FISA, Immunity, Pardons, and Luthor Collins

The recent discussions about immunity in the context of the FISA bill have stirred up a great deal of frustration among people who have been shocked or disapproving of the Bush administration’s apparent cavalier attitude to complying with the law. This resentment no doubt provides some of the fuel for the populist movement that seems to be carrying Obama along. Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed to me frustration that there is not even any meaningful investigation of the charges. The administration does not have immunity but it does seem to operate with impunity.

Part of the public’s outrage about FISA relates to the appearance of hypocrisy. The same law-and-order people who advocate strong criminal sentencing standards advocate immunity for the corporate officials whose conduct apparently involved violation of constitutional rights on a massive scale. The sense of hypocrisy is heightened by the color and class distinctions between the criminal justice defendants and the corporate miscreants.

This frustration is very deep and involves what appears to be a failure of our system of checks and balances. The Republican Congress during the first six years of the Bush administration is widely seen as having allegiance to party over country or over the citizens of the country. During this time effort seemed to be directed to covering up the regularly occurring scandals. The two years of Democratic control of Congress have not been signifiantly different in terms of rendering people in the executive branch accountable for their transgressions. The FISA bill in granting immunity for illegal domestic surveillance was profoundly disillusioning for many. It went beyond disregarding disreputable behavior to condoning it.

FISA’s defender’s chant “national security” and to my knowledge there is nothing more than this rather empty slogan to support the position, a slogan that I had thought was used so much by the Nixon administration that it would not be heard again in connection with domestic activity. This slogan has also been used to justify the treatment of detainees and has been gradually rejected by the courts. Without anything to back it up it is just a slogan famously used around the world throughout the twentieth century. People need more substance to the claim for it to have traction outside of Congress.

The defenders of FISA point out that the guilty can still be prosecuted for crimes that were committed but few doubt that Bush will pardon everyone before leaving office. He, however, can only pardon for federal crimes and at least in theory any enterprising attorney general could investigate and prosecute under state law for crimes committed against its citizens. I doubt that anyone believes this will happen.

Bush is likely to pardon everyone in his administration, making the investigations promised by Obama unlikely. If McCain is elected he would not conduct investigations at all, at least as far as I know. The only way the Bush could be prevented from pardoning everyone would be for him to be impeached. If he were impeached, he could not grant pardons during the process. There appears to be no chance that this might happen.

Thus it appears that this itch to see criminal conduct exposed, or at least investigated, and punished will go unscratched regardless of the party favored in the next election. This rather sorry state of affairs is not without local precedent.

Civilization came to the Seattle area in the middle of the nineteenth century. Settlers first arrives on Alki, then some came to what is now the downtown area. A few located near the mouth of the Duwamish River between the two camps. Civilization, as everyone knows, requires government and the settlers were quick to elect a commissioner: Luthor Collins, our first governmental official. Two years after his arrival he was arrested for lynching a Native American. His civic leadership may have contributed to the dismissal of the charge. Later, having rooted himself in the administration of local affairs, he lynched two Native Americans and presumably it was his his august stature that prevented charges from being made.

Bush on Iraq civil war: what?

When Bush was asked whether we are in the middle of a civil war instead of fighting terror, his response I found baffling. He seems to say that terrorists are behind the civil war but what does that mean in terms of foreign policy? We will intercede in civil wars instigated by terrorists? I believe I’ve read quite a bit about how this civil war could have been averted with any sort of coherent post-Sadam strategy. In any case doesn’t this policy more or less deprive us of initiative and leave us reacting to terrorists?

Protect Yourself When Buying a Home in Washington

Making an offer on a house is such a tense experience and so pregnant with the possibility of surprises and disappointments, that I thought I’d discuss residential purchase and sales transactions outside of the foreclosure context.

Tuesday the Washington Court of Appeals published a case out of Pierce County that illustrates some of the confusion in the Courts about a buyer’s remedies. The decision is called Stieneke v. Russi. The facts are not terribly unusual but they represent every buyer’s fear.

The Steineke’s found a home they liked in Gig Harbor, signed a purchase and sale agreement with an inspection contingency and then received a “Seller’s Disclosure Statement” (sometimes called form 17), as required by law. The inspector gave clean bill of health, but said that he could not inspect the roof. The disclosure statement said that there had been no difficulties with the roof and the seller, Russi, assured them that he had not had any problems with the roof.

The buyer’s closed, had the roof pressure treated and began enjoying their new home . . . until it rained. Their house was inundated causing damage to the interior. The trial court had no problem awarding damages but the Court of Appeals was not so generous.

The court’s analysis strongly disfavors buyers. It held that there was no breach of contract because the contract did not say anything about the roof and it had an integration clause that said there were no other agreements. The Seller’s Disclosure Statement said that it was not part of the contract so the false statements in that form could not create a breach of contract. The court indicated that there might be no remedy for false disclosures because of the wording on the form.

The buyers also sued in tort, claiming misrepresentation and fraud. The Court held that the economic lass rule (which I’ll discuss another time) barred any remedy for misrepresentation. Fraud has a very high standard of proof and the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court to determine if the standard of proof for fraud had been met.

Hopefully there will be review of this case by the State Supreme Court because there is some conflict among the cases as the the legal status of the disclosure statement.

Meanwhile buyers ought to guard against this happening to them. The first rule of thumb is to always get a seller’s representations in writing. The lesson of this case is that all writings, including the seller’s disclosure statement should be made a part of the contract. This can be done on the face of the statement.

Finally, scrutinize those statements and follow up with questions and require written answers.

Environmentalism and the Nazis

In the 1950’s communists were said to be infiltrating the government and the entertainment industry, as well as operating under several fronts. The McCarthy era ended when the demagoguery was challenged and the true charlatans were identified. While it lasted, though, it was a ticket to political prominence.

In the last few years some people have taken to identifying environmentalists as Nazis. This is actually done on national television and similar venues; we have almost grown to expect it in political campaigns. Such fear and hate mongering seems to be efficacious. You would think that it would backfire, but there must be more people swayed by it than repulsed.

On national media in 2006 Al Gore was compared to Nazi propagandist Goebbels and to Hitler for his success in publicising global warming. (It is a bit ironic that the people who diminish the Holocaust in this way tend to be Israel’s most zealous supporters.) On CNN Senator Inhofe actually described Gore’s testimony to the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Utilities in that manner with the concurrence of Glenn Beck, the host.

In 2007 Fox News Radio continued the Gore/Hitler diatribe. CNN continued to transmit unbelievable comparisons to Hitler and Nazis. Glenn Beck recently said that Gore’s global warming campaign is like Hitler’s use of eugenics to justify exterminating 6 million European Jews.

With the new report on global warming just out, a report subscribed to about a dozen scientific groups associated with our government, doesn’t this treatment of science remind you of earlier, more primitive, periods of history?  Imagine: A world wide scientific conspiracy.  Really?

The hate and fear mongering diatribes are uniformly nothing more than name calling. There is no real rebuttal. Scientists picked “An Inconvenient Truth” apart pretty thoroughly finding some questionable facts and theatrics that suggested an unsupported conclusion. A UK judge found nine factual errors in the film.

But scientists and the British judiciary (one member anyway) agree that the film is rooted in good science and its overall message is supported by sound scientific theory and belief. This was known in 2007 and then Gore got a Nobel Peace Prize along with a U.N. panel of scientists investigating global warming. This, if anything, seemed to fan the flames of hate mongers.

This very odd discourse about environmentalism is probably the progeny of a pseudo-intellectual eddy in revisionist history. People are actually positing that environmentalism is a Nazi program, sort of like “Boys from Brazil.” This theory has been debunked by legitimate historians and even the people who are credited with originating this view disclaim any association with it.

A couple of years ago Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” appeared. This book seemed to revitalize the “environmentalism is fascism” diatribe, although Goldberg claimed to have written nothing that was intended to suggest such a thing. The book sold well to mixed reviews. It was celebrated by conservative reviewers and panned by others.

The book’s thesis, behind all the pseudo-intellectual blather, is essentially Libertarian: Fascism means governmental regulation and liberalism means governmental regulation; therefore liberalism is fascist. Environmentalists want governmental regulation therefore they are fascists too. For proof just look at Nazi Germany where environmentalism was born. Nazis called themselves the national socialist party therefore socialists are fascists. Socialists are liberals. Very simple-minded stuff hiding in a lot of jargon.

This silly word parsing though unhinges people like those at the Building Industry Association of Washington who have made a habit of labeling anyone opposing their views as Nazis. In March their newsletter, in addition to more conventional name calling, called the Washington State Department of Ecology Nazis and lumped all environmentalists under that moniker.

This set off a local firestorm culminating in and Anti Defamation League demand for a retraction or apology. The B.I.A.W. of course refuses claiming the article (written by its storm drain columnist) is academically grounded. The B.I.A.W. is widely regarded as the Washington State Republican Party’s attack dog and neither the party nor any of its candidates has attempted to separate from this absurd propaganda machine.

The Mariners: It’s captain can’t tell which way the wind’s blowing.

Recently I have been writing about conscienceless scammers who profit off the hopes of the innocence.  These are people who take money from others knowing that their hopes will inevitably lead to despair.  This brings the Mariners to mind.  Having now sunk into the familiar mire of inadequacy, the team is a touchstone for reflection rather than an opportunity for exultation.  (Mariner fans tend to be a rather reflective lot, finding pleasure in subtle aspects of the game rather the coarse, fist raising rush of victory.)

I have heard an endless stream of suggestions about what the manager should have done and what players didn’t do, but this is just nervous chatter from fans fearful that we have begun another decade or two of bleak futility.  People tend to fixate on the symptoms of a problem. The Mariners organization, however, has been uniquely resistance to addressing the reason for its malaise.

A dispassionate observer would view the problem as systemic.  Question: what has been a constant from the Mariner’s hopeless performance in the 1980’s through changes of ownership to their current trampling of expectations.  Answer:  Chuck Armstrong.  He is an academically successful, socially able, business oriented non-baseball person.  He came to the Mariners from Stanford without any meaningful background in baseball.  A biographer would would not focus on his ability to lead a baseball team, but his remarkable ability to ingraciate himself to the boards of directors that have shifted with time and change of ownership.

In recent years, since moving to Safeco, there has also been success in business.  To a substantial degree Safeco’s draw assures business success independent of the team’s woeful fortunes.  This of course is transient, as the sparse crowds at Jacobs Field show.  The “Jake” was the first of the neo-historical fields that proved to be fan magnates.

Item two: Howard Lincoln, hired during the team’s Renaissance period in 1999, and another non-baseball man.  To me the term “non-baseball man” means a person whose uncompromising fealty is owed to the board of directors, who measures success solely by the bottom line.  In corporate jargon this person has no sense of the “customer” or the customer’s relationship with the product, except indirectly through measurements of the revenue stream.

Lincoln is the poster child of non-baseball baseball executives.  Revenue measurements are never an adequate substitute for a real sense of the corporation’s business and they have betrayed Lincoln.  The revenue from the field gave Lincoln a smug complacency which he exhibited in an interview in which he indicated that his goal for the team was that the Mariners be good enough for high attendance.  This drove Lou Pinella crazy.  As Art Thiel’s book point’s out Lincoln’s ego did not leave room in the organization for Pinella.  When Lincoln felt that he had a documented breach of the chain of command, Pinella was history.)  Lincoln refused to do the small  things that that required budgetary tweeks but would put the team over the top and assure continued success.  Remember Pinella’s continual dirge about the lack of a left handed bat?  With crowds flocking to Safeco, Lincoln maintained the status quo into oblivion.  He did subsequently modify his rigid adherence to a budget but it was too late.  As if in penance, he now flaunts this new “flexibilty” in a kind of random grab of free agent superstars.

Riddle

What do Pakistan, United States, Russia, China, India, and Israel have in common? Each of them refused to sign theinternational humanitarian accord outlawing cluster bombs. Fortunately 111 other countries joined in the accord. These six countries are manufacturers of cluster bombs. Israel used cluster bombs most recently on a massive scale in its invasion of Lebanon. The U.S. used to describe itself as an international moral beacon. Don’t hear that much any more.

Reverend Wright in Perspective

It’s not entirely clear to me why there is a great stir about Reverend Wright’s statements in the context of the Democratic nomination but it appears that some of it is not terribly well informed. This seems to be characteristic of discussions that bridge politics and religion and I’m not convinced that information has a tempering influence on the fury of this discussion but for what it’s worth here’s some perspective on the matter.

I suspect that people who are influenced by this “YouTube moment” (if there really are any such people), are not among other things terribly conversant with American theological traditions and their interplay with American history. For some it may come as a surprise that the people who had been held in slavery here, long after the institution was condemned in Europe, were not universally overcome with the glee of eternal gratitude for being recognized as human beings.

There seem to be two main currents in African American thought about the role of blacks in America. (I am reluctant to express this generalization because there are countless variations on these themes.) There is the anti-segregation/assimilationist approach which is most famously represented by Reverend Martin Luther King. This view calls attention to social injustice and strongly identifies with oppressed people everywhere. Faith provides the strength and hope necessary to overcome such things as institutionalized racism.

Marcus Garvey articulated another view: black separatism or black nationalism. This approach in varying degrees renounces white society and maintains that blacks have the best chance of succeeding outside of white society. Garvey advocated going to Liberia. Garvey was shocking in his day and now has parks, streets and monuments named after him. Malcolm X, until he went to Mecca and found peace in Islam, was associated with this way of thinking, particularly the part about renunciation of white society. In white society — and not so much in black — Malcolm X was regarded as off-the-charts radical, a dreadful figure as he was portrayed by the media. He was widely feared and loathed but has since been the hero in a popular movie and is now mentioned in polite society. His autobiography is no longer scandalous and seems to be generally read.

There has long been a Christian tradition called liberation theology, which places emphasis on Jesus as the savior of the oppressed. Christianity is seen as a vehicle for personal salvation and social reform. Most recently this this was featured in the media in the context of the Catholic Church’s involvement with the peasants of Central America, resulting in the slaughter of clergy and the Church’s abandonment (at least in Rome) of the cause.

In the 1960’s the mix of the civil rights movement and Liberation Theology gave root to a theological school known generally as Black Liberation Theology. This view took root predictably enough in some black churches and emphasized — unlike Reverend Martin Luther King — the moral quality of institutional action, including governmental action, which harmed the poor and oppressed or which favored the wealthy. I’m sure this is a terrible simplification but I see Black Liberation Theology as Liberation Theology in America. Instead of looking at Central America, Black Liberation Theology held the mirror up to this country. Government action was examined under the light of Christian principles and the words of Jesus. This was done with a verve that is characteristic of black churches.

This moral examination of government is of course a long-standing American tradition, invoked when it is politically expedient. God was invoked to declare independence. When slavery was condemned by other countries around the world, the Bible — or rather certain passages of it — were invoked in America to sustain the institution. The Bible was also invoked to end slavery. The only justification for the invasion of Iraq that has not been irrefutably disproved is Bush’s contention that God told him to do it. (Later of course because of this and other policies Bush’s church disclaimed him.) Black Liberation Theology though is a lot more than an attempt to justify something morally. It is a systematic evaluation of policies by a set of well established criteria, done in church with exuberance.

The person usually identified as a founder of Black Liberation Theology is Dr. James H. Cone, a faculty member of the Union Theological Seminary, and a highly respected theologian. This school has been around long enough that it is now a very much accepted part of American culture.

Calling for the damnation of countries is old hat. Remember the general who lectured in churches that America was launched on a holy war against the 1.3 billion Muslims? He was a high ranking member of the military but Bush’s association with him didn’t cause the comments to be attributed to anyone else. During the cold war it was routine for conservative Christian leaders to call for, or refer to, God’s damnation of communist countries. There is certainly nothing inconsistent with this about calling on God to judge our country negatively (to “damn”) with respect to policies violative of Christian belief, as viewed by a church pastor. Some Christians — not Christian theologians — have, however, conflated God and USA. In doing this they endorse the notion of evaluating countries morally. But in confusing God and country these people succumb to to idolatry, decidedly un-Christian.

A good thing about Black Liberation Theology and Liberation Theology is that Jesus the Redeemer is not sacrificed for Jesus the Reformer. Those who have sinned can be redeemed. In the case of countries this would be through good acts.

The Foreclosure Crisis

There is a lot in the news these days about the real estate industry and the breath-taking number of home foreclosures. As the number of foreclosures spiraled upward nationally, Washington was said to be relatively protected from this trend. We are now however rapidly climbing the ladder of state rankings in number of foreclosures per capita.There are two aspects of this crisis that receive a great deal of attention.

First the lending practices of banks are roundly assailed now. Our legislature just passed laws curtailing certain home lending practices of state regulated institutions. On the national level Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just signed an agreement that says they will not accept a loans based on an appraisal originating at the bank. This will affect the industry and should serve to delay closings a bit, at least in the short term. In order to help a stagnating home lending industry the FHA has revised its rules.There has also been publicity about foreclosure rescue scams, the practice of preying on people going through a foreclosure by taking their title to their homes, paying off the defaulted mortgage, renting the home to the former owner and eventually evicting the former homeowner. This is structured so that the “rescuer” receives all of the equity in the house and the home owner receives nothing. This term our legislature passed laws closely controlling this activity.

Something that has received almost no attention is the research into fraudulent practices of borrowers, usually home buyers. The Mortgage Bankers Association announced a report that attributes a portion of the current crisis to fraudulent credit applications. The most frequent false statements in credit application in 2007 related to employment history and income. There were also a great number of false statements related to the borrower’s intention ot occupy the home. It should be anticipated that there will be heightened scrutiny in those areas.

Illegal Immigrants’ Rights in Court

How do you feel about the question of whether an illegal immigrant should have the right to sue? Suits after all cost the county a lot of money. Not only that but the suit would presumably involve seeking an award against a lawful citizen, who would have to bear the expense of defense. We have been informed that the state budget for the courts is already critically low and this would create a further burden on the system. Thankfully, the answer to this question is “yes, they do have this right.” In this country there is not a class of residents who can be harmed or abused by others with impunity. To deny a class of people access to the courts is to render members of that class something akin to slaves.

Washington among all the states is very conservative in jury awards. The amount of damages juries parcel out is lower here than many other jurisdictions. Many states have punitive damages for egregious behavior but there is no such thing is Washington. (There is a limited right under the Consumer Protection Act (triple the amount of actual damages up to $10,000) and finally insurance companies that act in bad faith can now be penalized, but nothing is available in the usual lawsuit.) You combine low jury awards with the absence of punitive damages and you have to put Washington on the other end of the spectrum from say California (the land of milk and honey for plaintiffs).

There is another factor at play here. After 9/11 juries, at least in King County, shifted strongly toward the defense in lawsuits. They more frequently found against plaintiffs and tended to award lower amounts. Geography and current events play a large role in jury results.

Right now national security and immigration policy are hot topics and the two overlap. Mention of a party’s status as an illegal immigrant is potentially incendiary in the minds of a jury. With many juries this would create a strong bias against the person.

So the legal issue of the day is whether a person’s immigration status should be admitted in evidence. This is mainly resolved by determining whether it is relevant and relevance is determined by weighing probative value against prejudicial effect. A person’s immigration status is not a necessary element of any normal defense. (You can’t get off by saying “Sure I ran over the guy but he didn’t have his papers.”) All things being equal then a defendant does not have a right to inform the jury that the plaintiff is an illegal immigrant.

But it gets into evidence in other ways. An illegal immigrant in court must be careful about what he asks for. Monday the Washington Court of Appeals, Division I, held in Salas v. Hi-Tech Erectors, that if the plaintiff asks for lost future wages, the defendant can explain that he is an illegal immigrant, even though the admission of this evidence reduces his chance to win anything at all. This is an issue that various states courts are dealing with and one the Washington courts are likely to need to refine.

This decision affects the lives of similarly situated people. The case involved the construction industry which employs a disproportionately large portion of the illegal alien community in part because many will work for less than scale, many will take cash under the table and Mexican illegals are famous in the industry for working in inhospitable conditions and working extremely hard; they are highly valued workers.

Mr. Salas was working under illegally dangerous conditions (the construction company was cited) and was seriously injured. Serious injury to most illegal aliens means they will not be able to earn a living, either here or anywhere else. If they can no longer work and cannot recover for this lost income, courts do not offer a great deal of help to them.

This creates potential for abuse by employers. Many employers are already giving these people less money than they would have to pay for someone else’s work and many are already asking them to work in unsafe conditions. An employer’s knowledge that as a practical matter his employees cannot recover lost wages in the event of serious injury may serve as a disincentive to improve those conditions.

Roger Clemens and Partisan Politics

In 2006, when the Democrats threw off the shackles of being the minority party and took control of the House there was a lot of talk about how Henry Waxman was going to get to the bottom of the scandals and controversies that beset the federal government almost daily. He was a very tough cookie who would unearth and bring to light the clandestine nefarious conduct that was dragging our nation down. Well, we have finally seen the product of these mighty labors: Roger Clemens probably took steroids or human growth hormones! One thing is absolutely clear after Mr. Waxman’s public hearings: Mr. Clemens certainly has not been taking extension classes or drugs to enhance his mental acuity.

As pitchers age, they typically lose a few feet off their fastball, meaning it doesn’t go as far in the same period of time as it once did. If it once took the ball say 0.38 seconds to get to the plate, when the pitcher reaches his thirties 0.38 seconds after the ball leaves his hand it is still arriving at the plate instead of being safely tucked into the catcher’s glove. In order to compensate for this loss of velocity an older pitcher relies on the vast store of knowledge about hitters that he has accumulated over years of pitching. He becomes a wily veteran. (Left handers become crafty veterans.)

Clemens did not follow this paradigm. As any baseball card collector knows, Clemens’ career followed the recent trend set by Barry Bonds, the home run king. In his thirties he became bulkier, bigger than his predecessors at his position, and achieved staggering statistics. (Each of them had excellent stats to begin with.) Instead of declining in the August years of his career, Clemens like Bonds, improved as if the historical curve of productivity over the number of seasons played had been turned upside down. Until he left Boston after a dozen years as a power pitcher with a high number of innings, Clemens’ career seemed to be on the downward side of the historical productivity curve. At ages 30, 31 and 32 he was injured and his number of innings-pitched declined each successive season. Finally at age 33 he had a losing season and appeared to be through at least as a staff ace. Then the resurgence in Toronto. His “high performance years” were the dozen years that he spent in Boston, earning three Cy Young awards among many other awards. That was amazing but it was incredible that he won four Cy Youngs after leaving Boston at the age of 34!

Any viewer of Mr. Waxman’s hearings was able to eliminate one possible explanation of Mr. Clemens’ career revival after leaving Boston. He is neither crafty nor wily. One would generally not associate his mental activity with success of any sort.

The most interesting aspect of these hearings was that they were partisan. Partisan! Can you believe it! Republicans generally undertook to defend the honor of Mr. Clemens and attack his accuser, Brian McNamee. Most Democrats, such as Representative Waxman, were hostile to Clemens and approving of his accuser. How on earth did this become a partisan issue? I wonder how the parties line up on other pressing issues of the day like who should win American Idol, why doesn’t Britney behave, what can be done to bring back the sparkle to the Oscars, why does Ann Coulter have such a big adam’s apple?

The easy explanation is that each party recognized Mr. Clemens as a person whose financial interests are championed by Republicans. He does after all demand twenty million dollars to participate in a six month season or a portion of one. This is not big stuff compared to war profiteering but it admits you to the circle.

Maybe the notoriously lame Democrats are hunting for some icon that they can take down. This might be some sort of feast of sublimation. When confronted with their record of futility in investigations, they can say “Whud’ya mean, did you see us handle Clemens?”

Maybe the Republican see a disciple of their the-end-justifies-the-means philosophy. Clemens sought wealth and fame and broke the rules to get there. After his a ascension a bunch of nit pickers bring up the rules. What is important is that he made it, not how. Its like pumping up reasons to invade a country, granting no-bid war contracts, torture and stuff like that. It’s an emergency so shuddup.

On the other hand the Democrats might be resentful that Clemens actually did something. Their champion would be the player who couldn’t convince himself to take steroids (clearly a minority), but who would never think of identifying those who did, particularly late in the season.

The Republicans certainly must admire the enduring nature of Clemens career. There is no end in sight. Right after 9/11 our vice president told us that it would probably take about eighty years to eradicate terrorism from the face of the earth. (This certainly seems like reasonable estimate.) More recently Mr. McCain has told us that it might take one hundred years just to triumph on Iraq front of the global war on terror. Nearly perpetual war for hopefully perpetual peace in an arguably Orwellian society. Maybe Clemens’ chemical fueled fastball is a symbol of the petroleum sucking war. Who knows? (The prevailing theory of what we are doing in Iraq is that this massively fuel-consuming activity is for the sake of securing the supply of the resource depleted by the activity.)

I’m not sure what subliminal message Clemons carried that caused the committee members to line up according to party but somewhere in all that there is a clue to what is going on in Washington D.C.