknowledges the president’s inherent Article II power and does not insist on FISA’s being the exclusive procedure for the authorization of wiretapping. They are wrong. The president’s constitutional power either exists or does not exist, no matter what any statute may say. If the appellate court precedents cited above are correct, FISA is not the exclusive procedure. If the president’s assertion of inherent executive authority meets the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” test, it provides an alternative legal basis for surveillance, however FISA may purport to limit presidential power. The bill does not accede to the president’s claims of inherent presidential power; that is for the courts either to affirm or reject. It merely acknowledges them, to whatever extent they may exist.

Critics complain? And they’re wrong? It seems compromise and negotiation are a one-way street leading to the White House but not to other senators with concerns. They’re just whiners, not “deciders.”

I’ll also “complain” about this: “The president’s constitutional power either exists or does not exist, no matter what any statute may say.” If that is so, why hasn’t the administration called the consitutionality of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) into question? Obviously they can’t, because the bill authorized the FISC in the first place. You can’t have it both ways.

The negotiations with administration officials and the president himself were fierce. The president understandably rejected a statutory mandate to submit his program to FISC, on the grounds that such a mandate could weaken the presidency institutionally by binding his successors. Indeed, such a mandate might not withstand a future president’s contention that it unconstitutionally limited his Article II powers to conduct surveillance without court approval. The president, however, did personally commit to submitting this program for court review should the bill pass. Even without a legal mandate, his sending this program to the FISC would be a powerful precedent to be considered by future presidents.

President Bush’s record of seeking to expand Article II power has been a hallmark of his administration. The president and vice president have vociferously argued that the administration had the authority for the program without any judicial review. Bush’s personal commitment to submit his program to FISC is therefore a major breakthrough.

The negotiations were fierce. Gee, aren’t we lucky that Sen. Specter is such a tough guy on our behalf. The president “understandably” rejected orders that he follow the law - obviously those insisting on it are unreasonable. But we have the presidents personal commitment to submit his program to the FISC, a secret court whose records are also secret and sealed. Guess we’d just have to take his word on the outcome then, huh. But that’s a “breakthrough?”

It is a preeminently fair compromise to condition that commitment on congressional approval of the negotiated legislation, which also modernizes FISA in important ways, giving the president added flexibility in protecting the country. The bill extends from three days to seven the time, in emergency situations, that the government can conduct surveillance without the court’s permission. It permits the attorney general to delegate his authority to seek emergency warrants to subordinate officials. And it exempts from FISA’s jurisdiction communications between two persons overseas that gets routed through domestic servers. The bill would also transfer the various lawsuits challenging the program to the FISC for consideration under its secure procedures.

So the bill also gives away the farm and passes the power to authorize surveillance way down the food chain. That way the Attorney General doesn’t have to dirty his hands. Best of all, it ends any dissent from other law suits (including perhaps the one against AT&T?) by tying it up in one neat package here.

In my opinion, it is intolerable to let this matter drift indefinitely. If someone has a better idea for legislation that would resolve the program’s legality or can negotiate a better compromise with the president, I will be glad to listen.

Of course no one else needs to “negotiate” with the president. You’ve already given him everything he wants. Thanks a lot, Sen. Specter.

It’s too darn hot,
It’s too darn hot.
I’d like to sup with my baby tonight,
Fulfill the cup with my baby tonight.
I’d like to sup with my baby tonight,
Fulfill the cup with my baby tonight,
But I ain’t up to my baby tonight,
‘Cause it’s too darn hot.

“Too Darn Hot” from “Kiss Me Kate,” the misogynist musical

(Getting tired of this series yet?)

We all are familiar with the term “comfort food,” dishes that takes us back to our childhood or some other period of emotional security. Taste, smell and texture give us something that our minds need, rather than what our bodies require. In my case, it’s things that my grandmother used to make, like chicken and dumplings, freshly baked bread, chicken gizzards, crepes with butter and sugar, and cornmeal mush, pan fried so the edges are crispy. Those things conjure up warmth and security for me.

In the absense of outside comfort, babies try to self-comfort. They suck their thumbs and/or rub a blanket against their faces. They may rock themselves back and forth in a mimic of mother’s rocking chair. They may need a music box. They may need to nurse to sleep, even in the absense of hunger.

These patterns continue into adulthood. When we’re sad or insecure, we look to food to provide the comfort we lack. For normal weight people, this isn’t a problem. Comfort eating comes and goes quickly, without lasting impact on their bodies. But for those of us with eating problems, the need for comfort may be longer lasting and of more importance. Sadness or depression triggers binges that are seldom satisfied, leaving us more anxious than before. No matter what we eat, the holes in our hearts remain.

This can be a huge battle, one I’m fighting right now. The things I crave aren’t good for me. They would set back not just my diet but my general health as well and I don’t want to give up the progress I’ve made. So I’m trying to find things that make me feel good but which don’t involve food. Strawberry-scented Glade candles, extended exercise for the endorphine rush and my rocking chair are my current favorites. I re-read beloved novels. I put lotion on my legs and arms. A slightly weird comfort to me has been getting most of the perm I’ve had for 20 years cut off. The silky feel of my natural hair texture against my neck and between my fingers is very soothing to me. Not giving in to the urge to fill my heart by way of my stomach makes me feel strong.

Do you comfort eat? What foods create security for you? Have you been able to replace them with healthy things?

Meredith and I are going round and round over punctuation. She insists that serial (Oxfordian) commas are required and I insist I hate them. Ie: one, two, three, and four vs. one, two, three and four.

Do you use them? Why/why not? Does it depend on what type of writing you’re doing?

A few years ago I picked up a great little freeware color picker, Nattyware’s Pixie. Just run your mouse over any image and it will give you the hex, RGB, HTML, CMYK and HSV values of that color. The only lack that I see is the inability to highlight and copy the color code, so I have to write it down. But for a freebie, this is great. I use it all the time.

Give it a try.

• Happy thing: cholesterol down 30 points due to exercise and diet. Back in normal range without drugs!
• Happy thing: Burt’s Bees Peppermint Shower Soap
• Happy thing: the perfect haircut, $16 including tip
• Happy thing: pink flip-flops with a big fabric flower between the toes — $1
• Happy thing: finishing James Lee Burke’s Crusader’s Cross
• Happy thing: dreaming of being James Lee Burke when I grow up
• Happy thing: watching Roma tomatoes grow
• Happy thing: Diet Black Cherry Vanilla Coke
• Happy thing: getting out of the car and being hit by the sprinkler
• Happy thing: stepping back into the sprinkler a second time on purpose
• Happy thing: fresh Bing Cherries, 99 cents a pound
• Happy thing: baby quail in the front yard
• Happy thing: daddy quail keeping watch from atop the fence and crowing
• Happy thing: singing along with Bowling For Soup’s 1985 in the car with the windows down

For the first time in its 120 year history, Spokane has a female chief of police. Yesterday Mayor Dennis Hassion selected Anne E. Kirkpatrick, currently the top cop in Federal Way, WA, as his choice to fill the vacancy. She must be approved by the city council, but that’s expected to go through with no problems.

Just as positive as the selection of Ms. Kirpatrick is the fact that she was one of two women in the final five candidates. That’s never happened here before and I’m thrilled.

The police department is not very popular right now, with good reason. Ms. Kirkpatrick will inherit a department that’s on the ropes of public opinion following 2 detectives ordering the destruction of photographic evidence in a case of sexual contact between a city firefighter and an underage girl in the firehouse and another in which an unarmed mentally disabled man died of asphyxiation after being beaten, Tazered, hog-tied and left on his stomach by Spokane police officers following an unsubstantiated report of a “suspicious person.” Did I mention the cover-ups in both cases? And did I mention that Spokane Police Department lacks any meaningful civilian oversight? It just goes from bad to worse.

I’m hesitant to say that I’m enthusiastic about the choice just because she’s a woman, but it’s the truth. After so many years of the Old Boys Club, it’s time to shine some fresh light into the dark places. I hope Ms. Kirkpatrick can turn the department around. She’s going to have to rebuild a lot of trust.

Edgar isn’t the least bit concerned about his jowls.

My parents lived a hard life, as did their parents before them. When I was a kid, you had to stretch the label “working class” pretty hard to include us, even by small town standards. Manual labor, poor nutrition, too many bills and not enough money took their toll. As much as I complain about the changes 46 years have affected on my appearance, I look much like my mother did at 30. It’s not that I’m particularly youthful. My parents looked old–were old–long before their time.

An article on New Scientist goes a long way toward explaining this in Underpaid, overworked and ageing faster.”

People from lower socio-economic groups are more likely to die earlier than people in non-manual jobs from heart attacks, strokes and cancer. Unhealthy habits such as lack of exercise, excess weight, smoking and poor diet account for around a third of these deaths.

Now, a study on white blood cells from 1552 female twins suggests that cells from women with more menial jobs age faster, even after taking these factors into account. On average, their cells were seven years “older” than those from women of the same chronological age with non-manual jobs.

[snip]

In 17 pairs of twin sisters who married men at opposite ends of the social scale, their telomeres showed an average age difference of nine years, despite the women being genetically very similar.

The study was done by Tim Spector of St Thomas’ Hospital in London, studying the telomeres, the repeating DNA sequences which cap and protect the ends of chromosomes. The shorter the telomeres, the more a cell has aged.

Spector suggests that low status might drive cellular ageing because such people are under greater psychological stress. This could have subtle metabolic effects, exposing their cells to more oxidative damage, he says.

“The greater psychological stress of being in a low social class, with more people above you in the food chain and less control over your life, is the unseen hand that might mean more stress at cellular level,” he says. “Oxidative stress does make telomeres shorten.”

Makes sense to me.

The FDA has recently approved Implanon, the first implantable contraceptive to become available in the US since Wyeth withdrew Norplant from the market, which will provide up to 3 years protection against pregnancy. In the form of a matchstick-sized rod, it is inserted under the skin in the upper arm and can be removed at any time. Organon USA Inc, the manufactorer, says it plans to begin training doctors in its use in August.

Implanon has been available in 30 countries since 1998 with great success.

The benefits include not needing to take daily pills or monthly shots and for some women could eliminate periods all together. The drawbacks? It may be less effective if a woman is more than 30% over her ideal weight and may potentially cause blood clots, a risk that is shared by birth control pills, as well as irregular bleeding or spotting.

In a time when women are having trouble getting contraception prescriptions filled, this would remove pharmacists from the equation, a very good thing. If this had been available 25 years ago, I would have jumped at it.

Via the Washington Post.