I will attempt to keep this posting brief--for even this brief posting will bring out all sorts of vitriol. I would like to make known for any record that I am ashamed that we allowed Saddam Hussein to be executed recently. This should not be confused with any sort of love or respect for the guy--he was after all a brutal tyrant: our brutal tyrant and old friend--but I believe the Bush administration and all those in the chorus joining his praise of this execution are correct in saying that this is a new era for Iraq, yet are gravely wrong about what this new era will be like for Iraq.
Here is why they are wrong:
The execution of Saddam firmly closes his chapter in Iraqi and world history and the televised spectacle firmly drove this home to the many Iraqis who witnessed the event. With that, I cannot argue. Yet this new era brings to mind different things to different Iraqis. To the Shiites and Kurds, the dark chapter of Saddam's rule has come to a close and they can now find relief in his passing. But, particularly to the Shiites, this new era is one which emboldens their spirits to take their place as leaders of the new Iraq as they constitute the majority of the population. The problem with this is that Iraq is now a more divided--and divided with increasing fervidity and hardline thinking/feeling/acting--and the Shiites--now more violent and polarised following the colapse of any sort of government and order in the country--seek to exact the revenge they justly deserve to give to the Sunnis for the 20+ years of brutality of Saddam's rule. To the Kurds, this new era shows the hope and promise of finally realizing their centuries-long dream of running their own country, Kurdistan, an ambition which would further destabilize the region as Turkey would never accept such a position (for the significant minority in that country also seeks to fulfill those same goals, perhaps culminating in a secession from that country).
To the Sunnis, this execution is not the beginning of a new and prosperous chapter. It is the beginning of what to them seems like a long nightmare where they will no longer enjoy their former status as masters of what they feel is their country (the one that Saddam built for them in the last two decades). To those partisans who watched in horror as their strength and shield hung fifteen feet above the ground--without the usual head cloth to protect the audience from the gruesome facial expressions that one exhibits during hanging and eventual death (which includes the launching of the eyeballs from their sockets as a result of the pressure in the head of the executed created by the noose's stranglehold)--this moment ushered in a new era for them in which they will have to exact retribution upon all those who can be compiled into a large camp of executioners. This means not only Shiites and Kurds who eagerly awaited Saddam's death as well as complicit Sunnis who either suffered or dissented during Saddam's reign, but also the United States for actively supporting this execution and reportedly (although I'm seeking verification of the story) expediating the time of execution to coincide with the period of the hajj and the festivities which accompany the celebration. These loyal partisans--and actually anyone who felt attachment to Saddam's reign for the venerable, brief period of order he brought to a land eternally plagued by chaos--will now escalate their attacks throughout the country, ushering in a period of return to the ancient practice of lawlessness known as vendetta killing. These vendettae will be repaid in kind by the Shiite majority and Iraq is now going to disintegrate further into chaos, violence and disorder. With Saddam's execution, there is no longer any figure--let alone any collective power or governing body--in or out of the country (including us) who can unite the people of what is (used to be) Iraq.
Everyone is correct in saying this is a new era following his death. Unfortunately, it will be a period of even more intense violence and greater death, disorder, and suffering; an era which will only end when the country is divided among the three major populations (although not guaranteed this would succeed much faster), or another Saddam comes to power. It's unfortunate to say this, but in even an elementary review of the region's history, this is the history that Iraq is doomed to repeat until there comes a major transformation in the culture, education and society. Pray I'm wrong, but I see few other possibilities for what this new era holds.
On Hiatus
I'll be out of the country for the next two weeks, so in case somebody leaves a post about property rights or zoning policy, that's why I didn't respond. So, while I'm gone (New Zealand), argue forcefully and have fun.
I'll post pictures when I get back for all you Lord of the Rings fans.
I'll post pictures when I get back for all you Lord of the Rings fans.
If we'd only known then...
Michael and I read a really interesting article the other day, he posted a link to it in his last post, about the should've-would've-could've chorus, and I'd like to take a moment to query those of you who support the "If we'd only known then what we know now" camp.
What I really want to know is, what do we know now that we didn't know then?
WMD's? - It has long been established that there are no WMD's in Iraq. This has all sorts of implications for our motives as to why we went to war, but I distinctly remember that it was a risk we as a country seemed willing to take. We gambled on that point, and we lost, but we knew then there was a chance there were no WMD's and we decided to go knowing there might be nothing.
Insurgents? - The campaign in Iraq definitively has its enemies. There are people with guns who don't want to leave and who don't want us there. They're tenacious and willing to sacrifice themselves just to kill a few Americans. Maybe my ignorance of military tactics is off base, but I thought that an insurgency is something that would be a no brainer, when we put armed troops into someone else's country, there is bound to be resistance. And whilst one may argue that we weren't expecting such fierce resistance, when so much of that area has been calling for American blood for essentially my entire lifetime, can anyone really say they didn't expect resistance? That they didn't know there would be insurgency?
The commitment of time, money and American lives? - I know this is a touchy subject because it is one that hits home for a lot of people, but who would go to war assuming that they wouldn't lose any troops? With the globalization of information, each death is instantly known around the country, and we feel every single lost life around the country, but I have to ask, how can anyone say, "We didn't know then it would cost lives"? The responsibility of committing to war means that you have to be willing to know that your decision will cost lives. Did nobody stop and think before voting to go to war that it could be difficult? I've read before that in order to win a guerrilla war, it will take a huge number of troops a long time. I believe it was at least a 10 x 1 ratio of troops needed for something like 15 years. Now, it's been a while, and I forget where I read that, but if I, as an ignoramus in guerrilla warfare have an understanding of the cost, how can anyone argue they didn't know it would be costly when the made the decision to go to war?
So I have to ask, when politicians are saying "If we knew then what we know now, we would have never made the decision to go to war" I have to ask, what is it that you know now? Nothing has changed except public opinion. There haven't been any developments, there haven't been any revelations, so what do we know now?
What I really want to know is, what do we know now that we didn't know then?
WMD's? - It has long been established that there are no WMD's in Iraq. This has all sorts of implications for our motives as to why we went to war, but I distinctly remember that it was a risk we as a country seemed willing to take. We gambled on that point, and we lost, but we knew then there was a chance there were no WMD's and we decided to go knowing there might be nothing.
Insurgents? - The campaign in Iraq definitively has its enemies. There are people with guns who don't want to leave and who don't want us there. They're tenacious and willing to sacrifice themselves just to kill a few Americans. Maybe my ignorance of military tactics is off base, but I thought that an insurgency is something that would be a no brainer, when we put armed troops into someone else's country, there is bound to be resistance. And whilst one may argue that we weren't expecting such fierce resistance, when so much of that area has been calling for American blood for essentially my entire lifetime, can anyone really say they didn't expect resistance? That they didn't know there would be insurgency?
The commitment of time, money and American lives? - I know this is a touchy subject because it is one that hits home for a lot of people, but who would go to war assuming that they wouldn't lose any troops? With the globalization of information, each death is instantly known around the country, and we feel every single lost life around the country, but I have to ask, how can anyone say, "We didn't know then it would cost lives"? The responsibility of committing to war means that you have to be willing to know that your decision will cost lives. Did nobody stop and think before voting to go to war that it could be difficult? I've read before that in order to win a guerrilla war, it will take a huge number of troops a long time. I believe it was at least a 10 x 1 ratio of troops needed for something like 15 years. Now, it's been a while, and I forget where I read that, but if I, as an ignoramus in guerrilla warfare have an understanding of the cost, how can anyone argue they didn't know it would be costly when the made the decision to go to war?
So I have to ask, when politicians are saying "If we knew then what we know now, we would have never made the decision to go to war" I have to ask, what is it that you know now? Nothing has changed except public opinion. There haven't been any developments, there haven't been any revelations, so what do we know now?
Mixed Bag of Thoughts for 2007
:
1) I am ashamed it has taken this long for someone to say it here, but RIP Gerald Ford. I wish you had given that rebel peanut farmer a good whopping in '76 and admire your balls for asking Ronald Reagan to serve in a co-presidency with you in '80 when you were going to be his running mate.
2) I received both Obama's The Audacity of Hope and Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (Version 2.0) for Christmas this year. Thus far, Friedman is changing my views on globalization greatly and Obama has written little convince me he's ready to be President of the United States.
3) I read a good op-ed in the Bangor Daily News this week here. The introduction is great: "The coulda-shoulda-woulda chorus just added a new soprano. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War if she’d known then what she knows now."
4) Edwards just declared for the Presidency, and at the moment he remains my favorite of the Democratic front runners. Edwards-Obama would absolutely rape the Republican party of any minority vote it had been hoping to get in 2008 between a southern candidate and a minority running mate. On the Republican side, I'm getting a bit bored with the slow pace of the primary thus far. This does not surprise me, as it is typically the opposition party who mobilizes first.
5) I'm pretty sure I like Sen. Susan Collins.
6) I promise this is the last time I will mention this on Across the Aisle, but I finished Edmund Morris' The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt this week and I would like to say that it and its sequel (which I read first), Theodore Rex, should both be required readings for anyone who has interest in American history and government. It is an overlooked time period which served to form the modern era of American history.
I hope this blog fires back up as the majority of bloggers re-enter studies next month and have a new semester's worth of classes to ignore in favor of this site. In its first month and a half of existence, we're approaching 60 posts and even more comments, which is great.
Happy New Year, all. Let's hope our nation doesn't go down the tubes next year... we managed to stay afloat in this one.
1) I am ashamed it has taken this long for someone to say it here, but RIP Gerald Ford. I wish you had given that rebel peanut farmer a good whopping in '76 and admire your balls for asking Ronald Reagan to serve in a co-presidency with you in '80 when you were going to be his running mate.
2) I received both Obama's The Audacity of Hope and Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (Version 2.0) for Christmas this year. Thus far, Friedman is changing my views on globalization greatly and Obama has written little convince me he's ready to be President of the United States.
3) I read a good op-ed in the Bangor Daily News this week here. The introduction is great: "The coulda-shoulda-woulda chorus just added a new soprano. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War if she’d known then what she knows now."
4) Edwards just declared for the Presidency, and at the moment he remains my favorite of the Democratic front runners. Edwards-Obama would absolutely rape the Republican party of any minority vote it had been hoping to get in 2008 between a southern candidate and a minority running mate. On the Republican side, I'm getting a bit bored with the slow pace of the primary thus far. This does not surprise me, as it is typically the opposition party who mobilizes first.
5) I'm pretty sure I like Sen. Susan Collins.
6) I promise this is the last time I will mention this on Across the Aisle, but I finished Edmund Morris' The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt this week and I would like to say that it and its sequel (which I read first), Theodore Rex, should both be required readings for anyone who has interest in American history and government. It is an overlooked time period which served to form the modern era of American history.
I hope this blog fires back up as the majority of bloggers re-enter studies next month and have a new semester's worth of classes to ignore in favor of this site. In its first month and a half of existence, we're approaching 60 posts and even more comments, which is great.
Happy New Year, all. Let's hope our nation doesn't go down the tubes next year... we managed to stay afloat in this one.
Honor and Dignity Restored to White House
I'm reluctant to post twice in a row, but it looks like the rest of you are wrapped up in "finals" or whatever you guys call the winter celebration of your ivory tower idolatry.
I found this quote from the President eerily similar to one I heard from a different President eight years ago:
I found this quote from the President eerily similar to one I heard from a different President eight years ago:
Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.See, it just depends on what the meaning of the word "are" is!
Unelected Foreign Gasbag Calls for Resignation of Senators
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brentley, who is well known as a Global Warming skeptic, puzzle dork, and former policy advisor to the Iron Lady, has issued a demand (PDF) to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller: Disavow and apologize for the letter you sent to ExxonMobil in October, or resign.
I have, of course, already dispatched my reply.
I have, of course, already dispatched my reply.
Harry Reid and Iraq Troop Surge
It's truly infuriating to read stories like this. I am baffled as to what Harry Reid is thinking by advocating a short term surge in troop deployment. This is an incredibly unpopular proposal, almost certain to result in failure, and highly likely to work in favor of Democrats looking toward 2008. For a couple months now, John McCain has been advocating an increase of at least 20,000 troops to win in Iraq. He's said he can't morally support the war unless the commanders are given enough troops to fight it. After the the elections, the Baker Commission, and the ousting of Rumsfeld, it seemed that Bush might finally be readjusting his strategy. I honestly believed for about a week that we were going to see some modest changes. Just the opposite is happening. It looked like McCain was trying to contrast himself with Bush and disassociate himself with Bush's failed Iraq policy. With several recent leaks to major papers indicating that the troop surge looks like the most likely course of action for 2007, it looks like McCain's bluff is going to be called.
Iraq will be in just a big a mess in 2008 as it is now, especially if more troops are sent there. And McCain, the likely Republican presidential candidate, would own the failed strategy. But how can Democrats say it's all McCain's fault if the Democratic party leader is advocating a similar strategy? Harry Reid can claim he was okay with a brief increase in troops, so long as they were out by early 2008, as the Baker Commission recommends, but detailed, complex explanations like that DON'T WORK. Remember John Kerry and John Edwards trying to explain their Iraq War votes? Talk, talk, talk, talk. In contemporary American politics, candidates need to be able to articulate their differences with the other candidate in 20 seconds.
Democrats should be able to say: Bush has ignored a bipartisan commission to draw down troops -- he wants to send more -- he refuses to change his failed policy. Democrats support the findings of the Baker Commission which gives the Iraqis sufficient time to prepare to fight for their own country and eventually allows our troops to come home. That's it.
Okay, so Harry Reid might be able to get away with this. He's just one Democrat and he doesn't speak for everybody in the party. But 2008 presidential candidates need to be fully aware that the positions they take today will profoundly impact them in the next two years.
Iraq will be in just a big a mess in 2008 as it is now, especially if more troops are sent there. And McCain, the likely Republican presidential candidate, would own the failed strategy. But how can Democrats say it's all McCain's fault if the Democratic party leader is advocating a similar strategy? Harry Reid can claim he was okay with a brief increase in troops, so long as they were out by early 2008, as the Baker Commission recommends, but detailed, complex explanations like that DON'T WORK. Remember John Kerry and John Edwards trying to explain their Iraq War votes? Talk, talk, talk, talk. In contemporary American politics, candidates need to be able to articulate their differences with the other candidate in 20 seconds.
Democrats should be able to say: Bush has ignored a bipartisan commission to draw down troops -- he wants to send more -- he refuses to change his failed policy. Democrats support the findings of the Baker Commission which gives the Iraqis sufficient time to prepare to fight for their own country and eventually allows our troops to come home. That's it.
Okay, so Harry Reid might be able to get away with this. He's just one Democrat and he doesn't speak for everybody in the party. But 2008 presidential candidates need to be fully aware that the positions they take today will profoundly impact them in the next two years.
NJ Civil Unions
I'd been meaning to blog about this in the days leading up to yesterday's votes, but I've been scrambling to finish last-minute school stuff. It's a done deal: in a few short months, same-sex civil unions will be the law of the land in New Jersey. By a 23-12 vote in the Senate and a 56-19 vote in the Assembly, lawmakers passed measures guaranteeing equal treatment under the law for gay couples.
I couldn't be prouder. The fact that gay couples have been, until recently, denied the basic rights afforded to heterosexual couples, speaks ill of our culture and our society. Gay rights advocates have been waiting for days like yesterday for decades. Granting gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples is important to me for two reasons: first, the rights themselves. They are self-evidently important for gay couples. Second, it shows that our society, in certain places at least, is becoming more tolerant of people who have different lifestyles. Equality under the law has important meaning according to the letter of the law, but it carries a profound symbolic component, too.
Whatever one might think of homosexuality from a moral point of view, it's important to recognize that homosexuality is a permanent, immutable, human characteristic. And I believe the health of the gay community is at least partly dependent upon the degree to which society offers them a welcoming, accepting environment. The thought that homosexuals have spent decades hiding from view and meeting with one another in shame sickens me. When I see the ubiquitous gay couples on the subway I ride to the Bronx every day, they snuggle together in their seats the same way straight couples do. They hold each others' hands the same way I do with my wife. There isn't a hint of self-consciousness in the way they regard each other, and I can't even detect a subconscious fear in their faces that someone might be looking on with disapproving eyes. That's the way it ought to be for them everywhere.
Still, I think that the state-by-state approach to enacting civil unions is the way our society should proceed. Acceptance of homosexuality has had its ebbs and flows during the last 3,000 years, but during its brief history, America has been quite hostile to same-sex couples. I think much of the reaction against gay rights in the U.S. is largely the result of cultural inertia. Social change should not be thrust upon communities; they should choose to endorse the changes themselves. I think gay couples should have equal rights in all 50 states. But until majorities agree with that sentiment nationwide -- as they do today in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont -- it's best to keep the federal government out of the issue. This is a fight gay rights advocates should be able to win in any state.
As for gay marriage, well, that issue doesn't mean much of anything to me. Government is a guarantor of rights. Civil unions grant gay couples the status granted to straight couples under the law, which is what I care about. If your church wants to deny marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples, it's none of my business. I just won't attend your services.
UPDATE: Here's a link to a recent article by E.J. Graff, in which she takes stock of civil unions worldwide.
I couldn't be prouder. The fact that gay couples have been, until recently, denied the basic rights afforded to heterosexual couples, speaks ill of our culture and our society. Gay rights advocates have been waiting for days like yesterday for decades. Granting gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples is important to me for two reasons: first, the rights themselves. They are self-evidently important for gay couples. Second, it shows that our society, in certain places at least, is becoming more tolerant of people who have different lifestyles. Equality under the law has important meaning according to the letter of the law, but it carries a profound symbolic component, too.
Whatever one might think of homosexuality from a moral point of view, it's important to recognize that homosexuality is a permanent, immutable, human characteristic. And I believe the health of the gay community is at least partly dependent upon the degree to which society offers them a welcoming, accepting environment. The thought that homosexuals have spent decades hiding from view and meeting with one another in shame sickens me. When I see the ubiquitous gay couples on the subway I ride to the Bronx every day, they snuggle together in their seats the same way straight couples do. They hold each others' hands the same way I do with my wife. There isn't a hint of self-consciousness in the way they regard each other, and I can't even detect a subconscious fear in their faces that someone might be looking on with disapproving eyes. That's the way it ought to be for them everywhere.
Still, I think that the state-by-state approach to enacting civil unions is the way our society should proceed. Acceptance of homosexuality has had its ebbs and flows during the last 3,000 years, but during its brief history, America has been quite hostile to same-sex couples. I think much of the reaction against gay rights in the U.S. is largely the result of cultural inertia. Social change should not be thrust upon communities; they should choose to endorse the changes themselves. I think gay couples should have equal rights in all 50 states. But until majorities agree with that sentiment nationwide -- as they do today in New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont -- it's best to keep the federal government out of the issue. This is a fight gay rights advocates should be able to win in any state.
As for gay marriage, well, that issue doesn't mean much of anything to me. Government is a guarantor of rights. Civil unions grant gay couples the status granted to straight couples under the law, which is what I care about. If your church wants to deny marriage ceremonies to same-sex couples, it's none of my business. I just won't attend your services.
UPDATE: Here's a link to a recent article by E.J. Graff, in which she takes stock of civil unions worldwide.
God's Cruelty
Senator Tim Johnson has been hospitalized with "stroke-like symptoms."
If he dies or is unable to serve because of this, the power of the Senate would shift to the Republicans. Ouch.
If he dies or is unable to serve because of this, the power of the Senate would shift to the Republicans. Ouch.
E-mails from a Conservative
I have a buddy (whose initials are LS) who three or four times a week sends me conservative propagandistic e-mails, which for the most part are quite amusing (though perhaps less so if one is a staunch democrat). Here was one that I particularly enjoyed today...
Becoming Illegal (From a Maryland resident to his senator)
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
Senate Office Building
309 Hart
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes,
As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United Statesfor five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Pete McGlaughlin
Please pass this onto your friends so they can save on this great offer!
Becoming Illegal (From a Maryland resident to his senator)
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
Senate Office Building
309 Hart
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes,
As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United Statesfor five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.
If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent,
Pete McGlaughlin
Please pass this onto your friends so they can save on this great offer!
Crossing Over with John Edwards
So John Edwards played Hardball last night. From the article:
All I can remember is watching the results coming in and then CNN cut to John Edwards's speech. I fell in political love with a candidate for the first time in my adult life. I was literally angry when they cut away to show Howard Dean's speech. Don't get me wrong; Howard Dean's a smart man, and he probably would have been elected President as recently as 75 years ago, but his brand of arrogant intelligence is better suited to the smoky backroom than it is to the national campaign stage where you have to, you know, connect with voters on a visceral level.
I'd be kind of okay with Edwards/Obama '08.
"This is not hardball, this is batting practice," Matthews complained to the audience during a commercial break. "This guy is killing me. He couldn't do this four years ago."Three years ago, I hadn't yet decided on the candidate I liked for the Democratic nomination. Then came the night of Iowa caucuses.
All I can remember is watching the results coming in and then CNN cut to John Edwards's speech. I fell in political love with a candidate for the first time in my adult life. I was literally angry when they cut away to show Howard Dean's speech. Don't get me wrong; Howard Dean's a smart man, and he probably would have been elected President as recently as 75 years ago, but his brand of arrogant intelligence is better suited to the smoky backroom than it is to the national campaign stage where you have to, you know, connect with voters on a visceral level.
I'd be kind of okay with Edwards/Obama '08.
This One Makes it 30
AP called it: Rodriguez defeats Bonilla in TX-23. I'm genuinely surprised about this one, although I don't know how much you can read into low-interest runoff elections held in mid-December.
But every seat Democrats win in 2006 will be easier to win again in 2008, because of the advantage incumbency provides. Congratulations are in order for Rodriguez, particularly after his quixotic, doomed primary battle against Henry Cuellar earlier this year.
UPDATE: reactions here, here, here, and here.
But every seat Democrats win in 2006 will be easier to win again in 2008, because of the advantage incumbency provides. Congratulations are in order for Rodriguez, particularly after his quixotic, doomed primary battle against Henry Cuellar earlier this year.
UPDATE: reactions here, here, here, and here.
Number Nine... Number Nine... Number Nine...
I proudly announce that Mr. Kyle R. Green is now an bona-fide full contributor to "Across the Aisle", bringing our illustrious panel to nine:
Mr. Green
...now all I want for Christmas is a member of the far right to join. Leigh Smith? Strom Thurmond? Rummy (you've got the time now, buddy)? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Mr. Green
...now all I want for Christmas is a member of the far right to join. Leigh Smith? Strom Thurmond? Rummy (you've got the time now, buddy)? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Let's do the sensible thing with Iran and Syria
As i've made mention previously, Middle East experts like Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, have argued we should resume social, economic, and political ties with Iran and Syria. In both cases, the rulers are not as untouchable as they are purported in their state-controlled medias. Ahmedinejad's conference on the Holocaust is little more than a ploy to win back favor in Iran where he is not as popular as when he was elected. He has not delivered promise to bring Iran into the world scene as a true superpower: their economy is not producing the jobs he said it would. It's relative isolation from the Developed World is a major source of disdain for his younger constituents, who hold more than favorable opinions of the West and seek to integrate with us someday sooner, rather than later. Reintroducing ourselves in that country (if done in a more responsible manner than we previously conducted ourselves prior to 1978) would show the whole of the Iranian people that Ahmedinejad's media claims are not as real as they claim to be regarding the West. Plus, it would give tremendous impetus to those who seek to modernize and reform the current Ayatollah-dominated system of abuses of power and irrationality. It would create a new front in trade relations, thus creating more job opportunities for the US and Iran and further undermine Ahmedinejad's regime.
With regard to Syria, i cannot say i am as well-read, suffice it to say that what i do know is that President Bashar Al-Assad early this year conceded that relations between our two nations was necessary for both countries (we need his help with Iraq and Lebannon, and he needs our help with the plethora of internal problems he is facing). His country is also not as productive as his critics say it could be were it a part of the global economy, and as with other democratic movements throughout the region, that in Syria is gaining momentum and posing greater problems. This appears to be another opportunity for us to defend ourselves through not just counter-polemicizing, but in action, as our active presence in the region could have an undermining effect on his regime and an uplifting effect on trade.
Let us not miss these opportunities, for we also have the problem with Iraq, where these two players are key in solving that internal, as well as regional problem. Bringing those two under a regionally-respected system of cooperation would ultimately moderate their policies and would bring them under regional scrutiny. Plus, our positive contributions toward such a system as an active player and contributor would secure more favorable opinion in that part of the World.
With regard to Syria, i cannot say i am as well-read, suffice it to say that what i do know is that President Bashar Al-Assad early this year conceded that relations between our two nations was necessary for both countries (we need his help with Iraq and Lebannon, and he needs our help with the plethora of internal problems he is facing). His country is also not as productive as his critics say it could be were it a part of the global economy, and as with other democratic movements throughout the region, that in Syria is gaining momentum and posing greater problems. This appears to be another opportunity for us to defend ourselves through not just counter-polemicizing, but in action, as our active presence in the region could have an undermining effect on his regime and an uplifting effect on trade.
Let us not miss these opportunities, for we also have the problem with Iraq, where these two players are key in solving that internal, as well as regional problem. Bringing those two under a regionally-respected system of cooperation would ultimately moderate their policies and would bring them under regional scrutiny. Plus, our positive contributions toward such a system as an active player and contributor would secure more favorable opinion in that part of the World.
Something We All Should Know About Obama
Jeff Greenfield has a real unique perspective on Obama's recent attire... Apparently Obama's been sportin' the Ahmadinejad look.
UPDATE: There's more.
Iran Holocaust Deniers
Iran is hosting some sort of anti-semitic forum that questions the standard history of the Holocaust or whether it ever happened at all. I can't really say this is especially surprising coming from the gutter of the Muslim world, but I think it signifies a moral victory for the West. Notice that after the Danish newspapers released offensive cartoons depicting Mohammad with a bomb as a turban and suicide bombers lined up at the gates of heaven with a sign reading, "sorry, we ran out of virgins," the Muslim world erupted in a crazed violent protest. This involved thousands of maniacs rampaging and torching embassies for weeks on end and calls from Muslim states for the Netharlands to issue an apology.
The Iranians thought they'd be clever and demonstrate Western hypocricy by making fun of the Holocaust. Their goal, as stated, was to infuriate the West and give us a taste of our own medicine. They were hoping to draw a cultural equivalency and watch as we erupted in rage at something "equally" offensive.
It's interesting how the West has responded. Notice how we handle offensive viewpoints espoused through a free press. We don't behave like savages and trash the embassies of states connected with the anti-semitic forum in Iran. It doesn't go on for one day, let alone weeks. We don't call upon the leaders of Muslim states to repudiate it. We shrug our shoulders and accept it as the inevitable undesirable outcome of what should happen in a free society.
This event offers a clear distinction between our society and theirs. The Muslim world is currently behind the West by about 400 years. Their society is probably more backwards and shows less hope than European monarchies of the 1600s. As soon as the United States can develop alternative energy sources and render oil a useless commodity, the Muslim world will have little to offer the West, except for some of the bright minds that want to get out of the place, and will be forced to reform if it hopes to survive.
The Iranians thought they'd be clever and demonstrate Western hypocricy by making fun of the Holocaust. Their goal, as stated, was to infuriate the West and give us a taste of our own medicine. They were hoping to draw a cultural equivalency and watch as we erupted in rage at something "equally" offensive.
It's interesting how the West has responded. Notice how we handle offensive viewpoints espoused through a free press. We don't behave like savages and trash the embassies of states connected with the anti-semitic forum in Iran. It doesn't go on for one day, let alone weeks. We don't call upon the leaders of Muslim states to repudiate it. We shrug our shoulders and accept it as the inevitable undesirable outcome of what should happen in a free society.
This event offers a clear distinction between our society and theirs. The Muslim world is currently behind the West by about 400 years. Their society is probably more backwards and shows less hope than European monarchies of the 1600s. As soon as the United States can develop alternative energy sources and render oil a useless commodity, the Muslim world will have little to offer the West, except for some of the bright minds that want to get out of the place, and will be forced to reform if it hopes to survive.
Symptoms Of A Police State
After having an unpleasant encounter with UMaine library staff and later, UMaine police, I read of a UCLA student who received unfair treatment. In his case, he was repeatedly taisered by campus police (I think) for failing to show his student ID when he was using one of the library computers. Apparently, he was on his way out of the library when the police arrived and was subsequently taisered, cuffed, and arrested. But not before a mob of fellow students descended, protesting the police brutality. After the taising, one kid asked for a cop's badge number and was threatened with a taising himself.
I have to say this is symptomatic of a larger societal problem of overzealous and power-hungry cops... not to mention librarians. I was reflecting on the few encounters I've had with uniformed officers in my lifetime -- either directly or indirectly. Aside from one occasion, I'm genuinely pressed to remember a time when their intervention made a situation better. I find their presence on college campuses to be especially unnecessary. Scanning through the weekly Maine Campus police logs, I would say somewhere around 90 percent of reported incidents involved underage drinking or marijuana. It's always a good thing when they set up a road block and catch a drunk driver or arrest a kid who struck a female, but these incidents seem to be few and far between.
Thank You Dustin Libby
A 22 year-old guy from Presque Isle, Dustin Libby, was killed in Iraq.
I'm incredibly thankful that I live in a free country where we can set up a blog and argue over the policies of our government. If it weren't for people like Libby, we would never have all of these freedoms that we cherish so deeply.
R.I.P. Dustin Libby.
I'm incredibly thankful that I live in a free country where we can set up a blog and argue over the policies of our government. If it weren't for people like Libby, we would never have all of these freedoms that we cherish so deeply.
R.I.P. Dustin Libby.
Strategic Poll Responses
A few new polls have come out in the last day or two, showing President Bush's approval ratings at an all-time low and Congressional approval at a mere 13%. Both of these numbers are about as low as I can imagine them being; in order for a president to fall beneath the 40% level, he has to be abandoned by his own partisans. The new dip in Bush's (and Congress') approval, assuming it's not related to sampling, question wording and order, etc., is perhaps some kind of response to the ISG report. But it seems to me that Bush's approval ratings have been consistently 3-5% lower since the election.
We're inundated with polling data in today's political world, and I think more and more people are actively aware of how pervasive it's become. Now, survey research is statistically sound, in that once you have a large enough random sample of the electorate, you can make certain conditional statements about it within a 95% confidence interval. The degree to which a sample matches the real distribution of opinions in a population, however, is more complicated. The 2000 and 2004 presidential exit polls somehow systematically undersampled Republican identifiers, and in so doing presented an inaccurate view of the population's vote choice.
Looking at the Bush and Congress numbers, I can't help but think something else is at work. I don't have any evidence to back this up, but I've long suspected that high-information partisans provide strategic answers to pollsters in the period leading up to an election. For example, if I'm right, a lot of conservatives who disapprove of Bush have an incentive to tell pollsters they approve of him. They might be hopeful that they can neuter the impact of poll results, which are used to frame the tone of national reporting and the annoying "conventional wisdom" that runs through AP, NYT, WaPost, etc. stories and the TV talking heads. Plus, Democrats use them as a cudgel against Republicans during red-faced political debates, which I imagine gets irritating after a while.
Is there anything to this? I don't know -- it's a bit of a paranoid conspiracy theory. But why would Bush's approval numbers drop by 3-5% overnight, merely because Republicans lost the election? Maybe people simply don't like a loser. Or maybe lots of Republicans who disapprove of the president's performance no longer have an incentive to over-report their approval.
UPDATE: Newsweek has Bush at 32%.
We're inundated with polling data in today's political world, and I think more and more people are actively aware of how pervasive it's become. Now, survey research is statistically sound, in that once you have a large enough random sample of the electorate, you can make certain conditional statements about it within a 95% confidence interval. The degree to which a sample matches the real distribution of opinions in a population, however, is more complicated. The 2000 and 2004 presidential exit polls somehow systematically undersampled Republican identifiers, and in so doing presented an inaccurate view of the population's vote choice.
Looking at the Bush and Congress numbers, I can't help but think something else is at work. I don't have any evidence to back this up, but I've long suspected that high-information partisans provide strategic answers to pollsters in the period leading up to an election. For example, if I'm right, a lot of conservatives who disapprove of Bush have an incentive to tell pollsters they approve of him. They might be hopeful that they can neuter the impact of poll results, which are used to frame the tone of national reporting and the annoying "conventional wisdom" that runs through AP, NYT, WaPost, etc. stories and the TV talking heads. Plus, Democrats use them as a cudgel against Republicans during red-faced political debates, which I imagine gets irritating after a while.
Is there anything to this? I don't know -- it's a bit of a paranoid conspiracy theory. But why would Bush's approval numbers drop by 3-5% overnight, merely because Republicans lost the election? Maybe people simply don't like a loser. Or maybe lots of Republicans who disapprove of the president's performance no longer have an incentive to over-report their approval.
UPDATE: Newsweek has Bush at 32%.
Allen '08?
Evidently this article was published today in Roll Call, though you can't read it without a subscription. I used my university portal to get access to it -- maybe that will work for you.
In any event, the key grafs go like this:
Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine) said Wednesday that he is "seriously considering" running for Senate in 2008, and political watchers in the Pine Tree State say he looks and acts like someone preparing for a Senate bid.
Allen raised more than $930,000 in the previous cycle but spent only about half of it dispensing with two challengers on his way to securing a sixth term with 61 percent of the vote.
He also has been spending more time outside of his Portland-based 1st district and is "mending fences" with sportsmen's groups, according to Christian Potholm, a political consultant and government professor at Maine's Bowdoin College. "Tom Allen is already raising money for a Senate run," Potholm said. "He certainly is off and running from all the things people tell me."
And then later:
Allen and Dudley both believe that Collins could be hurt by breaking the pledge she made to serve no more than two terms when she was first elected in 1996."I'd like to take Senator Collins at her word that she only intends to serve two terms," Dudley said. "However, if she's going to break her promise to the people of Maine, I have a very strong feeling we can mount a very credible opposition to returning her to her minority position in the U.S. Senate."
Allen said beyond breaking a pledge, Collins will be hurt by her affiliation with the national GOP."Susan Collins promised to only serve two terms, we've been in our respective offices for 10 years, and this is really about leadership for me," he said. "We have very different voting records."
Two quick thoughts. One, I hope this "two-term pledge" nonsense isn't going to be a consistent line of attack when Allen challenges Collins. I suspect Maine voters are interested in more substantive differences between the two candidates and the two parties. Second, my preliminary thought is that the model for Allen to follow is the one used by Whitehouse to beat Chafee in Rhode Island. Tie Collins to the national Republican Party and convince voters that no matter how moderate Collins might seem, electing her will bring about an entirely different agenda than the one she endorses during the campaign.
I think Collins' approval is still somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%. It's an uphill race for Allen.
In any event, the key grafs go like this:
Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine) said Wednesday that he is "seriously considering" running for Senate in 2008, and political watchers in the Pine Tree State say he looks and acts like someone preparing for a Senate bid.
Allen raised more than $930,000 in the previous cycle but spent only about half of it dispensing with two challengers on his way to securing a sixth term with 61 percent of the vote.
He also has been spending more time outside of his Portland-based 1st district and is "mending fences" with sportsmen's groups, according to Christian Potholm, a political consultant and government professor at Maine's Bowdoin College. "Tom Allen is already raising money for a Senate run," Potholm said. "He certainly is off and running from all the things people tell me."
And then later:
Allen and Dudley both believe that Collins could be hurt by breaking the pledge she made to serve no more than two terms when she was first elected in 1996."I'd like to take Senator Collins at her word that she only intends to serve two terms," Dudley said. "However, if she's going to break her promise to the people of Maine, I have a very strong feeling we can mount a very credible opposition to returning her to her minority position in the U.S. Senate."
Allen said beyond breaking a pledge, Collins will be hurt by her affiliation with the national GOP."Susan Collins promised to only serve two terms, we've been in our respective offices for 10 years, and this is really about leadership for me," he said. "We have very different voting records."
Two quick thoughts. One, I hope this "two-term pledge" nonsense isn't going to be a consistent line of attack when Allen challenges Collins. I suspect Maine voters are interested in more substantive differences between the two candidates and the two parties. Second, my preliminary thought is that the model for Allen to follow is the one used by Whitehouse to beat Chafee in Rhode Island. Tie Collins to the national Republican Party and convince voters that no matter how moderate Collins might seem, electing her will bring about an entirely different agenda than the one she endorses during the campaign.
I think Collins' approval is still somewhere in the neighborhood of 70%. It's an uphill race for Allen.
The Iraq Study Group Report
Has anyone been following the results of the Iraq Study Group? I just listened to about ten minutes of the press conference on BBC World Report (via NPR). A three point summary of the report might look like this:
1) A new objective for American forces is required, one which will allow the United States to disengage and bring home the vast majority of its combat forces. A near-complete withdraw should be possible by the first quarter of 2008.
2) A new political consensus is required, both at home and abroad. Abroad, neighboring countries, namely Syria and Iran, must be brought in to cooperate, as the stability of Iraq requires participation in its greater area.
3) The Iraqi government must be given specific goals to adhere to, and the threat of losing their foreign aid if they fail to meet the goals in time.
Some other quotes I remember from former Sec. of State James Baker, which I'm sure I have probably remembered off by a word or two:
[Escalation would bring about a crippling regional battle. Immediate withdrawl would bring a "bloodbath".] "...and our recomended course of action is not without its own shortcomings."
"The Iraqis have found it impossible to dream... they have gone from a horrific tyrannical order to the fear of extreme violence."
"To enact these new changes, a great amount of political fortitude is required."
"The executive branch and legislative branch need to work together."
"Events in Iraq may change the correct course of action in Iraq. As such, the military leadership must act urgently."
Edition.cnn.com quotes the word "Grave" from the report - as if one word can sum up the entire thing - but I have to say that from the press conference, the Study Group had a more positive outlook than what the media outlets have been trying to cast. Things aren't peaches and creme, but it seems as though Baker et al. are not carrying a doomsday message.
Anyone else have observations in relation to the report? How much weight will it hold? Any?
I hope so.
1) A new objective for American forces is required, one which will allow the United States to disengage and bring home the vast majority of its combat forces. A near-complete withdraw should be possible by the first quarter of 2008.
2) A new political consensus is required, both at home and abroad. Abroad, neighboring countries, namely Syria and Iran, must be brought in to cooperate, as the stability of Iraq requires participation in its greater area.
3) The Iraqi government must be given specific goals to adhere to, and the threat of losing their foreign aid if they fail to meet the goals in time.
Some other quotes I remember from former Sec. of State James Baker, which I'm sure I have probably remembered off by a word or two:
[Escalation would bring about a crippling regional battle. Immediate withdrawl would bring a "bloodbath".] "...and our recomended course of action is not without its own shortcomings."
"The Iraqis have found it impossible to dream... they have gone from a horrific tyrannical order to the fear of extreme violence."
"To enact these new changes, a great amount of political fortitude is required."
"The executive branch and legislative branch need to work together."
"Events in Iraq may change the correct course of action in Iraq. As such, the military leadership must act urgently."
Edition.cnn.com quotes the word "Grave" from the report - as if one word can sum up the entire thing - but I have to say that from the press conference, the Study Group had a more positive outlook than what the media outlets have been trying to cast. Things aren't peaches and creme, but it seems as though Baker et al. are not carrying a doomsday message.
Anyone else have observations in relation to the report? How much weight will it hold? Any?
I hope so.
Consent
Check out this article in the Maine Campus school newspaper on sexual assault. What are everybody's thoughts on this? Do you feel that sex must be explicitly authorized everytime it takes place? Do situations exist in which no actual discussion needs to take place for it to be ethical? What about when alcohol is involved?
What I found to be particularly alarming, was that this girl's definition of what constitutes sexual assault and "consent" was fairly accurate. To the best of my knowledge, this is technically what the law says on this issue. Under those terms, I personally should be convicted a serial rapist. I'm sure there have been multiple occasions in which I engaged in sexual contact without saying, "is it okay that you and I are engaging in sexual contact?" and the girl said, "yes, it is okay that you and I are engaging in sexual contact."
I think sexual assault/rape is an incredibly serious issue. For actual, non-ambiguous assaults that do happen, I would favor increasing the penalties. As Chris suggested, anybody who has ever been convicted of a sexual assault should be banned from reproducing. At the same time, we have to be realistic about what rape is and how keep in touch with the real world. I think there's an inherent sexist component in how this girl who authored the article is defining consent. She's saying the male is guilty of sexual assault if both parties are drunk and the girl does not say "yes." Why is it not sexual assault if the man does not say "yes?"
I think the "no means no" standard is ideal. This shows, in no uncertain terms, that consent has not been granted. It also follows basic ethical standards and common sense that should be center to evaluating what constitutes consent. It places no burden on either party to make themselves clear and reduces some of the gray area on an issue with a good deal of gray area.
What I found to be particularly alarming, was that this girl's definition of what constitutes sexual assault and "consent" was fairly accurate. To the best of my knowledge, this is technically what the law says on this issue. Under those terms, I personally should be convicted a serial rapist. I'm sure there have been multiple occasions in which I engaged in sexual contact without saying, "is it okay that you and I are engaging in sexual contact?" and the girl said, "yes, it is okay that you and I are engaging in sexual contact."
I think sexual assault/rape is an incredibly serious issue. For actual, non-ambiguous assaults that do happen, I would favor increasing the penalties. As Chris suggested, anybody who has ever been convicted of a sexual assault should be banned from reproducing. At the same time, we have to be realistic about what rape is and how keep in touch with the real world. I think there's an inherent sexist component in how this girl who authored the article is defining consent. She's saying the male is guilty of sexual assault if both parties are drunk and the girl does not say "yes." Why is it not sexual assault if the man does not say "yes?"
I think the "no means no" standard is ideal. This shows, in no uncertain terms, that consent has not been granted. It also follows basic ethical standards and common sense that should be center to evaluating what constitutes consent. It places no burden on either party to make themselves clear and reduces some of the gray area on an issue with a good deal of gray area.
In support of past Swedish practice...
This blog (which I am hurrying to post and will revise as time goes on, perhaps reposting with supporting evidence) is to hereby support the enactment in this country of a practice discontinued in Sweden early in the last century. That practice is kindly referred to as forced-sterilization.
It has come to my attention recently that until early in the last century, Sweden practiced forced-sterilization (or fs for short) of certain segments of the population which society generally felt should not be allowed to reproduce. This included those with certain mental disabilities, criminals, those with debilitating genetic diseases, and the morbidly obese to name a few. As a result, Sweden is a country of beautiful people (and I mean beautiful people) with reduced health risks--chiefly they are mostly free of obesity while we see our obesity rate soar to near 50%--and other chronic diseases which we in other parts of the West struggle to combat.
I feel it is not only in our interest but for the common Good that we should implement such a policy. I first propose that we sterilize all criminals after their third time in a state or federal institution (regardless of crime) and that all sexual offenders be sterilized after their first conviction, based on the special nature of their crime. This would prevent rapists, child molesters, and consanguinious-natured individuals (those practicing incest) from ever having the second chance to wrongfully impregnate and thus create a potentially miserable human existence, all-to-often marked with numerous physical and psychological ailments.
The next measure would be to sterilize those not mentally stable or developed to handle their own lives, let alone those of their potential offspring. This would prevent the continued production of children who are of less-than-average intelligence. Within two or three generations, we would significantly improve test scores and potentially be able to reassert ourselves in not only world scholastic competitions and overall scholarly rankings for standard K-12 education, but we would be able to quickly reassert ourselves in a dominating position in science and mathematics research, all while cleaning up the gene pool.
Also, while it is not as pressing a concern nowadays with the advent of gene technology and the rest of the tools of modern medical science, FS would help eradicate some of the more difficult genetic diseases that even modern medicine struggles to combat.
Finally, as has been the experience of Sweden, if we implement FS, I am confident that the US would be able to eventually out-rate the Swedes in average personal beauty. We already have a pretty sweet stock of beautiful people, but with FS, we would naturally evolve into a better-looking group of people. And not only that, they'd be all the more healthier so that they would have even less to threaten said beauty.
It has come to my attention recently that until early in the last century, Sweden practiced forced-sterilization (or fs for short) of certain segments of the population which society generally felt should not be allowed to reproduce. This included those with certain mental disabilities, criminals, those with debilitating genetic diseases, and the morbidly obese to name a few. As a result, Sweden is a country of beautiful people (and I mean beautiful people) with reduced health risks--chiefly they are mostly free of obesity while we see our obesity rate soar to near 50%--and other chronic diseases which we in other parts of the West struggle to combat.
I feel it is not only in our interest but for the common Good that we should implement such a policy. I first propose that we sterilize all criminals after their third time in a state or federal institution (regardless of crime) and that all sexual offenders be sterilized after their first conviction, based on the special nature of their crime. This would prevent rapists, child molesters, and consanguinious-natured individuals (those practicing incest) from ever having the second chance to wrongfully impregnate and thus create a potentially miserable human existence, all-to-often marked with numerous physical and psychological ailments.
The next measure would be to sterilize those not mentally stable or developed to handle their own lives, let alone those of their potential offspring. This would prevent the continued production of children who are of less-than-average intelligence. Within two or three generations, we would significantly improve test scores and potentially be able to reassert ourselves in not only world scholastic competitions and overall scholarly rankings for standard K-12 education, but we would be able to quickly reassert ourselves in a dominating position in science and mathematics research, all while cleaning up the gene pool.
Also, while it is not as pressing a concern nowadays with the advent of gene technology and the rest of the tools of modern medical science, FS would help eradicate some of the more difficult genetic diseases that even modern medicine struggles to combat.
Finally, as has been the experience of Sweden, if we implement FS, I am confident that the US would be able to eventually out-rate the Swedes in average personal beauty. We already have a pretty sweet stock of beautiful people, but with FS, we would naturally evolve into a better-looking group of people. And not only that, they'd be all the more healthier so that they would have even less to threaten said beauty.
A Couple of Annoying Observations
I just wanted to comment on a couple of issues I noticed today that may have reflected some of my internal conservative convictions. Both issues involve the University of Maine but could apply anywhere -- town ordinances and the benefits of the free market.
So I was standing in a long line this afternoon at the school's cafeteria. Everybody was patiently waiting for their opportunity to provide the waiters with what items they wanted on their sandwhiches. As far as I could tell, the waiters were working at a reasonable pace, the students were courteous and reasonable with their requests. A boy in front of me began to order and espoused certain preferences and details for how he wanted his sandwhich prepared. The waiter was growing increasingly testy and sarcastic -- if not downright hostile. The guy didn't seem to get agitated by her cavalier attitude but also didn't retreat from his initial idea of precisely what kind of sandwhich he wanted to eat. His requests continued in equally clear and elaborate detail. By the end of the ordeal, the waiter was saying things like, "aren't you just so particular?", "Is that going to be enough onions -- I assume you're going to ask for more," and finally at the end when she transferred the sandwhich to the other waiter to handle the veggies, openly called him "Mr. Picky." I wasn't even a part of this but if I were that kid, I would've been annoyed. A waiter's job is to shut their mouth and provide the service that the customer desires, so long as the requests aren't totally unreasonable or overtly rude. This underscores the incredible virtues of the free market. The only reason that lady can get away with being rude and performing her job poorly is because of a lack of accountability and competing services. I'm generally a proponent of most all services being left in the hands of private entities that compete with one another to provide exactly what the customer wants. So what am I proposing for state funded universities? No taxpayers dollars or tuition money should go to dining. This results in over-priced, bad food, bad services, and an all-out cluster fuck during major meal rushes. And regarding state university fiscal priorities, especially here at UMaine, I have a whole heck of a lot to complain about. I'm wondering if others have noticed the complete administrative incompetence at other schools, the total waste of the publics money, and the exploiting and condescending attitude that administrators convey toward students. I'm thinking private universities don't view their student populations with such snobbishness.
The other concern is towns around universities (but any towns in general) imposing strict ordinances in an effort to reduce disorderly conduct, ie: parties and drunken debauchery. I think that all housing ordinances everywhere should be banned. Whether we're talking about an affluent suburb in which the town demands a certain distance from the house to the road, prohibiting junk in the lawn, strict levels of maintenance, etc. It's obvious these people hate the American dream. If somebody owns property they should be able to do whatever the heck they want with it, unless they're posing a danger to the community. Danger would be defined as a threat to your personal safety.
So here in Orono, the town council is trying to impose an ordinance that caps the number of residents occupying a rented unit at 3. The Maine Campus has quoted one of the Orono residents who supports this:
"Then, in the fall of 2002, Orono resident Michael Curtis was assaulted outside his home after asking a noisy group to take their party outside. "I was lying on the grass and there was at least two guys punching and kicking me," Curtis told The Maine Campus at the time.
No one was charged for the assault, and in the coming months Orono and university officials searched for ways to remedy the rift that the incident created. At public hearings, other Orono residents living near students voiced complaints about noise and property destruction."
This is such foolishness. I'm sorry this man was beaten but restricting the freedoms of landlords and tenants because you're connecting 4 people as opposed to 3 living in a unit as leading to drunken lawn thrashings is far fetched. I have personally been punched before and I responded by talking to the police and pressing charges against the guy. This is a problem that should be dealt with on an individual basis, not with sweeping ordinance measures.
I've been getting the feeling lately that there's a cultural war on Fun and freedom. People need to live and let live. And maybe toughen up a little bit while they're at it. In short, let the market work its magic and keep the government out of town and urban planning. Government has lots of productive roles to play, such as affording citizens of this country an equal chance to succeed and a basic living standard, but it really should stay out of peoples' business.
So I was standing in a long line this afternoon at the school's cafeteria. Everybody was patiently waiting for their opportunity to provide the waiters with what items they wanted on their sandwhiches. As far as I could tell, the waiters were working at a reasonable pace, the students were courteous and reasonable with their requests. A boy in front of me began to order and espoused certain preferences and details for how he wanted his sandwhich prepared. The waiter was growing increasingly testy and sarcastic -- if not downright hostile. The guy didn't seem to get agitated by her cavalier attitude but also didn't retreat from his initial idea of precisely what kind of sandwhich he wanted to eat. His requests continued in equally clear and elaborate detail. By the end of the ordeal, the waiter was saying things like, "aren't you just so particular?", "Is that going to be enough onions -- I assume you're going to ask for more," and finally at the end when she transferred the sandwhich to the other waiter to handle the veggies, openly called him "Mr. Picky." I wasn't even a part of this but if I were that kid, I would've been annoyed. A waiter's job is to shut their mouth and provide the service that the customer desires, so long as the requests aren't totally unreasonable or overtly rude. This underscores the incredible virtues of the free market. The only reason that lady can get away with being rude and performing her job poorly is because of a lack of accountability and competing services. I'm generally a proponent of most all services being left in the hands of private entities that compete with one another to provide exactly what the customer wants. So what am I proposing for state funded universities? No taxpayers dollars or tuition money should go to dining. This results in over-priced, bad food, bad services, and an all-out cluster fuck during major meal rushes. And regarding state university fiscal priorities, especially here at UMaine, I have a whole heck of a lot to complain about. I'm wondering if others have noticed the complete administrative incompetence at other schools, the total waste of the publics money, and the exploiting and condescending attitude that administrators convey toward students. I'm thinking private universities don't view their student populations with such snobbishness.
The other concern is towns around universities (but any towns in general) imposing strict ordinances in an effort to reduce disorderly conduct, ie: parties and drunken debauchery. I think that all housing ordinances everywhere should be banned. Whether we're talking about an affluent suburb in which the town demands a certain distance from the house to the road, prohibiting junk in the lawn, strict levels of maintenance, etc. It's obvious these people hate the American dream. If somebody owns property they should be able to do whatever the heck they want with it, unless they're posing a danger to the community. Danger would be defined as a threat to your personal safety.
So here in Orono, the town council is trying to impose an ordinance that caps the number of residents occupying a rented unit at 3. The Maine Campus has quoted one of the Orono residents who supports this:
"Then, in the fall of 2002, Orono resident Michael Curtis was assaulted outside his home after asking a noisy group to take their party outside. "I was lying on the grass and there was at least two guys punching and kicking me," Curtis told The Maine Campus at the time.
No one was charged for the assault, and in the coming months Orono and university officials searched for ways to remedy the rift that the incident created. At public hearings, other Orono residents living near students voiced complaints about noise and property destruction."
This is such foolishness. I'm sorry this man was beaten but restricting the freedoms of landlords and tenants because you're connecting 4 people as opposed to 3 living in a unit as leading to drunken lawn thrashings is far fetched. I have personally been punched before and I responded by talking to the police and pressing charges against the guy. This is a problem that should be dealt with on an individual basis, not with sweeping ordinance measures.
I've been getting the feeling lately that there's a cultural war on Fun and freedom. People need to live and let live. And maybe toughen up a little bit while they're at it. In short, let the market work its magic and keep the government out of town and urban planning. Government has lots of productive roles to play, such as affording citizens of this country an equal chance to succeed and a basic living standard, but it really should stay out of peoples' business.
2006 Random Statistics
I've been working on a paper evaluating the 2006 election results for Senate and Governor, and I wanted to pass along a few tidbits, since I'm not sure they've been reported on with any detail to this point.
First off, Democrats won 24 of the 33 Senate contests, and they captured about 55.4% of the national 2-party vote. If the U.S. electoral system was based on proportional representation, then, the Democrats would have been allocated 18 seats, and the Republicans would have taken 15 seats. Thus, the quirks of Senate apportionment gave the Dems an extra 6 seats in the 2006 cycle. This follows a well-established trend: Senate apportionment has given one party or the other extra seats in all but two elections since 1900. And more often than not, Senate elections tend to have a counter-majoritarian trend: the party that wins a larger proportion of the vote usually underperforms in Senate races. The opposite was true in 2006.
My gut sense has long been that Senate apportionment hurts Democrats; for example, if Republicans were able to hold both Senate seats in each of the "red" states won by Bush in 2004, they would hold filibuster-proof majorities, even with the popular vote nearly split down the middle. But, for some reason, Democratic Senate candidates have managed to be competitive in hostile terrain. They have been able to win in deep-red states like Nebraska, Montana, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, Indiana, and so forth. Looking over the big picture, it's easy to see why the Rove polarization strategy is so effective: when local elections are based on nationally divisive issues, Republicans in Senate races should be able to defeat the moderate Democrats that have, to this point, been able to win in hostile territory.
The structural Republican advantage is less evident in House races and Presidential races, though even in these cases, Republican voters seem to be more strategically distributed than Democratic voters.
Easily the most surprising finding I've uncovered is this: in Senate races, states that have endured higher per capita battle deaths in Iraq had a much higher Democratic vote than states with lower per capita Iraq deaths. I haven't been able to disaggregate the data down to individual states on this yet, but "per capita Iraq battle deaths" is one of two highly statistically significant variables in predicting state voting patterns this year. The other variable, not surprisingly, is the amount of money spent by challengers: those who spent more money had a better chance of winning (poor, sad, unfortunate Ricketts and Lamont notwithstanding).
The point here is that antipathy to the Iraq war may be based less on national media reporting than it is based on the localized impact of casualties. That's not what I would have expected.
In races for governor, Democrats won 20 of 36 seats in 2006, garnering more than 53 percent of the national vote. Here, a PR system would have yielded just over 19 seats to Democrats; thus, the gubernatorial elections did not seem to have much impact from apportionment by state.
Add it all up: a weird election, in which Democrats took advantage of a medium-sized wave, and won every close race they needed to win to take the Senate. Iraq was the predominant issue in the Senate campaigns, and an anti-Republican mood percolated even into Governor's races.
I am now done holding this blog hostage.
First off, Democrats won 24 of the 33 Senate contests, and they captured about 55.4% of the national 2-party vote. If the U.S. electoral system was based on proportional representation, then, the Democrats would have been allocated 18 seats, and the Republicans would have taken 15 seats. Thus, the quirks of Senate apportionment gave the Dems an extra 6 seats in the 2006 cycle. This follows a well-established trend: Senate apportionment has given one party or the other extra seats in all but two elections since 1900. And more often than not, Senate elections tend to have a counter-majoritarian trend: the party that wins a larger proportion of the vote usually underperforms in Senate races. The opposite was true in 2006.
My gut sense has long been that Senate apportionment hurts Democrats; for example, if Republicans were able to hold both Senate seats in each of the "red" states won by Bush in 2004, they would hold filibuster-proof majorities, even with the popular vote nearly split down the middle. But, for some reason, Democratic Senate candidates have managed to be competitive in hostile terrain. They have been able to win in deep-red states like Nebraska, Montana, North and South Dakota, West Virginia, Indiana, and so forth. Looking over the big picture, it's easy to see why the Rove polarization strategy is so effective: when local elections are based on nationally divisive issues, Republicans in Senate races should be able to defeat the moderate Democrats that have, to this point, been able to win in hostile territory.
The structural Republican advantage is less evident in House races and Presidential races, though even in these cases, Republican voters seem to be more strategically distributed than Democratic voters.
Easily the most surprising finding I've uncovered is this: in Senate races, states that have endured higher per capita battle deaths in Iraq had a much higher Democratic vote than states with lower per capita Iraq deaths. I haven't been able to disaggregate the data down to individual states on this yet, but "per capita Iraq battle deaths" is one of two highly statistically significant variables in predicting state voting patterns this year. The other variable, not surprisingly, is the amount of money spent by challengers: those who spent more money had a better chance of winning (poor, sad, unfortunate Ricketts and Lamont notwithstanding).
The point here is that antipathy to the Iraq war may be based less on national media reporting than it is based on the localized impact of casualties. That's not what I would have expected.
In races for governor, Democrats won 20 of 36 seats in 2006, garnering more than 53 percent of the national vote. Here, a PR system would have yielded just over 19 seats to Democrats; thus, the gubernatorial elections did not seem to have much impact from apportionment by state.
Add it all up: a weird election, in which Democrats took advantage of a medium-sized wave, and won every close race they needed to win to take the Senate. Iraq was the predominant issue in the Senate campaigns, and an anti-Republican mood percolated even into Governor's races.
I am now done holding this blog hostage.
Taking it Out into the Streets
I was reading this simple article in the Bangor Daily News just now, and I was thinking about the futility of protest. Engaging in acts of civil disobedience or waving signs won't change any politician's mind, and history has shown that it ends up repelling the people that protesters most need to attract to their cause. Maybe a few TV reporters show up, or a picture and an article about a protest makes the daily newspaper somewhere well below the fold. But that's it.
It's easy to forget what a huge impact anti-Vietnam protests had in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, at least according to what I read and what people who lived through that period tell me. Lots of people realized that their viewpoints were not being represented in the political system, and they only way they could get themselves heard was by taking their message out into the streets. They succeeded in creating an impression that the war was unpopular, and they forced mainstream culture and the mass media to confront the fact there was mobilized opposition to the war.
And yet, if you read the political literature that surveys the period, more people were concerned about the cultural impact of the protestors (drugs, nontraditional lifestyles, feminism, homosexuality, lawlessness) than were worried about the way the war was going. "Law and Order," which invoked images of both urban riots and the counter-culture, was a recurring, high-profile issue in presidential campaigns as late as 1988 or 1992. And, if you judge attitudes on both Vietnam and Iraq according to polls, the Iraq war is far more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. Most polls never found opposition to the Vietnam conflict any higher than 40 to 45 percent, which we eclipsed long ago with regard to Iraq.
So, in thinking about this woman's crusade in Bangor, I'm torn. On one hand, I read her claim that she has a "moral responsibility" to occupy the [Olympia Snowe's] office in protest because "each of us Mainers are complicit to what is going on in Iraq" with an admiring eye. She's correct that, if she believes that the Iraq policy is a state act and it is being carried out in each of our names, she has a responsibility to do what she can to stop it. Yet her actions may inspire hostility to her cause rather than sympathy with it.
I remember the Iraq war protests in New York back in 2003: I was repeatedly urged by friends and acquaintances to join them, but I didn't get involved. I figured I'd get billy-clubbed, arrested, or worst of all, the whole thing would be a waste of time. Besides, I considered myself too much of a sensible moderate to engage in such acts, so I just quietly told people why I thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq and left it at that.
Well, one thing is clear to me: both parties, the mass media, the punditry, and most "sensible moderates" like myself turned out to be wrong about this war. Our voices should have been louder. The protesters that were peaceful but forceful were right. And I haven't read too many people saying that in "sensible" circles.
At the very least, one would think that the far left civil disobedience-types would have a bit more credibility with reporters and most national opinion leaders than they had before 2003. But I would be very surprised if that's the case. Protesters will continue to be people like Nancy Hill, doing what they do, maybe helping their cause, but probably hurting it.
It's easy to forget what a huge impact anti-Vietnam protests had in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, at least according to what I read and what people who lived through that period tell me. Lots of people realized that their viewpoints were not being represented in the political system, and they only way they could get themselves heard was by taking their message out into the streets. They succeeded in creating an impression that the war was unpopular, and they forced mainstream culture and the mass media to confront the fact there was mobilized opposition to the war.
And yet, if you read the political literature that surveys the period, more people were concerned about the cultural impact of the protestors (drugs, nontraditional lifestyles, feminism, homosexuality, lawlessness) than were worried about the way the war was going. "Law and Order," which invoked images of both urban riots and the counter-culture, was a recurring, high-profile issue in presidential campaigns as late as 1988 or 1992. And, if you judge attitudes on both Vietnam and Iraq according to polls, the Iraq war is far more unpopular than the Vietnam War ever was. Most polls never found opposition to the Vietnam conflict any higher than 40 to 45 percent, which we eclipsed long ago with regard to Iraq.
So, in thinking about this woman's crusade in Bangor, I'm torn. On one hand, I read her claim that she has a "moral responsibility" to occupy the [Olympia Snowe's] office in protest because "each of us Mainers are complicit to what is going on in Iraq" with an admiring eye. She's correct that, if she believes that the Iraq policy is a state act and it is being carried out in each of our names, she has a responsibility to do what she can to stop it. Yet her actions may inspire hostility to her cause rather than sympathy with it.
I remember the Iraq war protests in New York back in 2003: I was repeatedly urged by friends and acquaintances to join them, but I didn't get involved. I figured I'd get billy-clubbed, arrested, or worst of all, the whole thing would be a waste of time. Besides, I considered myself too much of a sensible moderate to engage in such acts, so I just quietly told people why I thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq and left it at that.
Well, one thing is clear to me: both parties, the mass media, the punditry, and most "sensible moderates" like myself turned out to be wrong about this war. Our voices should have been louder. The protesters that were peaceful but forceful were right. And I haven't read too many people saying that in "sensible" circles.
At the very least, one would think that the far left civil disobedience-types would have a bit more credibility with reporters and most national opinion leaders than they had before 2003. But I would be very surprised if that's the case. Protesters will continue to be people like Nancy Hill, doing what they do, maybe helping their cause, but probably hurting it.
Facinating.
According to this study, since September 11th, illegal aliens have murdered nearly eight times the number of Americans who have died in the entire Iraq war. And that doesn't take into account any accidents caused by illegals (many of whom, this study claims, do not have driver's licenses). That in no way minimizes the lives of American troops, but it really made me think about the perspective. Maybe we've been talking about the draft the wrong way, if illegal aliens are 8 times deadlier than Iraqi insurgents, maybe we should make service in the army an immigration requirement...
Man Receives New Hand
He didn't have a hand for 30 years, but now he does.
"It's like closing down your house for 32 years, then deciding to go back in and take a shower. You turn it on, it sputters a little bit, then it works," the man, David F. Savage from Michigan, said. I imagine Savage is hoping that the hand continues to function well, but "If it stops working, we'll go back in there and get it started again," he said.
This is the third time a man has received a new hand in the United States.
"It's like closing down your house for 32 years, then deciding to go back in and take a shower. You turn it on, it sputters a little bit, then it works," the man, David F. Savage from Michigan, said. I imagine Savage is hoping that the hand continues to function well, but "If it stops working, we'll go back in there and get it started again," he said.
This is the third time a man has received a new hand in the United States.
Why Do You Hate Her So Much?
Here's more evidence that, as I have been arguing for a long time (ahem), Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. I think it will be Obama, and when he runs, he will clear the field.
But nevertheless, since I just can't let this go: I'd love to know why conservatives dislike Hillary Clinton as much as they do. I don't understand why she's so polarizing. Her policy positions are uniformly moderate, she has alienated the left wing of the Democratic Party, she is an intelligent and highly qualified leader, and she is a very popular Senator in New York, even in Republican-leaning districts upstate. So what is it about her that arouses such antipathy?
Just thinking of the Republicans who inspire some kind of knee-jerk, irrationally hostile response in my own mind, I think of James Inhofe, Bill Frist, Jim Bunning, Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, etc. (Obviously I could go on and on) These guys? Hard-core right-wing types all -- I actually have quite favorable responses to the few remaining Republican moderates.
Is it a personality thing?
Calling all conservatives! Tell me what you think.
But nevertheless, since I just can't let this go: I'd love to know why conservatives dislike Hillary Clinton as much as they do. I don't understand why she's so polarizing. Her policy positions are uniformly moderate, she has alienated the left wing of the Democratic Party, she is an intelligent and highly qualified leader, and she is a very popular Senator in New York, even in Republican-leaning districts upstate. So what is it about her that arouses such antipathy?
Just thinking of the Republicans who inspire some kind of knee-jerk, irrationally hostile response in my own mind, I think of James Inhofe, Bill Frist, Jim Bunning, Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, etc. (Obviously I could go on and on) These guys? Hard-core right-wing types all -- I actually have quite favorable responses to the few remaining Republican moderates.
Is it a personality thing?
Calling all conservatives! Tell me what you think.
In all fairness...
Frankly, I think this one is blowing up a bit. According to CNN tonight, transcript runs something more similar to this:
Bush: How's your boy?
Webb: I want him to come out of Iraq
Bush: I didn't ask you that, I asked you how he's doing.
Now, I suck at remembering exact quotes, but that's pretty close to the quotes from CNN. If I was Bush I probably would have said the exact same thing. I think the previous post was a little hard, he asked a legitimate question and got crap back for it. Now, Is Bushy boy the most eloquent and intelligent leader? I doubt it. But I think this is a bit asinine to blow up over him for.
Bush: How's your boy?
Webb: I want him to come out of Iraq
Bush: I didn't ask you that, I asked you how he's doing.
Now, I suck at remembering exact quotes, but that's pretty close to the quotes from CNN. If I was Bush I probably would have said the exact same thing. I think the previous post was a little hard, he asked a legitimate question and got crap back for it. Now, Is Bushy boy the most eloquent and intelligent leader? I doubt it. But I think this is a bit asinine to blow up over him for.
Bush is such a worm
If this is true, it really helps to reinforce my feelings that not only is Bush a dumb, dumb man, but at his core, he is a repulsive and worthless human being. He "supports the troops" and wants to "know how they're doing" but he doesn't actually want to know how they're doing. This is why I feel so strongly that decisions of war and peace should not be left up to a slimeball like Bush who has nothing personally at stake in this sacrifice. I'd like to see how those little Bush twins would be holding up if they were shipped over to Fallujah.
By the way, this also shows what a little bitch Bush is. I think his response was ignorant and typical, but also classic Bush cowardice in the face of a legitimate debate. No teleprompter or staged remarks to guide him through that one.
By the way, this also shows what a little bitch Bush is. I think his response was ignorant and typical, but also classic Bush cowardice in the face of a legitimate debate. No teleprompter or staged remarks to guide him through that one.
GOP fiscal cowardice
While studying for my upcoming U.S. Congress test, I came across a particularly insightful passage in Congress and Its Members by Roger H. Davidson dealing with presidential-congressional relations. The section discusses presidents using bill-signing ceremonies to reward supporters and send messages. I thought Bush's public relations strategy of what policies to publicize was interesting -- in this case, revealing the GOP's fiscal cowardice:
"Bush signed a bill dealing with corporate corruption on a table adorned with a sign saying 'Corporate Responsibility,' a technique used by the White House image-makers to associate the president's picture with the gist of his message. Occasions did arise when bills were signed in virtual secrecy, such as a 2003 measure raising the federal debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion. On the day he quietly signed that bill into law, Bush held a public bill-signing ceremony for his $350 billion tax-cut measure."
The government estimated in 2000 that it would run a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. Bush sent a ten-year $1.6 trillion tax cut plan to Congress and said, "we recognize loud and clear the surplus is not the government's money -- the surplus is the people's money, and we ought to trust them with their own money." Once the economy slipped into a recession, Bush's rationale for continuing the tax cuts changed. It became essential to stimulating the economy -- classic trickle down theory Reaganomics.
This fiscal attitude dominates the administration's thinking on social safety net programs. It's so revealing that Bush and the Republicans' number one agenda after the 2004 elections was to "fix" Social Security, preaching fiscal discipline and long-term planning, allegedly to avert a crisis. The propositions were designed to bankrupt the program, draining money out of it by investing in private accounts instead of improving its solvency. Social Security is currently in a massive surplus and is in no immediate need of repeair. Whatever imbalance arises in at least a decade from the approaching baby boom retirement have practical and sensible solutions to make sure it continues to do its job -- for example, continuing to tax beyond the $90,000 cap.
Meanwhile, there were two institutions that were in crisis while Bush was preoccupied with destroying Social Security -- health care and the federal government. At a minimum of ten years from now, Social Security might possibly be paying out more than it's taking in, but at this very moment at least 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The federal budget deficit is $8.5 trillion. There's something a little wrong with that picture.
Republicans don't want to discuss real problems. They don't want to fix the most popular New Deal social safety net program. They don't care about the economic repercussions their fiscal policies could have on the next generation. They are not committed to the average American having a decent standard of living. Their ideological goal is to stuff the pockets of the rich and create a tiny minority of the population that controls the majority of the nation's wealth. All the while, they realize how unpopular their priorities are so they have to conceal their true meaning from the public. They "fix" things when they're breaking them, shrug their shoulders as the ground beneath society crumbles, behave like an 18 year-old girl with her first credit card at American Eagle, and are ashamed to come clean with their real agenda, signing their disastrous bills into law behind closed doors. Their cowardice never ceases to amaze me.
"Bush signed a bill dealing with corporate corruption on a table adorned with a sign saying 'Corporate Responsibility,' a technique used by the White House image-makers to associate the president's picture with the gist of his message. Occasions did arise when bills were signed in virtual secrecy, such as a 2003 measure raising the federal debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion. On the day he quietly signed that bill into law, Bush held a public bill-signing ceremony for his $350 billion tax-cut measure."
The government estimated in 2000 that it would run a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. Bush sent a ten-year $1.6 trillion tax cut plan to Congress and said, "we recognize loud and clear the surplus is not the government's money -- the surplus is the people's money, and we ought to trust them with their own money." Once the economy slipped into a recession, Bush's rationale for continuing the tax cuts changed. It became essential to stimulating the economy -- classic trickle down theory Reaganomics.
This fiscal attitude dominates the administration's thinking on social safety net programs. It's so revealing that Bush and the Republicans' number one agenda after the 2004 elections was to "fix" Social Security, preaching fiscal discipline and long-term planning, allegedly to avert a crisis. The propositions were designed to bankrupt the program, draining money out of it by investing in private accounts instead of improving its solvency. Social Security is currently in a massive surplus and is in no immediate need of repeair. Whatever imbalance arises in at least a decade from the approaching baby boom retirement have practical and sensible solutions to make sure it continues to do its job -- for example, continuing to tax beyond the $90,000 cap.
Meanwhile, there were two institutions that were in crisis while Bush was preoccupied with destroying Social Security -- health care and the federal government. At a minimum of ten years from now, Social Security might possibly be paying out more than it's taking in, but at this very moment at least 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The federal budget deficit is $8.5 trillion. There's something a little wrong with that picture.
Republicans don't want to discuss real problems. They don't want to fix the most popular New Deal social safety net program. They don't care about the economic repercussions their fiscal policies could have on the next generation. They are not committed to the average American having a decent standard of living. Their ideological goal is to stuff the pockets of the rich and create a tiny minority of the population that controls the majority of the nation's wealth. All the while, they realize how unpopular their priorities are so they have to conceal their true meaning from the public. They "fix" things when they're breaking them, shrug their shoulders as the ground beneath society crumbles, behave like an 18 year-old girl with her first credit card at American Eagle, and are ashamed to come clean with their real agenda, signing their disastrous bills into law behind closed doors. Their cowardice never ceases to amaze me.
the inevitable slaughter
Bush says talk of civil war in Iraq is "all kinds of speculation." Actually, no, George Bush. When different groups organize themselves along sectarian lines, locate large quantities of the rival faction, explode bombs indiscriminantly killing 200 of them, then the side that just got killed locates random members of the faction that did the killing, pours kerosene on them and burns them to death -- it's a civil war. Furthermore, when the two groups engage in violence of this nature on a daily basis, it is no longer "speculation."
Bush has officially returned to the familiar, tired, and pathetic rhetoric of "stay the course." We knew the reconciliatory babble following the election was a fraud, but at least now Democrats and anybody else sensible enough to join them can dig in and return to the constructive task of restricting George Bush's power to fuck things up as much as possible.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I read an article today or yesterday which said the Baker commission will not be recommending a phased troop withdrawal. It's also clear that Democrats in Congress will not use their constitutional authority to cut off funds for the war. Bush has made it clear that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq through his presidency (he will leave office in January 2009) and will not pull them out until we "win." By my projections, this means that a substantial U.S. military presence will remain in Iraq for at least two and a half years -- perhaps it will be scaled down to 70,000 or 80,000 troops as opposed to 150,000 -- but I'd be shocked if reductions beyond that were made.
Since October, 169 troops have been killed in this war. At that clip, 2,400 more U.S. soldiers will die during the Bush presidency. There's absolutely no indication that the violence will abate -- if anything, it appears to be escalating. Who knows how many soldiers will be dead when it's all said and done, but the saddest part is that they all will have died in vain.
Bush has officially returned to the familiar, tired, and pathetic rhetoric of "stay the course." We knew the reconciliatory babble following the election was a fraud, but at least now Democrats and anybody else sensible enough to join them can dig in and return to the constructive task of restricting George Bush's power to fuck things up as much as possible.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I read an article today or yesterday which said the Baker commission will not be recommending a phased troop withdrawal. It's also clear that Democrats in Congress will not use their constitutional authority to cut off funds for the war. Bush has made it clear that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq through his presidency (he will leave office in January 2009) and will not pull them out until we "win." By my projections, this means that a substantial U.S. military presence will remain in Iraq for at least two and a half years -- perhaps it will be scaled down to 70,000 or 80,000 troops as opposed to 150,000 -- but I'd be shocked if reductions beyond that were made.
Since October, 169 troops have been killed in this war. At that clip, 2,400 more U.S. soldiers will die during the Bush presidency. There's absolutely no indication that the violence will abate -- if anything, it appears to be escalating. Who knows how many soldiers will be dead when it's all said and done, but the saddest part is that they all will have died in vain.
More muses on McCain - Lieberman '08
I always wonder why nobody talks more about the role Ralph Nader played in the 2000 presidential election. Or indeed, the role of the third party in recent history.
Back in the eight grade, the cool thing to do was be an anarchist, and therefore the cool party to vote for were the libertarians. In fact, in one mock election, they almost came to power in our classroom but were narrowly defeated by the prissy little baby republicans, and I began to realize as I got older that to vote for anything other than the big two parties was to throw a vote away, if you were going to vote for them, you might as well stay home.
Then came my first real election. We all remember the grim night in 2000 when we learned that in spite of having won the popular vote, Al Gore lost to Dubba because of the votes of 537 Floridians. Not only was it a sad day for America, it was made even sadder because it came down to so many people who live in America's wang.
Yet when the dust settled and the craziness of elections were over, I had an epiphany, I don't know why no major news media picked up upon it, but 97,421 Floridians actually voted for Ralph Nader. If half a percent of those people had voted for the Democratic candidate, instead of trying to make an ultra leftist statement, the outcome of these last eight years would be a different story.
And whilst Ross Perot was perhaps the most entertaining man ever to enter the political ring (if any of you remember the Animaniacs episode featuring the spoof of him, it was perhaps the most brilliant piece of animation in existence), he too was a ringer that torpedoed his own constituency. Now, it is hard to know the impact that good ol Ross took from either side, as he was fairly oddball moderate, but even still, in an election that was won by only 6.6%, taking a full 18.9% had a definitive impact upon the political landscape. If you follow the wikipedia breakdown of the demographics for the third party vote, he took far more votes from the republicans than he had from the Democrats.
The problem with a third party in a two party system, is that ultimately, they serve as nothing more then a spoiler. The more votes they get ultimately is nothing more than a denial of votes for the party that closest represents the ideals of the third party. And if the last recent elections have proven anything, they've proven the power of a third party to elect those who's views are farthest from their own.
If we see a McCain - Lieberman ticket in 08, then we can be assured of doom because it will mean a shoe in for Hilary.
At which point, we're doomed to a fate far worse then Dubbya.
Back in the eight grade, the cool thing to do was be an anarchist, and therefore the cool party to vote for were the libertarians. In fact, in one mock election, they almost came to power in our classroom but were narrowly defeated by the prissy little baby republicans, and I began to realize as I got older that to vote for anything other than the big two parties was to throw a vote away, if you were going to vote for them, you might as well stay home.
Then came my first real election. We all remember the grim night in 2000 when we learned that in spite of having won the popular vote, Al Gore lost to Dubba because of the votes of 537 Floridians. Not only was it a sad day for America, it was made even sadder because it came down to so many people who live in America's wang.
Yet when the dust settled and the craziness of elections were over, I had an epiphany, I don't know why no major news media picked up upon it, but 97,421 Floridians actually voted for Ralph Nader. If half a percent of those people had voted for the Democratic candidate, instead of trying to make an ultra leftist statement, the outcome of these last eight years would be a different story.
And whilst Ross Perot was perhaps the most entertaining man ever to enter the political ring (if any of you remember the Animaniacs episode featuring the spoof of him, it was perhaps the most brilliant piece of animation in existence), he too was a ringer that torpedoed his own constituency. Now, it is hard to know the impact that good ol Ross took from either side, as he was fairly oddball moderate, but even still, in an election that was won by only 6.6%, taking a full 18.9% had a definitive impact upon the political landscape. If you follow the wikipedia breakdown of the demographics for the third party vote, he took far more votes from the republicans than he had from the Democrats.
The problem with a third party in a two party system, is that ultimately, they serve as nothing more then a spoiler. The more votes they get ultimately is nothing more than a denial of votes for the party that closest represents the ideals of the third party. And if the last recent elections have proven anything, they've proven the power of a third party to elect those who's views are farthest from their own.
If we see a McCain - Lieberman ticket in 08, then we can be assured of doom because it will mean a shoe in for Hilary.
At which point, we're doomed to a fate far worse then Dubbya.
My Own Strategy for Iraq
Though this post started as a comment for Joey's post below (well worth a read, btw), I have been mildly heckled by the aformentioned contributor for being a compulsive commenter rather than poster, so here it is, posted independant of the comment box:
I think perhaps the answer in Iraq could be similar to the actions taken in Spain in response to regionalism. Differences in language and ethnicity have caused a similar sentiment amongst Spaniards as what is forming amongst Iraqis now that they have been presented with semi-representative government. The fall of Sadaam in Iraq can be compared with death of Francisco Franco in Spain and following plunge into democracy taken by King Juan Carlos. While Iraqis consider themselves Kurdish, Sunni, or Shia first and Iraqi second, Spaniards consider themselves Andalucian, Navarran, Basque, and Aragonese, etc. first.
What has occured in Spain to answer this dilemma is a system of government in which each region is semi-autonomous and elects its own empowered premier and assembly. The national government, meanwhile, is made up of a Parliament and Prime Minister. While the regional governments control the interests and laws of the region with a very firm grip on social agenda and regional economics, the national government sets national policy and addresses issues that effect Spain in its entirety, including issues of inter-regional relations, national security, foreign policy, and military strategy.
I have done a rather hackwork job of quickly describing this system. A much better analysis can be found here. While I am weary of leaving Iraq to its own devices, I think an extremely pragamatic solution to the political situation in Iraq would be to find a balance of national government with regional semi-autonomy. One would assume it would be significantly easier to first establish stable regional governments, and then allow those regions to then independantly run elections for the national assembly. Perhaps a bicameral body similar to the US Congress in which one house would contain one-third representation from each semi-autonomous region could be formed.
The timeline for an Iraqi government in which regional anxiety would be calmed by semi-autonomy of each ethnic group is far shorter than that of trying to form a national government from scratch. A similar plan to the Spanish transition seems the best solution to me.
I am curious to see if Biden's new report will contain a similar idea of regional independence in Iraq, but my fear is he will ignore the problems with full regional autonomy in Iraq and try to push a flawed agenda through the Foreign Relations commitee.
I think perhaps the answer in Iraq could be similar to the actions taken in Spain in response to regionalism. Differences in language and ethnicity have caused a similar sentiment amongst Spaniards as what is forming amongst Iraqis now that they have been presented with semi-representative government. The fall of Sadaam in Iraq can be compared with death of Francisco Franco in Spain and following plunge into democracy taken by King Juan Carlos. While Iraqis consider themselves Kurdish, Sunni, or Shia first and Iraqi second, Spaniards consider themselves Andalucian, Navarran, Basque, and Aragonese, etc. first.
What has occured in Spain to answer this dilemma is a system of government in which each region is semi-autonomous and elects its own empowered premier and assembly. The national government, meanwhile, is made up of a Parliament and Prime Minister. While the regional governments control the interests and laws of the region with a very firm grip on social agenda and regional economics, the national government sets national policy and addresses issues that effect Spain in its entirety, including issues of inter-regional relations, national security, foreign policy, and military strategy.
I have done a rather hackwork job of quickly describing this system. A much better analysis can be found here. While I am weary of leaving Iraq to its own devices, I think an extremely pragamatic solution to the political situation in Iraq would be to find a balance of national government with regional semi-autonomy. One would assume it would be significantly easier to first establish stable regional governments, and then allow those regions to then independantly run elections for the national assembly. Perhaps a bicameral body similar to the US Congress in which one house would contain one-third representation from each semi-autonomous region could be formed.
The timeline for an Iraqi government in which regional anxiety would be calmed by semi-autonomy of each ethnic group is far shorter than that of trying to form a national government from scratch. A similar plan to the Spanish transition seems the best solution to me.
I am curious to see if Biden's new report will contain a similar idea of regional independence in Iraq, but my fear is he will ignore the problems with full regional autonomy in Iraq and try to push a flawed agenda through the Foreign Relations commitee.
Biden's plan
I'm going to throw out a Friedman Unit of my own here. Biden's proposal sounds like something Iraqis would go for and it might be the only remaining option among a host of bad options to stabilize Iraq. I see a number of flaws in the idea but it seems better than trying to arbitrarily unify three ethnic groups under one flag. As we've discussed in prior posts, there's no logical reason for Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis to be "Iraqis." The borders of Iraq were never decided by the Iraqis -- it was a prize of World War I and its future crafted by the British and the League of Nations. So if a primary goal is to help build a nation in which people have some say as to how they're governed, this can't be expected within a framework the Iraqis never established themselves in the first place.
A number of problems with this proposal immediately come to mind. What would be done with regions of mixed ethnic populations, especially Baghdad? Other cities, like Mosul, contain majority ethnic populations but a dangerous number of minorities still live there. This could be a recipe for regional cleansing operations.
Also, Shi'ites would control the oil in the south, the only resource preventing the country from descending into Somalia-like economic conditions. I'm skeptical Sunnis would tolerate Shia prosperity in the south, especially as they descended into desperate poverty. Also, an emboldened Shia sector would undoubtedly ally with Iran in an effort for regional hegemony and further marginalize and corner the Sunnis.
Another major problem is the fundamental existence of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Once U.S. troops withdrew, Turkish troops would spill over the border and smash any and all attempts of autonomy -- they made this abundantly clear with their vicious "counter-insurgency" in southeastern Turkey in the late '90s. It's inconceivable for them to allow a model independent Kurdish-Iraqi state to embolden their indigenous Kurdish population.
Still, this plan seems better than a Baghdad coalition government trying to get these three to cooperate. U.S. troop withdrawal is still the best option, but if we have to throw out a few more Friedman Units, Biden's plan seems like the best shot.
The Mandrake-Ripper Phenomenon
Last night I sat down with TyGreen and JBish and watched Kubrick's classic Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The way Kubrick, who had recently emigrated to Great Britain, cast the character of Mandrake struck me in a way it hadn't before. He by no means had to make the well-meaning and rational executive officer of the crazed General Ripper a member of the "officer exchange" with the Royal Air Force. Sellers showed in playing President Muffley that he could easily do an American accent.
Why then, make Mandrake British? Think about the post-WWII relationship the United States and Britain have... one could easily say the United States is the brash, ignorant, paranoid, reckless, unilaterally-acting leader in the relationship while Great Britain serves as its trusty ally, following commands but feebly voicing its doubts along the way. Save the Falkland Islands, Great Britain has only shown force when acting along with an American action since WWII. Save the United States' actions within our sphere of influence as defined in the Monroe Doctrine and a few retalitory bombings, Britain has aided us in our post-WWII conflicts, either directly or in official policy.
What I would like to see is the United States becoming a more coherent leader. I understand that often international diplomacy is an excercize in triviality. Global organizations have never enacted lasting peace of any sort - one has to only look at Mussolini's actions in Eithiopia and Japan's expansion into Manchuria to see evidence of this. Lasting peace has usually happened in one of two ways:
- The existence of a superpower who can exert its will upon the entire world (e.g. Pax Romana).
- The existence of two coalitions/alliances of equal strength keeping one another in check (e.g. the period of the Balance of Powers before WWI - Britain/France/Italy and Germany/Russia/Austro-Hungary).
It appears as though for the time being neither of these options are open to us. We have proved the era of the United States as the unquestioned superpower of the world has faded, and even if the EU had not undermined the strength of NATO's bond, it is not a conventional coalition which opposes the United States in today's world. It is largely web of covert organizations.
This presents our nation with a clear dilemma - how do we acquire peace in the current age? In what way can the United States form a coalition capable of keeping peace across the world? Surely the begining to finding an answer is in bringing nations into a level-playing field with ourselves at the diplomatic table and pragmatically finding solutions in questions of global peace. I would enjoy the six-nation talks being in a position to be assertive with North Korea, but the United States' unilateral policy in other parts of the world makes this difficult. One key issue in my vote for President in '08 will be in the area of foreign policy. How will the next Commander-in-Chief handle his power as the foremost statesman of America?
As General Ripper states in Dr. Strangelove, the United States has acted as if "warfare is too important to leave to the politicians". We need a President who is willing to reverse this trend and bring the diplomacy of the past into the 21st century.
Why then, make Mandrake British? Think about the post-WWII relationship the United States and Britain have... one could easily say the United States is the brash, ignorant, paranoid, reckless, unilaterally-acting leader in the relationship while Great Britain serves as its trusty ally, following commands but feebly voicing its doubts along the way. Save the Falkland Islands, Great Britain has only shown force when acting along with an American action since WWII. Save the United States' actions within our sphere of influence as defined in the Monroe Doctrine and a few retalitory bombings, Britain has aided us in our post-WWII conflicts, either directly or in official policy.
What I would like to see is the United States becoming a more coherent leader. I understand that often international diplomacy is an excercize in triviality. Global organizations have never enacted lasting peace of any sort - one has to only look at Mussolini's actions in Eithiopia and Japan's expansion into Manchuria to see evidence of this. Lasting peace has usually happened in one of two ways:
- The existence of a superpower who can exert its will upon the entire world (e.g. Pax Romana).
- The existence of two coalitions/alliances of equal strength keeping one another in check (e.g. the period of the Balance of Powers before WWI - Britain/France/Italy and Germany/Russia/Austro-Hungary).
It appears as though for the time being neither of these options are open to us. We have proved the era of the United States as the unquestioned superpower of the world has faded, and even if the EU had not undermined the strength of NATO's bond, it is not a conventional coalition which opposes the United States in today's world. It is largely web of covert organizations.
This presents our nation with a clear dilemma - how do we acquire peace in the current age? In what way can the United States form a coalition capable of keeping peace across the world? Surely the begining to finding an answer is in bringing nations into a level-playing field with ourselves at the diplomatic table and pragmatically finding solutions in questions of global peace. I would enjoy the six-nation talks being in a position to be assertive with North Korea, but the United States' unilateral policy in other parts of the world makes this difficult. One key issue in my vote for President in '08 will be in the area of foreign policy. How will the next Commander-in-Chief handle his power as the foremost statesman of America?
As General Ripper states in Dr. Strangelove, the United States has acted as if "warfare is too important to leave to the politicians". We need a President who is willing to reverse this trend and bring the diplomacy of the past into the 21st century.
The Barrage is Over
There are many things about the American political system that are strange by world standards. The most interesting, I think, is the degree to which the out-party has the power to restrain majorities from enacting laws it stridently opposes. First, surly committee chairs can bottle up almost anything in committee, preventing bills from reaching the floor. In the Senate, the presence of the filibuster means that to enact anything meaningful, you need almost a super-majority of support, 60 votes. If there is disagreement on a piece of legislation between the House and Senate, lots of laws which have broad support in both chambers never emerge from conference committees. And of course, if one party occupies Congress and the other party occupies the Presidency, nothing of consequence gets done unless you can muster the super-majority necessary to override a veto.
So, it's fair to say that getting anything at all done in Congress is difficult. With a two-vote majority in the Senate and about a 30-vote majority in the House, it's unlikely that many of the policies I advocate for are ever going to get enacted. I know this very well. But with the majority, things you don't want to happen almost never happen. Anything that the majority of the majority opposes, even if it is supported by a floor majority, will never get a vote on the floor of either house of Congress.
It dawned on me in a tangible way yesterday why the Democrats' victory in November was so important. I was reading this article in the Nation when this quote jumped out at me:
"...Going from a Congressional leadership that marched in lockstep with Bush to one led by Pelosi and Reid will mean that debates no longer start with proposals that would take us backward," says Anna Aurilio, legislative director of USPIRG. "We won't have to keep fighting to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; ANWR is safe now. Instead, we'll have an opportunity to bring forward policies that could actually solve the problems we face."
It's all pretty much right in that quote. No longer do I have to worry about the Bush Administration slashing the EPA budget. No longer do I have to worry about a "Clear Skies" initiative that relaxes emissions standards on polluters; no longer do I have to worry about a "Healthy Forests" initiative that increases logging on federal land; no longer do I have to worry about stepped-up drilling and mining in Colorado's Front Range; no more do I have to fight to protect caribou in ANWR from oil drilling.
Granted, I'm probably not going to get carbon dioxide added to the list of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. But, for at least the next two years, I will not have to fight so hard to prevent things that I passionately disagree with from being shoved down my throat. It's been so long since that's been the case that I don't even know how to conceive of non-threatening politics. Democrats have felt as if we were bunkered down under continuous assault for six years now, and I think we're all starting to realize how wonderful it is to have the negative agenda-setting power that holding the majority provides. You can practically feel it in the air -- the cloud is breaking up and shell-shocked Democrats are emerging from their battered shelters, sniffing the air. The fear, the frustration, the anger, and the endless irritation -- it just floats away.
For a little while, at least. Then it's back to business.
So, it's fair to say that getting anything at all done in Congress is difficult. With a two-vote majority in the Senate and about a 30-vote majority in the House, it's unlikely that many of the policies I advocate for are ever going to get enacted. I know this very well. But with the majority, things you don't want to happen almost never happen. Anything that the majority of the majority opposes, even if it is supported by a floor majority, will never get a vote on the floor of either house of Congress.
It dawned on me in a tangible way yesterday why the Democrats' victory in November was so important. I was reading this article in the Nation when this quote jumped out at me:
"...Going from a Congressional leadership that marched in lockstep with Bush to one led by Pelosi and Reid will mean that debates no longer start with proposals that would take us backward," says Anna Aurilio, legislative director of USPIRG. "We won't have to keep fighting to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; ANWR is safe now. Instead, we'll have an opportunity to bring forward policies that could actually solve the problems we face."
It's all pretty much right in that quote. No longer do I have to worry about the Bush Administration slashing the EPA budget. No longer do I have to worry about a "Clear Skies" initiative that relaxes emissions standards on polluters; no longer do I have to worry about a "Healthy Forests" initiative that increases logging on federal land; no longer do I have to worry about stepped-up drilling and mining in Colorado's Front Range; no more do I have to fight to protect caribou in ANWR from oil drilling.
Granted, I'm probably not going to get carbon dioxide added to the list of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. But, for at least the next two years, I will not have to fight so hard to prevent things that I passionately disagree with from being shoved down my throat. It's been so long since that's been the case that I don't even know how to conceive of non-threatening politics. Democrats have felt as if we were bunkered down under continuous assault for six years now, and I think we're all starting to realize how wonderful it is to have the negative agenda-setting power that holding the majority provides. You can practically feel it in the air -- the cloud is breaking up and shell-shocked Democrats are emerging from their battered shelters, sniffing the air. The fear, the frustration, the anger, and the endless irritation -- it just floats away.
For a little while, at least. Then it's back to business.
McCain - Lieberman '08?
Here's something to think about. Given the likelihood that social conservatives will reject John McCain as the Republican standard-bearer in 2008, what are the chances of an "independent" McCain-Lieberman ticket in 2008? Mark Schmitt has a brief thought about it. I think it would be hard for anyone who's not a billionaire to mount a nationwide third-party challenge in the next election, so I'm skeptical about the "revenge of the independents" argument.
Nonetheless: I think a McCain - Lieberman ticket would spell doom for Republicans in 2008, mostly because it would split the committed Republican vote in most battleground states. No liberal in his right mind would vote for McCain and Lieberman in a Presidential election. A liberal platform advocating fair trade, a balanced federal budget, preserving Social Security in its present form, disengaging from Iraq, and taking action on global warming would hold the base together. On the other hand, a base conservative platform calling for more tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, building a border fence, banning gay marriage, and maintaining troop levels in Iraq would face some crossover from McCain's likely platform.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that in 2000 the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama (with Russ Feingold as VP) and the Republican nominee is Mitt Romney or Sam Brownback (both more likely than Giuliani or McCain). With a competing McCain - Lieberman ticket, I suspect the winner would need only about 40 percent of the vote to win any given state. In a three-way race, I can see Obama - Feingold getting to 40 percent in places like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, etc. I think it's tougher for Romney - Brownback to get there.
There are definitely not more liberals than conservatives in the U.S., don't get me wrong. But I think there are an equal number of committed Democrats and Republicans in lots of states, and I see more trouble for Republicans than Democrats from a McCain- Lieberman challenge in those states in 2008.
TURKEY DAY UPDATE: I came across more speculation about McCain- Lieberman here, and here. I'll add more links as I find them. Most of the speculation about the pairing comes from Lieberman's decision to hire Marshall Wittmann, the proprietor of the Bull Moose Blog, as his new spokesman.
Nonetheless: I think a McCain - Lieberman ticket would spell doom for Republicans in 2008, mostly because it would split the committed Republican vote in most battleground states. No liberal in his right mind would vote for McCain and Lieberman in a Presidential election. A liberal platform advocating fair trade, a balanced federal budget, preserving Social Security in its present form, disengaging from Iraq, and taking action on global warming would hold the base together. On the other hand, a base conservative platform calling for more tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, building a border fence, banning gay marriage, and maintaining troop levels in Iraq would face some crossover from McCain's likely platform.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that in 2000 the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama (with Russ Feingold as VP) and the Republican nominee is Mitt Romney or Sam Brownback (both more likely than Giuliani or McCain). With a competing McCain - Lieberman ticket, I suspect the winner would need only about 40 percent of the vote to win any given state. In a three-way race, I can see Obama - Feingold getting to 40 percent in places like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, etc. I think it's tougher for Romney - Brownback to get there.
There are definitely not more liberals than conservatives in the U.S., don't get me wrong. But I think there are an equal number of committed Democrats and Republicans in lots of states, and I see more trouble for Republicans than Democrats from a McCain- Lieberman challenge in those states in 2008.
TURKEY DAY UPDATE: I came across more speculation about McCain- Lieberman here, and here. I'll add more links as I find them. Most of the speculation about the pairing comes from Lieberman's decision to hire Marshall Wittmann, the proprietor of the Bull Moose Blog, as his new spokesman.
A post from Quebec City
Quebec is a unique and phenomenally historical city. I highly recommend coming to visit this place. It's in close proximity to most locations in Maine -- took us about five hours to get here from Orono but at least a half hour was tossed on due to the Vichy (Nazi) French border patrol agents... but no, I've found the French people here to be very considerate and accomodating.
We came here looking to blow off some steam from the 5 or 6 straight weeks of work, hit up some clubs, etc. but were amazed by the sheer natural beauty of the surrounding area, the endless historical preservation of vast stretches of the city, including the building themselves, walls all around the "Old City", bridges, stone steps, etc. This is a true gem that I wish I could explore for more than just the one night I'm here.
Granted, It's cool coming here being under 21 and being able to stop in at the pubs and grab a brewskie, but that's really just the icing on the cake.
Probably the most unique aspect about Quebec -- by far the quietest city of over 50,000 people I've ever been to. It is a Tuesday night, but you can almost hear crickets in most of the Old City.
Anyways, best wishes from Quebec. Bonne nuit!
Death of a Legend
I know, I know, this blog is devoted to politics. But I wanted to note the passing of Robert Altman, one of the greatest American filmmakers of our time or any time. He made spectacular movies for more than 40 years. When you saw one of his movies, you knew who the author of the film was immediately. In another life, I wanted to be either Robert Altman or Stanley Kubrick.
Unlike a lot of filmmakers, Altman churned out one movie after another, spending little time worrying about some of the technical blips that would infuriate other directors. In his most productive periods, he would sometimes release three or four movies in a two-year span. Along the way, he made a few movies that looked a bit too rough (Buffalo Bill & the Indians, Pret-a-Porter). But he made some of the best American films I ever saw, like Brewster McCloud, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Nashville, The Player, Short Cuts, and Gosford Park.
Altman kept making wonderful movies literally right up until his death. It's somewhat fitting that his last movie was A Prairie Home Companion, which I recommend to anyone, whether you like Garrison Keillor or not. A wonderful movie about life, death, and lots of other things, too.
Altman made one explicitly political movie, Secret Honor, with the underappreciated Phillip Baker Hall playing Richard Nixon. It's quite theatrical, the way a lot of his movies were at the time, but it's also an impassioned look at a complex man. I never saw Tanner '88, though perhaps I will now.
The world won't be the same without him. Rest in peace, Robert.
Unlike a lot of filmmakers, Altman churned out one movie after another, spending little time worrying about some of the technical blips that would infuriate other directors. In his most productive periods, he would sometimes release three or four movies in a two-year span. Along the way, he made a few movies that looked a bit too rough (Buffalo Bill & the Indians, Pret-a-Porter). But he made some of the best American films I ever saw, like Brewster McCloud, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Nashville, The Player, Short Cuts, and Gosford Park.
Altman kept making wonderful movies literally right up until his death. It's somewhat fitting that his last movie was A Prairie Home Companion, which I recommend to anyone, whether you like Garrison Keillor or not. A wonderful movie about life, death, and lots of other things, too.
Altman made one explicitly political movie, Secret Honor, with the underappreciated Phillip Baker Hall playing Richard Nixon. It's quite theatrical, the way a lot of his movies were at the time, but it's also an impassioned look at a complex man. I never saw Tanner '88, though perhaps I will now.
The world won't be the same without him. Rest in peace, Robert.
Tom Friedman's "6 months"
Is Iraq really just a fool's errand? Hmmm... just another 6 months and we'll know for sure. I found Fair's compilation of Friedman quotes here to be simultaneously shameful and hilarious. I haven't read Friedman's books on globalization but this guy definitely needs to shut the hell up about Iraq.
Musings on Iraq.
What I don't understand about Iraq is how everyone blames it all on Bush Jr. There are several points that often get lost in the rhetoric of how we can blame Dubbya, but that I think need to be remembered.
1) This isn't an American war. The conflict began with, the UN and still remains a UN effort, it just so happens the only army in the UN worth anything is the US army. In spite of France's surrender before we ever went in, we are enforcing a United Nations mandate, not a United States mandate.
2) The gulf war never ended. The Sr. Bush thought it would be a good idea to end the war after only 100 hours and simply called a cease-fire after having broken the Republican National Guard. Admittedly, the objective was to stop the invasion of another country, not to press on and destroy Saddam's reign, but the war never officially ended, there was a ceasefire agreement, with specific terms and that was it.
What I have always found odd was Clinton's inability to actually live up to the terms of the ceasefire. We told the Saddam lead government that they had specific obligations to live up to, and they didn't. Clinton's answer? Let's just fire a few missiles every few years.
In spite of voting for him, I don't like Bush, but if nothing else, I respect him for keeping America a country with integrity. When we say, "We'll sign a ceasefire with you if you agree to our terms," we have to be willing to enforce those terms.
3) We're there. Bad intel or not, we went in. We went in and we took the government out. So now we either commit to staying until we can assist in getting up a working government, or we pull out and let the vacuum suck in whatever it will, and frankly I think the consequences of leaving a vacuum are far worse than if we had never gone in to begin with.
So should we stay or should we go? Should we stay or should we go? If we stay, yes, there will be trouble. But if we go, quite frankly, there will be double.
1) This isn't an American war. The conflict began with, the UN and still remains a UN effort, it just so happens the only army in the UN worth anything is the US army. In spite of France's surrender before we ever went in, we are enforcing a United Nations mandate, not a United States mandate.
2) The gulf war never ended. The Sr. Bush thought it would be a good idea to end the war after only 100 hours and simply called a cease-fire after having broken the Republican National Guard. Admittedly, the objective was to stop the invasion of another country, not to press on and destroy Saddam's reign, but the war never officially ended, there was a ceasefire agreement, with specific terms and that was it.
What I have always found odd was Clinton's inability to actually live up to the terms of the ceasefire. We told the Saddam lead government that they had specific obligations to live up to, and they didn't. Clinton's answer? Let's just fire a few missiles every few years.
In spite of voting for him, I don't like Bush, but if nothing else, I respect him for keeping America a country with integrity. When we say, "We'll sign a ceasefire with you if you agree to our terms," we have to be willing to enforce those terms.
3) We're there. Bad intel or not, we went in. We went in and we took the government out. So now we either commit to staying until we can assist in getting up a working government, or we pull out and let the vacuum suck in whatever it will, and frankly I think the consequences of leaving a vacuum are far worse than if we had never gone in to begin with.
So should we stay or should we go? Should we stay or should we go? If we stay, yes, there will be trouble. But if we go, quite frankly, there will be double.
The draft? Just what this country needs
I applaud Rep. Charles Rengel's calls to reinstate the draft, despite its overwhelming unpopularity with the public. I think Rengel makes a valid point:
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."
Regardless of one's economic situation, ethnic background, gender, everybody should have to perform some sort of 2-4 year service for their country. Individuals' skills would have to be factored in to determine what role would fit them best, but a completely random lottery would make everybody vulnerable to compulsive military service. Every community and a wide swath of families would have their prized youth potentially in harms way. Preserving our freedom and protecting the very existence of our society should not be a task carried out by just those who are selfless and brave enough to sign up for the job. It is a responsibility that should be distributed equally amongst everyone we know, and not one person should be immune to the costs.
The number one objective in reinstating the draft is to make unnecessary war less likely. My intuition tells me, though, that Americans would still be willing to sacrifice, if the cause was truly in the best interest of the nation. Something tells me Americans would've seen the value in the Afghanistan intervention but would have thought twice about Iraq, or at least demanded a withdrawal a long time ago. American lives are not worth timid and cowardly guesses that maybe "another six months" (Tom Friedman) will bring victory.
The value of the draft is not purely symbolic either. The vast manpower would be a valuable asset in restoring America's image and credibility in the world by undertaking the same types of humanitarian missions as the Canadians. Catastrophic earthquake in Pakistan? How about 30,000 able bodied American draftees to help rebuild? And it won't cost anything.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."
Regardless of one's economic situation, ethnic background, gender, everybody should have to perform some sort of 2-4 year service for their country. Individuals' skills would have to be factored in to determine what role would fit them best, but a completely random lottery would make everybody vulnerable to compulsive military service. Every community and a wide swath of families would have their prized youth potentially in harms way. Preserving our freedom and protecting the very existence of our society should not be a task carried out by just those who are selfless and brave enough to sign up for the job. It is a responsibility that should be distributed equally amongst everyone we know, and not one person should be immune to the costs.
The number one objective in reinstating the draft is to make unnecessary war less likely. My intuition tells me, though, that Americans would still be willing to sacrifice, if the cause was truly in the best interest of the nation. Something tells me Americans would've seen the value in the Afghanistan intervention but would have thought twice about Iraq, or at least demanded a withdrawal a long time ago. American lives are not worth timid and cowardly guesses that maybe "another six months" (Tom Friedman) will bring victory.
The value of the draft is not purely symbolic either. The vast manpower would be a valuable asset in restoring America's image and credibility in the world by undertaking the same types of humanitarian missions as the Canadians. Catastrophic earthquake in Pakistan? How about 30,000 able bodied American draftees to help rebuild? And it won't cost anything.
Further response to Brad's argument regarding multiparty systems
something else to ponder: given the increasingly partisan nature of both houses of Congress, and with both parties bargaining less and less with one another, wouldn't a multiparty system force a greater realism and need to compromise upon those in Congress?
also worth pondering, with the increasingly powerful nature of the executive branch, will we soon be able to by-pass representative democracy with direct democracy as de Gaulle in France favoured (and employed to gain his Fifth Republic Constitution)?
Full disclosure: i don't believe in democracy haha.
also worth pondering, with the increasingly powerful nature of the executive branch, will we soon be able to by-pass representative democracy with direct democracy as de Gaulle in France favoured (and employed to gain his Fifth Republic Constitution)?
Full disclosure: i don't believe in democracy haha.
A Pleasant Surprise
This is James Inhofe, who in my mind represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. He is an ideologue who is resistant to facts that don't square with his version of the truth. He supports torture. His attitude toward the Middle East is shaped by his apocalyptic Biblical fantasies. Not only does he oppose various expansions of rights for homosexuals, but he has an outright hostility and disgust for them. Recently, he proudly boasted that his sterling family tree hasn't been tainted by a single divorce or incidence of homosexuality. And, most important to me, Inhofe refuses to acknowledge that humans are the source of the global warming that has been observed over the past 100 or so years. Global warming is a "hoax," according to Inhofe, who represents deep-red Oklahoma.
So, it was with great interest and surprise that I learned Inhofe, who has chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee since 2002, may be supplanted as Ranking Member by John Warner. Warner is an honest conservative who votes the way he believes, but has an enormous amount of respect for the lawmaking process and understands that compromise is the most effective way to govern (other conservative Republicans I admire include Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and Chuck Grassley) . Inhofe, on the other hand, has nothing but contempt for the other side, and represents the kind of poisonous, polarizing politics that is killing rational political discourse in our country. I don't expect much much from Republicans anymore, but allocating such a high-profile leadership position to a reality-based politician like Warner would speak volumes.
A related Republican-related environment development: GOP Presidential hopeful John McCain has been sending suprising signals about Bush's environmental policies. Would he support federal action to cap-and-trade carbon dioxide emissions?
Bush and "Democracy"
George Bush is a champion of democracy all across the world.
But you've got to pick the leader Bush wants, or else face the consequences. Actually, I doubt Bush really knows much about what his hero Reagan did to this poor country 20 years ago. He probably couldn't tell you the difference between a Sandinista and a Sunni.
So why can't we tolerate Daniel Ortega coming to power in Nicaragua? The explanation in the '80s was that the Sandinistas would allow Nicaragua to become a Soviet outpost in our sphere of influence. Today, the claim is that leftist regimes like Chavez and Castro are rotten apples that are going to spoil the whole barrel in Latin America.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about Chavez. Or Castro.
But I think the point here is that despite Bush's rhetoric on democracy promotion, either in the Middle East or worldwide, the fundamental character of U.S. foreign policy has not changed since World War II -- aside from a more hawkish, unilateral approach under Bush. I'm sure Washington would love to see a stable, popularly elected, democratic government come to power in Iraq. But what if the Iraqis elected a Daniel Ortega? Or more relevant to their region, what if they elected a shi'ite, Iranian style, theocrat hostile to Israel and the West? That clearly wouldn't be the right kind of democracy.
Vietnam down the sink hole
Always reassuring to see that Bush has learned absolutely nothing from America's last military catastrophe. The decision to send troops to Vietnam was based on an ignorant ideology and was destined to fail because of a complete lack of understanding of the region's history. Both conflicts reached stages where the body bags continued to fill, at increasing paces with no end in sight, despite the optimistic forecasts back home and a dangerous stubborness to admit failure.
The Iraq War at this point will not be "won" just as we couldn't "win" in Vietnam. The definition of victory in either case is ambiguous. In Vietnam, we actually succeeded in completely devistating the society, thus discouraging others from stepping outside the U.S. global order. But as far as keeping Vietnam partitioned and maintaining a friendly dictatoship in the south -- it was pretty clear by 1962, maybe even in 1954 with the French defeat, that this was strategically impossible.
We've reached the point in Iraq where it's also clear victory is impossible. No American politician will announce, "we cannot win in Iraq" but it's the truth. Refusing to admit this will only result in more dead and maimed U.S. soldiers. What will happen in Iraq once we leave will be ugly (it is already) but I don't see how anybody at this point can look at the last four years of our involvement in Iraq and point to progress or hopeful signs for success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
