Ed Whelan has written both publicly and privately and apologized. I know it was not an easy thing to do, and it is of course accepted. I therefore consider the matter done, and don't intend on writing about it anymore.
The real story here wasn't really about me anyway -- it's about whether the norm of pseudonymity is a good thing. And there's a legitimate debate about that. Personally, I think that pseudonymity is a net benefit, whatever other costs it brings. More voices are better than less -- and pseudonymity (to me) enriches the public sphere by adding voices that could not otherwise be heard. But people can disagree in good faith about these things, as Whelan correctly notes.
Anyway, I'm moving on. I appreciate Whelan's update. And that's all I have to say.
- A.L. adds:
Credit where credit is due. It took a while, but this is an actual apology. And given the size of the hole he had already dug for himself on this issue, I'm sure it wasn't easy for Whelan to write this. Though, as he acknowledges, this apology doesn't do much for publius, it is nevertheless important and welcome. By acknowledging that he should not have done what he did, Whelan sets a helpful precedent and makes it less likely that someone else will do the same thing in the future. That's important. This episode had the potential to create a chilling effect in the blogosphere, to discourage people in certain lines of employment from participating. But I think the near universal condemnation of Whelan's conduct, coupled with his apology, may actually end up having the opposite effect. I think this episode goes a long way toward officially ratifying one of the most important unwritten rules of online ethics, i.e., that a person's decision to write under a pseudonym should be respected barring compelling reasons not to do so. And retaliating against criticism is not such a reason. To the extent that rule is widely understood and acknowledged, it will encourage greater participation in online politics and result in a greater variety of voices being heard.
NYT Editorial: Honest Justice
The right to a fair hearing before an impartial judge, untainted by money or special interests, is at the heart of the nation’s justice system and the rule of law. That right is more secure following a 5-to-4 ruling on Monday by the United States Supreme Court.
The case involved some egregious ethical myopia on the part of Justice Brent Benjamin of the West Virginia Supreme Court. Justice Benjamin, who is now the state’s chief justice, twice cast the deciding vote to throw out a $50 million verdict against Massey Energy, one of the country’s biggest coal companies. He sat in judgment on the case even though Massey’s chief executive, Don Blankenship, spent an extraordinary $3 million to help Justice Benjamin get elected to the state’s top court.
In Monday’s decision, the majority correctly found that Justice Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself from a case involving his major campaign supporter — which John Grisham has cited as an inspiration for one of his legal thrillers — amounted to a Constitutional violation.
“Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
...
In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said he was concerned that the majority’s ruling will lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased. We believe that risk is exaggerated. More important, this ruling comes at a moment when judicial neutrality and the appearance of neutrality is under a severe threat from big money state judicial campaigns and the special interest money that fuels them.
The majority’s recognition of the threat posed by outsize contributions amounts to a crucial statement that judges and justice are not for sale.
Indeed, the only truly alarming thing about Monday’s decision was that it was not unanimous. The case drew an unusual array of friend-of-court briefs from across the political spectrum, and such an extreme case about an ethical matter that should transcend ideology should have united all nine justices.
Chief Justice Roberts is fond of likening a judge’s role to that of a baseball umpire. It is hard to imagine that professional baseball or its fans would trust the fairness of an umpire who accepted $3 million from one of the teams.
- Joe Sudbay (DC) adds: And, then, there's Scalia:
Justice Scalia, in a separate dissent, said Monday’s decision illustrated a larger jurisprudential problem.
Yeah, not so obvious to Scalia. He's such an authority on ethics that he went hunting with Cheney even while the court was considering a case involving Cheney:
“The court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution,” Justice Scalia wrote.
“Should judges sometimes recuse themselves even when the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it?” he asked. “Undoubtedly. The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernible rule. The answer is obvious.”Vice President Dick Cheney and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spent part of last week duck hunting together at a private camp in southern Louisiana just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of the administration's energy task force.
Right.
While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially.
But Scalia rejected that concern Friday, saying, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."
Palin the plagiarizer? June 8: MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discusses reports that a recent speech by Gov. Sarah Palin was largely plagiarized from one given by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
- Benen adds: SHE'S GETTING WORSE....
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), instead of becoming more credible and serious as her time in government progresses, is getting more ridiculous as time goes on.
In her appearance on "Hannity" on Monday night, Sarah Palin claimed that the country was headed towards socialism. [...]
Hannity, who bragged that he was interviewing her near his New York home, asked Palin about the country's debt and Obama's federal programs, prompting Palin to outline her fears.
"Our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize, certainly that is so far from what the founders of our country had in mind for us."
Hannity interrupted her: "Socialism?"
To which Palin responded: "Well, that's where we are headed."
Palin added that increasing the national debt "defies any sensible economic policy that any of us ever learned through college."
I'm going to assume Palin was absent the day they taught Keynesian theory. She really seems to believe the principal goal of government in the midst of an economic crisis is to lower the deficit. In other words, what she "learned through college" is that Hoover was right.
"[T]his many months into the new administration, [I'm] quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government," Palin argued. "Instead, Sean, it is the complete opposite."
Well, yes, it is the "complete opposite." That's the point. Facing the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, we want the opposite.
Mark Halperin referred to this bizarre Fox News interview as the "ALASKA SHOCKER!!!" (emphasis in the original). I have no idea what prompted this -- the only thing "shocking" is how little sense Palin made.
The governor went on to say that she rejected a "bucket of money" in stimulus funds because of the "strings attached." As it turns out, Alaskan lawmakers can't find any of these imaginary strings and even Republican officials are poised to override her veto. (That Palin would even consider complaining about federal funds is amusing given the largesse Alaska keeps accepting from D.C.)
At this point, Palin manages to make George W. Bush look like a sophisticated policy wonk. That so many far-right activists consider her their political savior is astounding.
From BarbinMD's Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up
Frank Gaffney continues his descent into madness (both of the insanity and the still being mad about November variety) with a screed that's beyond belief. Here's the CliffNotes version:
... Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America's first Muslim president ... a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich ... there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself ... he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah -- notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood -- to a degree that makes Mr. Clinton's fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison ... Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant. What is alarming is that in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the president will greatly intensify the already enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces - and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.
Eugene Robinson weighs in on President Obama's Cairo speech:
There are those who believe that admitting mistakes is a sign of weakness. I think it's a sign of confidence and strength, and I believe that's how it was received by Obama's intended audience.
Perhaps the best indication of how Obama played in Cairo is the reaction of his competitors for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. The Associated Press reported Sunday that the Iranian-backed, Lebanon-based guerrilla group Hezbollah, an influential radical Saudi cleric and the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood all warned followers not to be taken in by Obama's seductive words -- which suggests a fear that Obama had been dangerously effective. A Web site that often reflects the thinking of al-Qaeda referred to the president after the speech as a "wise enemy."
William McGurn has some complaints about the White House tricking the media about job creation numbers, and so who better to go to for some perspective than a former Bush administration spokesman?
David Gratzer is concerned about health care reform, or as he explains it, CANADA!!
Kevin Baine states the obvious:
There is something profound, but also something superficial, about the debate that occurs every time a Supreme Court justice is nominated. The debate is profound because it probes the delicate role of an independent judiciary in a democracy. But it becomes superficial when it turns into an argument over whether judges should be making law or simply interpreting it. For a nominee, the safe answer is that the Supreme Court should interpret law, not make it. It would be refreshing, however, if the nominee acknowledged that courts, including the Supreme Court, make law all the time -- and then explain how they do so.
Yglesias: Very Old Quote of the Day
Yglesias: It’s All “Real” Health Care ReformHere’s a line allegedly from Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws that I’ve only ever actually seen quoted in other works:
As Rome, Sparta, and Carthage have lost their liberty and perished, so the constitution of England will in time lose its liberty, will perish: it will perish, whenever the legislative power shall become more corrupt than the executive.
I’m not sure this means American liberty is doomed, but I think it would be hard to deny that the corrupting influence of special interest politics weighs heavier on the Hill than it does on the White House.
Meanwhile, I do think you can see an inkling of what Montesquieu is talking about in the fact that there’s a persistent impulse in the contemporary United States to say that if something is really important, we need to basically cut congress out of the loop. This probably happened first with the steady decline of congress’ war powers. But you also saw it in the way that the Treasury/Fed response to the financial crisis was shaped by an overwhelming desire to avoid the need to go back to congress, by the way that proposals for improving the operations of MedPAC all involve trying to circumvent congress, etc. Tellingly, the judgment that congress can’t handle these issues is a judgment largely shared by congress. In the England of Montesquieu’s day, of course, the “executive” was understood to mean the unelected King, so a shift in the balance of power from legislature to executive constituted the death of liberty. Here in the US, obviously, it’s a different situation.
The fight for health care reform June 8: As President Barack Obama calls on the Senate to be more aggressive in pursuit of health care reform, one GOP senator isn't so happy about the president's encouragement. Dr. Howard Dean discusses.Katrina Vanden Heuvel has an interesting interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) about his quest to create some room for single-payer around the health reform table. I’m in sympathy with Sanders’ goals, and it’s my belief that if we get a health reform package that includes a “strong” public plan—something along the lines of what’s in Ted Kennedy’s bill—then we’ll be on the right track. But I did want to push back against a piece of language she uses that I’ve also heard elsewhere:
This week, Senator Bernie Sanders has been firing on all cylinders as he continues his advocacy for real healthcare reform that controls costs while extending quality care to every American.
Even something very watered down like this proposal from Third Way would, especially when combined with the other reform proposals that relate to other issues, very much be real reform that would do a lot to help a lot of people. I think a robust public plan is highly desirable and people ought to work for it. But they shouldn’t be working for that goal in a manner that winds up disparaging all the other aspects of health care reform. Creating a regulated health care exchange and providing subsidies to ensure that insurance is affordable for all are very important in their own right. It’s all real reform. It’s just a question of how much real reform are we going to get.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
- Joe Sudbay (DC) adds:
Today at the White House, Obama is doing an event with the House Blue Dog Democrats on the subject of fiscal responsibility. While that crew is at the White House, Obama better get commitments from them not to screw up health care reform. Because, they're just the kind of Democrats who will sell out to the insurance industry.
Yglesias: Are Rival Websites Killing Newspapers?
A very useful point from Conor Clarke about the contention that the Huffington Post is damaging an institution like The New York Times by being parasitic on its work. As Clarke points out, it appears to be that there’s a rising tide of “reading stuff on the internet” that’s lifting both boats:
My guess is that this point applies a fortiori to more “nromal” blogs (like, say, this one). Far from being “parasitic” on heavily linked-to news sites, these are complementary endeavors, driving readers to the sites that the bloggers use as their main sources of information. And of course America’s best newspapers are already hugely successful websites—thanks to the Internet, far more people read The New York Times today than at any previous point. The problem for everyone trying to make money on the internet—and that goes for everyone from the NYT to Josh Marshall to Arianna Huffington to whoever decided to hire Ezra Klein—is that ad rates on the web just don’t bring in very much money. In England, two of the best sources of information, the BBC and the Guardian, are already run as non-commercial enterprises and I have a feeling that more and more of the serious newsmedia will come in that form in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment