Jim Miller on Politics

Women Not Hardest Hit:  Minority men, probably, but definitely not women.

Men are losing jobs at far greater rates than women as the industries they dominate, such as manufacturing, construction, and investment services, are hardest hit by the downturn.  Some 1.1 million fewer men are working in the United States than there were a year ago, according to the Labor Department.   By contrast, 12,000 more women are working.

This gender gap is the product of both the nature of the current recession and the long-term shift in the US economy from making goods, traditionally the province of men, to providing services, in which women play much larger roles, economists said.  For example, men account for 70 percent of workers in manufacturing, which shed more than 500,000 jobs over the past year.  Healthcare, in which nearly 80 percent of the workers are women, added more than 400,000 jobs.

Men losing jobs does not help women, a point that should be obvious to anyone who is even a little bit politically incorrect.

By way of the American Thinker.

(As I said last month, I think that OPEC is principally to blame for this recession.)

Scientifically Illiterate:  Jeffrey Hart is a retired professor of English.  (He is also, or at least was, a conservative.)  And he is completely misinformed on stem cell research and Bush's policies on stem cell research.  That he is misinformed is not terribly surprising; our "mainstream" journalists get the facts wrong on this subject at least as often as not, and one doesn't expect a retired professor of English to be well-informed on such matters.  (Though Hart could have been, with a little effort.)

What is surprising is that SciTech Daily, a useful site, linked to Hart's piece.   Granted, they put it in their "Analysis and Opinion" section, but, as the saying goes, we have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts — even in an opinion piece.  SciTech Daily should apologize for linking to the piece.  And someone should gently suggest to Professor Hart that he needs to spend a little more time in the library before he writes on this subject.

(If you want to review the facts on this subject, look at the comments by "CureMI", "healeyblue", and "johnnym".  And I would agree with CureMI's harsh judgment on Professor Hart, though I prefer "misinformed" to "ignorant".)

Good For These Russians:  Not that they will get what they asked for.

A Saudi offer to build a large mosque in Moscow has prompted Russian Orthodox organisations to ask for permission to build an Orthodox church in Saudi Arabia.  Several western Christian churches have asked for or suggested such reciprocity with Saudi Arabia, which funds mosques abroad but bans any religion but Islam at home.  It's an issue that can only become more pressing if King Abdullah continues to preach interfaith dialogue and tolerance around the globe while not practicing it at home.

But they are right to ask, anyway.

Phone Camera?  That's what David Pogue calls the new Motorola/Kodak Motozine ZN5.  That probably isn't the right name for it, but the phone does have an impressive combination of features.

The ZN5 is more of a proper digital camera than almost any phone before it.

The cleverest part is the design.  When the sliding lens cover is closed, it's a phone.  It has a crisp 2.4-inch screen, the usual Send and End keys, and a brightly lighted number keypad.  (The keys offer a satisfying clickiness, and tiny raised dots help you find your way; however, they are otherwise completely flat and require you to look at them to dial.)
. . .
In short, when you look at the back, where the dialing keys are, you see only a cellphone.

But when you look at the front, you see only camera.  Here's the lens cover, the xenon flash, even an autofocus assist lamp, which briefly illuminates your subject enough for sharp focusing in low light.

To take a photo, you turn the ZN5 horizontal, like a camera, and slide open the lens cover.  Suddenly, the screen becomes a bright, smooth viewfinder.  You can press the four points of the control dial to summon controls like Flash (On, Off, Redeye or Automatic); Low Light mode (On, Off); Focus (Landscape, Macro, Automatic); and White Balance (Tungsten, Fluorescent, Daylight, Cloudy, Automatic).

So it's a good cellphone, with — for cellphones — a much better than average camera.

Oddly enough, buying my Panasonic FZ8 helped remind me how important portability is, and show me why so many people want to combine cellphones with cameras.   Although the Panasonic is better in almost every way than the Olympus C-765 that I was using before, I more and more find myself taking along the Olympus for walks or bicycle rides, because it fits in a jacket pocket.  The Panasonic doesn't fit in a jacket pocket, so when I carry it, I almost always use a camera bag.

(Pogue calls it a phone camera, which would work if we didn't already have "camera phones", a name that puts the camera first, even though almost all these phones have terrible cameras.

More here, and a video demonstration here.)

President Sarkozy And The Voodoo Doll:  Here's the story.

The French are literally poking fun at President Nicolas Sarkozy, but he is not amused.

After appealing a court decision to allow a voodoo doll made in his image to remain on sale, Sarkozy drew a flurry of ridicule from his critics Thursday.  It is his sixth lawsuit this year.

The Nicolas Sarkozy doll, which went on sale Oct. 9 and became a best-selling cult item as soon as the president tried to have it banned, comes with a set of 12 pins and a manual explaining how to put a curse on him.

You can be too indifferent to criticism — I think President Bush has made that mistake — and you can be too sensitive.  Sarkozy would have been better off ignoring the doll, or making a joke about it.

Six lawsuits sounds excessive, especially given the descriptions in the article.

I hope Sarkozy will learn from this, and spend more of his time on serious matters.

More On The Arrest Of Damian Green:  From the Daily Mail, including this bit:

Speaker Michael Martin was under growing pressure to step down over the affair today after his attempt to blame the Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, and the police.

His position appeared only to have been weakened by the devastating admission that police only had written consent from Miss Pay for the raid and no search warrant.

No search warrant?!  No sign-off by an elected official?!

And from the Guardian, a detailed Q&A, including this:

Has an arrest of this kind happened before?

Although many MPs have received leaks before, officials contacted by the Guardian could not think of a precedent for an MP being arrested in similar circumstances.

When investigating the cash-for-questions allegations, the Metropolitan Police was accused of being over-zealous in the way it conducted the inquiry, which involved a Downing Street official being arrested at her home early in the morning. Eventually the investigation was dropped without anyone being charged.

Having been criticised for being heavy-handed in pursuing allegations involving Labour politicians, the Met may have felt the need to be just as rigorous when investigating an allegation involving a Tory.

Unprecedented.  That is, I suppose, a bit of a relief.

(The Daily Mail article includes a picture of Martin and Jay in their formal costumes, which Americans may find worth a look.

Here's a Wikipedia article on the "cash-for-questions" allegations, if you are wondering what that phrase refers to.)

Two More Connelly Mistakes:  I haven't corrected the Seattle PI columnist recently, so I suppose that I should catch up a bit.  In this column, Connelly quotes from my favorite political novel, The Last Hurrah, and makes two mistakes.

As Mayor Skeffington lies on his deathbed in Edwin O'Connor's "The Last Hurrah," a longtime flunky intones, "Ah Frank!  You've done great things!  Great things!"

"Among others!" replies Frank Skeffington, realist to the end.

(Skeffington was modeled on James Michael Curley of Boston.)

I have been re-reading the novel recently, so the mistakes jumped out at me.  Others who have not may want explanations.

The first mistake is minor; Connelly doesn't get the quotation right.  Here's the correct version:

Gorman nodded.  "Ah Frank," he said softly.  "You've done grand things.  Grand, grand things."

"Among others," Skeffington said.  "But no regrets.  No regrets at all.  And all my thanks to both of you.  For everything."

The second mistake is more serious, because John Gorman is not a "flunky", but a Skeffington ally, specifically the boss of one of the biggest wards in the city, which Gorman held so strongly that Skeffington had never tried to throw him out, as he had most of the other ward bosses.

This is a serious mistake because Skeffington has just entertained his flunkies.  He did not tell them he was dying.  Instead, he asked the flunkies, solemnly, for advice about his next election.  But with Gorman (and Skeffington's aide, Sam Weinberg) Skeffington can say his farewells honestly.  Skeffington would never be that honest with his flunkies, even on his death bed.

Any special reason for doing these Connelly corrections?  Why, yes.  The PI columnist always thanks me graciously for spotting his errors, and promptly makes corrections.  Well, now that I think of it, I can't recall him correcting any of the errors I've pointed out, and he is slower than I would like in extending his thanks for my help.

Cross posted at Sound Politics.

(Others may want to read, or re-read the The Last Hurrah.  In 2002, I argued that you can best understand Nancy Pelosi as a machine politician, like her father.  That explains, for example, her tolerance of corrupt associates, such as Alcee Hastings and John Murtha.  This year, I have come to agree with David Freddoso, who argues that to understand Barack Obama, you need to know about his long-time alliance with the corrupt Chicago machine.  So, I am reviewing books on machine politics, including The Last Hurrah, in order to better understand our elected leaders.)

The Arrest Of Damian Green:  And the lessons for the United States.   Here's the basic story, in case you missed it.

Gordon Brown has insisted ministers were not aware of the arrest of Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green.

The MP was arrested, held for nine hours, and his homes and House of Commons office searched by police probing alleged Home Office leaks.
. . .
The leaks thought to be at the centre of the investigation include:

• The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.
• The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.
• A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.
• A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed Mr Green was arrested by members of its counter-terrorism command, thought to be Special Branch officers, at his home in Kent and searches were conducted at his homes in London and Kent and at two offices in Kent and London.

The leaker, it is generally agreed, is one Christopher Galley, a civil servant — and a man who hoped for a career in the Conservative party.  If I understand the British law correctly, Galley almost certainly committed a crime when he leaked this information.

What Green did with Galley's leaks, apparently, is send them on to British newspapers.

At this point, I want to shift from Britain back to the United States, and try to imagine this happening here.  Our political systems are so different that it is hard to make an exact parallel, but I will do the best I can.  Suppose a Democratic civil servant had leaked embarrassing information to Janet Napolitano, Barack Obama's choice to head the Department of Homeland Security.  Suppose Napolitano, in turn, leaked that information to newspapers like the New York Times.

Now then for the biggest part of the shift.  If the FBI arrested Napolitano and searched her office and her home, then we would have something here like what just happened in Britain.

Hard to imagine, isn't it?  (Unless, of course, you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.)   Partly this is because our laws against leaks are less clear than their British equivalents.  (Assuming I understand those British laws correctly.)  And partly because we have become so accustomed to accepting leaks that end up in newspapers — even if the leakers, and the recipients of the leaks have broken our laws.  Even more accustomed than our British cousins are.

Although a corresponding American case is hard to imagine, we can still learn lessons from this British arrest.  But the lessons that I see in the arrest are more complex than those seen by, for instance, Roger Kimball.  I can agree that the raid — especially when done by counter-terrorism police — was extraordinarily heavy handed.  I can agree that some of the information in that list above ought to be known to the public, however much it embarrasses the Labour government.  But at the same time, I think that, in this country, we have become a little too accepting of illegal leaks, as long as they result in newspaper articles.

And American journalists have become a little too aristocratic in their belief that laws that apply to others should not apply to them.  It would be almost impossible, for instance, to find a "mainstream" journalist who thought that our restrictive campaign finance laws should apply to newspapers.

I don't pretend to know where the exact balance should be, but I do think that, if a foreign agent could be prosecuted for receiving stolen information, then perhaps an American journalist, who receives the same information, and publishes it, should also be subject to prosecution.  Having said that, I must add that I also favor freedom of information acts that make it harder for bureaucracies to hide blunders, as well as secrets.

That balanced, or nuanced, or moderate, or muddled, or whatever you want to call it, position is not as fun as a simple denunciation of Green's arrest.  But I try to give you my best analysis, not the one that is the easiest to write.

A Scientific Explanation For Obama Mania?   Possibly.  Though Emily Yoffe's argument would be more plausible if she were not so obviously suffering from the disease.

Does The Constitution Disqualify Hillary Clinton From Being Secretary Of State?   The problem is in the emoluments clause (Article I, Section 6):

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

The second part, after the semicolon, is clear enough.  You can't be a congressman and a member of the Cabinet, or even a low-level civil servant.  I don't know of any violations of that part.

But can you, for example, join the Cabinet, if the pay received by members of the Cabinet has increased while you were in the Congress?  (As it did, last January, through a cost of living increase.)   It has happened, more than once, but constitutional authorities disagree on whether it should have happened.  For contrasting views on the question, see this post, which quotes Michael Stokes Paulsen extensively.  Paulsen is certain that the Constitution does not allow Clinton to be Secretary of State.  Or this post, by Eugene Volokh, who is not so certain.

By way of Mickey Kaus, I learned that the Clinton camp had already responded on this issue:

Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she and Mr. Obama had anticipated the issue and were prepared to resolve it.  "This is a Harvard Law grad nominating a Yale Law grad here, so all parties involved have been cognizant of this issue from the outset," he said.  "But putting frivolous lawsuits by fringe groups aside, this issue has been resolved many times over the past century involving both Democratic and Republican appointments and we're confident it will be here too."

Like Kaus, I find the argument — a Harvard Law grad and a Yale Law grad say it's so — unpersuasive. Volokh's suggestion, that a cost of living increase might not be a real increase, seems more plausible, though I would want to know if there are any legal precedents supporting that idea.  Volokh also mentions the "Saxbe fix", cutting the pay back to where it was when Clinton entered the Senate.  Again, legal authorities disagree on whether that fix solves the problem.

(One historical detail I can't recall hearing before:  The clause is one of the reasons that the Reagan administration nominated Robert Bork, rather than Senator Orrin Hatch, to the Supreme Court.)

More:  The Wall Street Journal is sure that Clinton is unqualified.  I guess the Journal isn't willing to take the word of a "Harvard Law grad" and a "Yale Law grad" on this question.