A Solo Dialogue
IT MAY NEVER END - Miami has decided to wait until Monday to make a decision about either joining the ACC or staying in the Big East. All I can say is . . . thank you, Donna Shalala. Not because it gives (false) hope to Big East fans (although it does), but because it gives me a few more days to opine on this topic.
Apparently the Big East made some type of counteroffer. What it was, we don't know, but it was at least enough to get Miami to have a second thought. (Of course, this could be their way of getting back at both the Big East and the ACC, by giving (false) hope to one, and making the other sweat a bit.)
SUPREMES FINAL SONG - The Supreme Court issued their final rulings of the year, invalidating sodomy laws in Texas, and in loosing the Voting Rights Act restrictions on redistricting. I'll have more comments on the Voting Rights decision later.
Also, there are some very persistent rumors that O'Connor may announce her retirement very soon. That would make for an explosive summer, since her "moderate" position on the court would be something the Democrats would have to fight to keep.
BIG EAST/ACC FINALE - The ACC Presidents finally voted last night and, in a, stunner, voted to expand with only Miami and Va. Tech, a previously unmentioned possibility. (Although I did suggest this possibility to a co-worker who went to BC on Monday.) Assuming that both schools accept, (and there is no reason that they wouldn't, except that Miami wanted BC and Syracuse because of its Northeast Alumni base) it creates a whole new set of problems for the Big East, because they just lost their two best football schools.
Frankly, this move makes sense: Miami was never a Big East school (geographically or basketball-wise) and Va. Tech always wanted to be a ACC school anyway. It sticks it to Syracuse and BC, but they can survive the hit, because they don't have a choice. The Big East will have to go to some type of radical realignment now, probably adding two football schools (Louisville and Marshall(?)) and two basketball schools (Marquette and Xavier or DePaul), and creating some type of basketball superconference. Louisville looks like a lock to join and would both add football and basketball credibility.
Bottom line: The move hurts the Big East because it doesn't assure the conference a BCS bid when the BCS come back up for renegotiation in 2005 or 2006, but it also doesn't decimate the heart of the Big East. The ACC strengthens its football program by adding two powerhouses, but has lost some integrity in the basketball program, by watering down the league with mediocre to bad basketball schools and losing the ability for all schools to schedule home and home games. I can live with this, and so I think can most Big East or ACC fans.
(They don't have anything as of this moment, but
PostingUp should have some commentary and links, as well.)
(Also of note to Big East fans, after three years of a two-division basketball format, the Big East has decided to revert to a one-division format for the 2003-04 season. Each team will play a 16-game conference schedule under the new format, with every team playing each other once and three teams competing twice. Each team will play eight games at home and eight on the road.)
THANKS - Thank you to
Outside the Beltway for the mention on his blog. Can't say I always agree with the opinions, but always makes for intersting reading.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION UPHELD - The Supreme Court did indeed issue their opinions in the U. of Michigan cases today. In a way it split the baby, upholding the Law School admission policy, while striking down the undergraduate admission policy.
But more importantly, in a very well written and compelling opinion by Justice O’Connor, it upheld diversity in education as a compelling state interest. You can read the 5-4 majority decision
here.
In part the majority opinion says:
Our conclusion that the Law School has a compelling interest in a diverse student body is informed by our view that attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School’s proper institutional mission, and that good faith on the part of a university is presumed absent a showing to the contrary..
As part of its goal of assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse, the Law School seeks to enroll a critical mass of minority students. The Law School’s interest is not simply to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin. That would amount to outright racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional. Rather, the Law School’s concept of critical mass is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.
These benefits are substantial. As the District Court emphasized, the Law School’s admissions policy promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, and enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.
These benefits are important and laudable, because classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting when the students have the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.
. . .
Narrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative. Nor does it require a university to choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence or fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial groups. . . . Narrow tailoring does, however, require serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.
. . .
It has been 25 years since Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education. Since that time, the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
Justice O’Connor’s decision is a fairly powerful defense of affirmative action, especially in fields like education where there is a compelling need for diversity not only for the good of minority groups, but for the majority as well.
Politically, this is the best decision. It upholds affirmative action in concept, but strikes down the undergraduate policy of giving more points to race than to SAT scores.
UPDATE - The undergrad decision can be read
here.
RULING TODAY? - Rumor has it that there might be a decision in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases today.
POLITICAL PREDICTIONS - I set up a separate site to handicap the 2004 races and just put up my first post. You can
visit it here.
THE TIDE IS HIGH - When George Will
starts worrying about missing WMDs you know the tide is beginning to turn.
This is an issue which will continue to get a little bigger, a little at a time, until it threatens the biggest asset Junior has - that the American people believe what he says. If he loses that asset, the public will begin looking at his policies, which generally are not as popular as he is. People will not vote against Junior because we don't find WMDs, but if we don't find any, the public will look a little more critically at what he does, rather than what he says. This is not a position that any politician really wants to be in before an election.
D'OH - This really says more about the British, than about how America is viewed overseas, but
Homer Simpson was voted the greatest American in an online BBC poll, beating Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln and Mr. T. (Junior didn't even make the final top 10 list, which does tell me something about how we are viewed overseas.)
MORE BIG EAST/ACC - So yesterday the ACC Presidents have yet another conference call and still nothing happens. Two schools (Wake Forest and NC State) appear to be getting nervous about the whole thing; one (North Carolina) suggests just adding Miami; one (UVa.) has turned a huge political problem at home into a win for them; and apparently at least 4 schools aren't willing to amend the ACC bylaws to approve expansion with only 6 votes. But in the end there are still more questions than answers.
At this point there appear to be 5 possible endings:
1) Nothing happens - not very likely because the ACC gets all the bad press and none of the benefits.
2) ACC adds Miami - Miami wants BC and Syracuse, and a 12 team league. Unless the ACC can guarantee further expansion in the next couple of years Miami probably would say no to this.
3) 12 team ACC - Va. Tech gets added instead of BC or Syracuse.
4) 13 team ACC - Va. Tech gets added too. This is a scheduling nightmare and makes it look even more that the ACC was just out to destroy the Big East.
5) 14 or 16 team ACC - ACC adds Va. Tech, and any of the following UConn, Pitt, W. Virginia, Louisville or East Carolina - This is really thinking outside the box, and probably would be hard to do before June 30, the seeming drop-dead date.
I think the most likely possibility right now is #3 -- it may be the only option that can get enough votes. The interesting question is whether either Syracuse or BC might even reject such an offer because there would be substantial travel. (Hello East Carolina!)
I have no idea what will happen next, the twists and turns have been pretty dramatic. One day it looks like expansion is a done deal, the next it looks dead in the water.
Just got back from vacation and see that two of my favorite topics (Big East/ACC tussle and Texas redistricting) still have not been resolved -- lucky me.
SCANDAL? - Playing up fears that the average voter has about the almost unchecked influence that corporations now have in Washington is the best avenue the Democrats have for taking back majorities in either the Senate or the House in 2004. Stories like campaign contributions by Westar for favorable legislation, and this newest story
about the House Majority Whip inserting provisions favorable to Phillip Morris without any hearings, certainly help to bolster this attempt.
The Washington Post reports that:
"Only hours after Rep. Roy Blunt was named to the House's third-highest leadership job in November, he surprised his fellow top Republicans by trying to quietly insert a provision benefiting Philip Morris USA into the 475-page bill creating a Department of Homeland Security, according to several people familiar with the effort."
"The new majority whip, who has close personal and political ties to the company, instructed congressional aides to add the tobacco provision to the bill — then within hours of a final House vote — even though no one else in leadership supported it or knew he was trying to squeeze it in."
Ultimately the provision was pulled, but it certainly looks like Phillip Morris used its influence, and the GOP followed the bidding of their “corporate master,” to get something on the sly that otherwise they had no chance of getting passed. This is exactly the "big guy vs. little guy" theme that the Democratic Party needs to keep hitting to chip away at the GOP majorities. Not only does it have good electoral advantages; it provides a good excuse for being obstructionist. I have no doubt, however, that the Democrats will not be able to use this theme without appearing too anti-business. That is a tough line to toe, and the party has not been able to massage this message in the past.
The more interesting questions regard the press. Now that blood is in the water, with not one, but two, stories about possible House GOP impropriety, will they start digging for more?
SUPREME COURT RETIREMENTS - Much like the swallows returning to Capistrano in March, every June brings about tales of Supreme Court retirements in Washington. According to the Washington Times,
it is now unlikely that any Justices will retire this year, of course, the AP reported just two weeks ago that Rehnquist and O'Connor were
mulling retirement, and the New York Times had a story this past weekend about how
liberal and conservative interest groups are preparing for a showdown over potential nominees to the high court.
I think part of the reason that these stories pop up every year is that they are fun to write. There are so many unanswerable questions, and potential twists and turns, that the stories are limited only by the writer's imagination. (It is the equivalent of political writers writing about a brokered convention.)
And it has never been more so than this year. Will the President nominate a true conservative? Will the Senate Democrats threaten a filibuster? Would Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, be too moderate for conservative groups? Would they protest his nomination? Which candidate would help Junior the most politically, a Hispanic, a women, a moderate or a conservative (sound like the beginning of a bad joke)? What would happen to important cases like campaign finance reform, scheduled for oral arguments in September? Would Roe v. Wade be threatened? Could the White House try a recess appointment to get someone on the Court like Robert Bork, who would probably not even get a majority in the Senate? Fun stuff like that.
My two cents - there won't be any retirement this year or next, as long as the Justices’ health stays as it is. Being a Supreme Court Justice is a pretty good gig, and they are very aware of the problems that would be created by a retirement with the atmosphere as poisonous as it currently is, which would probably make it unlikely that a new Justice could be confirmed by September. Accurately predicting the Supreme Court is impossible to do, but it sure is fun.
TEXAS REDISTRICTING MESS -
This article does a pretty good job of summarizing the events as we know them right now. Redistricting seems dead for this year, but the recriminations, especially for Tom DeLay, may last for a time to come. There seems to be enough smoke to keep people digging for something illegal. At the very least, there are likely to be some more embarrassing details for the Majority Leader (although I believe that he is incapable of being embarrassed), and perhaps even the White House. Look for bloggers like
Joshua Micah Marshall to keep up the pressure.
BIG EAST LAWSUIT - You can find a copy of the complaint
here.
D-DAY - Sometime this week will be the make or break moment in the Big East/ACC turf war. On that day, probably Tuesday, the ACC Presidents will hold a conference call and vote on whether or not to invite Miami, BC and Syracuse into the conference, or possible to table expansion. If they vote to invite the schools (and even with the lawsuit, that seems most likely), the schools will then have to decide whether or not to accept the invites.
For the Big East, there are two rosy scenarios: 1) the lawsuit spooks enough of the ACC presidents to vote to either reject expansion, or table it; or 2) Syracuse's angst is real and decides to stay in the Big East, screwing up the expansion plans, and probably keeping them from happening.
I don't rely on rosy scenarios, so I imagine by Friday, the debate will be about which schools should the Big East raid and the resulting chaos that will result.
BIG EAST/ACC LEGAL BATTLE - My first impression of the lawsuit brought by Rutgers, Va Tech, West Virginia, Pitt and UConn was that this was a desperate measure destined to fail and make the schools look pretty silly at the same time.
However, after thinking about a while, I came to appreciate the method to the madness. First, the ACC was caught completely off guard by this move. The have already taken a PR hit for the raid, but one that could be easily survived if the move by Miami, BC and Syracuse happened on Tuesday, as was expected. The court case makes it possible that the timing will be delayed, and keeps the spotlight on the ACC. Second, by suing in Connecticut, they are assured of a friendly venue. (Although I haven’t seen the brief filed by the 5 Big East schools, my opinion from the news reports is that the legal case is mostly garbage.)
There are already two schools (Duke & UNC) on the record against the expansion, and UVa has already voted against inviting BC. It is possible that if the 5 Big East schools can muck up the situation enough to get three ACC schools to say enough is enough.
It’s still a long shot. Realistically, look for the ACC schools to vote on Monday or Tuesday, and announce the acceptance by Miami, BC and Syracuse by Thursday. At that point, I hope the Big East announces what their plan is, which I would hope is already set.
Since it seems unlikely now that there will be a split of football and basketball schools, my suggestion to the Big East is this: add 5 schools (UMass, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville and DePaul); tell Notre Dame that if they want to stay they must play 4 Big East football teams a year; tell UMass that if they want in they must upgrade their football to D1 by 2006; create two divisions for basketball, you play everyone in your division home/away and 4 or 5 games against teams in the other division; the opening round of the Big East tournament is held on campus, for everyone except the top 2 teams in each division.
I’d split the league like this:
East - UMass; UConn; Providence; Notre Dame; DePaul; Central Florida; W. Virginia; Va. Tech.
West - Louisville; Cincinnati; Temple; Villanova; Pitt; St. John's; Georgetown; Seton Hall.
Not too bad for football, pretty good for basketball.
CAMPAIGN CORRUPTION - The remarkable thing about
this Washington Post story reporting questionable campaign contributions, is how unremarkable it is. This is the norm in Washington. You have to pony up the cash to be able to get to the table, even if being at the table doesn't always assure results.
I wonder if this story, combined with John Edwards receiving questionable donations, and the story about
unreported in-kind donations to Jeb Bush and Saxsby Chambliss might revive a movement to give the Federal Elections Commission some independence and some real power. As it is today the FEC is a lap dog that won’t take any actions unless it is blatant, or harmless. They will fine a campaign $15,000, but years after the election and they won’t touch someone who is currently campaigning, like Al Sharpton who was flouted campaign finance laws so much they may as well not apply to him.
I have half-heartedly supported bills like McCain-Feingold because they might make the situation a little better, but I don’t believe that it will really end the problem. People will find the loopholes in the regulations (they have already started with the Section 527 committees) and companies will still feel the need to contribute money so that their views are heard. My fear is that once the Supreme Court has finished choosing what stays and what goes, it will be hard for anyone to understand what the law is, and therefore easy enough to get around the rules.
If (when) that happens, I would probably favor junking all limits, but mandating immediate disclosure. Also give the FEC some teeth to fine campaigns, quickly - say within weeks, that don’t do disclose and make the commissioners more independent. That would lead to real campaign finance reform, and might change the way business is done in Washington, but don't hold your breath.
WELCOME - Welcome to my new nephew Harrison Parrish, born on Tuesday, June 4th.
As most of you know, June 4th was the 62nd Anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of Midway. Also, on that day in 1070, Roquefort cheese was created in a cave near Roquefort, France, and, of interest to his father, in 1927 the US beat England, 9-2 in the 1st Ryders Cup. What a great day to be born!
(Mother and Son are doing well.)
Been sick most of the week, so no entries. I will try to get a few in today.
STATES IN TROUBLE - In case you don't pay attention to the local pages of your newspaper (or if you get your news exclusively form the Internet), there are a whole lotta states in real bad financial shape. While Junior's tax cut get all of the newsplay, the
financial gimmicks being used by the states to balance their budgets are increasing.
In no small part this is because the official line out of Washington is that we can cut taxes, without suffering any cut in services. On the national level, this is troubling, but the results are mostly kicked down the road (or services that the feds used to pay for are no transferred to the state level). On the state and local level, the ability to do this is severely more limited because most states are required to have a balanced budget. (I know that a balanced budget seems so quaint these days, but a one point it seemed real important to everyone, even
Republicans). And for the most part, it’s on the state and local level that people have the most interaction with government. If the feds need to save money they can always cut aid to Turkey, or delay a B-2 bomber, and no one feels the results. When states and towns need to make cuts library hours are cut, or trash pick up delayed. These are the government activities that affect most of us.
As we should have learned in the 80’s (both locally and nationally) using gimmicks in the budgets is something that always has to be paid for down the road. Real political courage requires making the hard sacrifices today, so that we can have a better country, for our children and ourselves, tomorrow.
