Restless Mania

Pick Your Poison

2006-09-27T22:19:00.001-04:00

Think about it. After November 7th, the country will be left in one of two scenarios. A continuation of the GOP status quo, where Congress serves as a rubber stamp (in most cases) for C-plus Augustus and some of his more heinous policies. Or the return of the jack Asses, and their thirst for political retribution for the past 5 or so years of being uninvited to the party.

A government that doesn't believe in fiscal solvency, with a blatant disregard for the environment and by extension the welfare of future generations of Americans, not to mention Americans in the average income brackets. Or a government that will be too embroiled in a "scandal of the day" mentality to notice that the Middle East is only one push of the button away from the coming of the twelfth Imam.

An administration that spends their entire time blaming the mistakes of an incompetent group of yes men on a so-called opposition party so inept at opposing. Or a newly crowned limousine liberal Speaker of the House only slightly more coherent than the current President, and even more painful to watch on C-SPAN.

We're so fucked.

It's Just a Shirt, Man?

2006-07-30T22:22:00.000-04:00

My barber wore a red shirt emblazoned with a solitary star and the hammer and sickle, the symbol of Soviet imperialism. I was annoyed but not moved to rage, so I was going to let it go until he started chatting with me while cutting my hair.

[Please note this is a paraphrase of the dialogue. The actual exchange was a little choppier and used some saltier language]

After a few basic pleasantries I lightheartedly asked, "So you kick it Stalin style, eh?"

He found this amusing and answered, "Nah, it's a cool shirt. So I bought it."

"A cool shirt emblazoned with the symbol of a murderous ideology," I replied.

"Well, I don't believe in Communism. It's just a shirt."

"Well, yeah, now it is since it's been defeated and all, it's just it's a symbol that stands for the Soviet empire which killed millions of its own people and enslaved millions of others."

"Yeah, I think older people get more worked up about it. I wore it once and this older guy gave me this crazy look, like he wanted to kill me. maybe I should be more careful about wearing it in the future."

"Yeah, I will give you that stylistically the design looks cool. But of course its history is a bloody one and its easy for us to forget that with the end of the Cold War and all."

There were a few other exchanges, but it struck me as interesting.

This guy is my age, maybe slightly older (he and I both graduated in 2001 from UMd.-- he has a degree in history)

His point about the shirt "looking cool" has some merit. Like I told him, divorced from the context of the dark annals of Soviet history, the hammer and sickle look kind of cool on a T-shirt. Ditto with Che Guevara T-shirts.

I can see how apolitical people, even those supposedly well-versed in history can wear such a T-shirt with no concern for the implicit agreement with the political ideology represented.

I'm sure this dude would not wear a shirt emblazoned with a swastika. He knows damn well the murderous history and ideology of Nazism and would not want to glorify it, and rightly so.

So why is it that although we have some inkling of Soviet atrocities we as a generation think Red-friendly T-shirts are cool? And beyond that, is it really a big idea?

Does the evolution of Soviet Communism from a global threat to peace and security to a cool T-shirt design in some way pile on to the fundamental weakness of communism which doomed the Iron Curtain to eventually fall with a resounding crash 15 years ago?

I'm inclined to think the latter, although I must confess it does disturb me that we are not as aware as we should be of the sordid history of Soviet imperialism and how it poured salt in the wounds of a world scarred with the scourge of Nazi, Italian, and Japanese fascism.

Let's Play (Your Liberty in) Jeopardy!

2006-07-24T20:42:00.000-04:00

Answer: un-American patriotic idolatry.

Question: What is exemplified by Congress passing and the President signing a bill trashing the obligations of millions of freely-entered-upon business contracts, all in the name of patriotism?

Correct! How much did the politicians wager. You answered: Only the principle of limited , restrained government which embodies the American Republic for which the flag stands.

What the flappin flag are you talking about, Prince?

Why, only this moronic bill:

... legislation signed into law Monday by President Bush, would prohibit neighborhood and town groups from outlawing the American flag. The law is called the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act. It says you can fly the American flag even if your neighborhood says flags in general aren't allowed.

The law will protect Old Glory, but all other decorative flags will still be subject to local regulations.

So let's get this straight: somehow Congress and President Bush read into the Constitution the power to forbid non-governmental community or homeowner organizations from making regulations as to the time, place, and manner of American flag displays in private homes.

Keep in mind these homeowners AGREED to certain covenants and conditions for living in said neighborhood, including the flag restrictions!

How exactly does this work?

I see no place in the Constitution for the federal goernment to trash the sanctity of contracts to make such rules, and I sure as hell don't see warrant in the feds preventing community organizations from making these rules.

Look, I'm no fan of communities like the one in this story out of Apex, N.C. making such regulations binding upon community residents. But that said, it's a local issue, MAYBE even a state issue in terms of legislative or judicial remedy.

Getting the Congress of the United States to pass a law aimed at bringing the heavy hand of Washington to bear on this matter makes sense only if you believe some cockamamie notion like "this is an issue 'affecting' interstate commerce."

As with the misguided attempts to change the Constitution to ban flag desecration, we have here is patriotic grandstanding in an election year yielding legislation that can appeal to the most fervent of patriotic hearts, but should unsettles the deeper reflection the patriotic intellect.

At least with the flag burning controversy, had the proposed Amendment passed out of Congress, it would have faced strong scrutiny in the states and a high threshold (37 states' ratification), before becoming enshrined in the Constitution.

This instance of purported flag protection is a naked power grab by Congress and the President and a lost opportunity to educate the American people as to the nature of true patriotism: standing up for the principle of limited government.

Bush's First Veto: Centrist Policy Arrived at from Conservative Principles

2006-07-20T21:30:00.000-04:00

President Bush's first veto was long overdue. I'd have rather seen his first veto to have been the infamous Farm Bill or the Campaign Finance Reform Act. Nonetheless, Bush's policy direction on stem cell research is perfectly conservative in numerous disciplines within the conservative movement, and his veto should be welcomed by the various streams of conservatism.

1) It is socially conservative, predicated on the sanctity of human life and the unwillingness of the conservative movement to support the financing by tax dollars of morally repugnant research including the destruction of human life, as the President put it, "for spare parts."
2) It is constitutionally/federalistically conservative in that it aims squarely at the federal level. States are free to pursue completely policies. No attempt has or will be made by the President to coerce or blackmail the states on embryonic stem cell policy via federal highway funds or other federal monies.
3) It is economically conservative, advancing and promoting the free market over public entanglement in commerce. Bush's veto doesn't hinder private researchers from conducting stem cell research and that it sends the signal to investors that government will not finance and underwrite any and all research that the private sector can otherwise fund. Liberal critics will warn that funding will dry up without federal involvement, but I very seriously doubt this will be the case. With state, international, and private liberal and corporate financial backing, significant experimentation in embryonic stem cell research can and will continue.

Whether you agree or disagree with the morality of embryonic stem cell research, it's a no-brainer that removing government from interfering in private scientific ventures is crucial to the advancement of science.

At the same time, the federal government setting certain bioethical standards for federal involvement in research can be helpful in guiding the commerical scientific community towards pursuing science under an ethical rubric, comporting voluntarily to moral restraints agreed upon by the body politic.

In the end run, Bush's veto ends up being a moderate, sensible approach to policy that stems from moral, constitutional, and economic conservatism.

House Party

2006-06-30T15:49:00.000-04:00

Bruce Reed gets it very right when it comes to Congressional dysfunction. Some in the more creative segment of the rightwing have long demonized the Senate (and it's damnable Moderate/RINO tendencies) and called for term limits there. I think Reed's piece lets us know we need to start thinking about that with the House, maybe more importantly for the House, given its recent shenanigans and the Supreme Court's celebration of those in one of its earthshattering rulings.

In the House, DeLay launched an unprecedented and successful effort to redraw congressional districts year after year to maximize partisan advantage. If DeLay had gone on to the Senate, he no doubt would have tried to rewrite state boundaries every few years to achieve the highest possible number of red states.

The Supreme Court's refusal this week to overturn the DeLay gerrymander in Texas suggests that another firewall has fallen. From now on, both parties will feel compelled to take the same politics that has brought down the House to every state capital in America. Instead of doing the job people elected them to do, state legislators will spend all their time fighting over how to write safe congressional districts so that members of Congress don't have to do the job people elect them to do.

Redistricting was at the root of DeLay's downfall, and may well be at the root of Washington's as well. In recent years, redistricting has made districts more polarized, homogenous, and friendly to entrenched incumbents. Competitive districts in which incumbents actually have to earn re-election are becoming an endangered species.

Reed's piece is smart because it takes the basic political science conceptions of the House (more partisan, more shrill, more polarized) and marries it to our problem of everlasting incumbency. He also, wisely, discusses Tanner (D-TN)'s efforts to end gerrymandering with Congressional legislation even though the effort went down in flames. Several other reforms are discussed, like making the House seats all at-large and sending them home and having the House run in an e-government fashion with many, many more representatives. No matter what your chosen experiment is, Reed paints a good picture of how broken the House is and how we need to get out the power tools if we hope of making it any better in the future.

The Incredible Idiocy of "Panda Sluggers"

2006-06-30T13:16:00.000-04:00

Do I trust China? Of course not. Do I think they could be dangerous? Yes. Do I think they are that dangerous right now? Not really (except to Taiwan). However, the most irritating thing about China is its ability to keep a certain amount of nutty ideologue, the China hawk, in business. Whenever I go on one of my tirades about how absurd it is that there are weapons systems for everything from new submarines to new fighter planes when we are in budget deficits and fighting an urban war that those things have about zero practical use in, some interlocutor will often start spinning China hawk bullshit. They will begin to say we need to have such absurd weapons in order to counter future threats from China. As we STILL have the number one Air Force and Navy in the world and China is still decades and decades behind, I've always found that sort of argument a bit laughable. Why not make the same argument about the future air power of Venezuala? Or Cuba? Sure they're a little more behind, but what's a few decades here and there? Well these China hawks get a better takedown than I could imagine, and a spiffy new moniker, "Panda Sluggers" (because these people tend to call those who don't want a war with China "Panda Huggers") right here, especially current DoD golden boy and slugger-supreme, Michael Pillsbury.

Pillsbury dwells on the far-hawkish end. Where others view China's intentions as complicated, Pillsbury says that Beijing views the United States as an "inevitable foe." ("He makes simple what is not simple," says Mark Pratt, a former State Department official who has known Pillsbury for over 30 years.) Where others debate the merits of hedging, Pillsbury feels that things haven't gone far enough. "The U.S. can do much more to hedge in the next few years if the Chinese do not end their excessive military secrecy and begin to reassure their neighbors," he recently told The Wall Street Journal. And where nearly everyone agrees that China is far behind the United States in military capacity, Pillsbury has been among the first, and the few, to argue that Beijing is preparing for an asymmetric military conflict with the United States in which it would draw on secret "assassin's mace" weapons. The term "assassin's mace," more commonly translated as "trump card" (shashoujian) is, according to Pillsbury, integral to a Chinese notion of "inferior defeats superior." (The Pentagon's most recent annual report to Congress on China's military from May 2006 includes the term, mentioning Chinese efforts to exploit "perceived vulnerabilities of potential opponents--so-called Assassin's Mace [sha shou jian] programs.") An "assassin's mace" might take the form of a computer application, for instance, that would take over an enemy information system, rendering a foe the victim of his own dependence on technology. In Pillsbury's telling, China intends to leapfrog ahead in battle readiness by using assassin's-mace weapons to find breaches in U.S. armor. Moreover, he implies, they could be ready at any time.

The article goes on to portray the shoddy methods of Pillsbury and his shriller-by-the-minute proclamation of impending war, and basically expose him for the grandstander he is. More commentary from Drum and Yglesias, but I think Yglesias is especially onto something. The reason Pillsbury and his ilk have any credibility can be found in the support this line of argument gives to a booming industry in Cold War-style weapons systems that have already become useless for the most part, and will continue to do so. The fact that there is no counter-lobby basically guarantees their continued existence as well, even though their arguments make little sense and have almost no backup besides paranoid speculation.

UPDATE! The Times Flap / Kellergate / Latest Blog Hysteria

2006-06-29T09:51:00.000-04:00

Lileks weighs in, with an NYT preview!

Feb. 14, 2007: Times Editor Keller approves the publication of the Pentagon’s plans for a Feb 15th strike on Iran, asserting that “there has been far too little debate about whether the sustained assault by cruise missiles and stealth bombers will provide a cover for the infiltration of several SpecOps teams from the Iraqi and Afghan bases, or whether these groups, code named ‘Red Six’ and ‘Blue Fourteen’ respectively, might suffer friendly fire. One error in timing, such as the barrage scheduled for the 3 AM on night of the 24th, could expose our troops to great harm. If this leads to a debate about whether the Tomahawk missile can be sent slightly off course by a concentrated microwave burst, as classified documents seem to suggest, it’s a debate we need to have.”

Oct. 31, 2007: Rumors in the Times newsroom indicate that Editor Keller has become a believer in the “Hidden Editor” sect of journalism. This sect believes that if newspapers create enough chaos in the world, the hidden, or Twelfth, editor will appear. This will institute a reign of peace, justice, rising circulation rates, an eternal lock on the classifieds market, and a general agreement that Walter Duranty was correct: Ukrainians really did starve themselves to death out of patriotic fervor.

Tarkin Explains It All

2006-06-28T13:29:00.000-04:00

As in Grand Moff Tarkin. When I first started reading blogs, I noticed a lot of them read like great op-ed pages. Some of the greatest ones almost touched academic journal heights in their sophistication. But there was something better. There was the ability of links to site sources, unclogging all the infinite foot- or end- notes that mess up reading a piece of scholarship, and their was the ability to exercise more levitas by drawing crazy analogies and then getting absolutely serious about them. A great example would be this perfectly reasonable explanation of Hegemonic Stability Theory just thrown together by the typically inventive Matt Yglesias. How does he do it? WITH STAR WARS DIALOGUE, OF COURSE! Yglesias starts his piece out with this classic exchange:

Tarkin: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

Tagge: But that's impossible. How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

Yglesias then explicates:

What Tarkin's talking about here is a leading power -- the Empire -- trying to do away with the former constitutional order ("the last remnants of the Old Republic") in order to create a hegemonic one (Palpatine Unbound, as it were). Tagge is skeptical that this will work -- the political processes may be cumbersome, but they're actually necessary to maintain the system's stability. It would actually be even more cumbersome for the center to be constantly trying to impose its will on everyone without the assistance of the bureacracy. Tarkin's counterproposal is that the development of the Death Star has changed the situation -- use it once on Alderaan to make an example of them, and in the future fear will keep the local systems in line.

And I think it's fairly clear that something of this sort was motivating the Bush administration in 2002-2003. The key decisionmakers took the view that technological developments (the "revolution in military affairs") had radically enhanced America's ability to overthrow foreign governments. Rather than simply keep this power in our back pocket for use when circumstances clearly warranted it (as in Afghanistan) there was a palpable desire to make an example out of Iraq to send a message.

The one thing Yglesias doesn't do, after he labels the Bush Administration as the Death Star, is to accurately explain how his own analogy both describes Hegemonic Stability Theory and its weakness. Namely that if the Hegemon is too powerful it starts to be perceived as a threat and those below it begin to unite against it and antagonism builds up. A "rebel alliance" forms and the unipolar monopoly of power the Hegemon possesses slowly (or quickly) deteriorates. Is that what is happening in the Middle East? I think sometimes it's hard to argue otherwise. But Yglesias is right. Star Wars may be a better explainer of IR theory than anyone could've imagined.

The Times Flap / Kellergate / Latest Blog Hysteria

2006-06-27T14:57:00.000-04:00

I've been following the debacle related to the NYT reporting on the financial records spying program and subsequent fallout, and I have to say I really agree with the right-wing half of the blogosphere on this one. Insta has a lot of informative links here, and then later here. I proceed on the following assumptions, which to me seem so far to be relatively indisputable:

1) The program was legal in nature as the government already has and always has had a lot of authority to search bank records and in that sense nothing like the NSA/FISA debacle.

2) The program was very effective in identifying the assets of terrorist groups and helping to freeze them.

3) There is not really any other effective way for this to be done.

4) It was pretty much widely assumed something like this was going on anyway.

The only one that works in the NYT favor in this dump of classified information is number 4. 1-3 indicate that this was probably a good program for national security purposes and was not doing anything wrong, thus disclosing its nature when it was classified is at best irresponsible and arrogant and at worse akin to notifying the enemy of secret Pentagon weapons or plans. I don't think there should be some sort of Congressional denunciation of the newspaper. That's completely hyperbolic. Nor do I think the NYT committed some sort of treason or act of espionage. This was intentional, but I doubt that the Times really thought about how this would effect the behavior of terrorists or damage the government's ability to go after their finances. They're less criminal than they are incredibly stupid.

That said, I think the NYT deserves the flaying its getting and every word of this criticism, and I do think their should be inquiries to punish the leaker. The NYT is continuously basking in non-existent First Amendment "privileges" - their term - that it seems to think enable the media to do everything it wants to compromise classified information. That's an irresponsible attitude and shows a lack of concern for national security and, when you get down to it, the public interest as it should be defined (instead of how the Times defines it). If you believe the NYT argument, their basically should be no such thing as classified information that is protected. And that is a ridiculous notion. Sure the Bush Administration has abused secrecy by classifying just about everything, and sure we have a severe problem because whistleblowers in the intelligence industry have nowhere to go, but those should be cause for reform and political accountability. They are not cause to play "gotcha" tactics by exposing secrets for its own sake in a sort of phony, gutless move of civil disobedience.

We do need reform. The Bush Administration is abusing transparency. We need some form of whistleblower protection for people in intelligence. What we don't need is the Times playing games with some of our effective and legal weapons on terrorism for either institutional gain of its own or political games.

Hamas Does a Backflip

2006-06-27T14:48:00.000-04:00

Hamas and Fatah are very close to passing some kind of agreement that Israel maybe kinda has the right to exist. And, from the looks of it, it appears we actually have one historical example of sanctions actually sort of kinda accomplishing something.

The agreement, resulting from weeks of negotiations, could lead to an easing of the international economic sanctions against the Palestinian government, which Hamas has managed since the end of March. Abbas, who heads the rival Fatah party, and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas were expected to outline the details here Wednesday.

Awad said the makeup of the next government has not been settled and could take weeks to work out, although it is unlikely that a Hamas official will lead it. He said it would likely be composed of Palestinian leaders unaffiliated with either of the major political movements.

Since Hamas won January parliamentary elections, most foreign donors have frozen aid to the Palestinian Authority, which relies on the funding for nearly half of its $2 billion annual budget. Israel has stopped the monthly transfer of $55 million in tax revenues it collects for the Palestinian government -- sanctions that have left most of the authority's more than 150,000 employees without pay for four months.

Though I wouldn't get all triumphalist yet. The agreement isn't a done deal and El Wapo makes it plenty clear that the military wing of Hamas may thumb its nose at this. Then again, is division within Hamas over an issue like this really such a bad thing? In the end, if Hamas is going to get Palestinians anything but a state of perpetual war and violence, it's going to have to at least agree to a two-state solution. After ages, Israel seems plenty willing to negotiate along those lines, but drawing the line at Israel's destruction is insane utopianism that will only bring disaster. There is a situation right now where the mainstream of both sides is wandering toward a workable two-state solution, and if Hamas moves closer to that it gives everyone some chance of it actually happening.

Net Neutrality Summed Up

2006-06-27T14:09:00.000-04:00

The Net Neutrality debate is a really hard one. No one really knows what is going to happen, especially since it's looking bad for its proponents right now. But, even worse, most people have no understanding of the debate at all. Explaining ISPs and content and how they interact takes a high level of knowledge about the structure of the internet that most people probably are not aware of. Loaded language of "toll booths" get thrown around, as well as panaceas of "hands off the internet!" Just what the hell is going on, and what are the implications? Well, I've found one really great synopsis that explains it all quite clearly.

Another Conversation That Made My Head Hurt

2006-06-27T12:44:00.000-04:00

I might make this a regular feature. Who knows. The name was changed to protect the guilty. She was complaining I said something because she thought that's what I thought she wanted to hear not because it reflected my actual sentiments.

Sally: Say that you tell me, "Sally, you never ask me about my day". And then I start asking about your day. Do you really want to ask me about my day or are you doing it cause I asked you to ask?

me: that's a good question but you are assuming that it's either solely one or the other

Sally: no, just thinking it could be either way.

you know

me: by the way I always ask you about your day

Sally: I know you do

that was an example

me: ok

Sally: sometimes it's annoying though

me: asking you every day

Sally: cause maybe it's very typical of you to do so

me: how your day is is annoying

Sally: maybe you can say something different, and mix things up once in a while. Not so generic

me: oh geez

Sally: like "morning"

me: I give up

Mind-Meld

2006-06-26T12:05:00.000-04:00

With all the infighting in the Democratic Party between DLCers and Kossack Progressives, it's funny how quickly Yglesias and Kilgore gel on this bloggingheads edition. Anyone who wants to see an intelligent discussion on the current situation in the Democratic party, what needs fixing, and some likely brilliant prognosticating, check it out. Topics addressed include why Conservatism is a terrible governing philosophy (inherently), the idiotic and quixotic attempts to take down Lieberman and the likely pyrrhic victory that might result, and also the future of Mark Warner. It's 45 minutes of pure genius. If Democrats talked this way on cable news it wouldn't even be fair.

Bush Loves Him Some Kelo

2006-06-26T09:49:00.000-04:00

C-Plus Augustus signed an executive order on "takings" related to Federal agencies, perhaps designed to set an internal policy against Kelo and thus appease his still flagging credibility with many conservatives, but Ilya Somin over at Volokh Conspiracy thinks there's more than meets the eye. The order says this:

It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Seems a strident enough stand on Kelo. But is it really? Somin gets to the heart of the matter.

Read carefully, the order does not in fact bar condemnations that transfer property to other private parties for economic development. Instead, it permits them to continue so long as they are "for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."

Unfortunately, this language validates virtually any economic development condemnation that the feds might want to pursue. Officials can (and do) always claim that the goal of a taking is to benefit "the general public" and not "merely" the new owners. This is not a new pattern, but one that bedeviled takings litigation long before Kelo. Indeed, the New London authorities made such claims in Kelo itself and they were accepted by all nine Supreme Court justices, including the four dissenters, as well as by the Connecticut Supreme Court (including its three dissenters). This despite considerable evidence that the takings were instigated by the Pfizer Corporation, which at the time hoped to benefit from them. Not all the evidence of Pfizer's role was available at the time of the trial, but enough was submitted to demonstrate that Pfizer played a crucial role (e.g. - the head of a firm that helped prepare New London's development plan testifed that Pfizer was the "10,000 pound gorilla" behind the takings). Nonetheless, the courts accepted New London's claims that its officials acted in good faith, since they could have been intending to benefit the public as well as Pfizer.

Aha! What we probably have here is an executive order reinforcing Kelo. The whole problem with takings and economic development since day one has been one of definition. Everyone claims their project is "benefiting the general public." Pre-Kelo, the issue of the takings and whether it was allowed was one of quantifying what this "benefit" was supposed to be. Construction of a school? Affordable housing? A road? The ever-slippery "job creation?" Fighting that phantom menace "blight?" Kelo answered that question by stating all they had to do was prove that it would generate more tax revenue, which makes it just an issue of handing the property over to someone who can make more money there. Bush's Executive Order, for all its aspirational language about private property, does nothing to change this definition. And, since the definition set in Kelo is the problem in the first place, it solves nothing and does nothing. I think Somin is largely right too when he states the backlash isn't quite what people predicted, which is a shame because this is a serious issue in terms of both private property rights and social justice in urban America newest wave of economic redevelopment.

Lieberman Must Lose

2006-06-16T15:24:00.000-04:00

I've defended Lieberman a lot. Probably more than I've been comfortable with. But he just lost me. If this is the best he can muster against Lamont, then he truly does deserve to be sacked in the primary. The fact that he has a decent record to run on despite the pro-war stances he's been taking flack for should be enough to run on. At least enough not to resort to bullshit like this. Thumbs down, and off with his head.

Vietnam Talk

2006-06-15T15:36:00.000-04:00

Matt Yglesias makes a good point about Iraq vs. Vietnam, and especially the recent meme going around on the left that conservatives are actually the ones more obsessive about how Iraq is like Vietnam.

If I may make a bold observation, I feel like the American right's thinking on national security policy is being deeply distorted by an obsessive overreaction to the Vietnam War. See, for example, Cliff May's theory that "We lost in Vietnam because we didn’t have the will and the skills to prevail" and that now we will "either develop the will – and the military and intelligence skills — to defeat the enemy we now face on the battlefield in Iraq, or we retreat not just from Iraq but from anyplace our enemies don’t want us." This is really a bizarre reading of history.

In the first instance, as a read of what happened in Vietnam it involves dropping all context and making it seem as if there was something unusual about an economically and militarily superior outside power finding itself unable to subdue a reasonably popular nationalist movement. In point of fact, what we got was an entirely typical result. That sort of thing happens all the time from England in America and Ireland, to France in Algeria, to Portugal in Angola, etc., etc., etc. The track record of success in such endeavors is extremely poor and the winning examples tend to involve the application of extreme brutality -- viz. the United States in the Indian Wars (and, I assume, Australia against the Aborigines), Saddam Hussein against the Kurds, the Sudanese government's current efforts in Darfur, etc. One imagines that something similar -- slow-and-steady extermination of the Sunni Arab population unless and until they entirely submit to Shiite/Kurdish domination -- would "work" in Iraq or that we could have killed the entire population of Vietnam had we been so inclined.

But we lack the "will" to employ such measures for the perfectly good reason that it would be sick and immoral, the gains totally out of proportion to the devastation thereby caused. In circumstances when victory was regarded as absolutely crucial -- the Second World War, for example -- the United States was not especially hesitant to deploy large-scale killing of civilians as a tactic but, thankfully, we haven't yet reached the point where anyone's explicitly advocating that for Iraq.

He continues to discuss how a lot of it involve neo-domino theory as well. While I don't necessarily agree with Yglesias' conclusions and positions on the War, his premises and analyses are always illuminating and move way beyond typical liberal claptrap. And I do think he's onto something, at least in terms of perception. I think a lot of people who want to remain in Iraq until the job is done (myself included) too easily fall back on arguments that parallel those made about Vietnam, communism, and the domino theory. And I think a lot of certain "stay the course" lingo doesn't help in that respect and doesn't build a case at all. Yglesias is also probably right, that a lot of the people who line up as pro-war still are of this opinion that we could've somehow brutalized Vietnam into submission had we the "will." That's completely fallacious thinking, and Yglesias has some other good historical examples there to explain why. And it WILL continue to be fallcious thinking in this situation. To think that we can just wait the insurgency out or somehow kill them all is an impossible feat. The goal has to be different, and that goal is helping to stand up and support an Iraqi government that can do that independently and on their own. More importantly that has to be a government supported by the people of Iraq that Sunnis will accept.

We still don't have that. Some breakthroughs have happened recently but it could arguably be too little too late. Fighting the insurgency, even killing Zarqawi and his Lieutenants, mostly just buys time. But time is NOT on our side in this capacity unless the political objectives in Iraq are achieved, which is still and will always be a tenuous proposition.

Beinart: Part 1

2006-06-14T20:38:00.000-04:00

I have started reading The Good Fight by Peter Beinart, and have found that it has me thinking a lot and I haven’t even finished the first chapter. Since reviewers usually wait until they finish the book to write something, I can’t really write a review of the book. Instead, I am going to write as I read it and explore the ideas the author presents. I think this will be a welcome difference to what appears to be a cat fight over the book at Slate.

Beinart starts by describing the Democratic party during the mid-term elections of Truman’s Presidency. At that time, there was a conflict within the party similar to what we are seeing now. There are certainly plenty of differences between that time and now, but Beinart does a good job of linking the moderate philosophy of that time to current events.

The basic tenants of Truman’s policies during his campaign for re-election focus on economic development, containment, and a realistic approach to competition over developing countries. Truman, and the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), believed that the poor and hungry would not be strong defenders of democracy. Beinart claims that Truman actually felt this (ie The Marshall Plan) was more important than the containment / military aspects of his foreign policy. The more I think about it, the more I think this is one issue that all liberals should be able to agree with. Nothing is better at producing insurgents or suicide bombers than poverty and joblessness. If someone like The Beard, or Macie, or Lizzie – basically any of my more liberal friends, can agree with me on this, I think we could make it our starting point for policy unity. From there, we can debate the next aspects of foreign policy while understanding we agree on the most important part.

Truman also believed in containing communism, instead of either direct engagement or isolationism. I think this policy is a little harder to project onto our current situation. I guess this would mean that we leave totalitarian governments in place, while preventing their spread to other governments. My gut tells me that Beinart will use this to explain why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq. I can see that argument – containment might have been better in Iraq. The problem now though is that if we truly believe in containment, we have to stay in Iraq until it is stable. Any reasonable assessment of the situation leads to the conclusion that our premature departure will cause a regional war and a training ground for future terrorist attacks. In effect, we will not be able to contain extremism if we leave Iraq too soon.

The key to containment though is the belief that in the long run, democracy has the stamina to outlast oppressive governments. Stamina is never easy; the public is easily riled to war, but rarely wants to stay until it is over. But if we are to win this fight, it is completely necessary. This is why I agree with Bush's "stay the course" even if I wish it included regular assessments and changes to strategy.

Where Beinart is most critical is towards what Schlesinger called “doughface-ism”. Here is his quote:

“They opposed Communism, but would not endorse practical steps to combat it, so as not to implicate themselves in a morally imperfect action. In the ‘doughface fantasy,’ Schlesinger wrote, ‘one can denounce a decision without accepting the consequences of the alternative.’ It is a fantasy to which liberals fall prey to this day.”

From some of Beinart’s comments, I gather that the last sentence is specifically talking about people like Chomsky and Michael Moore who opposed the war in Afghanistan. But I would go so far as to also include those who want an immediate withdrawal of American troops in Iraq. No matter who he is indicting, all liberals would do well to consider the consequences of their proposals to be more important than their own moral self-righteousness.

This issue goes deeper though than mere name-calling. Each of us needs to think about what we are willing to accept to move towards our long-term goal of a world full of democratic governments. Truman seemed to accept less-than perfect regimes in developing countries so long as they weren’t Communist. In a more recent example, the Bush administration tolerated a violent government in Sudan because it was cooperating in the GWOT. We can also look at recent news in Mogadishu where the CIA was supporting war lords in Somalia against Muslim extremists.

I don’t really have an answer on this question, mostly because it depends on the situation. If we look at some of the governments we tolerated / supported during the Cold War, there are a number of which that were just as bad as a Communist government would have been. We do need to decide though how imperfect of a partner we are willing to accept to prevent the spread of Muslim extremism. This decision today is more confounded by our dependence on foreign oil. The fact is that a country like Saudi Arabia should be our worst enemy in the GWOT, but because of their oil reserves, we consider them a strong ally.

I guess if I had to conclude, I would emphasize Truman's focus on economic development. But I also have to stress that in the end, our decision and policies need to show an understanding of reality and the consequences of our decisions.

Stay tuned for more on this book, because so much of it is relevant to what we are dealing with today.

Another Flip-Flopper

2006-06-13T13:24:00.000-04:00

I came across this NY Times article on Ned Lamont while scanning some of eduwonk's posts. Both eduwonk and I find this very troubling about Lamont:

Mr. Lamont said that his frequent meetings with voters had altered his views on some issues. Initially, he said, he considered some job losses caused by free-trade agreements to be a necessary "transition cost" for succeeding in a world economy. But after meeting manufacturing workers who had been laid off, he said he realized that "we're going to have to be respectful of our workers when it comes to negotiating a trade agreement."

He said he had regarded President Bush's No Child Left Behind education policy as having some positive elements, such as "having a benchmark and seeing how schools perform." But after talking with teachers, parents and students, he said that he has decided that "fundamentally, the bill is irrelevant."

Although it isn't always fair to attack politicians for changing their position, it can be a sign of political weakness. Maybe Lamont realized that, although his previous positions were intelligent and thoughtful, he would have to cave in to irrational interest groups if he was going to out-flank Lieberman on the left. Either that, or Lamont hadn't really given NCLB serious consideration until he decided to run for office. If that is the case, I wonder what a public school teacher was thinking about if not education policy.

Either way, it seems that the hard-core liberals that support him only care that he is against the Iraq War (also an illogical position), and don't mind that he changes his positions at the request of interest groups.

Return of Chap!

2006-06-12T15:20:00.000-04:00

Chap Petersen, former VA Delegate and one of my great political crushes, has kept himself alive and active via his new blog. He endorse Jim Webb for Senate awhile ago, but here he recounts why in detail:

I met him on a gray December afternoon at his office which overlooks Arlington Cemetery. I told him that I had run a statewide primary and learned a lot from it. We talked about the Democratic Party, what it represented historically and where it was headed. We also talked about Virginia's unique history. He struck me as being a straight-shooter. A non-politician. I liked that and I liked him. He was something different.

Over the next few weeks, a strange thing happened. A small band of Virginia bloggers (largely but not exclusively Democratic) began to float Webb's name and bio around the blogosphere. It was if someone had lit a match by an oil drum. Because the demand was there for a different kind of Democrat to take down George Allen.

In February, I got a call from Jim Webb. I'm going forward, he said. I hope I can count on your support. Since then, it's been a whirlwind four months. Straw polls, fundraisers and community festivals. I've seen the campaign struggle in some areas and succeed beyond belief in others. But the bottom-line message has been the same: Jim Webb has what it takes to beat George Allen and represent Virginia in the U.S. Senate. And no one else can realistically claim that.

Last Thursday, I cast an absentee ballot for Jim Webb. (For you statistic gurus, I was #14 in Fairfax City). This turnout will be very small. Every vote will count. Therefore, if you are a Democrat, independent or Republican looking for awesome new leadership, please vote Tuesday for Jim Webb.

So, listen to Chap! If you want George Allen's Presidential ambitions shattered, and you actually live in Virginia, Webb on Tuesday is the best shot. However, if you're a big fan of Allen, make sure you get to the polls on Tuesday and vote for Harris. Because Allen will crush him. Considering Harris is, you know, a big-time Telecom lobbyist. And that's about all. And please, don't hold the fact that Kerry endorsed Webb against him.

America-Hater!

2006-06-12T14:41:00.000-04:00

Right-wingers, knives out! Look at this obviously America-bashing editorial written in a FOREIGN NEWSPAPER! (gasp) Especially this blasphemous passage:

Today, brandishing ideologies that appeal to domestic political audiences and intimidate everyone else, American and British leaders sound like Leonid Brezhnev. A current Afghan joke asks the difference between Americans and Russians, and the bitter answer is: “The Americans are better paid.”

By the standards of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, our neoconservatives are not conservative, they are neosoviet. In the process, George Bush and Tony Blair are losing the so-called war on terror. Their policies backfire and play into the hands of Osama Bin Laden.

So where can we find this treasonous lefty? Try looking under a list of Reagan's former speechwriters. It's becoming more apparent that Bush's people stand for and conduct themselves pretty much in stark opposition to everything Reagan's people stood for. They stand for, in the words of Derbyshire, "evangelico-romanticism," which topples the pragmatic conservatism of the Reaganites in uncountable and inexplicable ways. (H/t: Sullivan! and Sullivan!, and there is a 100% chance he will cover this sort of thing in that book he's been working on forever.)

Pay to Play

2006-06-12T12:38:00.000-04:00

Campaign Finance reform was something I applauded for a long time before my Great Reawakening, then McCain-Feingold and similar state laws came and I started to realize what the implementation of it meant. What started as an innocent notion to rid politics of big money influence could only be done by means of putting so many regulations on political activities and organizations (which inevitably had to run on. . .you guessed it. . .money). In the end, while not outright government censorship, it became obvious to me that the constructed complex had hampered free speech and freedom of association in some very terrible ways and, adding insult to injury, had not achieved the promised goals of getting big money out. All it did was mute people and constrain them in webs of regulation while forcing the money to take more circuitous paths.

This nightmare of FEC compliance and its deleterious effect on political speech and activity has risen a great deal of skepticism over campaign finance reform. There is, however, one area I think campaign finance reform can have a big and positive impact without harming free speech much. And New Jersey's "Pay to Play" (quick registration required) laws are a great example of that.

The newspaper's review found the rules have had a wide-ranging impact:

All donations to the Democratic State Committee, a political action committee controlled by the governor, dropped 78 percent from its recent peak in 2001 through 2005, and contractor donations to the PAC plunged 86 percent in the same period. In 2004, one-third of the money the DSC raised came from contractors; last year, it was 6 percent.

Contractor contributions to the "big six" fundraising committees -- the two state party committees and four legislative leadership PACs -- fell from $5.4 million in 2001 to $1.8 million last year.

Late last year Schoor DePalma, a Manalapan engineering firm that donated more than $2.8million to both parties since 1990, ceased all donations.

G-Tech, which runs the lottery system and has been a steady donor to both parties since 1997, stopped all donations in 2004.

Tech, which runs the lottery system and has been a steady donor to both parties since 1997, stopped all donations in 2004.

Parsons Transportation Group, a poster child for pay-to-play criticism in the 1990s when it gave heavily to the Republican Party and got a $500 million state auto emissions testing contract, gave $25,000 to the Democratic State Committee in 2003 and 2004 but nothing since.

The historic reforms were meant to discourage donations to gubernatorial candidates and the ruling governor's party, because the state's chief executive awards contracts. Businesses with government contracts of more than $17,500 are forbidden to make donations larger than $300 to gubernatorial candidates and party committees.

Many may be immediately be ready to call "foul" on this, but I would also immediately point out the fact that contractors are, in effect, de facto members of government bureaucracy. I know all too well and could cite numerous examples (if it wouldn't get me into legal trouble to do so) of how government contractors can use political contributions to secure endless direct payouts of money to their own pockets. This is why, for all of the DoD's attempts, it cannot rid itself of weapons systems it does not want when the contractors who build them line the pockets of the relevant Congressmen. Whereas some may say it's perfectly all right for this sort of "quid pro quo" to happen, I think it's only a hop, skip, and jump to direct bribery.

If someone wants government contracts, they should abstain from political donations and from attempting to guide taxpayer dollars to their own pockets. In the cases that they do attempt to it's not so much free speech as practicing corruption. And, even if it isn't, it's tantamount to allowing individual government programs to give their own funding to Congressmen in contributions (in order to secure even greater funding). They are all, after all, financed out of the same pot, both government contractors and government bureacrats are paid by the taxpayers. So why treat one differently than the other? If these contractors feel so passionately about their free speech and politics, they are always free to practice it independent of their various firms and as a private citizen. These laws are a great example of how campaign finance reform can have a positive effect without damaging political rights much, and how democracies and governments may need similar rules if corruption is to be anything less than rampant.

Blowback

2006-06-12T12:35:00.000-04:00

I tried to respond to Ann Coulter's latest, like so many, but Henry Rollins does everyone better.

You've Got to Recognize

2006-06-11T22:03:00.000-04:00

I can't tell you how excited recent developments in Palestine are making me. Although there is no guarentee that this will take them down a road to lasting peace, the fact that the two main groups are having a public dialogue is amazing. I'll let the NY Times sum up the current situation.

Hamas, which now runs the Palestinian Authority, has accused Mr. Abbas of trying to undermine its authority with the referendum. The vote would decide whether to support a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 boundaries, presumably existing alongside Israel — whose right to exist Hamas has refused to recognize.

Because of Abbas' threat to call a referendum, Hamas is forced to either agree to recognize Israel, watch the referendum show support for recognizing Israel, or try to block it. Apparently they have chosen the latter, although none of those options will show strength.

None of this public debate would have happened in the past because both Hamas and Arafat were great at preventing dialogue. Now, Hamas has to either accept the views of the public that elected it, or risk losing support. I don't know what will happen (my hope is that either through the referendum or Hamas accepting the inevitable, Palestine will accept Israel), but just the fact that this debate is happening is incredible.

Gastarbeiter

2006-06-08T13:36:00.000-04:00

John Tierney’s opinion column ($) from the other day uses our own history to explain why we need to increase legal immigration programs, like guest workers or replicating an old program called braceros, if we are going to have any chance of eliminating illegal immigration. Tough enforcement can be one side of the solution, but it will not work alone.

In the 1950's, federal agents were initially overwhelmed by waves of Mexican farmworkers illegally crossing the border. The number of immigrants apprehended surpassed half a million in 1951 and was approaching 900,000 in 1953, a level roughly comparable to the situation now.

Back then there were fewer than 2,000 federal agents patrolling the borders, less than a fifth the size of today's force. But within two years, the flow of illegal immigrants declined so drastically that the immigration service declared in its 1955 annual report, "The border has been secured."

And it stayed that way the rest of the decade. The number of immigrants caught kept dropping until it reached 45,000 in 1959 — a decline of 95 percent in just six years.

[Edit]

What stopped the farmworkers from sneaking across? It wasn't simply the get-tough measures that Republicans are calling for today. Although federal agents did intensify their efforts, conducting sweeps of farms and ranches, immigration officials realized that stricter enforcement wasn't enough.

Along with the crackdown, officials encouraged farmers and ranchers to legally hire Mexican temporary workers called braceros. As new rules made it easier to hire braceros, the number of these legal workers doubled to more than 400,000 at the same time illegal immigration was plummeting.

Tierney goes on to describe how immigration problems increased again once the braceros program was abandoned by Congress.

One thing that I want to highlight in the column is that the program was successful when new rules made it easy for employers to hire legal workers. From what I have heard in the press, the current guest worker program we have here is too slow to respond to the needs of employers. We also shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that we can have a successful program today with only 400,000 legal workers. Any guest worker program will need to be much bigger.

Mmm... Masking Agents

2006-06-08T13:15:00.000-04:00

For me, it is always a constant struggle between remaining optimistic while trying not be too naive. The latest example of this is in baseball. I want to be excited about the efforts of Major League Baseball to actually get rid of steroids. At the same time, I realize that there are still plenty of ways around the tests. First of all, MLB doesn’t even look for human growth hormone. Beyond that though, I read an article (which I haven’t been able to find) that talked about how easy it still is to get around baseball’s anti-doping rules using masking agents.

It is because of this that I can’t get too excited about Jason Giambi’s comeback or Albert Pujols’ homerun outburst. While every sports writer is praising these athletes for remaining clean, I have to agree with Jeff Pearlman and wonder if they really are. I think I will always be skeptical of remarkable performances in baseball from now on. It is amazing to me though that sports writers aren’t. In fact, many of these writers are the same ones that were outraged when they found out how extensive performance enhancing drug use was in baseball, and now act like they are convinced that the sport is clean. I guess the easiest way to be righteous is to start by being naive.

Zarqawi Takes a Dirt Nap

2006-06-08T09:41:00.000-04:00

Good riddance.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most-wanted terrorist in Iraq who waged a bloody campaign of beheadings and suicide bombings, was killed when U.S. warplanes dropped 500-pound bombs on his isolated safehouse, officials said Thursday. His death was a long-sought victory in the war in Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi and several aides, including spiritual adviser Sheik Abdul Rahman, were killed Wednesday evening in a remote area 30 miles from Baghdad in the volatile province of Diyala, just east of the provincial capital of Baqouba, officials said.

"Al-Zarqawi was eliminated," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

At the White House, President Bush hailed the killing as "a severe blow to al-Qaida and it is a significant victory in the war on terror."

But he cautioned: "We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continuing patience of the American people."

Two things. The first is Zarqawi's death is huge. His leadership took the insurgency in Iraq to bloody levels that may have not happened otherwise, and he personally murdered people on camera. Osama Bin Laden is a bad dude, but I think when it comes down to it Zarqawi has probably been responsible for more deaths and carnage than Bin Laden has. The loss of that kind of leadership will be a big blow to the jihadist forces. Though someone will inevitably step into the power vacuum, Zarqawi was a zealous murderer without peer and had serious acumen as a leader to make it all the more deadly. In a very sick way, he had a "talent" for terrorism that I think even Bin Laden doesn't possess.

Second, as Biden said this morning on the Today Show, even if you got every jihadist in Iraq there would still be a war in Iraq. We've moved past fighting these sorts of terrorists, because they've largely succeeded in igniting sectarian violence that is on the edge of, or just plain is, a small-scale civil war. There's momentum behind that which Zarqawi's death or perhaps even more defeats to his organization will not likely affect. In that sense, it's wise for Bush to point out the importance of this moment but still emphasize that there is much left to do. But that note of caution should not undermine the fact that a sinister guy and a bigtime terrorist leader has been taken out, which is definitely some cause for hope after a long time without anything but more violence and chaos.

Alabamistan Nixed

2006-06-07T13:35:00.000-04:00

A lot of people, especially people in Georgia, love to pick on Alabamans. Part of this has been the constant doom-staying over Roy Moore's ridiculous circus over the ten commandments monument at the Alabama Supreme Court, and Moore's consequent departure from that court. Since he decided to run against Republicrat incumbent Riley for Alabama governor, many thought he would ride a wave of Christian fundamentalist glory straight into the Governor's mansion. Alas, Alabamans, even Alabaman Republicrats, were a little too smart to fall for Moore's fundamentalist theocratic schtick. Vodkapundit enjoys it, and explains to us that there isn't as much of a need to sound the alarms of a theocratic Alabamistan as we may think.

9/11 Widows = Witches of East Brunswick

2006-06-07T13:15:00.000-04:00

That kooky Ann Coulter is up to it again!

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

"These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process."

And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."

Because they dare to speak out?

COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die--

LAUER: But aren't they in the middle of the story?...

Oh boy . . . That 9/11 widows have disagreed with the Republicrat Statist Party of Incumbistan tends to be politically inconvenient for them, but does it really merit this type of tripe from Coulter's new book? That she has turned on the War on Terror's first war widows and blasted them double-barrel, calling them "Witches" and accusing them of "enjoying" 9/11, has got to rank up there with some of her most outrageous material. The 9/11 widows have responded, and hopefully it will do the damage to her shrill ass she deserves. The frustrating thing is that Coulter can say such outrageous moonbattery and get herself to a best-seller.

I think the quotes from her book are quite relevatory though, and do point at a certain mindset that has overtaken the Republicrat base. Coulter tries to belittle the widows' suffering by declaring that 9/11 was an attack on "our nation" and she denies that it "only happened to them." I hate to burst Coulter's bubble, but loopy metaphysics aside, it sort of "only happened to them." In a large sense America was attacked, but these people felt it in a more personal way than anyone in the Midwest did. The people who have the least likelihood of experiencing a terrorist attack will likely be the primary consumers of this extravagant piece of printed shit, and Coulter has given them the gift they've always wanted: a feeling of moral superiority over 9/11 victims. Coulter tries to spin it on the Today Show by trying to bring up Cindy Sheehan, but this is fundamentally a different issue. When we've launched war after war because of an event, the people who experienced that event in a direct way do have a legitimate point of view, and have a more personal and close experience of the tragedy than others. Especially when the people killed were innocent civilians in a horrific mass murder.

FMA: Burninated

2006-06-07T13:01:00.000-04:00

The FMA failed again. I don't think anyone should be surprised at that. According to blogometer, most of the right even disliked it because it was such a transparent pander. Then there's the fact that the DC Examiner editorialized that there were these things called issues and, you know, priorities, that maybe Congress should take into account. That's saying it even when they agree with the amendment. I think a lot of the rage and frustration and why the amendment got exactly zero more traction from last time has to do with the obvious symbolism of it when this country right now is in desperate need of actual substance. And a Congress that hasn't produced any is getting more obvious in its attempt to cover that sad record up.

Kathy Lee Wasn't So Bad

2006-06-06T09:18:00.000-04:00

I realize that there are a number of issues, liberal issues to be more specific, that I need to learn more about before I can take a solid position. Global climate change was one of those issues, and I have been researching it more lately. Another of these issues is sweatshops. I feel like I can’t take a position because I don’t really know how bad the conditions are. My (uneducated) feeling had been that although conditions might be really bad compared to our standards, I wondered if they weren’t much safer than the other job opportunities available.

Nicholas Kristof recently wrote on this very subject ($) in a NY Times column. Here is what he had to say:

Sure, sweatshop work is tedious, grueling and sometimes dangerous. But over all, sewing clothes is considerably less dangerous or arduous — or sweaty — than most alternatives in poor countries.

[Edit]

The problem is that it's still costly to manufacture in Africa. The headaches across much of the continent include red tape, corruption, political instability, unreliable electricity and ports, and an inexperienced labor force that leads to low productivity and quality. The anti-sweatshop movement isn't a prime obstacle, but it's one more reason not to manufacture in Africa.

[Edit]

So companies like Nike, itself once a target of sweatshop critics, tend not to have highly labor-intensive factories in the very poorest countries, but rather more capital-intensive factories (in which machines do more of the work) in better-off nations like Malaysia or Indonesia. And the real losers are the world's poorest people.

Kristof goes on to support an American initiative called the African Growth Opportunity Act that, “allows duty-free imports from Africa,” in a hope to spark manufacturing. If this column were published in the Wall Street Journal, we could dismiss it right away. Instead though, it is coming from one of the few truly loud advocates for the world's poor and endangered.

Before my good friends Lizzie and The Beard call me a fascist in the comments section, I don’t want to make it sound like I have come to any conclusion on this, because I still don't know enough. But I do take it seriously when Nicholas Kristof says that sweatshops will actually help the economies, and the people, of Africa.

When the Right is Wrong

2006-06-05T15:25:00.000-04:00

I don’t know what to say about the proposed Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that hasn’t been said already. We all know that it is just a stupid (but effective) attempt to rally the hateful conservative base. Everyone also knows that it does nothing to protect marriage – banning divorces would do more for that (I don’t support that either). And we also know there are more important things for our president and Congress to work on besides whether or not the word “marriage” applies only to a man and a woman; Iraq is growing more violent every month, their neighbor Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, gas prices are rising showing how dependent we are on foreign oil, and we aren’t doing enough for domestic security from terrorism or potential pandemics like bird flu. But since the GOP insists on bringing up this divisive issue again, I felt the need to repeat all the reasons this issue is harmful for the country.

The Truth Will Set You Free

2006-06-05T14:07:00.000-04:00

I saw An Inconvenient Truth last night. As a documentary, I don’t think it was anything spectacular. It was basically Al Gore’s presentation with some small snippets of biographical information. So while it was informative, I don’t think it revealed anything profound about its subject (Al Gore) nor do I think it presented the information in a way that was much different from what we would have seen by going to the presentation.

As far as the presentation goes though, it did a good job of demonstrating that there really is a lot of consensus right now about global climate change, and also showing how serious the consequences will be. The information is relatively concise and easy for the lay person to process. This movie is a good place to start for anyone that wants to learn more about global climate change, and if the goal of the movie is to increase awareness (as opposed to being any sort of character study), then it will probably be successful.

Although environmentalists will find everything they believed confirmed in this movie, that isn’t the audience this movie should be targeted to. If we really want to decrease our output of carbon dioxide, we need to reach the non-believers. The big question then is what an open-minded non-believer (is there such a thing?) will think of the movie. Maybe I can convince Old $ to go see it.

Let That Eagle Soar II: The Reckoning

2006-06-02T12:18:00.000-04:00

Along the lines of Ashcroft being "the good old days" I it sounds like Team Gonzalez is far from finished pushing the DOJ deeper and deeper into Americans' lives and activities.

Big Internet and telephone companies are girding to fight an unprecedented call by the Bush administration for them to keep detailed records of customers' online activities for two years.

The request by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III would dramatically expand the government's ability to track what people do online and with whom they communicate.

It follows disclosure this year that the Justice Department had solicited potentially billions of online search queries from some of the same companies and that the National Security Agency had requested calling records of virtually all U.S. customers.

Gonzales and Mueller asked Google Inc., Time Warner Inc.'s AOL and other companies to preserve the data at a May 26 meeting, citing their value to investigations into child-pornography distribution and terrorism. Internet companies typically keep customer histories for only a few days or weeks.

The Justice Department said Thursday that it was not seeking to have e-mail content archived, just information about the websites people visit and those with whom they correspond.

Beyond law enforcement, though, the trove also could be available to lawyers arguing civil lawsuits — including divorce cases and suits against people suspected of swapping copyrighted movie and music files online. Privacy advocates fear the user histories could be exploited by criminal investigators conducting inappropriate exploration or pursuing minor cases.

Ahhh, Big Government. You're never Big enough for ol' Alberto. Sure, they don't want email "content", they just want to know everyone you've ever emailed and every website you ever visited. This is egregious madness. The idea that Conservatives get up in arms about red-light cameras and let this shit slide, which is just as bad if not incredibly worse, is beyond me. And the idea that any member of the Republicrat Statist Party can honestly stand back and say they'd be comfortable with a Democratic President trying this same bullshit is ludicrous. These naked power grabs should phase us, but why are we even surprised any more? This is par for the course with Alberto Gonzalez and his obsession with being able to call up any information on the communications of any American he wants. And if you think he's going to get a warrant before doing so, please leave me your name and address so I can come to your house and point and laugh at your stupidity. Ashcroft looks like a saint more and more everyday, because this isn't something Gonzalez would think up overnight. It's probably been on his wishlist for the last five years. (H/t: Drum).

Let That Eagle Soar

2006-06-01T16:59:00.000-04:00

John Ashcroft, or John Ashkkkroft if you want to use one of the favored extremist monikers, was so thoroughly demonized during his tenor as Attorney General it's hard to begin to cite episodes. Recently, however, I've become almost nostalgic for the man after seing the bang up job Alberto Gonzalez has been doing in misusing the Justice Department and making it a bagman for Bush's plans. Jason Zegerle at The Plank has an episode here of an Ashcroft associate blasting Gonzalez. These battles always seem to have to be waged with associates and subordinates (witness Richard Armitage serving as Powell's mouthpiece after the two left office). But he also points to two previous incidents where Ashcroft may have done battle with Gonzalez over NSA wiretapping and Yoo over torture. While there are plenty of reasons left to still hate Ashcroft, he's starting to look like an upright guy and a huggable teddy bear next to Gonzalez. And that's a sad state of affairs when you make Ashcroft look like a good Attorney General. Is there a rock bottom we can break through this one to get to? I'm fully expecting the appointment of Overkill as Attorney General before all this is over. We're going to probably look at Rumsfeld nostalgically after demands for his resignation are finally heeded and we get Darkseid.

Heart of Africa

2006-06-01T14:21:00.000-04:00

There is an article in Time magazine about Congo’s recent history. It is a must read because it truly opens readers' eyes to the reality and scale of conflicts around the world. Our attention span often restricts us to thinking about one humanitarian crisis at a time. Right now, it is the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. But the truth is that there are a lot of other countries with problems just as serious.

What is most striking about Congo is its contrast in the amount of hope there is for a country so rich in natural resources, as well as the pessimism for success in the near future.

Congo represents the promise of Africa as much as its misery: its fertile fields and tropical forests cover an area bigger than California, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas combined. Its soils are packed with diamonds, gold, copper, tantalum (known locally as coltan and used in electronic devices such as cell phones and laptop computers) and uranium. The waters of its mighty river could one day power the continent.

[Edit]

Can Congo be saved? Maybe, but it can't save itself. If the country has any hope of escaping the cycle of violence, misrule and despair, it will need the largesse and mercy of governments and citizens all over the globe. "Even in five years, it will be lucky if we have isolated pockets of real progress," says a Western official in Kinshasa, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Van Woudenberg of Human Rights Watch says, "The focus is on bringing this country to elections, but there's almost no interest in the impunity and human-rights abuses that continue today. The truth is, Congo isn't magically going to become a democracy. It's going to take years of hard work and money."

It seems that Time magazine is trying to get the reader to take away the idea that if the world tried hard enough, Congo could eventually be self-sufficient. And just as war in Congo can bring in the nations around it, stability could also spread outwardly. All that stands in the way is violence, corruption, and international disinterest.

Time and Troops

2006-06-01T14:06:00.000-04:00

Some friends of mine showed me this article from the March issue of Atlantic Monthly outlining seven steps for Iraqi security. Their proposals include getting the UN more involved, an oil spot strategy (as opposed to the current military strategy of seeking out and engaging insurgents), and more time training Iraqi troops. Each of these make sense, although the oil spot strategy, where certain areas are pacified first, while allowing others to remain unchallenged until later, is one I have less faith in with each new time I read about it.

Although their specific recommendations are different from the current steps being taken in Iraq, the overall theme is the same as most other reports of its kind. In the end, the two things that will really help Iraq are more troops / support and more time. I really don’t think there is any way around that. The problem is that the American people want troop levels to decrease and involvement to end relatively soon. It is going to be interesting to see how this issue unfolds in upcoming elections, where the popular thing to say will not be the realistic strategy for success.

"Journalism Abortion"

2006-06-01T12:30:00.000-04:00

I'm pretty sure the Post thought this article on Wingmen might be a must-read for the young, hip-set. Instead, it's a ginormous trainwreck of shit that doesn't even deserve the high-minded label of "fluff journalism." What is must-read? Rusty's vicious disintegration of it, and his invention of a whole new media category below fluff journalism: "journalism abortion."

Rerun

2006-05-31T16:50:00.000-04:00

I hope everyone can forgive me for my repetitiveness, but it seems that whenever I get into a new issue, I want to write about everything I find out. Recently, my issue has been global warming. My girlfriend and I have been talking about it a lot recently, and one of the things we were confused about is why so many people, including ourselves not too long ago, think there still isn't a real consensus on whether or not there is a human impact on global temperatures.

Columns like this one explain why that belief exists. The other side of the issue has gotten really good at telling compelling stories about why there is no such thing as global climate change. Granted, one can realize that the article is only using one study basically to defend their side, and you can tell from the group’s web site that their mission is to protect capitalism and free market, which is bound to influence their study and conclusions. But it is hard not to marvel at how strong their case is, even if it is biased. I don’t believe their argument, but it certainly is powerful.

The Washington Post Magazine story I linked to earlier talked about this very issue. Global Warming detractors have many positions they can take that all point to inaction as the right policy. They can either outright deny that it is happening; they can say there isn't enough convincing evidence yet; or they can simply argue that there might be an impact, but it is so small, and American ingenuity so strong, that it isn't worth regulating industry to make changes - the market will handle it. With all of those arguments in their arsenal, it is no wonder there is so much confusion and doubt about global warming.

Just on a side note, I wonder if the stats from the beginning of the article are true. Have we really cut pollutants down as much as they suggest? If so, that tells me that we are capable of making serious improvements once we decide it is important.

Ahmadinejad

2006-05-31T15:18:00.000-04:00

Although I usually agree with Bull Moose, there are times when I don’t even know where he is coming from. This is one of those times. In a recent post, he compared President Ahmadinejad to Hitler. While the verdict is definitely still out, I don’t really see any connection at this point in time (besides some anti-Israeli comments). The Iranian government is not showing any desire to add to its territory, nor does it have any policies segregating minorities.

The fact is that the article that the Moose links to, suggesting how Ahmadinejad is consolidating power, is being misrepresented. That article actually talks about how Iran is finally talking with one voice right now. Although the article says that Ahmadinejad’s power is increasing, it isn’t really clear whether he is taking it from the clerics, or whether they are giving him some room to move because they are mostly on the same page.

The situation in Iran right now is really interesting. President Ahmadinejad and the clerics have some difficult situations in front of them. Their economy is at a low, unemployment is high, and ethnic tensions are growing. If this continues, the public faith in their government could deteriorate. At the same time, the article mentioned above suggests that the government is talking with one voice and indicating that it wants direct talks with the US.

With those conditions present, there is reason to believe that Iran is serious about some sort of normalized relations with the US. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that they will want to use the image of the American devil to create a common enemy for Iranians and divert attention away from their own problems. I still would recommend direct talks, even if they are only brief, to see which is their real goal.

And this is why I don’t agree at all with linking Ahmadinejad to Hitler. It is way too soon to even see what his real intentions are. At times he comes off as conservative as the clerics, but other times he seems to favor granting more rights to women and helping out the nation’s poor. I don't recommend giving him a nuke, but we should at least see how weak he is and how badly he wants to talk.

Stupid Op-Ed

2006-05-31T11:09:00.000-04:00

The New York Times Op-Ed columns recently have been nothing short of stupid. The one I just finished reading bashes internships and makes the bold statement that paid internships are better for the intern than unpaid internships.

The column itself is far from objective; it doesn’t even bother to give the other side of the issue (a little too common in the media these days). While there are certain disadvantages to unpaid internships (lost wages, higher debt, rewards higher income people and people with connections), overall there are clear reasons why these are preferred. It would be nice if the author found the space in her column to mention those reasons. Since she didn’t, I will take the time to do so.

The biggest reason internships are sought after is that they give job experience you cannot get in the classroom. Future employers will want to see not only that you are a hard worker, but that you have the capability to do the specific assignments they need from you. The reason these internships are often unpaid is that many of the groups giving the internship do not have the money to pay the worker for their time. For example, I had an internship with the City of Syracuse Department of Audit during graduate school. Without that experience, I might not have gotten the job I am in now. And anyone who knows about the City of Syracuse will understand that the government does not have the funds to pay me for my time.

I know from other experiences that internships can be far from perfect. They don’t always give you work that is exciting or even applicable to your career path. But anyone who isn't smart enough to know that experience in a related field will look better on a job application than one more year of waitressing shouldn’t be allowed to publish in the New York Times.

Genocide Acceptable?

2006-05-31T10:13:00.000-04:00

It is easy to dismiss someone’s entire opinion when most of it is enraging and idiotic. I felt this way when I first read Alan J. Kuperman’s Opinion piece in the NY Times. His column accuses the rebels in Darfur for starting the violence that lead to the genocide. Unfortunately, there is a grain of truth in his column. The rebels should not be romanticized as their history is not pure. In fact, the author is probably right that the rebels are standing in the way of a lasting peace.

While I can agree with his characterization of the rebels in Darfur, the rest of his column is completely out of line. The author uses the rebel’s history of violence as a pseudo-excuse for Sudan’s genocidal response:

“Cease-fires often have been violated first by the rebels, not the government, which has pledged repeatedly to admit international peacekeepers if the rebels halt their attacks.

This reality has been obscured by Sudan's criminally irresponsible reaction to the rebellion: arming militias to carry out a scorched-earth counterinsurgency. These Arab forces, who already resented the black tribes over past land disputes and recent attacks, were only too happy to rape and pillage any village suspected of supporting the rebels.

In light of janjaweed atrocities, it is natural to romanticize the other side as freedom fighters. But Darfur's rebels do not deserve that title. They took up arms not to stop genocide — which erupted only after they rebelled — but to gain tribal domination.”

Kuperman is suggesting that Sudan’s response is both criminally irresponsible, but yet also understandable based on the rebel’s actions.

Anyone who thinks back on the situation in Rwanda will remember that the Hutu government claimed that they were only suppressing an armed Tutsi rebellion. In fact, Rwanda’s history is remarkably similar to that of the picture Kuperman paints of Sudan. The Tutsis operated a government that repressed Hutus until the Hutus took power, after which there were numerous Tutsi rebellions. The fact is that both nations, and countless others around the world, have a violent history. But the international community cannot accept genocide as a natural result of civil war or repression.

Kuperman finishes his piece by suggesting that if the rebels do not accept the cease fire and peace proposals, we should allow the Sudanese government to deal with the uprising on their own as long as they "eschew war crimes". While I agree that the rebels in Darfur need to be held responsible for their violence and refusal to compromise, the Sudanese government has shown that it is incapable of stopping an uprising without raping and slaughtering civilians at the same time. Therefore, this proposal, and most of the column, is completely useless to the dialogue on Sudan.

More on Climate Change

2006-05-30T13:49:00.000-04:00

Just so Old $ doesn't think I refuse to even listen to arguments from the other side, I want to link to this article from the Washington Post Magazine. The article gives a voice to some of the global warming non-believers (who think either that global warming is a hoax, or that it isn't enough to get worried about). It is a long read, but definitely well worth it. I don't have the energy right now to talk about all of the issues that came up, but there is a lot there to chew on. Enjoy.

Better Than Cable News

2006-05-30T12:44:00.000-04:00

Wish the people on MSNBC and Fox News had a sense of humor and weren't stupid? Look no further, where you'll find a bunch of superjournalists (Mickey Kaus, Robert Wright, Matthew Iglesias, Eric Umansky, and a horde of guests from the media and think tanks alike) and politics beating the snot out of each other with katana-sharped wit you aren't going to find on Cable News.

Another Great New Term

2006-05-30T12:29:00.000-04:00

It's buried at the end of a great rant by Mark Steyn, but it pretty much describes our current predicament by invoking a single word to describe out country: Incumbistan.

I said the other day that McCain and Specter and Sarbanes and Lott and the rest were presidents-for-life of the one-party state of Incumbistan. Between all the comprehensive immigration reform and corporate governance reform and campaign-finance reform and campaign-finance-reform reform and all the other changes, McCain and Co. sail on, eternally unchanging, decade after decade. There are no plans for Senate governance reform or Trent Lott finance reform. Incumbistan is a government that has a nation.

I think the word Incumbistan is a powerful one, and captures the entire governing philosophy of the Republicrat Statist Party. As a matter of fact, let's combine them and call them the Republicrat Statist Party of Incumbistan! I think that phrase alone pretty much sums up what's wrong with the ruling party in this country in one swoop.

One More Reason...

2006-05-30T12:21:00.000-04:00

... why I hate the agriculture lobby. So much for free trade.

So Sorry

2006-05-30T12:07:00.000-04:00

President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair held a joint press conference recently in which they talked about progress in Iraq and admitted to mistakes they made during the war. While I find it reassuring that both leaders are actually looking to the past and analyzing their actions, I do wish it would have happened sooner. They should have known within the first few months after the fall of Saddam that they hadn't actually planned well enough for the situation after the invasion. Also, it should not have taken this long to admit that de-Baathification was a major mistake, and that antagonizing comments to the insurgents was the wrong message to send - not because it might have encouraged them, they need no encouragement, but because it gives the impression that we are unfazed by their violence.

Unfortunately, neither leader seemed to admit that they didn't go to war with enough troops. Maybe Bush will admit to that after he leaves office.

My Immigration Plan

2006-05-26T19:58:00.000-04:00

I'm not satisfied with any of the proposals being debated in Congress. My two main objections: the path to citizenship for illegals and a failure to punish illegals by withholding some federal benefits. So here's what I want:

Illegals should be allowed to stay in the U.S. upon registering with the ICE, however, they should be barred from ever gaining citizenship or holding federal-elective office. They should live out the rest of their lives as permanent residents. I do not want them voting or holding federal office in this country.
They should pay a fine equal to the cost of deporting them were they not to pay said fine. This fine can be paid over a course of 5-10 years with a wage garnishing plan.
I want illegals to forfeit ALL Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits they have paid into using falsified documents. Those monies were withheld under false pretenses and should not be held in trust to reward illegal entry. That money should instead benefit legal immigrants and citizens. This provision does NOT apply, however, to illegals who will have met my first and second conditions as listed above.
A federal law barring financial aid to any state university that grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

These measures seem fair to me and rather center-of-the-road. No foolish attempts at mass deportation. No demonization of hard-working men and women who entered this country for laudable reasons. But on the same token they will pay an appropriate penalty for the privilege of staying in a country they illegally entered (or overstayed visas to remain in).

He Is No Arafat

2006-05-26T10:32:00.000-04:00

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas took a bold step recently. He has given Hamas 10 days to accept a Palestinian state in the territories Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East War. If Hamas doesn’t accept those terms, Abbas will put it to a referendum to the Palestinian people, which pollsters think is likely to pass. With this step, Hamas will either have to follow Abbas’ lead, or become irrelevant. It is incredible to finally see a Palestinian leader take Hamas head-on.

Abbas and Hamas have been battling ever since the Hamas victory in the parliamentary elections, and recently the battles have been violent. Although violence is never something we wish for, in this situation I think it is healthy as long as it doesn’t spiral out of control. For too long, Palestinians under Arafat could ignore their differences because average citizens had no control over the direction of their country. Now that they elect their president and parliament, moderates and extremists need to actually confront each other over the direction to take their country. There is the potential for a great deal of change in the Middle East right now, and Palestinians need to realize they have a major stake in the outcome.

Here I Go Again

2006-05-25T16:58:00.000-04:00

I can’t even begin to get my head around what our government is thinking, but I can’t stop thinking about it.

So far, Congress has decided that it is okay for the NSA to spy on Americans without seeking a warrant. When these activities came to light, the President was emphatic that he needed this power and seemed unwilling to give it up.

Next, Congress decides that they should be free from searches, even with a warrant. At this, the President accepts their concerns, and asks that Congressman Jefferson’s files be sealed until a deal can be reached between Congress and the FBI.

Just so that we are clear: Congress doesn’t want the executive branch to conduct searches of them with a warrant, but they are perfectly fine with warrant-less searches of average Americans.

If the approval rating of every elected official doesn’t come crashing down real soon, then the public isn’t paying any attention (what a depressing world to live in; no faith in Congress, the President, or the public). I get the feeling that my last hope for any sort of faith in humanity rests in the courts. Chief Justice Roberts, please don't let me down.

Just Appalled

2006-05-25T15:18:00.000-04:00

I realize that Baron Violent already posted about the FBI raid of Congressman Jefferson’s office. My opinion is no different than the Baron’s, but I feel the need to add one more voice to the screams of outrage. Both parties right now are suggesting that their offices are immune from legal searches as part of the separation of powers under the Constitution. Because of this, both are showing that they are part of a culture of corruption that is free from legal justice. Democrats will have not only Jefferson to blame for our loss of the ethical high ground, but now Pelosi and Democratic leadership are also at fault. If I have a vote this fall after my move to NYC, I will join the Baron’s quest to vote out all incumbents.

Iran Follow-up

2006-05-25T10:28:00.000-04:00

As a follow-up to my previous post about Iran, I want to encourage everyone to read this NY Times Opinion piece. The author uses Iran's tumultuous history as a lense to view its current actions through.

I really think that direct talks and some concessions would be a much better strategy than open hostility. It is unfortunate that the Bush administration only knows how to use sanctions and military force.

Global Climate Change

2006-05-25T10:01:00.000-04:00

This post is for two people; my brother and my girlfriend. Both have been talking about global climate change recently, although taking very different sides. I encourage them to read this NY Times opinion column.

For a long time, I had been hesitant to really get behind environmentalists’ claims about global climate change. I never bothered to do enough research on the topic, especially because the science intimidated me. My position was that I would wait until there was enough evidence for consensus, and as far as I knew, the issue was still being debated. Apparently, ridiculous Michael Crichton books aside, there is no longer serious debate about whether or not there is global climate change and if human activities are causing it. Even skeptics, like the author of the column I linked to, are being converted:

Once global-warming science was too uncertain to form the basis of policy decisions — and this was hardly just the contention of oil executives. "There is no evidence yet" of dangerous climate change, a National Academy of Sciences report said in 1991. A 1992 survey of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society found that only 17 percent of members believed there was sufficient grounds to declare an artificial greenhouse effect in progress. In 1993 Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, said there existed "a great range of uncertainty" regarding whether the world is warming. Clearly, the question called for more research.

That research is now in, and it shows a strong scientific consensus that an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger:

[Edit]

In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences joined the science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan and other nations in a joint statement saying, "There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."

This year Mr. Karl of the climatic data center said research now supports "a substantial human impact on global temperature increases."

And this month the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system."

It is becoming clear that there is now consensus about this issue and we can slowly make some changes. From the documentary about Al Gore and his speaking tour, to new books on the issue, it is becoming very hard for people like me to ignore the issue.

Replace Congress with the Men of the Square Table

2006-05-25T00:52:00.000-04:00

Men of Restless Mania, I propose a Man Law:

We scrap our congressional-presidential form of government for rule by consensus man-law arrived at by the Men of the Square Table.

It seems like a reasonable remedy for the usual crap in Washington this midterm election year.

Not Since 1979

2006-05-24T14:05:00.000-04:00

There is a report in the Washington Post that Iran has been trying to engage in direct talks with America regarding its nuclear program. Despite this unprecedented step, the Bush administration has decided that it wants Iran to talk to the three European countries that have been leading the nuclear talks.

I understand that Iran is doing this as a tactical move, and in this case as well as with North Korea, the administration doesn’t want to encourage the threat of building a nuclear weapon as a way to bilateral talks with the US. In this situation though, it seems like there is a lot we could gain by doing it, and very little to gain by remaining steadfast in our policy not to engage in direct talks. The Iranian government gets a lot of play among their people out of portraying America as a bully, and refusing direct talks only promotes this image.

The Politics of Sports

2006-05-24T13:41:00.000-04:00

The NFL has been looking for a new commissioner since Paul Tagliabue announced that he was retiring. First, rumors circulated that Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice might be tapped for the position. Recently, there was a private meeting with Governor Jeb Bush. Who will they ask next, Dick Cheney?

Why is it that only Republicans are being considered for the job? There are plenty of qualified Democrats, but because the NFL wants to maintain its relationship with the GOP, they are passing up leaders that would do well to improve the NFL.

In case they are interested in ever getting their act together and performing a non-partisan search, I have a few names they could consider: Al Gore... actually, he might not be a great fit – environmental activism and football don’t exactly mix. But I am sure John Kerry would be... terrible. Okay, two bad examples. What about John Edwards? Wait, yeah, he does come off a little fragile. Oh! What about that Jack Kemp guy from the 1996 election. He even played football. Or maybe he was a Republican.

On second thought, maybe they should keep looking in the Republican Party.

Challenge!

2006-05-24T09:00:00.000-04:00

After showing a friend of mine the Progressive Action Plan by the DLC, he wrote a post that was very critical of their proposals. What I realized was that those on the far left are great at criticizing foreign policy by Republicans and moderate Democrats, but I don’t ever hear from them what direction we need to go.

So, here is my challenge. I want someone to point me in the direction of what the far left – the Deaniacs, Kossacs and Moveon.org folks – think we need to do to win the GWOT. If there are proposals already out there, point me in that direction. And if there aren’t, then feel free to write your own.

Either way, I challenge the left to do more than tell the country why every foreign policy proposal out there is wrong, and tell me which one is right – but it better have more to it then a call for a quick exit from Iraq.

Bodies to Hide

2006-05-23T17:08:00.000-04:00

For those of you living in a hole, they caught a Congressman, Rep. Jefferson (D-LA, that's right, D, officially ending almost all of Democrats' sanctimonious anti-corruption campaign with a single swipe) taking a bribe on tape. They then raided his apartment, WITH A WARRANT, and find him stashing $90,000.00 in a freezer. Why would you put money in a freezer instead of, oh, I don't know, a bank? Or maybe under a mattress if you want to be old-fashioned. I know why: it's because you're trying to hide it, because you don't want people to have it. Well, Jefferson ludicrously refuses to resign in the face of this overwhelming evidence that he is a bribe-taking criminal. Cunningham must be wondering now if he should've just stayed in Congress after being convicted of a felony. What's more, Jefferson is calling this an abuse of separation of powers. If you need help, here is the correct reaction . . .

DOUBLE YOO TEE EFF?

Apparently he thinks it was an abuse of executive power for the nasty FBI to go get a warrant (which does mean the judicial branch was involved) after videotaping him taking a briefcase full of cash. That as a member of Congress, he should not be able to have his office raided when there's over-whelming evidence he's committing a felony and a judge thinks it warrants a search. In yet another reason for me to continue my VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS 2006 movement, several of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with this mindfucking assertion, including one member of the Republicrat Statist Party Congressional leadership and an old favorite looney:

Displaying bipartisanship for one of their own, House Republican leaders are expressing concern that the FBI's search of the Capitol office of Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson crossed the constitutional boundary between the White House and Congress. Tuesday, House Majority Leader John Boehner called the weekend raid "the Justice Department's invasion of the legislative branch" and predicted the issue would "end up across the street at the Supreme Court."

Apparently Congress has entered Fuck-the-Law (tm) territory. Not like it's new territory for them. They are, after all, the self-annointed nobles of a new American Aristocracy that puts the French nobles before the French Revolution to shame in terms of sheer corruption, amorality, and unaccountability. I think there's only one reason you see these Congressmen standing up against this, and I think it's worse than even Instapundit makes it out to be when he says it's some sort of quasi-principled stand in favor of "insiders' perks." There can only be one logical reason: they're afraid of the FBI or some other law enforcement entity catching them in something similar, or worse. This Congress is starting to get scared, and their silence or, worse, DEFENSE of Jefferson proves they know the knives are out for them as well. I propose we don't wait for the slow-moving scales of Justice. Let's go ahead and take these clowns out with the ballot box, then let the FBI and a dozen District Attorneys do their worst. It's fuel for at least a dozen Law and Order episodes.

This is for Prince

2006-05-23T10:57:00.000-04:00

Although I haven't heard Prince rail on the Da Vinci code (maybe he doesn't take it seriously enough to waste his time on it), I think he would be pleased with the concise post at Slate that shows where the characters in Dan Brown's book, and now the movie, got history wrong. Although I love watching ultra-religious people squirm whenever their beliefs are challenged, I do think it is important to know that there are historical criticisms of Dan Brown's book.

I Still Love the DLC

2006-05-22T13:38:00.000-04:00

The latest issue of Blueprint Magazine, published by the Democratic Leadership Council, has a Progressive Action Plan for the Global War on Terrorism. Although I don’t think anything there is the absolute cure for stopping Islamic fundamentalism, and many are obviously very difficult to achieve, they at least get the issues out there. The policy proposals are intelligent and would do well to give the impression that Democrats are not weak on defense and the GWOT.

If I had one wish, it would be that the Democratic leadership would forget about the WMD / bad intelligence issue and look to the future.

We Need Some New Friends

2006-05-22T13:28:00.000-04:00

I recommend that everyone check out this opinion piece from yesterday’s Washington Post. The column has excerpts from school textbooks in Saudi Arabia that are teaching intolerance and hatred for non-Muslims (or, more accurately, non-Wahhabis). For some reason, Washington refuses to accept that Saudi Arabia should not be considered an ally. Although we do appreciate their oil output, every move they make is against the democratic, egalitarian and tolerance values that our society is based on.

Total Bloviation

2006-05-22T10:57:00.000-04:00

The entire international community was in an uproar about The Da Vinci Code. From fundamentalist and conservative Christians to Muslims, various religious groups painted it like a coming film Armageddon of Blasphemy not heard of since Martin Luther nailed 95 Theses on a church. They protested. They called for boycotts. They had sermons attempting to "debunk" the movie (as Princezz has been so kind to already rant about for me). Samoa even banned it.

What did that get them? 224 Million Dollars made in one weekend (domestic plus international). The studio has already recouped 100 million of its production budget. So what happened to those protesters? What happened to the Bible-thumping zealots? How did they turn such a big push into such a big embarassment. For a microcosmic display of how it probably went, I present you with this, which I guarantee from personal experience is probably dead-on.

The Balkan Theatre

2006-05-22T08:48:00.000-04:00

Ooooh, there’s gonna be trouble!

Montenegro passed the referendum to secede from Serbia with 55.4 percent of the votes. If history repeats itself, which it always does, there’s gonna be blood. Just look at history of nations seceding from a union with Serbia – Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina – see a pattern? Death, war, destruction.

Ah, it really has been far too long since I’ve seen those blue helmets on the evening news…

Columnists on the Attack

2006-05-19T11:29:00.000-04:00

I have been following the liberal commentary on John McCain, mostly because I am still trying to make up my mind about him. While I still think he is the best Republican we can ask for, I don’t know if I am as excited about him as I once was.

From what I have read, most of the liberal columnists are saying the same thing. Richard Cohen, Michael Kinsley, and Paul Krugman have all tried to paint McCain not as someone who is actually moderate and is just pandering to the base right now, but as a solid conservative. At first I just thought they were just trying to scare moderate liberals away from McCain and hoping to push them back to someone like Hillary. But after reading two of the latest pieces on him, I think it is actually something else.

Each of the commentators focus on two topics that prove McCain is really a solid conservative; abortion and the Iraq War. Everyone has known from the beginning that McCain was pro-life, so this is nothing new. But what I think is turning a lot of commentators away from McCain is his Iraq War stance (which is one of the things I like most about him). Read some of the following:

From Kinsley - In Powell's case, the theory always was that he was speaking truth to power from within, while telling the necessary public fibs to hold on to the privileged position this service required. With McCain, something more magical is going on. He says plainly that he is for the war, or against abortion choice, and people hear the opposite. It's a gift, I guess.

From Cohen - In short, he was the man who could restore faith in government.

But he cannot do that if, at the same time, he defends a war fought for nonexistent reasons, preceded by fibs, lies and exaggerations, draining America of blood and treasure and leaving us worse off now than before those bombs were dropped where -- as it symbolically turned out -- Saddam Hussein was not. Times have changed. The Straight Talk Express is in a ditch.

Here is what bothers me about all of this: They are using his defense of the war as proof of his truly conservative nature. The problem with this logic is that support for the war is not limited to the far-right and there are plenty of moderates (myself included) who support it. Furthermore, they are also saying that because he supports it, he must no longer be the same straight-shooter that he used to be – apparently you cannot tell the truth and support the Iraq War at the same time.

These commentators are letting their strong opposition to one policy affect their characterization of McCain, and they are sharing this with all of their readers. For any moderate voter, there are plenty of reasons to both support and be concerned about John McCain (his speech at Liberty University was a cop-out). I just hope that the discussion that follows in the future will be about more than just the Iraq War.

On Churchill

2006-05-17T09:24:00.000-04:00

Bainbridge points out that the investigation into Churchill's scholarship is complete. There's a little bit of everything, some plagiarism and some fabrication of evidence. The surprising thing is Bainbridge, while not agreeing with an iota of Churchill's work, is a little sympathetic to the plight:

I'm not fan of Ward Churchill, to put it mildly, but as an academic I'm troubled by this incident. On the one hand, academic misconduct is not to be tolerated. On the other hand, Churchill was singled out for an extensive investigation as a result of adverse publicity surrounding his role as a public intellectual. Apparently, there have been reports within his field of possible misconduct for years, which Colorado ignored until critics of Churchill's politics brought the charges to the attention of the mass media and the blogosphere. You will recall that Churchill wrote an essay in which he compared the victims of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns." After Colorado's regents were told the First Amendment barred them from punishing Churchill for that essay, they ordered the just completed investigation. Hence, the investigation was clearly political and retaliatory in its motivation.

Bainbridge goes just short of calling it a witchhunt. But in this case they found actual witches. I think Bainbridge is onto something with this argument. If someone is to make politically insane (not controversial in this case, just insane) arguments, are they to always be subject to such investigations? Will this lead to a great deal of self-censorship at public universities? For cases like Ward Churchill, maybe that's a good thing. But in a broader sense it's not a good precedent. But misconduct is misconduct. The more troubling thing, as Bainbridge is quick to point out, is that it took this kind of investigation to uncover such serious faults in someone whose work was actually taken seriously. And it's also right to point out that Cultural Studies as a discipline is, well, not very disciplined. People like Ward Churchill, in their efforts to write revisionist histories and challenge the very discipline of history, have basically thrown out the entire rule book of academic and scholarly rigor. So why punish just Ward Churchill? I'm sure if Colorado or any University went through their Cultural Studies faculty they would find the same kinds of misconduct. Perhaps ANY faculty. Everything about this shows that Churchill was singled out, and in a very vicious manner, for making ridiculous and insane analogies. If everyone is to be taken to task for that, we will have academic freedom in tatters, and University Professors running scared. It is good to hear from a libertarian/conservative like Bainbridge that this is of concern to him as well.

Dividing Line

2006-05-16T12:27:00.000-04:00

A staunch conservative reader on Sullivan's blog puts it eloquently:

Current history has taught me that in this modern America, divided government is the best government. I pray the Republicans lose the House of Representatives and/or the Senate this fall. This Republican Party is corrupt. It has been sold to the highest bidder, and since I cannot give $100,000 to the Republican, I have no voice within the party.
The Bush administration is incompetent at the basic level of execution of its responsibilities. Its excessive spending and the betrayal the nation's future generations through debt accumulation condemn it. It's prime claim to leadership is a war fought on the cheap with insufficient troops, faulty decision making at the most basic level, and Chicken Hawk wartime civilian leadership. Katrina.

Andrew, the war against fundamental Islam is simply too important to lose. This administration doesn't seem to understand that winning the war with those who wish to extinguish us is more important that tax breaks. It doesn't understand that control of our nation's borders is more important than winning the next election.

If you read the whole letter, the man makes it clear his Republican history, but feels disillusioned in a way I think everyone can relate to. This individual realizes that Democrats aren't really the solution to the problem either, so he's endorsed a favorite hobby horse of Senor C and myself: divided government. What happens under divided government? Real Congressional Oversight. Real battles over the federal budget. Real debates over government's priorities. Vetoes. Less pork and pet projects. Bipartisanship, or "date rape" for Grover Norquist fans. All of these are what the country needs right now. I still don't believe it's possible that the Democrats will take over Congress, though they may take the Senate. However, wanting Democrats to win some control and wanting divided government in a lot of cases isn't about wanting one party to pass their agenda. It's about precisely the opposite of that. We've been shown in the Bush years the worst parts of one-party rule the likes of which this country hasn't been subject to since LBJ. We need some restoration of separation of powers here, and we need a Congress that alternates from being asleep at the wheel and hog farming.

You Don't Own Me

2006-05-16T09:29:00.000-04:00

I have a feeling that Baron Violent will enjoy this post, even though it is about baseball.

As a fantasy baseball player myself, I never really thought about who owns the rights to the names and statistics that make these leagues possible. Well, now a court will have to decide. As of right now, Major League Baseball claims they own the rights to the players' names and statistics (they purchased the rights from the players' union) and they require that fantasy leagues buy licenses for their use. Now, a small fantasy sports company is suing MLB claiming that names and statistics are in the public domain and are protected under the first amendment.

First of all, if you hadn't noticed already, MLB loves its monopolies. Bud Selig is a shrewd businessman and knows that revenues are higher when there is less competition. He also knows that when you decrease supply, prices go up, which is why he has cut back on the number of licenses given out each year.

These issues date back before online fantasy leagues. Other sports geeks like me might remember a game called Strat-O-Matic, which was a board game that used player names and statistics in head-to-head match-ups. According to a 1970 case, that board game was subject to license because it "misappropriated the players' marketable identity."

This case could be about much more than fantasy sports and board games though. Note the following:

"If anything, this case is even more impactful if the court rules for the players, because it will speak to any time you use a name in a commercial venture," said Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at U.C.L.A. "What if you use a historical figure's name in a historical novel? Or other games, like Trivial Pursuit? How about 'Jeopardy!'? Would they be liable as well? That seems to be the logical consequence of this. How do you identify what is news, and other times when there's communication of factual information?"

One interesting wrinkle is that Major League Baseball appeared to take the argument's other side in 1996. When several major leaguers from the 1940's and 50's sued Major League Baseball over use of their names and statistics in materials like promotional videos and game programs, baseball argued that such use was protected by the First Amendment.

And this is why I hate Bud Selig and the owners so much. It is one thing to be rabid monopolists, but it is another thing altogether to be hypocritical about it. I long for a day when baseball is run by people who are unwilling to steal the soul of the game for more profit. Until then, I can only hope this goes to the Supreme Court and they can tell the world that there are limits to copyrights.

FEMail

2006-05-12T12:22:00.000-04:00

Michael Brown is totally priceless. Wonkette has been all over the thousands of pages of FEMail, and I have to say that it has been very instructive in showing that Mike Brown was a real character. Maybe not qualified to run FEMA, but boy was he a character! Evidence:

I am tired, no, angered, by charges of racism. You know that neither me or anyone associated with me is a racist. Grrrr.

How was that Sonic Burger? (emphasis added)

Anyone who writes "grrrr" in an email deserves a second chance. And now, why do I want a sonic burger?

Silly Congress (Or Is It Smart?)

2006-05-12T11:00:00.000-04:00

So bipartisan rancor is building up about the NSA wiretapping business and how they might have gotten their extensive and probing hands on everyone's phone records. Arlen Specter wants subpoenas. Why? Because Arlen Specter probably knows it's Bush's political savior. Republicans can hold hearings and do as much talking about this as they want, because the more they do the more the public seems to like the fact that the NSA can find out whatever it wants about them and listen to all of their phonecalls. I can't help but feel so much of the "outrage" by Republicans is a wink and a nudge, an effort to bring more attention to Bush's aggressive anti-terrorism tactics and steer Congress and the public's attention away from immigration and Iraq. Democrats, however, are falling for this ruse. As they line up in an effort to attack the President on this, they are going to continue to seem like the people who don't go far enough.

I think Sullivan's formulation that "We Don't Care" is dead wrong. I think people do care. They actually want the NSA doing what it's doing. The more I consider the nomination of Hayden, the more I think it was a shrewd and brilliant move by Bush. Sure, Bainbridge thinks it's him giving his critics the finger, but it might just work out for him. Or at least slow his freefall into total unpopular doom. Perhaps Rove is postulating that what Bush needs are hearings that remind everyone of how he called in the stormtroopers after 9/11 and saved everyone. At least, that's what still seems to be what the public believes.

I, actually, have a somewhat different take. After years of being bombarded with trashy movies like Enemy of the State, I think we need to ask a different question. And that is:

-Do people just assume that's what the NSA does and has been doing for years? And they're not really reacting strongly to this because to them it's old news?

I think Tom Clancy has gone a long way toward convincing people that this is business as usual, and that's why they aren't going up in arms over a database and some seized phone records. If you bombard people so much with screeds telling them their freedom has been compromised, and even in some cases romanticizing it (24), then shouldn't we expect it to affect their attitudes?

I Don't Hate Mark Fuhrman

2006-05-12T10:25:00.000-04:00

Does that make me a bad person?

Last night I skimmed through Mark Fuhrman’s new book on the JFK assassinations, A Simple Act of Murder: November 22, 1963. For those of you who don’t know, since the OJ Simpson trial, Fuhrman has started a new life as a private detective and author (and apparently a regular guest on conservative talk shows). His book Murder in Greenwich, claimed that Michael Skakel was responsible for the killing of Martha Moxley – Skakel was later convicted of the murder.

His book about Kennedy’s assassination seems to be well researched and objective. It isn’t afraid to criticize previous investigations like the Warren Commission, without dismissing their evidence. With a mild curiosity in this subject, I have seen a few of the reports that have come out over years. Most of them revolve around reenactments because serious analysis of bullet speed, angles, and fragments are not exciting enough for TV. This book covers all of that. Fuhrman sticks to his strength and skills as a detective and goes where the evidence seems to take him.

In the end, he finds what most other objective analyses of the assassination find; Lee Harvey Oswald probably acted alone. He fired three bullets, each one hitting the motorcade. This is really the main place he diverges from the Warren Commission. Based on his look at the evidence, one bullet hit Kennedy’s shoulder, one hit Governor Connally (going through his back, out his chest, through his wrist and lodging into his thigh), and then the third bullet was the fatal head wound to Kennedy. Fuhrman finds the magic bullet theory, that one bullet inflicted Kennedy’s shoulder wound and all of Connelly’s wounds, highly unlikely (although it isn’t as ridiculous as Oliver Stone’s movie JFK makes it out to be). Fuhrman acknowledges that there is missing evidence and the investigation was mishandled from the beginning, but he finds no indication that there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.

Fuhrman may be a racist, but his detective work really seems to be excellent. Hopefully, Furhman will continue his work on unsolved cases. Unfortunately, there are few unsolved cases like Martha Moxley's murder and the JFK assassination that would be as public and bring him as much attention.

Hmmmmm

2006-05-12T09:35:00.000-04:00

Every morning, when I wake up, I ask myself a number of questions. Questions like:

-Will today be the day I wear my all yellow suit to work? Or maybe just the yellow shirt . . . Does the fact that yellow is my favorite color make me insane?
-Should I bother shaving today? How about showering?
-Who will I get in a screaming match with or headbutt at work today?
-What/who should I have for lunch?

But a more pressing question has hit me. That question is Does Lunchbox Still Even Read This Blog? I think the answer is "No." But I have a surefire way to test that. There's a new report from the Joint Economic Committee that says, in fact that the tax system has become MORE PROGRESSIVE under Bush. Fancy that! There's even a nifty bar graph that show that the top 25% of people pay 83.88% of the taxes. Those in the bottom 50% only pay 3% of the taxes. That looks pretty progressive to me. I'm a bit surprised, but I can't say it's all that rattling. As the economy is expanding it makes sense that perhaps people at the top are making more money and are paying a substantial volume of taxes even at reduced rates. Wait a minute! I just made a supply-side economics argument! What is happening to me ?!?!?! No, seriously though, I think what we're also seeing is a lot of measures that are helping the bottom. A lot of poor people have benefited from an indexed and expanded EITC and pay no federal taxes, and as these numbers count those as negatives, it's sort of padding it by making things look better for the lower 50% since so much of them are exempt or pay zero. That'll bring down averages and percentages FAST. Even so, I think with that taken into account these numbers are still a bit surprising.

Alphonso Jackson's Orange Jumpsuit

2006-05-11T10:18:00.000-04:00

The new HUD Secretary has gotten into quite a pickle by blatantly violating a law and then having the idiotic notion to BRAG about it!

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the bidder, according to an account of the speech in the Dallas Business Journal. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the GSA [General Services Administration] list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him.

"Then he said something. . . . He said, 'I have a problem with your president.' I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush. ' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.' "He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

Maybe Jackson was not aware there were these things called Acquisition Regulations, you know, that say the government has to decide in a fair and transparent way based on who offers the best service (not the lowest bid, that is a MYTH, people!) and not on whatever a political appointee thinks or political preference. Perhaps Jackson, like so many Bush appointees, simply believes he can ignore the law and do whatever he thinks. It wouldn't surprise me if he's trying to pull a fast one after seeing Rumsfeld and the NSA get away with so many. And, if someone wanted to inform Alphonso, it's actually against the law for a contractor to use government funds from a contract to campaign for anybody FOR OR AGAINST. So he didn't actually have to worry about that (and thus, it's not an excuse, even if one grants him that he can break the law, which he can't). But there's more. Jackson isn't even a Contracting Officer, so he doesn't have the authority to award or not award a contract. Stating he can is absurd.

The bottom line isn't that Alphonso is a crook and has committed a criminal act (seriously, if that contractor had taken him to the Court of Federal Claims, Jackson would've been destroyed), it's that he doesn't even understand his job and how the federal government works. Which is GREAT when you're putting someone in charge of HUD, a Department rife with contracting and other financial scandals to begin with. You have to love croneyism. But hey, if Alphonso Jackson had his way and could toss 60 years of law into the trash heap, all government contracts would be awarded based on croneyism anyway! I wish I could say this situation surprises me, but it doesn't. Because in my time working as a Contracting Officer I've dealt with bigger idiots than Jackson (mostly appointees, but a decent number of career people too). They usually weren't the Secretary, though. If anything, this should just confirm the already obvious fact that too many people who don't have competency beyond being political hacks are being put in charge of our entire government, and given free reign to run wild. Laws and real needs be damned!

With Friends Like These

2006-05-10T16:37:00.000-04:00

With the evidence that is coming out now, it is hard for me to deny that there is a big problem with sectarian violence in Iraq. Reports of execution style killings of Sunni Muslims are making it clear that Sunnis and Al Qaeda are not the only groups preventing a stable Iraq. If the Shiites are not on our side, under control, and supporting a peaceful Iraq, then we have very little chance for success.

I have desperately tried not to lose hope - mostly because of how bad it would be for the region if Iraq failed, but also partly because I don't want the defeatists to be able to say that they were right. I can't imagine how depressing it will be if they can sit back and say they told us so - that Iraq wasn't capable of becoming a democracy.

Go to Support Genocide, Stay for the Soccer

2006-05-10T16:21:00.000-04:00

The Wop, over at the sports blog I belong to, posted about a really disturbing sports story in Croatia. Dinamo Zagreb, the Coratian league soccer team, will donate the proceeds of its final game of the season to the defense funds of Croatian suspects being tried for genocide by the UN war crimes tribunal. Mixing sports and politics is just annoying for any reason - but using proceeds from a sport to defend participants in genocide is just apalling.

It Just Isn't Funny

2006-05-10T14:25:00.000-04:00

Has anyone been reading Doonesbury lately? Instead of its usual brilliant political commentary, the comic has been following a high school candidate applying to college. Although that scenerio could be funny, the student has many of the best colleges and universities courting her, which makes the experience unlike anything normal people can relate to. Maybe I really need to start taking web comics much more seriously.

President Kerry

2006-05-10T10:18:00.000-04:00

Sullivan gets this exactly right:

Can you imagine how battered a president Kerry would have been by now? He'd be stuck with Bush's Iraq mess; he'd be constantly told he's Neville Chamberlain on Iran for doing exactly what Bush has been doing; he'd be ruthlessly attacked by the Hannity right over Teresa, immigration, gays, and any other cultural issue they could exploit. And the GOP would have escaped the responsibility for their fiscal insanity, while Kerry took lumps for raising taxes. As a matter of principle, I do not regret endorsing Kerry. My decision was based on the manifest incompetence and unconservatism of Bush. But in the sweep of history, it is fitting that Bush, for the first time in his entire life, actually face the consequences of his own recklessness.

I couldn't agree more. Seeing events unfold, Kerry would have provided the perfect scapegoat for so much happening right now. The Republicrat Statist Party would be completely 100% unified against him. Instead, we have the budding awareness within the GOP by its supporters that they should demand better from those they have elected, or that they should look for alternatives. None of that would've happened if there had been a President Kerry. I'm not saying the country is better off with Bush in office, I certainly doubt that. But I think all those who supported Kerry can take more than simple Schadenfraude from what is happening to Bush and the Republicrats. They can take it that Kerry's electoral failure wasn't all bad, and an electoral success wouldn't have been all good.

Control Room

2006-05-09T20:17:00.000-04:00

I just finished watching Control Room, a documentary about Al Jazeera's coverage of the Iraq War. I was expecting to see a movie that would show me how the Arab satellite network is a mouthpiece for violent and extremist Islam. What I actually saw in the movie was quite different.

In no way does Al Jazeera come off as malicious in the documentary. Although they obviously are coming from a very different perspective, they do try to remain objective. The network tries to cover aspects of the Iraq War that matter to Muslims, which means in part showing civilian casualties and American POWs. The former is much easier to justify than the latter. You can see through the documentary that their coverage questions whether the war really is improving Iraqi lives. What also rings true is the horrors of war in a very up close and personal way. American media doesn't cover war like that anymore because it turns the country off of war.

When I reflect on the movie, I realize that all media outlets try to remain objective. The nature of journalism though makes it impossible. Each outlet must decide what to cover and how to portray it. In the end, your own biases effect your coverage. American outlets didn't show as much civilian death on the news, while Al Jezeera focused almost entirely on that. Both are appealing to their audience by showing what is important to them. The lesson seems to be that the best way for a viewer to get as much informaiton as possible is to watch the news from different perspectives. In fact, a press liason for the US military, who is featured often in the movie, realizes this on camera when he says he can identify what is being left out of news stories when he watches Fox or Al Jazeera.

What I am most disappointed in is the misunderstanding that still persists about the Arab satellite network. Al Jazeera is not a mouthpiece of any government or ideology. Although they are definitely biased in favor of their Muslim audience, they are independent. This is something that needs to be acknowledged a little more in Western media. Since Al Jazeera is launching an English-language network, maybe they can help their own cause here in America.

Take Me to the Other Side

2006-05-09T13:19:00.000-04:00

Recently, I posted about Senator Biden's proposal for a decentralized federal government in Iraq with the three regions having greater autonomy. Well, as a counter-point, there was an op-ed in the New York Times recently explaining why that is a terrible idea. The column, by Anthony H. Cordesman, is pretty compelling as well. Either way, I don't think we have a lot of say in the matter anymore.

Also, in other Iraq War news, Generaly McCaffrey released a report on what it would take to succeed in Iraq. From Fred Kaplan at Slate:

Good news and bad news on the war in Iraq: The good news is that victory is possible, our troops are the best ever, the Iraqi army is getting bigger and better, and most Iraqi people want a pluralistic government. The bad news is that it will take 10 more years to accomplish these successes—at least three years just to get the Iraqi military into shape.

I get the feeling that the American people aren't willing to stay the course that long. Maybe McCaffrey was exaggerating.

I Still Hate Pelosi

2006-05-09T13:17:00.000-04:00

I just posted about why Pelosi’s announcement of a Congressional investigation into President Bush’s actions (with the possibility of an impeachment) is politically bad for the party. What I only realized after seeing it up on the site is that there is more that really bothers me about it. The decision is not just bad politics, it is terrible policy as well.

What Democrats are showing with this nonsense is that we have no real vision. Take Cheney’s energy task force as an example. Five years ago, Vice President Cheney devised a policy that would effectively be a hand-out to the big energy companies. While we don’t know who was on it, we do know that the policy sucks. So where does that leave us now? Well, we could spend a whole lot of political capital trying to find out who was on the task force. Or we could all agree that we really don’t give a crap who was on it, and try to come up with a new energy policy that meets our needs and plans for the future. Anyone can plan investigations and make allegations – it takes a real party of change to develop new policy. I can’t wait for this real party of change to show itself.

Kill the Gift Horse

2006-05-09T12:55:00.000-04:00

Every time Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid talks, they confirm my fears; despite the many opportunities Republicans are giving the Democrats for taking over Congress (Abramoff scandal, soaring deficit spending, unpopular president), the Democrats will do everything they can to blow this chance.

Nancy Pelosi, in her very finite wisdom, has announced that if Democrats take control of the House, they will launch investigations into the Bush Presidency. These investigations would look into Cheney’s energy task force and the intelligence Bush used to go to war in Iraq. This move appeals only to the base – and with that strategy, the Democratic Party will remain the minority party. In order to win the moderates that are necessary to win control of the House, Democrats will need to show that they are forward thinking. Party leadership has to show that we have a vision for the country that is about more than attacking a President whose approval rating is miserably low. This isn’t the way to do it.

The Slate post where I first read about this also mentions how this strategy plays into the hands of Republicrat Statist Party leadership that wants to use scare tactics to motivate their base to come to the polls. The last thing we need to be doing right now is helping the Republicrat Statist Party turn out the vote when dissatisfaction is high among conservatives.

Why Shoot Yourself In the Foot . . .

2006-05-09T12:36:00.000-04:00

When you can shoot yourself in the crotch? Walmart has been beleagured by image and PR problems recently, for a variety of reasons, some fair criticisms of the company's business practices and others completely unfair and untrue potshots. But they sure aren't helping their image any by trying to own the smiley face.

Wal-Mart is embroiled in a legal dispute over the smiley face image which it wants to trademark in the US. A Frenchman who claims to have invented the yellow smiley face back in 1968 is opposing the US retail giant's move.

For some, the image is a reminder of 1970s counter-culture, for others, a useful shorthand when sending e-mails.

But since 1996, Wal-Mart has used the image in the US on uniforms and promotional signs, and it wants sole rights to it in the US retail sector.

Wal-mart claims that they were forced to do this because of Franklin Loufrani, the above-referenced Frenchman who claims to be one of the inventors of the smiley face. To me, that argument wears thin and this seems like more of Walmart using Loufrani's actions as a pretext to lock down the smiley as a logo for the company. The BBC piece mentions other possible authors, so why doesn't Walmart just ally itself with them in an effort to stop Loufrani from getting the trademark? If they're that afraid of being charged money to use it as part of their corporate branding, why not fight to keep it public domain? The only answer to these questions is the obvious one: Walmart would much rather own the smiley, and that's what it comes down to. This sort of thing is bound to further amplify Walmart's negative image. What kind of corporation wants to own the smiley face? An evil one. And Mr. Loufrani is no better for trying to do the same. It's the stupidest thing since Donald Trump tried to copyright "You're fired" and Paris Hilton tried to copyright "That's hot." I doubt people will respond well to a world where they can't use emoticons without forking over some cash to Walmart. And if they're going to do it, they better trademark the frowny face as quickly as possible too. (H/t: Insta)

Military Power As First Resort?

2006-05-08T14:54:00.000-04:00

TNR raises a very valid point here.

The '90s were a decade of genocides--unimpeded (Rwanda) and partially impeded (Bosnia) and impeded (Kosovo). The relative success of those genocides was owed generally to the indifference of that chimera known as "the international community," but, more specifically, it was owed to the learning curve of an American president about the moral--and therefore the operational--difference between genocide and other foreign policy crises. The difference is simple. In the response to most foreign policy crises, the use of military force is properly viewed as a last resort. In the response to genocide, the use of military force is properly viewed as a first resort.

The notion of force as a first resort defies the foundations of diplomacy and also of common sense: A willingness to use hard power abroad must not become a willingness to use it wildly. But if you are not willing to use force against genocide immediately, then you do not understand what genocide is. Genocide is not a crisis that escalates into evil. It is evil from its inception. It may change in degree if it is allowed to proceed, but it does not change in kind. It begins with the worst. Nor is its gravity to be measured quantitatively: The intention to destroy an entire group is present in the destruction of even a small number of people from that group. It makes no sense, therefore, to speak of ending genocide later. If you end it later, you will not have ended it. If Hitler had been stopped after the murder of three million Jews, would he be said to have failed? Four hundred thousand Darfuris have already been murdered by the Janjaweed, the Arab Einsatzgruppen. If we were to prevent the murder of the 400,001st, will we be said to have succeeded?

This is the trouble with stopping genocide. Institutions like NATO and the UN require a lot of stumbling blocks before military force is authorized. This is generally due to the good-natured intent of allowing diplomacy to defuse any crisis before it boils into war. This becomes a terrible weakness in an emergency case like genocide. What is needed in genocide is not a negotiation between two nations or even factions, but an immediate intervention to stop the massacre of one by the other. Talks don't do any good once killing has already begun. Dispute and conflict resolution are of little use when the knives are out and the goal is to kill as many people as fast as possible. This distinction also convincingly explains why the UN has been such a failure in stopping these crises, and why it likely will continue to be one.

Dissent Is the Highest Form of Making Shit Up

2006-05-08T10:18:00.000-04:00

So John Kerry is galloping around the countryside, probably still trying to be relevant for a run in 2008, and he's all up on this "dissent" stuff. As a matter of fact. He continues to peddle a certain quote: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." There's nothing that makes better political theater than quoting Thomas Jefferson. Unless you're really quoting someone else, and Jefferson never said that at all. And guess what? Yep. You guessed it.

Relief

2006-05-08T08:50:00.000-04:00

As a denizen of this particular Metro area, I get deeply depressed whenever the subject or thought of trying to purchase property here comes up. It's the same for many people who live here. The idea of owning any property is summed up in the following way: paying half a million dollars for a 300 square foot closet in Anacostia. Then, after making such a ridiculous purchase, one is likely to descend into the only scarier thing that having a half million dollar debt to one's name, a condition I like to call Aristocratosis. This is when you, because you own property in your area, believe you are something akin to landed aristocracy and proceed to tell all your friends and people you know who rent how financially stupid they are and decry what a bargain you got for your half a million dollar apartment in a high crime neighborhood. I think Aristocratosis naturally develops as a coping mechanism to the monstrous debt you have anchored to yourself and will be working to pay off for the rest of your life.

For all those who have the same depressed reaction I do, here is a blog to make you feel better. It's called Bubblemeter, and it's dedicated to the relieving assumption that the DC Housing Market is a bubble, and that it will burst soon. I hope so. They search out and find nifty facts, like that home cancellations are way up, anti-gentrification sentiment, and mortgage payments rising explosively. As the blog shouts, "always remember: Renters are people too. We are NOT second class citizens!"

Porter Goss, Communist

2006-05-05T15:17:00.000-04:00

Porter Goss is gone already. I mean, geez, he left Congress just to do that? Oh well, guess his career is over. That is, until he becomes a beltway bandit and makes mountains of money. However, I like this parting remark from ol' C-Plus Augustus himself:

Making the announcement from the Oval Office, Bush said Goss' tenure had been one of transition.

"He has led ably," Bush said, Goss at his side. "He has a five-year plan to increase the analysts and operatives."

Because nothing should make people better than hearing "We have a five-year plan." Because, you know, Five Year Plans have such a fine historical record of working out so well.

Iraq Is Really Like . . . The War of 1812?

2006-05-05T10:55:00.000-04:00

With all the overwrought comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam (the only real comparison is that they're guerilla wars. And it's not like Vietnam was the first) it's worth examining another comparison that might be more politically educational. And that is . . . the War of 1812!

The Wikipedia entry on the origins of the war notes that the British government "had already revoked the restrictions on American commerce" by the time war was declared on June 18, 1812 but that information hadn't yet reached the western hemisphere. Still, this reflects the basic unseriousness of the diplomatic approach to the main ostensible grievance reflecting, again, the fact that a hunt was under way to find an excuse for war. We even learn that "[s]ome Americans argued that the majority of the population in the British colonies would rise up and greet an American invading army as liberators."

It's interesting. While the facts of the wars themselves are different, of course, I think this is more an interesting case of looking at how the domestic politics are similar. Of course, Yglesias goes on after this to talk about how we wished we had actually invaded and taken over most of Canada to politically weaken the south and make us more socialist (or would the opposite have happened, I wonder, and Canada become more Americanized?).

Personally, I think if you want to make Iraq analogies you can do it all day long. There are similarities between all kinds of wars. And some of them draw educational points and some of them not. Nothing is going to be a perfect fit. I think the closest, for my money though, is the Phillipine Insurrection.

From Hell

2006-05-05T10:29:00.000-04:00

Next time you think your neighbors suck, think about this.

Over the course of three years, Jeanne Wilding left dog poo, glass, and nails on people's doorsteps. She blasted "Carmina Burana" -- a musical piece about rape and pillage -- out her windows at high volume. She left dead animals in gardens and beamed floodlights into her neighbors' windows.

Lawyers told the court Jeanne Wilding was a "professional trouble-causer" running a "campaign of hatred and pure evil."

Nigel Pratt broke down as he testified about Wilding's frightening behavior. He said his 11-year-old son's life had been ruined by her pranks.

"He's frightened of my wife going out in the yard when Miss Wilding is there," he said.

"He screams and shouts at her not to go outside."

This sounds like the beginning of a bad Stephen King novel. You know, like before we find out that Wilding (and that is so a name from a bad Stephen King novel) is really an alien. Or a vampire. Or a clown. Or some combination of the three. And then she begins really reaking havoc. We all know it begins with dead animals and ends in an alien invasion. Or a vampire colony. Or some combination of the two.

Wal-Mart Cure

2006-05-04T10:50:00.000-04:00

There is new legislation being proposed to increase access to unions (hat tip, Bull Moose). The proposed legislation would require employers to allow unions to be set up if a majority of workers sign a card authorizing union representation. Although I am not a blind supporter of unions, I do support this policy for one major reason – Wal-Mart.

My biggest problem with unions is that they are too strong in certain areas (education) and retard progressive policies as well as often working to protect the wrong people. At the same time though, I recognize the impact they have had in this country to protect our workers, and I think they can still serve that purpose in certain places.

As I see it, Wal-Mart uses its market power to take advantage of its employees. At the same time, I don’t want to see government interference like the kind we saw in Maryland. Instead, if Wal-Mart employees were allowed to unionize (or, to say it differently, if Wal-Mart was punished for using intimidation to prevent unionization), they might be able to negotiate pay and benefits that are in line with other jobs in the industry. Every once in a while, we need to make sure that all workers in this country have the ability to unionize without fear of employer retribution.

For Shame Liberal Media

2006-05-04T09:46:00.000-04:00

There is an editorial in yesterday’s New York Time about the re-nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – which is often thought of as the most prestigious federal appeals court. I agree with the NY Times editorial staff that the nominee should get another Senate hearing. New information has come out since the original nomination about Kavanaugh’s involvement in controversial Bush administration policies.

What I don’t agree with is the editorial’s claim that Kavanaugh is unqualified for the position. The American Bar Association, the one place that non-legal experts can look to for objective analysis of federal judicial nominees’ qualifications, has rated Kavanaugh as Well Qualified (with a minority on the committee only rating him Qualified). The NY Times staff knows what the word “qualified” implies when it relates to judicial nominees. So when the editorial claims that Kavanaugh is unqualified, they are purposefully misleading their readers. While it is perfectly reasonable to think that the Times staff disagrees with the ABA, they don’t bother to mention that an objective organization gave Kavanaugh their highest rating.

We constantly rail on the Bush administration for only sharing information that supports their argument and thereby misleading the public. I think it is time we hold the media to the same standard.

No More Mountain Dew

2006-05-03T15:28:00.000-04:00

Thinking about the decrease in teenage pregnancy rates used to make me feel good. It made me believe that good policies really can make a difference. In fact, I'll even go so far to say that it shows bad policies can make a difference too. But after reading a post at Slate, I am more scared than I am encouraged. According to Liza Mundy, the decline might really be due to lower fertility among American males. I think before we ban fast food, we should ban Mountain Dew.

Biden My Time

2006-05-03T14:50:00.000-04:00

Senator Biden wrote an Op-Ed in the NY Times regarding strategy in Iraq. Although it isn't shocking or very original, it is pretty smart. It calls for a decentralized federal system, but one that grants the Sunni area, which lacks oil resources, a fair share (based on population) of the country's revenue. The proposal also calls for major American troop withdrawal by 2008.

A decentralized system will probably work best so long as the Sunnis aren't excluded from Iraqi revenue. Basically this means a decentralized system for policy and laws, but centralized taxation and budget distribution. Since Iraqis are now in charge of their their government and changing the constitution, we can only hope they read Biden's Op-Ed.

As for the planned withdrawal, I had been opposed to this for a long time. I thought it would cause the insurgents to wait until we left before making a violent attempt at power. But I think now that the insurgency is getting worse all the time, it might be our best option. An annoucement of a distant withdrawal might take the wind out of the sails of the Sunni groups that are only anti-American and rally everyone against the Al Qaeda groups that are anti-American and anti-Iraqi.

Trent Lott Needs an Atomic Wedgie

2006-05-03T09:49:00.000-04:00

Captain Ed summarizes it well:

The projects that got past Senate pork hawks like Tom Coburn were a $200 million bailout of Northrup Grumman for indemnifyng the defense contractor against losses that its insurers refuse to cover. Coburn faced stiff opposition from Trent Lott, the man who apparently wants to make a career out of defying voters on earmarks, and Thad Cochran. Both Republicans insisted that the government needed to replace the loss, even though Northrup made a 7.1% operating margin in 2005, up from 6.7% in 2004 and 5.6% in 2003. That represent $2.4 billion in profit, an increase from $2.3B in 2004 and $1.9B in 2003.

Why does a corporation that made $2.4 billion in profit need another $200 million from American taxpayers to cover a loss they've absorbed in that same year?

Rather than focus resources on the truly needy and on real emergencies, Lott and Cochran have manipulated the relief bill to stick money into Northrup's pockets. Perhaps folks from Lott's home state of Mississippi should ask themselves why Lott seems more concerned about the travails of a corporation that had its best year ever than those who had their entire lives wiped out by Katrina.

There are a lot of rumors that when Frist leaves to campaign for President, Lott wants his leadership seat back. He's also been taking every opportunity he can to snipe at those who deposed him after his ridiculous canonizing of Strom Thurmond. He's also said he's "damn tired" of people who are trying to eliminate pork in spending bils. And this sort of thing, a blatant corporate payoff, is what he has to offer? This isn't policy or law, it's plain old-fashioned robbery. When a government contractor performs a government contract, they do so at a certain amount of risk. It is that risk that justifies their profit when they succeed. But to hand them hundreds of millions when they are already operating at a profit, as if they need some sort of "bailout"- which is a despicable act of socialist statism anyway, is outrageous. That Lott uses the federal budget this way is the ultimate sort of abuse, and if he did ever manage to get his leadership post back it would be a horrible thing for this country.

But it would be a great thing for the Republicrat Statist Party. Captain Ed also notes the irony of Congress calling a 10% profit by Exxon Mobil a "windfall" and yet passes legislation to give Northrop, with its 7% profit, a bailout.

The Clueless Left

2006-05-02T12:02:00.000-04:00

Currently there is a man on death row. Many argue he is a victim of a horrific abuse of police power. Many argue he is yet more collateral damage in the largely ineffective War on Drugs. Many argue still that he is about to be put to death largely because of racism. Those many are conservative bloggers (surprising to some, but not to me) and the man is Corey Maye. No one knew who he was until Radley Balko, author of the right-wing blog the Agitator and Fox News contributor, started making a stink. Now everyone is getting in on the act. I've blogged about this before, but I feel the need to do so again, especially now that the above-linked wikipedia entry exists.

Maye awoke in the middle of the night to hear someone breaking into his back door. He grabbed a gun he owned legally and fired in that general direction three times. He heard "Police! Police" afterward and put his gun now. Now Maye is on death row for murdering a cop. If you have a puzzled look on your face, that's the right reaction. Other interesting facts are that Maye was not named on any warrant, Maye was not suspected of any criminal activity at the time, and the warrant itself was for his neighbor in the Duplex in which he lived. A man the police had ALREADY ARRESTED when they felt compelled to go for two and knock down Maye's door just in case. Some other interesting facts are that the Prentiss Public Defender was actually fired from his job after repeated threats from the Mayor for defending Maye. The Mayor has actually copped to this. In spite of all this, a probably-racist jury convicted Maye and sent him to death, in what was a clear case of self-defense.

So why aren't liberals celebrating this perfect example of why the death penalty is unjust, and a clear-cut example of how it's completely racially biased? I'm asking the question, because I want someone to answer it for me. It's all there. This all happened, in case you needed more information, because the police wanted to arrest Maye's neighbor, who was dealing Marijuana. Not crack. Not heroine. Not meth. Marijuana. If there is a bet example of War on Drugs-related stupidity, I'd like to hear it. Maye is a poster boy for everything liberals argue. The continued existence of racism in America. Racial bias in the legal system. The horrific abuse of power that the police have engaged in as part of the War on Drugs. So why is it conservatives who are championing the cause of Maye? Oh, that's right. He owned a gun.

No Man Can Serve Two Masters...

2006-04-30T23:52:00.000-04:00

...He will love the one, and hate the other, said Jesus Christ.

While Christ might have been talking about the opposing agendas of God and Mammon (worldly influence/prestige/money), the same can be said of serving Christ's flock, the Church, and serving the Communist Party of China, which wants nothing more of its populace than to be state-serving sheep.

BEIJING, April 29 -- China's state-sanctioned Roman Catholic Church will install a new bishop opposed by the Vatican on Sunday, potentially damaging efforts to restore official ties between the state and the church, a Vatican-linked news agency reported.
Hong Kong's Catholic diocese, which is under Vatican jurisdiction, protested the planned ordination Saturday.

I pray that Pope Benedict will stick to his guns on this matter, but also re-learn a lesson from the Lord as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Pope Benedict, watch your back. If and when you recognize Beijing's authoritarian regime and its power to restrict the worship God, you could well be feeding Christ's sheep to the wolves. "Feed my sheep, Peter," our Lord commanded the apostle your Church considers the first Pope. I pray that whatever decisions you make regarding Beijing that in the end, it's the sheep being fed, not the wolves.

Sunday - Save Darfur

2006-04-28T16:42:00.000-04:00

In case you don't already know this, the Save Darfur Coalition's Rally to Stop Genocide in Washington, DC is this Sunday, April 30th from 2:00pm to 4:30pm on the National Mall. If you can, please attend it. Everyone's support could make this the time that they finally listen to us.

How Dare You

2006-04-28T16:35:00.000-04:00

Parents in Massachusetts are suing the school district that taught tolerance of homosexual families because it didn’t inform the parents about the upcoming lesson and thereby give them a chance to have their child stay home from school that day. My anger at this situation goes beyond the fact that the parents think it is their legal right to prevent their child from hearing discussions on tolerance and openness. I have a feeling parents said the same thing when schools tried to teach tolerance of interracial couples.

The problem I have is that some parents feel they should have the freedom to shelter their kids from any views that conflict with what they want to teach to their children. If we continue to allow this sort of behavior, we will slide down a slippery slope where kids never go to school. Liberal parents can have their kids stay home when their economics teacher gives a lesson on the benefits of supply-side economics. Conservative parents can keep their children away from lectures on welfare.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard you try, you cannot protect children from indoctrination. There will always be teachers who use their position to convince their gullible students about their own beliefs. If you are a good parent, you can counter that at home by teaching them your values.

In this case, the parents are alleging that teaching acceptance of homosexual couples infringes on their right to their own religion. Following that logic, anytime a school teaches anything that conflicts with any religion, it is violating someone’s civil rights. Hypothetically, a school that says murder is wrong might get sued because a family believes that killing yourself and innocent civilians is a sure way to heaven.

Tolerance of homosexuality is not a religion in itself, and therefore teaching it is not advocating for one religion, nor is it directly challenging any religion. Montgomery County Public Schools had to change their sexual education curriculum because it made a judgment on religions that were opposed to homosexuality. That is very different from what is happening here. Encouraging your students to accept homosexuality, and to treat children of gay couples with respect is not making a judgment of other religions, but instead advocating for a certain type of conduct among its students.

George Clooney: Not an Ass (For Now)

2006-04-28T09:27:00.000-04:00

Hollywood actors, when it comes to politics, seem to have an innate ability to make huge asses out of themselves. George Clooney has usually been no exception to this rule, but I think his attempts to bring attention to Darfur have actually been fairly well-done and a good example of what celebrities who want to really actually make a difference and use their fame for good as opposed to idiocy can do. That he did an event at the National Press Club with super-conservative Brownback and liberal-incarnate Obama, and kept a non-partisan tone was almost Bonoesque, who is another great example of how a celebrity can engage both sides, keep their dignity, and generally get shit done. Perhaps Clooney has learned his lessons about standing on the soapbox, and that political commentary needs to be just as choreographed and thought-out as statements about how you're never going to get married, ever. He's come along way just from his Oscar speech a couple of months ago, and the infamous "I Did Not Blog" Clooneygate fiasco. Accepting the reality that there is a Republican part of the country and a Democratic part of the country to speak to, and that if you really want something done you need to speak to both halves in a respectful manner, is a big step.

That, and it's generally a good thing to help bring something back into the news that has had a lot of trouble getting the attention it deserves. I don't think it's a coincidence that ER has had a recurring Darfur-based subplot this season either.

Thief!

2006-04-27T16:36:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading a few articles on Slate regarding plagiarism. It seems that once or twice a year, a new story breaks of one writer “borrowing” from another writer. This time, it was sparked by a Harvard sophomore stealing from one of her favorite childhood writers. Whenever we look at this issue though, it is unavoidable to bring up past offenders.

The examples that have been found in the writings of Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin are examples of plagiarism using the strict definition of the word. Both authors, and many others like them, were sloppy with quotes and got caught. But in a column about Stephen Ambrose, David Plotz, while not letting Ambrose off the hook, acknowledges that it is difficult for any writer to honestly say they have never inadvertently stolen from another writer. One of the best pieces of advice any writer can get is to read profusely, and mimic writing styles that you like. In that process, it is inevitable that on occasion we borrow too much from one writer or another.

I think what I am saying is that this crime requires a more nuanced view than the zero-tolerance arguments we hear. Goodwin and Ambrose are guilty of trying to pass off quotes for a paraphrase. As far as I can tell, these examples are relatively limited compared to the size of their books. Therefore, most of their work appears to be original and should be thought of as such. Finding mistakes of laziness like these should not lead us to lump them in the same boat with writers who plagiarized everything with nothing original to claim (which is what might be the case with Kaavya Viswanathan).

The problem is that we need to learn from these mistakes, and to learn we need to acknowledge the error. Unfortunately, neither Goodwin nor Ambrose seem to be particularly bothered by what was discovered, and in their attitude they are setting a bad example for any writers that look up to them. Plagiarism, when tolerated and done repeatedly, is harmful to the art of writing. I read Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals and loved it – and I can only hope that she learned from her past experiences and was more careful with her paraphrasing.

Straight to the Point

2006-04-27T14:25:00.000-04:00

With all the talk from a lot of sides now that the US must leave Iraq because it's creating instability, it's a failure, it's costing too much money, it's stemming anti-Americanism, etc. etc., there is a solution that Jonah Goldberg has stumbled onto. It's quite simple, quite ingenious, and would answer a lot of the critics in the most direct way possible: let the Iraqis vote on it.

An Iraqi referendum would counter all of that. A national debate in Iraq over the continued presence of American troops would force many Iraqis to stop taking our protection for granted. Not everyone there craves democracy, but very few of them relish the idea of a civil war. Politicians, now invested in the survival of the political system, would be forced to take the responsible position if they wanted to keep their jobs. Indeed, rhetoric and interests would converge nicely for the first time in a while. Some would undoubtedly campaign for American withdrawal, but this would probably marginalize them and show the whole world where the hearts of Iraqis really lie.

Obviously, if you know that a referendum on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq would not pass, my idea isn't so hot. But I think it would. The Kurds would overwhelmingly vote for it. As would, I think, a majority of the Shia. And the Sunnis have discovered that U.S. troops are the only thing keeping Shia militias from slitting their throats, so even the Sunnis might vote "yes" in big numbers. Some would surely vote out of fear, others hope. But they would all check the same box.

If Iraqis voted to keep American troops, everything would change. The "occupation" and "war for oil" rhetoric would be discredited overnight. America would have put its vital interest money where its principled mouth is. Iraq's anti-American factions would be further pulled into the process, even if they voted "no." The Iraqi people would "own" this project in their own right. Iraqi politicians would no longer have to worry about being called lapdogs to America — "the people have spoken," they could respond. Arab nations couldn't claim that the democratization of Iraq was inauthentic or imposed by "imperialists." Even the Europeans would be floored by the audacity of the gesture. And our own troops would have the idealism of their project reaffirmed.

I'm not quite so sure that the vote would go in favor of US troops staying as Jonah is, but I for one would see withdrawal as acceptible if it was at the behest of an Iraqi referendum. And, as Jonah points out, should Iraqis vote for the American troop presence to remain, it would change the political dynamic entirely.

Bold New Precedent

2006-04-27T12:03:00.000-04:00

I thought that after the ruling, we would be done with the Da Vinci Code copyright madness. I was wrong. It turns out that the judge in the case included a code of his own in the text of his 71 page decision.

I wonder if this will set a precedent. Will future judges include naked pictures of themselves in pornography trials? Or maybe during the next lawsuit alleging stolen music, the judge could sing the decision to the court.

This opens up a whole new exciting world for judicial decisions. Say goodbye to verbose and boring legal texts. Now, they must be metaphors for the case at hand!

Out with FEMA, In with NPRA?

2006-04-27T11:32:00.000-04:00

The recommendations are out for fixing FEMA. Like any good bipartisan committee, they recommend increasing the size of the government. The committee, lead by Senators Lieberman and Collins recommended re-creating the agency from scratch and giving it a budget twice as big as it is now.

I don’t think their recommendations are terrible. A strong case can be made for a more active Federal role during natural disasters, especially after watching every level of government blame each other last fall. Also, with catastrophic global climate change right in front of us, we can expect more active hurricane seasons like last year’s.

On the other hand, the recommendations might be a little excessive. One big step FEMA could take would be to appoint people with real emergency management experience, instead of using the post as a place for political patronage. President Bush and future administrations after him need to realize the importance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This means taking its warnings seriously and staffing it with the best and the brightest.