Isaac Laquedem

Next time, phone ahead

The cover story of today's Willamette Week is about Portland attorney Thomas Nelson. Buried deep in the story is a discussion with Karin Immergut, the U.S. Attorney for Oregon (sort of the local federal counterpart to the District Attorney), about the Brandon Mayfield case. It includes the following two paragraphs:

"This was a case where we didn't know anything about Mr. Mayfield until we got information from Washington that Mr. Mayfield's fingerprint was on a bag of detonators related to the March 11 Madrid bombing," Immergut contends.

She insists the federal government only wanted to find out what Mayfield knew about the bombings -- if anything. The feds were prepared to believe that Mayfield may have provided unwitting assistance to the bombers, she says, but they wanted to question him without revealing everything they knew -- or thought they knew -- in order to test Mayfield's credibility.

I suppose someone could have simply telephoned him for an appointment and then gone to see him -- lawyers tend to be willing to meet with FBI agents during regular business hours -- but that would have deprived someone (not Ms. Immergut, who didn't appear to be seeking publicity) of another "victory" in the war on terrorism.

The Bush campaign wises up

I had noted on BlueOregon that the Bush campaign was criticizing Senator Kerry in radio spots for missing a vote to extend unemployment benefits, without mentioning that the President opposed the extension. In effect it criticized Senator Kerry for not voting against the President.

This morning's radio spot is almost the same, starting out with the Senator's voice saying "This is wreaking havoc with my schedule," but without the reference to extending unemployment benefits. The Bush campaign has apparently finally realized that it's silly for them to attack Senator Kerry for inadvertently supporting the President.

Thirty-five years ago today

Neil Armstrong and Col. Edwin Aldrin walked on the moon, becoming the first humans to set foot there. Armstrong got to go first, partly because he was the lander's commander and partly because he was a civilian. Although it's hard for us to recall the Cold War mindset now, NASA was fearful of making the Moon missions look too military.

Happy birthday, Uncle Frank

Today marks the 80th birthday of Francis J. "Frank" Ivancie, city councilor from 1967 to 1980 and mayor from 1981 to 1984. Uncle Frank had his troglodyte moments and wasn't a visionary, but he did a good job of running the nuts and bolts of the city in his four years as mayor. He also taught me how to pour beer, an accomplishment I've put to good use many times since.

Welcome, BlueOregon

The creators of BlueOregon describe it as the conversation that Oregon progressives might have around the water cooler. I was delighted to be asked to join in, and did so this morning, though I don't think I could be considered a progressive unless the definition also includes, say, Calvin Coolidge.

Check them out. Jack Bog has posted, though he denies that he's breaking his moratorium on blogging.

Did the INS support terrorism? Republican logic says "yes"

Last week Frykitty commented on the Republicans' attempts to characterize the congressional report on September 11 as supporting President Bush's invasion of Iraq. She skewers one of the spokesmen who has been pushing the party line.

I understand the report to say this:
1. Al Qaeda agents had contacts with Iraqi agents from time to time about a number of things.
2. Al Qaeda planned and executed the September 11 attack.
3. Al Qaeda apparently never asked Iraq for help to carry out September 11, and Iraq did not help plan or carry out the attack, nor did Iraq know about the attack in advance.
4. Although Iraq had frequent connections with terrorists in general, and with other activity that might be considered terrorism, the committee found no evidence to link Iraq with September 11 in any way.

I understand the Republican analysis to be this:
1. Al Qaeda planned and executed the September 11 attack, which was an act of terrorism.
2. Iraq planned and executed acts of terrorism in other places and at other times.
3. Al Qaeda talked with Iraqi agents.
4. Therefore Iraq was involved in September 11, or might as well have been, and the fact that the committee found no evidence to connect Iraq with September 11 merely shows how well Iraq hid its tracks.

Would the same kind of logic support this conclusion:

1. Al Qaeda planned and executed the September 11 attack, which was an act of terrorism.
2. Operatives of Al Qaeda relied on receiving permits and visas from the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
3. Over the two years before the attack, members of Al Qaeda had regular contacts with agents of the INS.
4. Therefore the INS is connected to the September 11 attacks.

Come to think of it, the President may believe this; he destroyed the INS also.

We're eating half their lobsters

The June 2004 Vogue (not one of my usual sources) contains an article on restaurant chains, which includes the fascinating tidbit that the Red Lobster chain buys half the lobster output of the nation of Belize. United Fruit Company would be proud.

Martha Stewart rolls the dice

Not in Johnny Boston's club, but down at the federal courthouse. A brief recap, for anyone who doesn't read the papers or who can't tell taupe paint from sienna: Ms. Stewart was convicted on a rather picayune charge arising out of her sale of ImClone stock after its president told her stockbroker to sell everything fast. She was just sentenced to five months in prison followed by five months of house arrest and two years of probation. She also has to pay a fine of about $50,000, which is large by Laquedem standards but small compared to the $95 million that her stock in her own company appreciated when her sentence was pronounced.

If she appeals her conviction and wins, the appellate court will likely send her back to be retried. She'll probably get a different judge. If she's convicted, the new judge is not limited to sentencing her to the five plus five, but can give her any sentence up to the maximum, which is several years in Club Fed. If she doesn't appeal, but serves her five months, her company can keep going without her for that long, knowing that she'll be back soon (no different, really, than if she had major surgery and spent several months at home recovering). If she appeals and wins, then she's out of commission for another year dealing with the retrial and the potential of receiving a longer sentence.

What's a domestic diva to do?

I predict that she will quietly drop her appeal and go serve her sentence in the slow season next year, so that she can get back to the shop in time to pick colors for Christmas 2005. For if her company goes under, she's out about $400 million, which is a lot of money to risk on the vagaries of the next judge in line.

Jim Jordan's Bulldozing

Now and then when I read the Daily Journal of Commerce, I recall Jim Jordan, who for perhaps 50 years wrote a column in that newspaper about the gossip in the construction industry, called "Bulldozing," stopping the week before he died in his late 80s. He told the story about being the male romantic lead in a forgettable movie years and years before, and then going to the theater with some friends to watch his performance. When the scene came on in which he kissed the leading lady, he laughed, because he knew he had been awkward when filming that scene. The man in front of him turned around and told him to shut up, not knowing that he was talking to the lead actor. Mr. Jordan shut up.

As Mr. Jordan put it years later, "I learned that even when you are the star, you dare not laugh at your own efforts."

We've had a number of politicians in the past who were able to laugh at their own efforts: Mildred Schwab comes to mind as a relatively recent example; George Baker (mayor in the 1920s) was the local exemplar. We could use a few more today.

Ties go to the dealer

Bush and Kerry are likely to run close in a number of states this year (Oregon among them), as [Sam Eureka caught this one] Bush and Gore did in 2000, when they essentially tied in Florida. As Bush was held to have won 537 more votes, he received all of Florida's electoral votes, and won the national election.

The July 17 Economist asks an interesting question: what if Bush and Kerry tie in the Electoral College vote (269 each), or more precisely, what if neither one of them wins 270 electoral votes? The constitution provides that if no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives elects the President from among the top three vote-getters. ("Top three vote-getters" means among the electoral votes, not the popular vote, so if Ralph Nader doesn't get one electoral vote, then he would not be on the House ballot even if he wins 5% or 10% of the popular vote.) The catch is that each state -- not each representative -- gets one vote, and Republicans hold a majority of the seats in 30 states. The House would elect Bush unless a lot of seats change hands in November. (Further detail: although the President takes office on January 20, 2005, the new senators and representatives take office on January 1, and the House election would be in January, so the newly-elected legislators would be casting the votes.)

The vice-president, on the other hand, is selected by the Senate, of which Dick Cheney will be the presiding officer until January 20. He gets to break ties.

Isaac's speculation for the day: let's say that Bush and Kerry each win states that give them 269 electoral [not 29; thanks to Kari for catching my typo) votes. Knowing that the House would pick Bush, the Democrats might consider instructing some of their Electoral College delegates to vote for some other prominent Republican in the hope of splitting some of the Republican votes -- in effect putting a third candidate on the House's ballot. I don't know if any prominent Republican would attract House votes from Bush, but it certainly bears thinking about.