One More Political Blog

Bushoe

2008-12-14T19:41:00.002-05:00

President Bush had shoes thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist during his visit to Iraq.

If you're waiting for the punchline, that was it. Stay tuned, I'm sure video will be forthcoming.

EDITED TO ADD: As predicted:

Say what we will about soon-to-be-disgraced-former-President Bush; but the dude has reflexes.

Defending Joe Lieberman

2008-11-09T13:29:00.002-05:00

I've done it before, and it seems I'll have to do it again: defend Joe Lieberman. As you surely know, Joe broke party lines (sort of... he is technically an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) in supporting John McCain for President. So now, Democrats want to at the very least strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and at the most kick him out of the caucus completely. All this while the new head of the Democratic party (and the Free World, for that matter) is preaching unity and reconciliation. Nice juxtaposition there, Harry Reid.

Honestly, Americans went out and voted for hope, change, and unity, and the first matter of business for Senate Democrats is figuring out how to kick out the guy who didn't agree with them. That isn't the Democratic Party that I voted for.

Now, I understand that discipline is an inherent part of party politics (which is why a two-party system is inherently flawed, but that's for another post). As a commenter on a Politico blog put it: "What good is a party when you have members who feel that they can behave any way that they want and get away with it. That's not a party we can believe in." I do find it ironic that this character is using the "...we can believe in" phrase in support of old-school partisan politics, but who knows, maybe it was sarcasm.

I guess my point is this: it is ridiculous to think that every person in the Senate will fall neatly into one of two categories. Very few people believe entirely in the Republican or the Democratic agenda, but we expect Senators to do so. Even though I disagree with Joe Lieberman from time to time (I say "from time to time," because really, he is still a pretty reliable Democrat when it comes to most issues), I think he is a good example of what a Senator should be. He does what he thinks is right, not what his party thinks is right. Of course, if you're Harry Reid, and your goal is to push through the Democratic agenda, you don't want people doing what they think is right, if that would mean opposing that agenda. But again, Joe Lieberman is still supportive of the Democratic agenda when it comes to most issues. I don't see what good the Democrats do themselves by, at the least, publicly shaming him, and at the most, kicking him out of their club. It all seems rather childish to me.

Will going negative work for McCain?

2008-08-06T15:33:00.002-05:00

There's been a lot of hub bub in the World of the Politicos lately about the closing gap between McCain and Obama in national polls (Rasmussen even had the cajones to release a poll showing McCain leading - albeit by a statistically insignificant 1%). It isn't clear (to me at least) why this happened, but it is worth considering that McCain's nasty Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad was released just days before this sudden closing of the gap (According to Rasmussen, Obama was leading by 6% on July 26 - that's a 7% move in a matter of ten days. Although, to be fair, Rasmussen seems to be gaining notoriety - in my eyes, at least - for releasing polls that are clearly outliers). So, it's worth asking: will going negative win the election for McCain?

Well, no. I don't think anything other than a meltdown by Obama will win this election for McCain. But, I think McCain would have a better chance of winning if he stayed positive - in other words, if he stayed the McCain of the 2000 campaign. I'm not naive; I know that negative campaigning works. But, I think there is a limit to how negative a candidate can go. Remember when Mitt Romney was the golden boy of the Republican Primaries Season (before any of the primaries actually happened, that is)? Granted, he probably wouldn't have won had he stayed positive (that whole Mormon issue was tough on him), but I think he shot himself in the foot by going so negative. He became labeled as "The Sleaze." Okay, maybe I'm the only one who called him that, but the perception abounded. After he slimed McCain, he had to do a lot of backtracking to make it seem like he didn't actually go negative, and people saw right through that. I think people are going to see through McCain's claims that he is a positive, bipartisan maverick and label him "The Sleaze" if he keeps running negative (and irrelevant) ads.

It certainly isn't helping McCain that Obama isn't taking the bait. He is responding with ads that simply say "That isn't true. Here is what I really stand for. Let's get beyond old-fashioned negative politics." McCain's negativity has allowed Obama to hone in on what has been a talking point throughout his whole campaign: we need a new kind of politics. If McCain wants any chance of winning, he can't give the Obama campaign ammo. In essence, he needs to play their game.

To the Editor: Fire William Kristol

2008-08-04T13:32:00.005-05:00

When The New York Times decided to add conservative political commentator William Kristol to its op-ed columnist line up, I was not pleased. The idea was that a good op-ed page should present a multi-faceted view of the issues facing the nation. Known for being a "liberal rag" and the butt of most "liberal media" jokes, The Times' editorial board felt it necessary to give a token right-wing nut job a weekly column. In theory, this is fair enough - we liberals always rag on FOX News for being a pawn of the far-right wing of the Republican party, so we should promote fairness and balance, right?

I'm all for fairness and balance, and I think intelligent authors like David Brooks can certainly bring some balance to such an unabashedly liberal op-ed page. The problem is that Bill Kristol just isn't a very good writer. Now, I'm no literary genius, but I'm not writing for The Times, either. Kristol's columns, unlike Brooks's, are rarely thoughtful - that is, they hardly ever shed new light on an issue. His columns read like talking points sent out by the McCain campaign. The title of a recent column was "Be Afraid. Please." The object of the proposed fear was, of course, Barack Obama, or more specifically, the havoc Obama would bestow upon America if he were President while the Democrats control Congress. Mr. Kristol extols the benefits of divided government, noting with an un-Times-like lack of eloquence,

You really should be alarmed about a President Obama rubber-stamping the deeds of a Democratic Congress next year. A President McCain, on the other hand, could check Congressional appetites — as well as work across the aisle with a Democratic Congress in a bipartisan spirit where appropriate.

Yes, because divided government has worked so well since 2006 when the Democrats won control of Congress. Given Senator McCain's recent shifts to the more extreme right-wing of his party and his appalling lack of dignity, there is no reason to suspect that his White House would be any more willing to cooperate with a Democratic Congress than the current administration. Moreover, with Kristol's logic in mind, one might have expected to see him campaigning for Democratic candidates for Congress in 2006, arguing that an unchecked majority is bad for democracy.

Maybe I missed it.

And today, Kristol provided us with what I'm sure he thought was some brilliant insight with his article titled "How to Pick a V.P." I guess we can overlook the fact that he doesn't even touch on the choice Obama faces (that would just be asking too much). What we cannot overlook is the fact that he is just regurgitating what the cable news networks have been saying for weeks now. Oh, Mitt Romney would bring useful executive experience to the ticket? Bobby Jindal would represent the new era of the Republican party, echoing the Obama campaign's call for change? Tim Pawlenty would please staunch conservatives who don't want McCain to try any funny business with his pick? Meg Whitman would provide "outsider" cred while appealing to women?

None of these are revelations. These points have all been made numerous times by the talking heads on CNN and MSNBC and FOX News and so on.

So, it's not just that Kristol is preaching a thoughtless, uninspired, trite sermon on conservatism. Worse, his thoughtlessness is about two to three weeks behind the rest of the media.

Times, I understand what you were going for hiring Kristol, I really do. But, he's been a failure. He's not doing the job of presenting a thoughtful, informative, provocative conservative voice for the op-ed page. If you want another conservative voice, use your own David Brooks as a model. But it's clear to me - Bill Kristol is no David Brooks.

How low will he go?

2008-08-02T09:39:00.004-05:00

You know, I used to have a great amount of respect for John McCain. In 2000, when he got slimed by the Bush campaign as being father to an illegitimate black child, I was outraged. My outrage was increased by the fact that this tactic actually worked. It's this kind of politics that keeps good men from becoming President.

So, to see Mr. McCain resort to the same kind of slimy tactics really turns my stomach. First, he blamed Barack Obama for high gas prices. A ridiculous claim to be sure, but at least it's related to politics. His latest ad, featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is simply inexcusable. Bob Herbert has a good op-ed in The New York Times today about how this ad injects race into the campaign.

Referring back to an infamous ad in 2006's race for the Senate seat from Tennessee, Herbert states...

Both ads were foul, poisonous and emanated from the upper reaches of the Republican Party. (What a surprise.) Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.

Now, McCain is accusing Obama of playing the race card. Apparently McCain can make quasi-racist ads, but when Obama suggests that McCain is painting him as "The Other," he's the one who's injecting race into the campaign. As Herbert points out, "[Obama] does not want the race issue to be front and center in this campaign. Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain."

It seems the media is finally hounding McCain, making him answer the charges that his ads are, well, revoltingly negative. His response? "I don't think our campaign is negative in the slightest... We're having fun and enjoying it."

Oh, okay. As long as you're having fun doing it, it can't be negative.

I'm seriously wondering if this guy might have Alzheimer's. Has he really forgotten who he was eight years ago? I miss that John McCain.

Posting Schedule

2008-02-10T01:22:00.000-05:00

Dear readers,

Allow me to apologize for the sparsity of posts in recent weeks. Both Fz and I have been extremely busy with the final semesters of our senior year at Ursinus. Given the intensity of my workload and other time commitments, I'm afraid that I won't be able to post very often over the next few months. However, this summer after graduation, I'll be able to jump right back in as the election heats up. Thanks for your time, faithful readers!

Till later,
DC

The down side of Obama's South Carolina Victory

2008-01-28T12:41:00.001-05:00

As you likely know, Barack Obama won the South Carolina primary. Big time. But, there is perhaps something troubling behind the numbers. He attracted 80% of African-American voters (who made up over 50% of total voters) while attracting only 25% of white voters. This can be seen a number of ways. First, some may suggest that South Carolina white Democrats are racist. While probably not outrightly true, they may "favor" whites over blacks. Second, some may suggest that Bill Clinton's racial discussions turned South Carolina into a race war. Third, some may suggest that Bill's mentions of race turned the entire process forward into a race war.

I like to think there isn't a race war a-brewin'. Obama has made it a prerogative to not be pigeon-holed as "the black candidate." However, it seems that Clinton (Bill, at least) is trying to do just that. Take, for instance, when he compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's victories there in previous nominating contests. Clinton is implying, "Yeah, he won, but these South Carolinians were dumb enough to support Jesse Jackson!" Or, alternatively, "South Carolinians only voted for him because he's black." Either way, the Clintons are trying to downplay the victory.

I think the Clinton strategy has been working relatively well. Obama seems to have lost some of his sparkle and most of his momentum. I anticipate big wins for Clinton on Feb 5, although, if this really does become a race for single delegates, who knows what could happen?

Paul/Kucinich '08?

2008-01-18T13:45:00.000-05:00

So, I was perusing the ol' Facebook yesterday, when I stumbled across a political discussion calling for Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to team up as President and Vice President (or vice versa). Of course, I think this is a bad idea because I think they are both insane, but they are insane in completely different ways. Which brings me to a realization (I actually realized it a long time ago, but bear with me): Ron Paul's supporters have no idea what he stands for. Let's fill them in.

Indeed, as far as I can tell, Paul and Kucinich agree on the War and a few other homeland security/foreign policy related issues. And that's about it. Let's go through some issues, eh (here's a plug for votegopher.com - where I'm getting my information)?

Bush tax cuts

Kucinich - repeal for top 1%
Paul - make permanent

Tax code reform

Kucinich - work with existing system
Paul - cuts everywhere

Estate tax

Kucinich - keep
Paul - repeal

Capital gains tax rate

Kucinich - increase
Paul - lower

Cap-and-trade system

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Nuclear power?

Kucinich - no
Paul - yes

Raise CAFE standards?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Support ANWR drilling?

Kucinich - no
Paul - yes

Kyoto?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Mandatory healthcare coverage?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

2007 SCHIP expansion

Kucinich - supported
Paul - opposed

Border fence?

Kucinich - no
Paul - yes

Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Abortion legality

Kucinich - yes (using Roe standards)
Paul - leave to states

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Kucinich - no
Paul - yes

Fed. Funding for Stem Cell Research

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Increase Minimum Wages

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Close Corporate Tax Loopholes

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Increase farm subsidies

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Partial Privatization of Social Security

Kucinich - no
Paul - yes

Increase the cap for income taxed for SS?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Gun control

Kucinich - require licenses
Paul - no further restrictions

Assault Weapons Ban

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Same-sex marriage?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

Civil Unions?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

"Don't ask, don't tell"

Kucinich - no
Paul - yes

Increase social welfare programs?

Kucinich - yes
Paul - no

There, I hope we have enlightened any of you who thought a Paul/Kucinich or Kucinich/Paul Administration would be a good idea. Please learn what your candidates stand for before giving them your support. Don't simply support a candidate because he is "trendy."

Although, "The Adventures of Ron and Dennis" could make for an entertaining reality show if this writers' strike doesn't get resolved.

But at least he looks good on Law and Order

2008-01-17T21:02:00.000-05:00

In light of Fred Thompson's poor showing thus far in the Republican primaries, a Thompson staffer from an early primary state dishes the dirt:

Here are some other things missing from the campaign:
1) a finance chair
2) a clear chain of command
3) top-down loyalty
4) a candidate who was willing to campaign for more than 4 hours at day
5) direct mail
6) a college student coordinator
7) a media strategy
Other than that, the campaign had everything.

How John Edwards is Hindering Change

2008-01-17T19:13:00.000-05:00

During the New Hampshire debate, it was clear that John Edwards considered Barack Obama something of an ally in his fight for change and that he considered Hillary Clinton no more than a determined advocate of the status quo. Well, John Edwards, by stubbornly refusing to get out of this race (maybe he'll bail after South Carolina), is giving the status quo pretty good odds of prevailing.

It's rather simple, really. The Democrats are divided into two camps: the ones who want change and the ones who trust the establishment (of course it isn't really that simple, but that's how the media is spinning it, so bear with me). Well, the change voters have two candidates to pick from: Barack Obama and John Edwards. The establishment voters have only Hillary. So, by splitting the "change" vote, Edwards is giving Hillary a better shot at victory. Polls have shown that Edwards supporters overwhelmingly choose Obama as their second choice. So, if Edwards were to drop out, Obama would see a huge jump in his numbers, probably securing the nomination in the process.

If John Edwards is sincere in his call for change, he will drop out of the race as soon as possible in order to actually give change a fighting chance. On the other hand, if he wasn't lying when he said he was in this until the convention, then all my bets are on Hillary getting the nomination.

Who knows, maybe Obama will offer Edwards the veep spot if he agrees to drop out.

The Future Is Bright

2008-01-16T16:00:00.000-05:00

So says Alexander Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution:

People used to think that more population was bad for growth. In this view, people are stomachs--they eat, leaving less for everyone else. But once we realize the importance of ideas in the economy, people become brains--they innovate, creating more for everyone else....

In the 20th century, two world wars diverted the energy of two generations from production to destruction. When the horrors ended, the world was left hobbled and split. Communism isolated much of the world, reducing trade in goods and ideas--to everyone's detriment. World poverty meant that the U.S. and a few other countries shouldered the burdens of advancing knowledge nearly alone.

The battles of the 20th century were not fought in vain. Trade, development and the free flow of people and ideas are uniting all of humanity, maximizing the incentives and the means to produce new ideas. This gives us reason to be highly optimistic about the future.

The main thrust of Tabarrok's argument is that economic development worldwide will drive technological development and help all of mankind. However, his point that more people = more innovation can also apply to situations within individual nations. I guess it's a good thing, then, that the United States is experiencing a baby boomlet:

The fertility rate among Americans has climbed to its highest level since 1971, setting the country apart from most industrialized nations that are struggling with low birthrates and aging populations.

This also reminds me of the one of the most fantastically bad policy arguments put forward in recent memory:

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Walters looks at children purely as consumers of natural resources. Tabarrok's article, however, reminds us that these children could well be the ones to discover a new source of alternative energy or some other environmental breakthrough. Currently, the Australian government gives new parents a $4133 baby bonus. Now that is a smart policy. A vibrant Australia with a birthrate at least at the replacement level would certainly be better positioned to deal with the environmental challenges of the 21st century than a rapidly aging Australia burdened with a shrinking population and a crippling dependency ratio (which would be the inevitable fruit of Walter's policy). This lesson can apply to any developed nation. Have babies! It's good for the environment!*

*Eventually. On average. After all, maybe your baby will be a dim-witted, carbon-dioxide emitting machine. Like me! But if enough people have babies, someone's going to pop out an Einstein sooner or later.

What is this, 1980?: A Look at the Reagan Factor

2008-01-16T06:39:00.000-05:00

It seems every Republican debate and stump speech has turned into a "Reagan Off," a test of courage to see who can invoke the name of our Dear Lord, Ronald Reagan, the most.

There is no clear winner yet.

So, what's with the nostalgia over Reagan? Well, rumor has it the so-called "Reagan Coalition" (although, I would suggest that Nixon had more to do with building the modern Republican party than Reagan, but I guess Republicans don't want to idolize Nixon...) is falling apart. This coalition is loosely composed of three groups of people. The CEOs, the Bible Thumpers, and the Warmongers. In the recent past, Republican candidates have been able to satisfy all three crowds. George W. Bush, for instance, is a businessman who feigns Evangelical Christianity while promoting hawkish policies. Everyone is happy.

Too bad for them W has to go. This coalition has not been able to rally around a nominee. Mike Huckabee satisfies the Bible Thumpers, but the CEOs hate him (what is this populism bullshit!?). John McCain plays well to hawkish crowds, but the Jesus Freaks and the businessfolk don't trust him (he's against tax cuts and he likes gays! Or something...). Mitt Romney, the penultimate Businessman, can't win over evangelicals ("Don't Mormons believe that the devil is Jesus' brother?" - Mike Huckabee) and he doesn't have the military experience that the hawks like.

So, what is a Republican to do? Invoke the name of Reagan, of course! I think the logic here is that by repeating Reagan's name, a candidate might be able to fool these factions into thinking he is the most like Reagan and thus able to hold the coalition together.

I think Mitt Romney could come the closest to holding the coalition together. While he lacks military experience, he at least speaks in a hawkish manner ("Let's double Gitmo! YEEHAW!") And while evangelicals don't really trust him, he does promote very evangelical arguments. So, if the coalition gives Romney a chance, he might be able to hold it together.

But, of course, it's worth noting that Mitt Romney couldn't beat Pee Wee Herman in a general election. So, I don't know what the Republicans can do.

I guess wait eight years until America is sick of Democrats and try again.

Speaking of Insanity....

2008-01-15T22:53:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentlemen, Mike Huckabee:

He says: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

Words fail me.

UPDATE 1: When he talks about changing the Constitution, Huckabee is specifically referring to constitutional amendments to outlaw gay marriage and abortion.

UPDATE 2: The Republican establishment is petrified at the thought of Huckabee winning the nomination. Business conservatives and so-called national security hawks within the Republican party have been happy to use the religious right to win elections. But they certainly do not want them in charge. Here's a choice quote from Andy McCarthy of NRO:

Huckabee is made to order for the Left: his rhetoric embodies their heretofore lunatic indictment that we're no better that what we're fighting against. Let's "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards"? Who needs to spin when the script speaks for itself? Where has Huck been for the last seven years? Does he not get that our enemies — the people who want to end our way of life — believe they are simply imposing God's standards?

More Evidence of Dr. Ron Paul's Insanity

2008-01-15T19:10:00.000-05:00

I've thought for quite some time that Dr. Ron Paul is insane. For me, it only took a brief look into his archaic views of economics and the constitution (I guess Dr. Paul wants to go back in time to when the Supreme Court defended the "right" to employing children in coal mines). For many of my peers, though, Dr. Paul's views have struck a chord (I really can't figure out why).

Well, more proof has emerged that he really is, and has been for quite some time, insane. In the past, Dr. Ron has published the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. These newsletters have been found to contain many troubling (to say the least) passages. One refers to Dr. Martin Luther King as "a world-class adulterer," a "lying socialist satyr," and "the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

Classy.

This one speaks praises of David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK.

In 1990, Al Sharpton and some friends staged a rally in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. Now, renaming such a major city after anyone (no matter how great) seems rather foolish to me, but the Ron Paul Political Report took it a step (or twenty) farther. The article suggested that NYC be renamed "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," or "Lazyopolis" instead.

Apparently Dr. Paul doesn't just hate blacks. He hates gays, too. In the Political Report, he writes, "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." He continues, "The largest blood bank in San Francisco succumbed to political pressure and holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they are trying to poison the blood supply." (emphasis added)

In the Survival Report, he writes that gays try to get AIDS because "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.

Naturally, Dr. Paul claims no knowledge of these articles.

A Word or Two on Racial Tensions

2008-01-14T06:48:00.001-05:00

Up until recently, the biggest "racial moment" in this election season occurred months ago when Joe Biden called Barack Obama "clean," sending Al Sharpton into something of a tizzy while Obama politely took it as a compliment. Well, that's all changed. And in such a historic election, we knew it would.

I'm sure you've heard about Hillary Clinton's remarks about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Lyndon Johnson (find a refresher here). In short, she stated that it took a well-seasoned politician (LBJ) to get the dreamer's (MLK's) ideas put into action. So, she is LBJ, and Obama is MLK? Or, she is LBJ, the Democratic Party is MLK, and Obama is... I don't know what. Either way, comparing one's self to Lyndon Baines Johnson does not seem like a wise strategy.

So, anyway, the Obama campaign is saying that Hillary (and Bill, too) are downplaying the importance of civil rights activists like Dr. King. Hillary is saying that she is simply being pragmatic, that Dr. King was a great man with great ideas, but those ideas needed someone sympathetic to the cause within the system in order to get them to become a reality.

Really, Hillary is right. Civil rights legislation wouldn't have been passed without a president fighting for it. But, there's an important caveat: a president wouldn't have been fighting for it without activists like Dr. King fighting for it. So, it's rather circular. MLK wants change, pressures LBJ. LBJ enacts change. LBJ wouldn't enact change without MLK's pressure. So, who is really responsible for civil rights legislation?

It's a stupid question, isn't it?

Sure is. The answer doesn't really matter, and Hillary was rather stupid for throwing the question out there in the first place. I mean, come on! It's basically as if she is saying "Hey, you remember that famous civil rights activist, MLK? Yeah, I don't want to be like him. I want to be like that guy who tried to take credit for his work."

Seriously. Comparing yourself to LBJ? What the Hell is the matter with you, Hillary? You'd be better off continuing your habit of taking credit for your husband's eight years.

On the Michigan Primaries

2008-01-13T13:21:00.000-05:00

With the Michigan Primaries coming up, Michigan Democrats will have some interesting choices. The DNC stripped the state of all its delegates and the only Democratic candidate on the ballot is Hillary, although, she isn't actively campaigning (Michigan broke some Democratic Party rules and got bitch slapped, as it were). However, the other candidates are telling their supporters to vote "uncommitted," as these delegates (assuming the DNC gives them their power back) will not be committed to any candidate and can thus vote for Obama, Edwards, or whomever. Plus, wouldn't it be a smack in the face for Hillary to lose to "uncommitted?"

Kos, in his mischievous way, has another plan. He wants Democrats to vote for Romney.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Not to mention that if Mitt somehow continues on to win the nomination, this will benefit Democrats. National polls have shown that Mitt is one of the weakest candidates that the Republicans have. If he gets the nod, I have complete confidence that the Democrats will win. Now, if McCain gets the nod, I would bet on the Republicans winning. But I'm not a betting man.

I'm not sure Kos' logic makes all that much sense, though. First off, there are no indications that the Democratic nomination will be settled any time soon. On This Week this morning, George Stephanopoulos said that there's a theory going around that the Democratic nomination won't be settled until April 22 -- Pennsylvania's primary (here's hoping). So, if the Democrats are still duking it out, there won't be much of a difference. Granted, I guess he would argue that both parties being in disarray is better than the Democrats being in disarray while the Republicans are settled. But, I'm not so sure of that logic, either.

For once, I think I actually agree with Newt Gingrich. On This Week, he noted how easily Americans get bored. If the Democrats are settled on a candidate after February 5 (which I doubt), people will get bored with the candidate. I don't think inter-party (or is it intra-party?) conflict is a bad thing. Having a lot of choices can be exciting. And it's good for the political process.

So, I'm not so sure I agree with Kos' strategy. Although, I have to admit, it would be rather funny to see the pundits discussing how Romney's victory came at the hands of Democrats. I wonder how Mitt would handle that hot potato...

Kerry Endorses Obama

2008-01-10T11:13:00.000-05:00

Senator John Kerry plans to endorse Barack Obama. I'm not sure what point these Senate endorsements have except for creating possibly awkward moments in halls of the Capitol.

Hillary: "Hello, John."
John: "Oh Hillary, hi! You know, I really like you, but it's just that, Obama, you know... he's so... fresh and vibrant."
Hillary: "Oh, and I'm stale and dull?"
John: "No, no! You're... you're lovely. It's just... Uhh... I have to go make a speech."

Honestly, how many people are going to be swayed by John Kerry? I once read that there is a John Kerry Fan Club, and it only has one member: John Kerry. I mean, I guess the point is to show that presumably credible people (again, we're talking about John Kerry, so this is up for debate) support a given candidate. Indeed, they're willing to risk said credibility on such an endorsement. I mean, if it was found out that Obama was a mass-murdering illegal immigrant, endorsers could be harmed, too. I don't see this as much of a risk, though.

So, I guess it's all for show. We get to see Obama embracing and joking with this elder statesman, which I guess could be good for his campaign? Perhaps it could say "Hey, we're not just a bunch of young morons like the Ron Paul campaign!"

But, really, are old morons any better than young morons?

Even though he lost, Obama gets the same number of delegates as Hillary in NH

2008-01-09T20:19:00.000-05:00

Despite the fact that Hillary won the New Hampshire Democratic primary, she and Barack Obama will receive the same number of delegates to the party's nominating convention:

Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up nine delegates after winning Tuesday's New Hampshire Democratic primary by almost 8,000 votes. Sen. Barack Obama, who finished in second place, also earned nine delegates. Wait a second—since Clinton won, how come she didn't get more delegates?

Rounding and remainders. Democratic presidential candidates gain delegates in each state as long as they capture at least 15 percent of the votes, and they're awarded delegates in proportion to the amount of votes they receive in each district and statewide. New Hampshire had 22 delegates up for grabs this week. Clinton, who received 39 percent of the vote, got 39 percent of the delegates. Obama, who won 37 percent of the vote, got 37 percent of the delegates. That rounds down to eight delegates each. John Edwards, who just made the cutoff with 17 percent of the vote, received three delegates. This leaves three extra delegates, who are then allocated to the three candidates in turn.

I'm sure that there are lots of good reasons that the parties don't do something crazy like use a simple popular vote to determine their nominees. I just can't think of any right now.

Germany goes wild for Obama

2008-01-08T17:01:00.000-05:00

Yes, Germany. Check out this post over at the Caucus for a taste of how electing Obama president could affect the world's view of America:

Germany has developed a serious case of Obama-mania.
Barack Obama’s high standing in Germany goes beyond his opposition to the unpopular war in Iraq. The country’s sudden crush is bound up with near-constant comparisons here between the young senator from Illinois and President John F. Kennedy Jr. – still admired in Germany and particularly in Berlin.
The Berliner Morgenpost over the weekend ran with the headline, “The New Kennedy.” The tabloid Bild declared, “This Black American has become the new Kennedy!” And the headline for the editorial in the Frankfurter Rundschau read simply: “Lincoln, Kennedy, Obama.”

Electing Obama won't make anti-Americanism disappear. (I believe that a lot of anti-Americanism exists simply because of our sheer economic, military, and cultural weight, not just because of specific actions or who the president is.) But it certainly could make an impact.

.... Or Not

2008-01-08T13:13:00.001-05:00

Huckabee's campaign just released a statement:

I do not support an amendment to the constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship.

Well, well. It looks like Huckabee's "top immigration surrogate" got carried away in that interview with the Washington Times reporter.

Huckabee wants to end birthright citizenship

2008-01-08T11:39:00.000-05:00

According to the Washington Times:

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

Birthright citizenship may, at the margins, encourage a few more illegal immigrants to come to the United States. However, the vast majority of immigration decisions are made from a more immediate economic calculation: a comparison of wages in the source and destination countries (ie, immigrants come to America because they can earn more money here).

Most European nations do not have birthright citizenship. In the past few decades, Europe has received an unprecedented number of immigrants. Large-scale immigration to Europe has provided the continent with large economic benefits, but at the cost of significant unrest. Europe has a great deal of difficulty assimilating immigrants into its societies. America, on the other hand, has traditionally been able to reap the economic benefits of immigration while assimilating immigrants. One of the reasons that we're so good at assimilating immigrants is birthright citizenship. The sons and daughters of our immigrants (including, yes, the illegal ones) become full-fledged members of American society. Ending birthright citizenship wouldn't end illegal immigration. It would simply result in the growth of a marginalized, discontented, unassimilated underclass.

First every candidate and their grandmother was proposing a guest worker system. (Ask the Germans how well that worked out for them.) Now Mike Huckabee wants to end birthright citizenship. I have an idea for the candidates: Don't propose any immigration policy "solution" that has proven to be a disaster in multiple European countries.

The GOP Candidates as High School Stereotypes

2008-01-07T23:38:00.000-05:00

An absolutely fascinating post from Time's Michael Scherer:

Here's one thing you need to know about John McCain. He's always been the
coolest kid in school. He was the brat who racked up demerits at the Naval
Academy. He was the hot dog pilot who went back to the skies weeks after almost
dying in a fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal. His first wife was a model. His second
wife was a rich girl, 17 years his junior. He kept himself together during years
of North Vietnamese torture and solitary confinement. When he sits in the back
of his campaign bus, we reporters gather like kids in the cafeteria huddling
around the star quarterback. We ask him tough questions, and we try to make him
slip up, but almost inevitably we come around to admiring him. He wants the
challenge. He likes the give and take. He is, to put it simply, cooler than us.
Now here's the thing you need to know about Mitt Romney. He is the
overachiever, the do-gooder, the kid in class who always does everything right.
All his life he has outperformed, as a Mormon missionary in France, as a
corporate takeover consultant, as the guy who saved the Winter Olympics from
financial ruin. He works crazy hours and apologizes after he makes a joke,
because he is worried you won't understand his meaning. He is the one who takes
endless notes in every class and has a little plastic container inside his
locker for all of his mechanical pencils. He will probably be the valedictorian,
and he will surely disappoint you at graduation by giving a bland speech that
all the parents just love. "Isn't that boy so sweet," say all the moms.

In case you're wondering, Scherer manages to squeeze Huckabee in there too:

He is the class clown with the weight problem everyone likes...

The Fall of Rudy

2008-01-05T09:21:00.000-05:00

This will be a very brief post, as I just want to share with you a poll I came across. Rasmussen Reports has been testing hypothetical match-ups for the general election. Typically, Giuliani has done the best among the Republicans (even managing to beat Hillary and Obama in some polls), while Romney has done the worst. Well, these results show something interesting.

In a hypothetical match-up of Obama v. Romney, Obama garners 45% while Romney snags 39%. A pretty hefty defeat, if I do say so. However, when we consider Obama v. Giuliani, Obama garners 47% while Giuliani only gets 37%. So what does this mean? It would seem to mean that independent voters or wary Republicans are more likely to support Romney than Giuliani. This could be because Giuliani's approval rating has dropped 30% (from 70% to 40%) in less than a year.

I'm ready to make another prediction: Rudy Giuliani will not be the Republican nominee for President.

Concerning Concessions

2008-01-04T13:59:00.000-05:00

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton gave us two very interesting, very different concession speeches. Both have reflected the candidates' style throughout this campaign.

First, Edwards offered up a shout-fest not unlike Howard Dean's infamous post-Iowa speech/scream. At one point, Johnny started to list the states that his campaign would continue on in, and I sat waiting for a "Yeeeargh!" Alas, it did not come. But, nonetheless, the tone of the speech was as combative as Edwards has been throughout this whole thing. Indeed, one would not have even thought this was a concession speech given Edwards' discussion of success and lack of mention of that guy who actually succeeded. Yes, in a move that showed Mr. Edwards' lack of class, he did not congratulate Barack Obama on his victory. After he said "thank you" and "God bless you," he finally referenced his loss (after being reminded by Elizabeth, apparently), saying rather smugly "Thanks for second place." While this speech won't go down in history like Dean's did, I think it effectively marks the end of Edwards political future, at least as far as the presidency is concerned.

Hillary gave a much calmer, and really much better concession speech. She did not speak of her own success (or lack of) like Edwards, but spoke of the success of the Democratic party. The Democratic turnout was amazing (twice what it was in 2004), showing that Democrats are excited about this election. Republican turnout was lackluster. If "purple" states like Iowa can get high Democrat turnouts in November as well, this election will be in the bag. Anyway, Hillary spoke of "us" as Democrats while still maintaining her own personal image. This dichotomy has defined her campaign (and seems to have stumped it). She is trying to suggest that all Democrats are alike and a Democratic victory in November is all that matters. At the same time, though, she is trying to suggest that she is the best candidate. It is rather confusing. It is if she were saying "These results show a bright light at the end of the tunnel for Democrats, even if that isn't me. But, it should be me!" I think her split personalities (i.e. "We're all the same" v. "I'm better!" and "I'm the candidate of change" v. "I'm the establishment candidate") will be her undoing. She needs a unifying theme, and she needs it quick.

I'm not ready to predict an Obama victory in New Hampshire yet (indeed, if I had to make a prediction today, I'd give it to Hillary), but I think Hillary is in trouble.

And that makes me happy. This reminds me, I don't know if I've ever expounded why I favor Obama. So let me do that.

I have a rather unorthodox view of the presidency. While I recognize the great power that comes with the office, I also recognize that a lot of that power is symbolic, and that power isn't simply to be put to use in "getting stuff done." The president isn't simply the Chief Politico. Rather, he (or she) is (or should be) a symbol of America. A good president should be a unifier, and if that means getting less stuff done, I'm okay with that. The president is given the duty of setting the tone for our political discourse. Edwards' "I want to steal everyone else's power!" and Hillary's "I can do things... lots of things!" are not representative of a high and lofty political discourse. Sure, Obama may be naive, and he may lack experience, but I don't think that is important. I think presidents should be a bit naive. Setting our goals too high allows us to constantly try harder and not stagnate. And experience really isn't that important. As long as a president picks experienced advisers, he'll be fine. I trust that Obama won't surround himself with morons like Bush did.

Look, if Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote for her. Ditto on Edwards. Their politics really aren't different enough for me to base a primary-level decision on "issues." So, I have to base the decision on something else. So, I've based it on tone and personality. I think Obama would be the most presidential (I use this word in a higher way than when people say "Oh, Mitt Romney looks presidential.") of the candidates. He would give us hope for change, even if that change doesn't come. Hope is important in politics. When a top tier candidate like Hillary thinks that renouncing hope in politics is a good strategy, something is wrong.

A Bit of Gloating

2008-01-03T22:03:00.001-05:00

You may remember that a couple of days ago, I announced my predictions for the Iowa Caucuses. Well, I was right. Obama and Huckabee won. I am hoping that this gives Obama the push he needs to catch up to Clinton in all those other states. If anything, it proves that Clinton doesn't have this thing clinched.

Kudos to you, Barack Obama. And you too, Mike Huckabee. Way to stick it to Mitt.

On the Quality of Candidates

2008-01-03T17:21:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has an article about a strange phenomenon happening in Iowa. Democrats are happy with their options. Indeed, perhaps they're even too happy. While Republican Iowans seem either set on Huckabee or Romney (they've been snubbed by McCain and Giuliani), Iowa's Democrats, even those committed to a specific candidate, seem willing to consider other options. I've been experiencing much of the same, to be honest. While I consider myself part of the Obamanation, I recognize that there are other compelling candidates. This really is a strong group of candidates we've got. If the Dems can't pull a victory out of this bunch, they ought to just dissolve themselves as a party. Let's consider...

First, we have the possible History Makers, Clinton and Obama (maybe I should throw Richardson in here, but I think he belongs in a later group). Even though I am rooting against Clinton perhaps even more than I am rooting for Obama, the notion of a female President is, at the very least, interesting. It may not be "compelling," but it adds an element of excitement to the race. The same goes for Obama. The fact that we could have a black President being inaugurated in about a year is very exciting.

Next, we have the Resume (there should be an accent over that e, I know) Kings. These guys (Biden, Dodd, and Richardson) have long lists of accomplishments and probably "deserve" to be President more than the front-runners. The fact that candidates of this caliber are being snubbed should speak to the level of excitement among Democrats.

Then, we have the Wannabe RFK -- John Edwards. He's bringing back (or trying, at least) a style of populism that we haven't seen in mainstream politics since the death of RFK. I'm not too keen on Edwards these days, but I think this style of politicking is pretty compelling and makes for exciting television.

And there's the Token Kill-'em-with-Kindness, All Carrots, No Sticks, Hippie Dippie Lover of the Trees -- Dennis Kucinich. Always fun when he's around.

These folks have made for what I think is a fantastic group of candidates. Let's consider the Republicans for a moment.

First, we have Mr. 9/11. As we all know, Rudy is only in this race because he happened to be the Mayor of New York on September 11, 2001. That's his only "qualification." He claims that this "qualification" makes him the Anti-Terror Candidate. Sorry, Rudy, but having your city attacked doesn't count as military experience. You're no John McCain. Giving patriotic speeches doesn't count as valuable foreign policy experience, either. You're no Joe Biden. You're Rudy, the scumbag from New York who has grotesquely turned a national tragedy into a political windfall. For shame.

Next, we have The Latter Day Flip-Flopper who Saved the Olympics. Seriously, when your biggest accomplishment is putting on the Winter Olympics, should you really be President? Oh wait, apparently Mitt's running an ad about how he saved his friend's daughter! Mitt is a national hero!

Then there's the Varicose Frog Man. Reading about Thompson's sad romps through Iowa have made me pretty depressed. I mean, it's great that Thompson seems to be realizing that he has no business being in this race, but it's sad that even 1% (let alone 9%) of Iowans haven't caught on.

And we can't forget The Chuck Norris-Approved Pastor of Disaster. Huckabee shouldn't be lumped in with these other three, because he is slightly compelling. He brings a kind of economic populism that is unheard of in Republican circles and hey, he's funny. Kind of. Relatively speaking. Sure, generally speaking he is just a pawn of the evangelicals, but he's more compelling than most evangelical pawns.

Alas, a candidate worth supporting: John McCain. Now, if he somehow gets the nod, I sure as hell won't vote for him, but at least his candidacy makes sense. When we ask "why should you be President?" he can respond with something other than a blank stare and a line about the sanctity of family. His moderate politics are refreshing in a Republican party (and really a broader political scene) dominated by extremists.

And there are some others, but they're really not important.

So, congratulations Democrats. You've got a wide range of good choices. And Republicans, you have one, so go ahead and pick someone else. It just wouldn't be becoming to pick the good guy, right?

P.S. Here's a great op-ed about the ridiculousness of the Iowa caucuses. I was going to write a post about my hatred of the caucuses, but this summed it up better than I could.

To come: The promised discussion of primary reform and an update on Michael Bloomberg.

Some predictions and their unimportance.

2008-01-01T15:17:00.000-05:00

I hope you readers and, perhaps more importantly, DC, will forgive my unexplained absence. Like my cohort, I too will make an effort to blog more often this year. On with the post.

The Des Moines Register (which made the nearly unforgivable mistake of endorsing Hillary for no other reason than that she is a Washington insider -- but I suppose that is irrelevant to this post) released their final poll before the Iowa caucuses. For the Democrats, it shows Obama in the lead with Clinton and Edwards lagging seven and eight points behind, respectively. For the GOP, it shows Huckabee in the lead with Romney six points behind. McCain is coming in third, thirteen points behind Romney. So, it looks like we've got a three-way race for the Democrats and a two-way race for the Republicans. My predictions, even before seeing this poll, were that Obama and Huckabee would win (I swear). But, I'm not sure how important these predictions are; I don't know that Iowa is worth all of this hype.

In short, I'm not convinced that the winners on Thursday night will be the eventual nominees. I think the Democratic race will turn into a two-way race between Hillary and Obama, while the Republican race will remain pretty wide open. I imagine a four-way race between Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. It pains me to say it, but I think Hillary will eventually get the nod, but I'm not prepared to make a prediction for the Republicans. They're all (except for McCain) such terrible candidates; I can understand why the race is so wide-open.

So, really, I think the only thing that Iowa will show is that Edwards isn't a viable candidate. He is the only one of the "Big Seven" who seems to need a victory in Iowa in order to survive in this race.

Look for an upcoming post about primary reform. It's nice to be back.

Edit: I forgot to mention one of my hopes for Iowa. I hope that the caucus results reflect how much of a joke Fred Thompson is. I've made a point of saying (or at least implying) how my least favorite person in this whole race is Mitt Romney, but I think I want to amend that. At least Romney tries. Granted, his "trying" shows that he is both a cry-baby, a scumbag, and a liar, but at least he tries. Thompson hasn't tried. He has just hoped that people would think Romney, McCain, and Giuliani are all too liberal. He's presented no substance. As much as I disagree with Mike Huckabee's politics, I'm glad he has taken over the mantle of the "conservative candidate" from Old Man Thompson. I'm already pretty cynical about American politics, but I still retain some hope; a Thompson nomination would've shredded that last bit of hope.

Although, a Hillary nomination risks doing the same. Oh well.

Santa in Iraq

2007-12-24T16:23:00.001-05:00

Hello folks, sorry for the long absence. My resolution for the New Year is to return to writing my blog with a vengeance. In the meantime, here's a little story for you:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Santa strapped on his body armor and sidearm Monday and
got an early start on his rounds, taking candy canes and holiday wishes to U.S.
troops in Iraq.

Anyway, have a Merry Christmas everybody!

Best Political Ad Ever

2007-11-29T15:39:00.001-05:00

In case anyone hasn't seen the Chuck Norris-Mike Huckabee ad:

The World Is Getting Better

2007-11-25T13:20:00.000-05:00

There's a great deal of pessimism about the state of the world today. For example, I was having a conversation with a very intelligent friend of mine, a senior politics major, who stated, with an air of complete confidence, that world-wide poverty was "getting worse." When I asked her how she knew this, she looked confused, then asked, "Isn't it?"

This article in Foreign Policy has the answer: no.

The stats: In 1981, 1.5 billion people were living on less than $1 a day (or, to be more exact, the World Bank’s poverty line of $1.08 in U.S. 1993 dollars, adjusted for purchasing power parity). By 1990, that figure had fallen to 1.25 billion people. By 2004, the extreme poverty rate had fallen to 18.4 percent, or just 985 million people. If current trends continue, the world will achieve the Millennium Development Goal of cutting in half—from 32 percent in 1990 to 16 percent in 2015—the portion of the population in the developing world that ekes by on less than $1 a day.

Need to cheer up? Read the whole thing. It has four other ways the world is getting better, as well.

The Upside of the Declining Dollar

2007-11-22T23:09:00.000-05:00

As much as the declining value of the dollar hurts the ol' pocketbook when vacationing overseas (or buying imported goods), it's worth remembering that a weaker dollar isn't all bad. It improves the competitiveness of US exports abroad. Check out this BBC article on the problems that (European, government-subsidized) Airbus is having competing against (American) Boeing, because Boeing's planes are now relatively cheaper.

Kerry and Edwards: Not on the Same Page

2007-11-20T23:02:00.000-05:00

From the New York Times:

John Edwards, accepting his party’s nomination for vice president, roused a cheering crowd at the 2004 Democratic convention with the kind of buoyant refrain that had become his trademark: “Hope is on the way.”
The next night, wanting to give the American people something more tangible, John Kerry offered his own pledge, one intended as the ticket’s new slogan: “Help is on the way.”
But Mr. Edwards did not want to say it.
So the running mates set off across the country together with different messages, sometimes delivered at the same rally: Mr. Kerry leading the crowd in chants for “help,” Mr. Edwards for “hope.” The campaign printed two sets of signs. By November, the disagreement had been so institutionalized that campaign workers handed out fans with both messages, on flip sides.

No wonder the flip-flopping charge stuck. In all seriousness, though, the dysfunction displayed here is just depressing. That's why I find myself leaning more and more towards Hillary. She's the best at what the Dems are worst at: competent campaigning.

Chavez's Socialist Revolution Continues

2007-11-17T03:02:00.001-05:00

From the New York Times:

In two weeks, Venezuela seems likely to start an extraordinary experiment in centralized, oil-fueled socialism. By law, the workday would be cut to six hours. Street vendors, homemakers and maids would have state-mandated pensions. And President Hugo Chávez would have significantly enhanced powers and be eligible for re-election for the rest of his life.

I wonder how all this socialist experimentation will turn out?

But walking into a grocery store here offers a different view of the changes washing over Venezuela. Combined with price controls that keep farmers from profitably producing some basic foods, climbing incomes of the poorest Venezuelans have stripped supermarket aisles bare of items like milk and eggs. Meanwhile, foreign exchange controls create bottlenecks for importers seeking to meet rising demand for many products.

Fix it

2007-11-16T10:47:00.000-05:00

Looks like the VA needs to fix its disability-rating system. Soon.

Hugo Chavez in action: The disfunctional nature of Venezuela's national oil company

2007-11-06T10:14:00.000-05:00

The New York Times Magazine has a well-balanced read on the plight of Venezuela's national oil company. Chavez has funneled oil profits away from reinvestment, like maintenance and new exploration, into social programs for the poor (and a slush fund that is used to buy weapons). Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences rears its head:

Whatever success the missions have at helping the poor may be dwarfed by the grotesque distortions in the economy as a whole. Inflation is officially at 16 percent but is most likely higher, according to Orlando Ochoa, the economist, who is usually critical of Chávez. He says that in the basket of goods and services used to measure inflation, just under half the items are sold at government-controlled prices. Many goods simply can’t be bought at those prices, and consumers must pay double the price in a street market. Or the goods can’t be found at all, their producers forced out of business by price controls. Beans and sugar were hard to find cheaply when I visited Caracas in September; fresh milk and eggs hard to find at all. Recently, people had to line up for five hours to get a liter of milk. One proposal in Chávez’s constitutional referendum could increase inflation much further by abolishing the autonomy of the Central Bank and giving the president power over Venezuela’s international reserves. The proposal would also essentially allow Chávez to print money.

Why famous people like to hang out with Hugo Chavez

2007-11-06T10:00:00.000-05:00

Anne Applebaum explains:

In fact, for the malcontents of Hollywood, academia, and the catwalks, Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention, and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome the frustration John Reed once felt—the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. For all his brilliance, Reed could not bring socialism to America. For all his wealth, fame, media access, and Hollywood power, Sean Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions.
As for Venezuelan politics, or the Venezuelan people, they don't matter at all. The country is simply playing a role filled in the past by Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua—a role to which it is, at the moment, uniquely suited. Clearly, Venezuela is easier to idealize than Iran and North Korea, the former's attitude to women being not conducive to fashion models, the latter being downright hostile to Hollywood. Venezuela is also warm, relatively close, and a country of beautiful waterfalls.
Most of all, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president—so do most other heads of state—but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman," and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? Ninety years after the tragedy of the Russian revolution, Venezuela has become the "kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer" for a whole new generation of fellow-travelers. As long as the oil lasts.

Nothing makes me madder* than seeing so-called "liberals" wining and dining with dictators. Of course, Sean Penn describes himself as a radical, so maybe he is unconcerned with such classical liberal ideals as free speech, the protection of private property, etc. This phenomenon is not limited to Chavez by any means. Fidel Castro is another common object of hero-worship. One of the few weak points in Michael Moore's excellent Sicko is his unquestioning adulation of Castro's Cuba. Hey, liberals- if you want to make a point about socialism, why don't you do it by hobnobbing with the president of a Scandinavian country?

*Technically untrue, of course. For example, a genocide like Darfur makes me madder. It's a figure of speech, people!

"Setting back the clocks can be a killer..."

2007-11-04T08:39:00.000-05:00

That's the actual title of an article on cnn.com right now. If this had been written, oh, six years ago, Michael Moore surely would have included this in Bowling for Columbine, which wasn't so much about guns as it was about the rampant fear-mongering in the American media.

Zoe's Ark and the child kidnapping controversy

2007-11-01T14:22:00.000-05:00

This whole Zoe's Ark controversy is getting weirder and weirder:

DAKAR, Senegal, Nov. 1 — Virtually all of the children a French aid group tried to fly out of Chad last week had been living with family members in villages and were not orphans of the Darfur conflict, as the group claimed, the United Nations said today.
That finding was based on interviews conducted with some of the 103 children as the government and aid groups try to figure out where they came from and how to reunite them with their families. The plane carrying the children was stopped moments before it was scheduled to take off from Abéché, a small, dust-choked city that is the base of operations for dozens of aid groups working in eastern Chad.

Questions abound. Why on earth are they trying to steal these children? Why not bring home some actual orphans? What about the employee's of Zoe's Ark? When they joined the organization, did they realizing they were going to be stealing kids? If not, when did they find out? I hope they can get to the bottom of this mess soon, and find the kids' real parents.

Oink, oink, oink: Tax dollars for mule museum?

2007-10-30T13:13:00.000-05:00

Talk about government pork:

In tiny Bishop, California, five hours north of Los Angeles, Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, wants to build a museum honoring the mule.

McKeon has requested a $50,000 earmark to explore the possibility of building a museum in the town that every Memorial Day weekend holds the biggest mule celebration in the United States.

The Decline of the Conservative Evangelical Movement

2007-10-28T09:49:00.000-05:00

New York Times Magazine examines the recent political crisis of the conservative evangelical movement:

Today the movement shows signs of coming apart beneath its leaders. It is not merely that none of the 2008 Republican front-runners come close to measuring up to President Bush in the eyes of the evangelical faithful, although it would be hard to find a cast of characters more ill fit for those shoes: a lapsed-Catholic big-city mayor; a Massachusetts Mormon; a church-skipping Hollywood character actor; and a political renegade known for crossing swords with the Rev. Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Nor is the problem simply that the Democratic presidential front-runners — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards — sound like a bunch of tent-revival Bible thumpers compared with the Republicans.
The 2008 election is just the latest stress on a system of fault lines that go much deeper. The phenomenon of theologically conservative Christians plunging into political activism on the right is, historically speaking, something of an anomaly. Most evangelicals shrugged off abortion as a Catholic issue until after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But in the wake of the ban on public-school prayer, the sexual revolution and the exodus to the suburbs that filled the new megachurches, protecting the unborn became the rallying cry of a new movement to uphold the traditional family. Now another confluence of factors is threatening to tear the movement apart. The extraordinary evangelical love affair with Bush has ended, for many, in heartbreak over the Iraq war and what they see as his meager domestic accomplishments. That disappointment, in turn, has sharpened latent divisions within the evangelical world — over the evangelical alliance with the Republican Party, among approaches to ministry and theology, and between the generations.

One positive trend here is that the next generation of evangelical leaders are not just obsessed with gays; they're looking at the rest of the bible too:

Meanwhile, a younger generation of evangelical pastors — including the widely emulated preachers Rick Warren and Bill Hybels — are pushing the movement and its theology in new directions. There are many related ways to characterize the split: a push to better this world as well as save eternal souls; a focus on the spiritual growth that follows conversion rather than the yes-or-no moment of salvation; a renewed attention to Jesus’ teachings about social justice as well as about personal or sexual morality. However conceived, though, the result is a new interest in public policies that address problems of peace, health and poverty — problems, unlike abortion and same-sex marriage, where left and right compete to present the best answers.

The End of an Injustice

2007-10-26T15:23:00.000-05:00

The Georgia Supreme Court has freed Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old when he was 17.

An Ethical Dilemma of Monumental Proportions

2007-10-21T17:30:00.000-05:00

At 8 o'clock tonight, Red Sox play the Cleveland Indians in Game 7 of the American League Championship Series. At the same time, my fraternity is having one of its important meetings of the year. What's a loyal Red Sox fan and Phi Kappa Sigma brother to do?

UPDATE: I've arrived at a compromise: have my mom text me the score every fifteen minutes. Go Sox!

Rivers, reservoirs drying out in the American West

2007-10-21T12:37:00.001-05:00

Water managers are scrambling for solutions as water levels drop in the arid West. The combination of cyclical drought and, probably, global warming-induced drought, are creating a dire situation:

Last May, for instance, Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, one of the United States government’s pre-eminent research facilities, remarked that diminished supplies of fresh water might prove a far more serious problem than slowly rising seas. When I met with Chu last summer in Berkeley, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, which provides most of the water for Northern California, was at its lowest level in 20 years. Chu noted that even the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70 percent of the snowpack will disappear. “There’s a two-thirds chance there will be a disaster,” Chu said, “and that’s in the best scenario.”

In the Southwest this past summer, the outlook was equally sobering. A catastrophic reduction in the flow of the Colorado River — which mostly consists of snowmelt from the Rocky Mountains — has always served as a kind of thought experiment for water engineers, a risk situation from the outer edge of their practical imaginations. Some 30 million people depend on that water. A greatly reduced river would wreak chaos in seven states: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California. An almost unfathomable legal morass might well result, with farmers suing the federal government; cities suing cities; states suing states; Indian nations suing state officials; and foreign nations (by treaty, Mexico has a small claim on the river) bringing international law to bear on the United States government. In addition, a lesser Colorado River would almost certainly lead to a considerable amount of economic havoc, as the future water supplies for the West’s industries, agriculture and growing municipalities are threatened. As one prominent Western water official described the possible future to me, if some of the Southwest’s largest reservoirs empty out, the region would experience an apocalypse, “an Armageddon.”

Read the whole thing.

Only in Japan

2007-10-20T09:49:00.000-05:00

This can't possibly be effective, can it?

TOKYO, Oct. 19 — On a narrow Tokyo street, near a beef bowl restaurant and a pachinko parlor, Aya Tsukioka demonstrated new clothing designs that she hopes will ease Japan’s growing fears of crime.

Deftly, Ms. Tsukioka, a 29-year-old experimental fashion designer, lifted a flap on her skirt to reveal a large sheet of cloth printed in bright red with a soft drink logo partly visible. By holding the sheet open and stepping to the side of the road, she showed how a woman walking alone could elude pursuers — by disguising herself as a vending machine.

The wearer hides behind the sheet, printed with an actual-size photo of a vending machine. Ms. Tsukioka’s clothing is still in development, but she already has several versions, including one that unfolds from a kimono and a deluxe model with four sides for more complete camouflaging.

Check out the slide show that accompanies the Times article. It's a classic.

The Horrors of Socialized Medicine, Cont.

2007-10-10T19:46:00.000-05:00

One of the main tenets of American political discourse is that Socialist Medicine must be avoided at all costs, lest we be subjected to Endless Waiting Times and Denial of Care by Government Bureaucrats. It would truly be a shame if we had some form of government-run health care. Take dentistry, for example. Imagine if we had a government-run dental system. It's my guess that you would see people waiting for months even for major surgery on decaying teeth, millions of Americans going without routine care, and even some children dying from a lack of treatment.

Oh, wait-- that's the system we have now:

For American dentists, times have never been better.
The same cannot be said for Americans’ teeth.
With dentists’ fees rising far faster than inflation and more than 100 million people lacking dental insurance, the percentage of Americans with untreated cavities began rising this decade, reversing a half-century trend of improvement in dental health.
Previously unreleased figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years with data available, 27 percent of children and 29 percent of adults had cavities going untreated. The level of untreated decay was the highest since the late 1980s and significantly higher than that found in a survey from 1999 to 2002.
Despite the rise in dental problems, state boards of dentists and the American Dental Association, the main lobbying group for dentists, have fought efforts to use dental hygienists and other non-dentists to provide basic care to people who do not have access to dentists.
For middle-class and wealthy Americans, straight white teeth are still a virtual birthright. And dentists say that a majority of people in this country receive high-quality care.
But many poor and lower-middle-class families do not receive adequate care, in part because most dentists want customers who can pay cash or have private insurance, and they do not accept Medicaid patients. As a result, publicly supported dental clinics have months-long waiting lists even for people who need major surgery for decayed teeth. At the pediatric clinic managed by the state-supported University of Florida dental school, for example, low-income children must wait six months for surgery.
In some cases, the results of poor dental care have been deadly. A child in Mississippi and another in Maryland died this year from infections caused by decayed teeth.

This is why it's so important for Bush to veto S-CHIP. Health insurance for children is just one step down the road to socialized medicine. The next thing you know we might have government-run dentistry. If a few children have to go without health insurance to preserve this fine dental system of ours, so be it.

Deny, Deny, Deny

2007-10-10T11:15:00.000-05:00

Today El Presidente Bush made an extremely classy speech in front of the White House today, urging heavily against a House resolution that labels the killings of Armenians in Turkey during World War I as a "genocide."

Why you ask? Because God forbid we piss off Turkey, a key ally in the war on terror:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said good relations with Turkey are vital because 70 percent of the air cargo intended for and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by the U.S. forces in Iraq flies through Turkey.

So essentially, we have to be nice to Turkey to help us fight the war in Iraq and deny the senseless slaughter of Armenians so long ago. Nice, just nice.

Bush saves us all from the dangers of children's health insurance

2007-10-03T09:41:00.001-05:00

Remember how Bush was courageously preparing to save us all from "socialized medicine" by vetoing an expansion of children's health insurance? Well, he just did it. What a hero.

Radiohead shocks the music industry

2007-10-01T15:31:00.000-05:00

One of the best modern rock bands is going to sell its next album on its website. And the album is going to cost.... exactly how much you're willing to pay:

In Rainbows will be released as a digital download available only via the band's web site, Radiohead.com. There's no label or distribution partner to cut into the band's profits — but then there may not be any profits. Drop In Rainbows' 15 songs into the online checkout basket and a question mark pops up where the price would normally be. Click it, and the prompt "It's Up To You" appears. Click again and it refreshes with the words "It's Really Up To You" — and really, it is. It's the first major album whose price is determined by what individual consumers want to pay for it. And it's perfectly acceptable to pay nothing at all.

Radiohead's contract with EMI/Capitol expired after its last record, Hail to the Thief, was released in 2003; shortly before the band started writing new songs, singer Thom Yorke told TIME, "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'F___ you' to this decaying business model."

This very visible blow to the staggering music industry has to hurt:

While many industry observers speculated that Radiohead might go off-label for its seventh album, it was presumed the band would at least rely on Apple's iTunes or United Kingdom-based online music store 7digital for distribution. Few suspected the band members had the ambition (or the server capacity) to put an album out on their own. The final decision was apparently made just a few weeks ago, and, when informed of the news on Sunday, several record executives admitted that, despite the rumors, they were stunned. "This feels like yet another death knell," emailed an A&R executive at a major European label. "If the best band in the world doesn't want a part of us, I'm not sure what's left for this business."

It's worth remembering the impending doom of the record labels isn't exactly something to be sad about:

Even under the most lucrative record deals, the ones reserved for repeat, multi-platinum superstars, the artists can end up with less than 30% of overall sales revenue (which often is then split among several band members). Meanwhile, as record sales decline, the concert business is booming. In July, Prince gave away his album Planet Earth for free in the U.K. through the downmarket Mail on Sunday newspaper. At first he was ridiculed. Then he announced 21 consecutive London concert dates — and sold out every one of them.

Less money for the record labels and more money for the artists? Sign me up.

We can only hope

2007-10-01T15:16:00.000-05:00

Will Christian conservatives back a third-party candidate if the Republican Party nominates pro-choice Rudy Giuliani? I hope so. A commentator at the New York Times says:

Let the Republicans nominate Rudy so the Evangelicals can run a 3rd party candidate. We’ll get a Clinton in the office with just a plurality of the vote. Sounds like 1992 all over again!

Yee hah!

Jesus in Jena

2007-09-27T16:19:00.000-05:00

District Attorney Reed Walters, the prosecutor in the Jena 6 case, credited Jesus as the reason that the demonstrations taking place this week were peaceful:

"The only way — let me stress that — the only way that I believe that me or this community has been able to endure the trauma that has been thrust upon us is through the prayers of the Christian people who have sent them up in this community."

So what's the lesson here, Mr. Walters? That divine intervention is necesssary for a large crowd of black people to be peaceful?

"Well sure, haven't ya'll ever been to one of dem hip-hop shows?"

OK, that last one's not a real quote. But it might as well have been.

Virgin Mobile: taking advantage of teenage girls

2007-09-24T21:13:00.001-05:00

Virgin Mobile took a girl's photo off of Flickr and used it in a series of ads with titles like "dump the pen pal" and "free virgin to virgin." (Get it?) It didn't, of course, ask for her permission, or inform her that it was doing so. The girl's parents are suing, arguing that she has a right to privacy. Apparently any photo on Flickr is under the Creative Commons license and can be used for anything, even an ad campaign. Watch what you put on there! Whether or not Virgin Mobile is actually breaking the law, it sure is being monumentally insulting. How would you like to have your face plastered on billboards with a caption that makes fun of you?

Inspiring

2007-09-24T00:12:00.000-05:00

Monks march for freedom

Ever tried to stuff 15 one-dollar coins into your pocket?

2007-09-20T22:54:00.000-05:00

I have. I'm getting quite good at it, actually, because I get a lot of practice. Every school break when I return to Boston, I need to recharge my CharlieCard to ride the T. (That's Boston's public transportation system, for all of you who don't live near the Hub of the Universe.) Invariably, I'm too lazy to use my debit card to add five bucks to the card. That requires punching in about four more numbers. So I always put in a $20 bill and stare as 15 one-dollar coins in change pour out of the machine.

I was reminded of this tradition by this article on the new Presidential coins.

Barry Stuppler, vice president of the American Numismatic Association, said that in order for dollar coins to be widely used they must be accepted not just by the public but by everything from vending machines to traffic meters.
"If commerce doesn't prepare for it, [the presidential dollar] will become like the Susan B. Anthony dollar," he said.

Accepting dollar coins everywhere: that's one possible solution. Or, every major American city could install crazy subway machines like Boston's...

The Death of a Country

2007-09-20T17:05:00.001-05:00

Belgium draws ever closer to breaking up.

No health insurance for children, gosh darn it

2007-09-17T08:08:00.000-05:00

Whatever else you can say about President Bush, the man sure stands up for what he believes in. And, gosh darn it, he believes that providing health insurance to uninsured children is just one of those things that a freedom-loving, red-blooded American has to stand against:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 — Senate and House negotiators said Sunday that they had agreed on a framework for a compromise bill that would provide health insurance to four million uninsured children while relaxing some of the limits on eligibility imposed by the Bush administration.
The compromise, which resembles a bill passed by the Senate with bipartisan support, sets the stage for a battle with President Bush, who has denounced similar legislation as a step “down the path to government-run health care for every American.”

Sacrifices need to be made in the battle against government-run health care, apparently.

Alan Greenspan declares that the Iraq War was fought for oil

2007-09-16T00:16:00.000-05:00

Greenspan doesn't just criticize Bush's economic policies in his new book. Check it out:

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.
In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.
However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

Industries Want Regulation

2007-09-15T13:48:00.001-05:00

You know the administration has taken deregulation too far when American industries are actually seeking more regulations:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — After years of favoring the hands-off doctrine of the Bush administration, some of the nation’s biggest industries are pushing for something they have long resisted: new federal regulations.

For toys and cars, antifreeze and fireworks, popcorn and produce and cigarettes and light bulbs, among other products, industry groups or major manufacturers are calling for federal health, safety and environmental mandates. Some of those industries are abandoning years of efforts to block such measures, often in alliance with the Bush administration, which pledged to ease what it views as costly, unnecessary rules.

The corporations are, of course, motivated by self-interest. As the article makes clear, they're afraid of lawsuits and cheap (and unsafe) foreign competition, and they also want to preempt heavy regulation by the Democrats by putting lesser regulation in place now. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. We'll just have to see if the Bush administration will respond to these calls for more regulations. Wait, wasn't there a controversy about spinach a while back?

Last year, almost all of the nation’s spinach crop was destroyed after contaminated spinach from one 50-acre California farm sickened nearly 200 people in 26 states, killing a Wisconsin woman. It was the last straw for large growers, who now support mandatory safety standards. But the Department of Health and Human Services has been slow to endorse them, leading some proponents to conclude that the agency has objections.
“It’s a little unique when both consumer groups and industry associations are out there saying that we need new regulations, and the government doesn’t agree,” said Jenny Scott, vice president for food safety programs of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

It'll be interesting to show how this all shakes out. The (obvious) lesson here is that, while over-regulation is bad for the economy, slashing regulations willy-nilly can have some serious downsides as well. Not that this is some brilliant new insight, but it's one that pro-business officials tend to forget.

Alan Greenspan lets loose

2007-09-15T13:31:00.000-05:00

Alan Greenspan lets loose:

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.

...

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Yes indeed.

UPDATE: Digby has a nice post on the subject, including this little tidbit:

I'm most interested in his take on the various presidents he worked with. For instance:

he believes that "Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were the most intelligent, he wrote, while he found Ford the most normal and likeable. Ronald Reagan was the most devoted to free markets, though his grasp of economics "wasn't very deep or sophisticated."

$5 Swedish Meatballs

2007-09-15T13:24:00.000-05:00

CNN reports:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hungry attendees at Justice Department conferences have been enjoying millions of dollars in meatballs and other goodies courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, according to an inspector general's report released Friday.

The report cited $5 meatballs and cans of soft drinks each costing $4.55 among reasons 10 conferences during 2005 and 2006 cost nearly $7 million.

One four-day conference of 1,500 people in Los Angeles cost the Justice Department $394,000 in August 2005.
...
The 2005 Los Angeles event -- which was called the "Weed and Seed" national conference -- attracted particular attention from the audit's authors.
It "included a $53 per person two-entree and dessert lunch for 120 attendees, a one-hour $64,000 'Stars and Stripes' themed networking reception and a post-conference meeting for 30 DOJ employees who were provided a sandwich buffet lunch at a cost of $44 per person and an 'At the Movies' theme snack (candy, popcorn, and soft drinks) for an additional $25 per person," the report said.

I'm speechless.

Do Teachers Have First Amendment Rights?

2007-09-13T14:36:00.001-05:00

Here is a case of a public school teacher getting fired for expressing political views. The teacher, Deborah Mayer, said in response to a student question, "I honk for peace," and "People ought to seek out peaceful solutions before going to war." Apparently some students (or their parents, more likely) were upset that Mayer was "bashing Bush," and Mayer lost her job.

This is a tricky topic, because it is difficult to say that public school teachers have complete free speech rights; they obviously shouldn't be politically or religiously indoctrinating children. But, can they express opinions in response to questions? The lawyer for the school board certainly doesn't think so. He argues that, "teachers don't have First Amendment rights in the classroom because they teach a curriculum decided by state and local officials."

This is also too extreme. This would imply that teachers are, more or less, robots that simply enforce the will of those who determine the curriculum. The only speech that is protected is that which supports the curriculum. The lawyer for the board noted, "If they disagree with the curriculum, they can go somewhere else." Real mature. That sounds like a redneck who says "hey you lib'rals! If you hate America so much, why don't you just leave!?" Of course, I don't think teachers should be able to ignore the curriculum, but teachers aren't just robots to enforce someone else's will (at least good ones aren't). They want to teach children, not just deliver government-approved information (the distinction is subtle, but I think the ability to see it is important for anyone interested in education/academia).

Again, this is tough. We don't want teachers to simply do whatever they want (although, a select few teachers would certainly put this freedom to great use), but at the same time, they shouldn't just be information spewing machines. I don't know where to strike the balance, but I definitely don't think Mayer should have been fired for simply responding to a question with her honest opinion.

So, anyway, the lower courts have so far sided with the school board, and now Mayer is appealing to the Supreme Court. It has not yet determined whether or not it will hear the case. Here's hoping it does, because while there are famous cases outlining students' speech rights in school, the area of teachers' rights is rather ambiguous.

Britain and Ireland can keep the pint

2007-09-12T09:06:00.000-05:00

Common sense prevails:

BRUSSELS, Sept. 11 — Britons and the Irish can still down a pint of beer, walk a mile, covet an ounce of gold and eat a pound of bananas after the European Union ruled today that the countries could retain measurements dating back to the Middle Ages.

Under a previous European Union plan, Britain and Ireland would have been forced to adopt the metric system and phase out imperial measurements by 2009. But after a vociferous antimetric campaign by British skeptics and London’s tabloid press, European Union officials decided that an ounce of common sense (or 28.3 grams) suggested that granting a reprieve was better than braving a public backlash

Smart move by the EU. This plan had "public relations disaster" written all over it.

Hillary the "Realist"

2007-09-02T21:29:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton is taking an interesting approach to countering her optimistic enemies, Obama and Edwards. She is painting herself as a realist. Rather than Edwards' "Let's take away the power from special interests!" approach, she says, "I want to work within the system... You can’t pretend the system doesn’t exist." Rather than Obama's "outsider" approach, Hillary emphasizes that she knows her way around the (possibly wicked) ways of Washington. I think there is something to be said for this sort of frankness, but at the same time, it slightly worries me.

The President is certainly an extremely powerful individual, but I also think a lot of the President's power is symbolic, so to speak. The President is not merely the Chief Executive (or the Chief Legislator, for those who consider him that), but also the Chief Moralizer, if you will allow me that phrase. Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the backwards morals of the Bush Administration, but part of the President's job is to have some vague notion of "good" that America can (hopefully) rally behind. In other words, "here is what I think is worth fighting for." Not "here is what we can settle for."

Sometimes we do have to settle for less, but that doesn't really seem like something a Presidential candidate should be saying in her stump speech. So, I'm torn. Is this a refreshing use of honesty (or realism) in a stump speech? Or is it a frightening willingness to settle for less?

From the Imagination of John Bolton

2007-08-31T11:43:00.001-05:00

In an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, John Bolton criticizes America's handling of North Korea. At the end of the article, almost as an afterthought, he muses:

Finally, we need to learn the details of North Korean nuclear cooperation with other countries. We know that both Iran and Syria have long cooperated with North Korea on ballistic missile programs, and the prospect of cooperation on nuclear matters is not far-fetched. Whether and to what extent Iran, Syria or others might be “safe havens” for North Korea’s nuclear weapons development, or may have already participated with or benefited from it, must be made clear.

To summarize: at the end of an article about North Korea, Bolton considers the possibility that, hey, maybe Iran and Syria might be helping out North Korea. Not that he has any evidence of this; he simply imagines that it could be so, and says the US should look into it. Fair enough.

Then Jay Nordlinger at NRO's The Corner reads Bolton's editorial and writes a post entitled "The Axis in Action":

Are North Korea, Iran, and Syria helping one another with nuclear weapons — not weaponry in general, but nuclear weapons? If so, this is a stunning new development, or revelation. This could be unutterably dangerous for the world. Security-minded people in Congress may want to inquire about this. And we are reminded, once more, of the complete validity of the much-mocked phrase “axis of evil.”

The Right-Wing Echo Chamber at work! Let's break this down line by line, shall we?

Are North Korea, Iran, and Syria helping one another with nuclear weapons — not weaponry in general, but nuclear weapons?

It sure is easy to make up something scary in the form of a question. For example: "Where was Jay Nordinger on the night that Owen Wilson tragically attempted to take his own life?"

If so, this is a stunning new development, or revelation.

If so, this would be a stunning new development, or revelation. Of course, there's no evidence that it is so.

This could be unutterably dangerous for the world.

If there were any evidence that it was so.

Security-minded people in Congress may want to inquire about this. And we are reminded, once more, of the complete validity of the much-mocked phrase “axis of evil.”

What?? In related news, John Doe told his friend Bob Smith that, theoretically, his wife might be cheating on him. This hypothetical situation reminds us of the the validity of the phrase "you can't trust women."

Nordlinger is apparently unaware that the hypothetical musings of John Bolton in an editorial have absolutely no effect on the validity of the phrase "Axis of Evil."

The worst part of the whole post, though, is the title: "The Axis in Action." A more appropriate title would be: "The Axis in Action... in John Bolton's head."

***
Look, I don't mean to suggest that two or three dictatorial countries could never work together on nuclear technology. But the world is full of scary possibilities. Let's see some evidence that they are before we panic, ok? The imagination of John Bolton doesn't count.

Goodbye Gonzo, Hello ...

2007-08-30T21:04:00.000-05:00

Liberals across the country are rejoicing at Alberto Gonzales' resignation, and sure, it's good, but who will take his place? Will s/he be any more competent or apolitical? Perhaps there is hope, as Donald Rumsfeld was replaced with Robert Gates. Although, perhaps that wasn't even that great. Was there any significant policy change after Rumsfeld left? Not as far as I can tell. So, the best we can expect from Gonzo's replacement is probably a competent person who will forward irrational policies. After all, the Bush Administration will not all of a sudden insist on an apolitical Justice Department (and I doubt that any modern administration would). So, is Gonzo's ousting worth celebrating?

Maybe for a little, sure. Even if nothing changes, at least the point has been made that incompetent hacks do not deserve to sit in high governmental positions. That certainly doesn't mean that any lesson has been learned, though. I think the Bush administration is incapable of learning from mistakes, because they are incapable of admitting mistakes. So, here's what I expect in Bush's nominee: a political clone of Gonzo (who is really just a political clone of Bush), but with better credentials. I suppose that's a step in the right direction.

P.S. I apologize for my absence from blogging. I will do my best to post at least a few times a week during the next few months.

The Party of Family Values, Part III

2007-08-30T08:37:00.000-05:00

In the New York Times, Gail Collins (sort of) defends all those politicians in the news caught with their pants around their ankles:

People, have you ever in your life pointed to your kids or grandkids and said that you hoped they grew up to be like Larry Craig? Or Bill Clinton? Or Mitt Romney? No. You might hope they were as politically skillful as Clinton or as financially successful as Romney or as ... um, good at barbershop quartet singing as Larry Craig. We do not hire our elected officials to shape our children’s characters. We want them to pass good laws and make sensible decisions on our behalf. If something terrible happens, we want to feel that they are strong enough to get us through it. But we have very little investment in whether they’re faithful to their wives, or even whether they’re tortured by demons of sexual confusion.
Although if it involves men’s rooms, we would really rather not hear about it.

Collins does have a point here-- and if a politician were to run a campaign based just on, say, government efficiency and tax cuts, then I agree that the personal behavior of that politician would be irrelevant. However, that is not the case here. Many, if not most, Republican candidates today run as "family values" conservatives, devoted to imposing a fundamentalist view of sexual morality on the American public through the power of the law. (Abstinence-only sex education! No Plan B! Outlaw gay marriage! Save the country from "San Francisco Values"!) Therefore, the fact that an inordinate number of Republican Congressman seem to have been caught cruising for gay sex, or visiting prostitutes, couldn't be more relevant. It's all about the hypocrisy.

The Party of Family Values, Cont.

2007-08-30T08:20:00.000-05:00

It turns out I forget to mention several other Republican sex scandals. Pam at AMERICAblog has a list of what has happened in just the past month and half, and I'm not even bothering to include the Craig and Vitter scandals when I cut and paste it here:

* Glenn Murphy, Jr., the recently elected chairman of the Young Republican National Federation, caught sexually assaulting a sleeping man.
* former White house spiritual advisor and fallen megachurch pastor Tweaker Ted "I'm completely heterosexual" Haggard asking whatever fans he has left for money.
* former NC Republican lawmaker and Christian Action League president, Coy C. Privette -- caught at the no-tell motel with a sex worker -- also guilty.
* Mark Foley is back in the news, he won’t turn over his former congressional computer to investigators.
* Rep. Bob Allen, another Republican, caught asking to blow an undercover officer and willing to pay $20 for the pleasure; currently coming up with an excuse for the day (scary black men, thunderstorms) for his same-sex appetite.

Election 2008: Boy, I'd hate to see the Democrats win and "San Francisco Values" spread across the nation!

The Party of Family Values

2007-08-28T19:48:00.000-05:00

Another day, another Republican sex scandal. From Senator Vitter and his prostitutes to Senator Craig and his liaisons in public restrooms, the Party of Family Values never ceases to amaze me. Craig, like Vitter, is a married man. I can't wait for the 2008 election and the inevitable Republican moralizing about the sanctity of marriage.

The Last Word on Gonzales

2007-08-28T18:42:00.001-05:00

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. A full list his misdeeds would fill a book, so I'll turn to Bruce Reed for the final word on Gonzales, the man who rose from a desperately poor background to become the first Hispanic Attorney General:

Torture, spying, and partisan conspiracy were once the province of the elite few. Now anyone can grow up to be a puppet, apologist, and laughingstock.

Yes, indeed.

UPDATE:

Check out TPM's great video tribute to the ridiculousness that is Alberto Gonzales' testimony before Congress. Watch the whole thing- it gets better and better.

Hebrew Language Charter School Opens in Florida. Controversy Ensues

2007-08-24T06:42:00.000-05:00

Apparently a Hebrew language charter school in Florida is creating a bit of controversy:

HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Aug. 23 — The new public school at 2620 Hollywood Boulevard stands out despite its plain gray facade. Called the Ben Gamla Charter School, it is run by an Orthodox rabbi, serves kosher lunches and concentrates on teaching Hebrew.

About 400 students started classes at Ben Gamla this week amid caustic debate over whether a public school can teach Hebrew without touching Judaism and the unconstitutional side of the church-state divide. The conflict intensified Wednesday, when the Broward County School Board ordered Ben Gamla to suspend Hebrew lessons because its curriculum — the third proposed by the school — referred to a Web site that mentioned religion.
...
The battle over Ben Gamla parallels one in New York over Khalil Gibran International Academy, a new public school that will focus on Arabic language and culture. But some who have followed the evolution of both schools say Ben Gamla could prove more problematic. As a charter school that receives public money but is exempt from certain rules, they say, it is subject to less oversight.

Then there's this:

Rabbi Siegel said the school was proceeding with such extreme caution that even a neutral mention of religion was unlikely. The sign outside Ben Gamla was going to include a Hebrew phrase for “welcome,” Rabbi Siegel said, but because the literal translation is “blessed are those who come,” he decided against it.
“Even basic things, like if there was a page that had a picture of a shofar, I pulled it out,” Rabbi Siegel said, referring to the ram’s horn used in High Holy Day services. “We went so far overboard, it’s crazy.”
The school board rejected Ben Gamla’s first two Hebrew curriculum proposals after finding they included religious references. The second, which relied on a textbook titled “Ha-Yesod,” asked students to translate phrases like “Our Holy Torah is dear to us” and “Man is redeemed from his sins through repentance.”

Rabbi Siegel said the school would have omitted such phrases from lessons. On Tuesday, the school board hired Nathan Katz, a religious studies professor at Florida International University, to vet the latest curriculum proposal before its next meeting on Sept. 11. The school cannot teach Hebrew before then, a school board spokesman said.

As long as the school stays away from blatant religious instruction, I don't think there should be a problem. The more bilingual schools the better. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it seems like it should be permissible to study some sections of the Torah in Hebrew as literature. We're allowed to study Genesis in English class, right? It's probably a good thing, though, that this guy isn't in charge anymore:

Rabbi Siegel was originally the school’s principal, but he hired someone else after people said it was inappropriate for a rabbi to oversee instruction. Rabbi Siegel, who does not have a congregation, said it should not have mattered.
“One of the most ridiculous complaints is that the line between culture and religion is so thin,” he said. “Who better to make that distinction than a rabbi?”

Who, indeed?

Turkey Attacks the ADL for Acknowledging the Armenian Genocide

2007-08-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

Turkey doesn't appreciate the fact that the Anti-Defamation League has reversed course and acknowledged the Armenian genocide:

The Turkish government, reacting to a controversy that started in Watertown, yesterday condemned the Anti-Defamation League's decision to call the massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turks a genocide.

"We consider the statement of the ADL as an injustice to the unique character of the Holocaust, as well as to the memories of its victims," the Turkish Foreign Ministry said in a statement. "We expect it to be rectified."

Burak Akcapar, first counselor of the Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C., said Turkey has registered its concerns with Israel, the United States, and "friends everywhere."
...
The councilors were protesting the Anti-Defamation League's refusal to state that the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians, beginning in 1915, was genocide.
After the vote, the League's New England director, Andrew H. Tarsy, defied the organization's policy and agreed to use the term. He was fired the next day.
Jewish leaders in Boston and beyond protested, pointing out that Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, among others, have recognized the Armenian genocide.
Under mounting pressure, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement on Tuesday saying that the killings were "tantamount to genocide," but it stopped short of supporting a congressional resolution recognizing the genocide, saying it was counterproductive.
The Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups had raised concerns that passage of the resolution could jeopardize the safety of Turkey's Jews.
Yesterday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry stated its continued opposition to the resolution, but said the League's concerns that it could lead to retaliation against Jews was unfounded.
"The Jewish community in Turkey is part of our society, and its members do not have any reason to worry," the ministry said in a statement.

Let's hope not. Bizarrely, the ADL has acknowledged the Armenian genocide but continues to oppose a Congressional resolution that would do the same:

Yesterday, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement reiterating that it does not support congressional efforts to recognize the Armenian genocide.
"The force and passion of the debate today leaves us more convinced than ever that this issue does not belong in a forum such as the United States Congress," the League said yesterday. "The proper role of those of us who deeply believe the controversy must be resolved is to promote and support Turkey and Armenia in efforts to bring them together to begin the process of reconciliation."
...
The Anti-Defamation League's unwavering stance angered some Armenian leaders.
"It's an attempt to appease the government of Turkey by backtracking away from their position and [to] avoid supporting the legislation," said Aram Suren Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee, an advocacy group in Washington. Hamparian called it "patently illogical" for the League to acknowledge the genocide and not ask Congress to do the same.

The ADL's position may make tactical sense: acknowledge the genocide to placate the Armenian community, but oppose the Congressional effort in an attempt to minimize the offense to Turkey. But Hamparian is correct when he calls this position "patently illogical." Imagine someone opposing a Congressional resolution to recognize the Holocaust on the grounds that a better course would be to promote reconciliation between Israel and Germany. Then there's the whole idea that a "forceful and passionate" debate would be inappropriate in the US Congress. It'll interesting to see how this all plays out.

ADL bows to pressure, acknowledges Armenian genocide

2007-08-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

From the Boston Globe:

He has stood up to Mel Gibson, Jimmy Carter, Louis Farrakhan, and the president of Iran. But Abraham H. Foxman, the director of the Anti-Defamation League, backed down yesterday after a standoff with Armenian-Americans in Watertown drew the attention of some of the nation's most prominent Jewish leaders.

Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, reversed course and acknowledged that the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks was genocide. The change stunned those who have followed Foxman's 42-year career at the ADL, where he has rarely bowed to critics.

Finally. Now the question is, will Foxman reinstate Andrew Tarsy, the man he fired for stating that the Armenian genocide was actually a genocide?

With Wiretapping Law, Democrats Gave Bush Even More Power Than He Asked For

2007-08-19T10:29:00.000-05:00

Remember how quickly the Democratic leadership were spooked into approving Bush's new wiretapping law? They were afraid of being portrayed as weak on terror. Civil liberties be damned, they said; we have an election to think about! Now it emerges that, in their haste to approve the new law, the Democrats in Congress may have given the President even more power than he asked for. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.
...
The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.
...
Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States.
These new powers include the collection of business records, physical searches and so-called “trap and trace” operations, analyzing specific calling patterns.
...
“We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.

If the Democrats can't stand up to one of the most unpopular presidents in history, whom can they stand up to?

The Anti-Defamation League Denies the Armenian Genocide, Fires its New England Director

2007-08-18T19:28:00.000-05:00

A controversy has been growing in New England over the refusal of the Anti-Defamation League to admit that the Armenian genocide was really, well, a genocide. Things came to a head yesterday, according to this article in the Boston Globe:

The national Anti-Defamation League fired its New England regional director yesterday, one day after he broke ranks with national ADL leadership and said the human rights organization should acknowledge the Armenian genocide that began in 1915.
The firing of Andrew H. Tarsy, who had served as regional director for about two years and as civil rights counsel for about five years before that, prompted an immediate backlash among prominent local Jewish leaders against the ADL's national leadership and its national director, Abraham H. Foxman.
...
The national office's three-page response ... made clear just how far apart the two sides were on an issue with local, national, and international implications.
The letter, signed by Foxman and Glen S. Lewy, the ADL's national chairman, said "we have acknowledged the massacres of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire and called on Turkey to do more to confront its past and reconcile with Armenia. We will continue to press Turkey, publicly and privately . . ." But the letter also makes clear that the national ADL feels the safety of Israel, which considers Turkey a rare Muslim ally, is paramount.

I don't mean to diminish legitimate concerns about the safety of Jews in Israel. The Ant-Defamation League was founded in 1913 to protect Jews (and others) from discrimination. Denouncing genocides around the world isn't its main reason for existence. But still... does the ADL really believe that genocide should be denied when it is politically convenient to do so? Apparently. China and other nations have downplayed the genocide taking place in Darfur because they value their access to Sudanese oil. The ADL is downplaying the Armenian genocide because it values Israel's alliance with Turkey. In both cases, geopolitical concerns are trumping the moral issue of genocide. The Armenian genocide, unlike the crisis in Darfur, is long over, so obviously the ADL is not causing as much damage as those who deny a genocide occurring today. But this fact hardly makes the ADL's actions any less distasteful.

Fred Thompson speaks!

2007-08-17T21:08:00.000-05:00

Just what is Fred Thompson saying these days? Let's look at some of the points he makes in this interview with CNN.

Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson told CNN Friday that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president, and would push for a constitutional amendment that protects states from being forced to honor gay marriages performed in other states.

“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.

Now, obviously no state is going to pass a law "requiring" gay marriage. Heterosexual marriage isn't going to become illegal anytime soon! ("Sorry, Harry, you can't get married to Sally.... go find a man and try again.") You could interpret this phrasing as something sinister on his part, but it's probably just a misstatement. Surely, like most Republicans, Fred Thompson would never exploit the fear of gay marriage for political gains. As for Roe v. Wade, nothing new here-- what Republican wouldn't appoint "strict constructionist" judges willing to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Next, he deals with the obvious question: when is he going to get off his butt and officially enter the race?

“We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase,” he said. “We’re going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we’ll be in traditionally when people get in this race."

Come on, Fred, quit playing around! Jump in already. "We are going to be getting in if we get in"? Technically true, I suppose. One does get in when one gets in. On to Iraq:

Thompson refused to provide a timeline for how much longer US forces would remain in the country under his administration, but said, “We need to make every effort to make sure that we don’t get run out of there with our tail between our legs before we’ve done the job of securing that place.”

Good, because it would be terrible for the world to see the United States with its tail between its legs. Forget a shrewd reassessment of America's strategic interests. What kind of message does that send to our enemies? Far better to stick out every unwinnable situation we find ourselves in.

Finally, Thompson deals with the burning criticism that just won't go away:

Asked about critics who call him “too lazy” to put in the long hours necessary to run for president, Thompson said: “If I have critics in Washington it's not going to come as a surprise to me. I'll have more by the end of this campaign,” adding, “The proof’s in the pudding. I think that’s curable.”

We've dealt with this issue before. You go, Fred. Cure that laziness!

NFL.com = TASS

2007-08-14T07:41:00.000-05:00

Remember the NFL's silly new rule prohibiting online news organizations from using more than 45 seconds of video a day? The one that is supposed to increase the value of nfl.com and the team websites? The Boston Globe's editorial page asks:

Professional football wouldn't be a multibillion-dollar enterprise if the league didn't assiduously promote its own interests. But the sport could suffer if the league seeks to become the main source of information about itself. Will the official website cover the league's own doings in a straightforward way, or will it be the NFL equivalent of the Soviet-era news agency TASS?

Ouch! Does the NFL need some ice for that burn?? In all seriousness, though, the Globe has a point. There's no way that nfl.com can or should become the main source for NFL news. It seems unlikely that you'd ever find, say, a hard-hitting report on human growth hormone use in the NFL there. If I'm wrong (yes,it happens), feel free to send me a link to an article published on nfl.com that was critical of the league, and I'll eat my Corey Dillon poster. It's out of date anyway.

See You Later, Tommy Thompson

2007-08-13T00:29:00.000-05:00

As Fz reported in the post below mine, the Iowa straw poll came out with results that were not surprising: Mitt Romney won because Fred Thompson and The Most Evil New Yorker Ever chose not to participate. Sadly, for one candidate, the Iowa straw poll spelled a clear end: Tommy Thompson dropped out of the race after placing sixth.

Thompson, who also served in the Bush Cabinet, did not meet the expectations he set for himself in the Ames Republican straw poll held Saturday.

Those "expectations" were finishing first or second in the poll. However, as stated before, this was not to be. Besides getting basically no support from Iowa republicans, Thompson wasn't able to raise a whole lot of money: according to the FEC, Thompson raised a lowly $890,000, which was ninth amongst all republican candidates.

Thompson had hoped to try to cater to voters that wanted somebody that was, you know, really conservative on money and social issues. That's all fine and dandy, but honestly, I think the fact he was at one time part of the Bush administration proved to be the ultimate kiss of death for his chances at becoming president.

Oh, and after leaving his position as the secretary for health services, he promoted Medicare reforms that would benefit the companies he was working for, but that's a whole other story.

Take care, Tommy. Now I won't get confused whenever somebody refers to the Thompson that is running for president.

On the Iowa Straw Poll

2007-08-12T12:50:00.000-05:00

Our old pal Mitt won. By a lot. But, I don't know if he should throw a high-octane Mormon fiesta just yet. After all, Giuliani, Thompson (the one who actually has a chance, that is), and McCain weren't participating. Plus, the straw poll doesn't really show who has the most support in Iowa, but rather who can buy the most support in Iowa. And we know that Mitt is by far the most free-spending candidate out there. So, he won a money competition. Wow. Congrats there Mitty.

I think the true winner of the straw poll was the man who came in second place, Mike Huckabee. He and his chief rival for the coveted second place, Sam Brownback, were very close, with Huckabee getting 18 percent and Brownback getting 15. But, there should be an important asterisk here. Brownback spent more money and exerted more effort here than Huckabee. So, in theory, Brownback should have taken second place.

Of course, coming in second place in a rather meaningless and completely undemocratic poll in which three of the main competitors chose not to participate may not seem like a big accomplishment. And it really isn't. But, I think it may be a bit of foreshadowing. We know that conservative Republicans are displeased with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney (and they will be even more displeased once primary season really heats up and the airwaves are filled with negative ads showing how liberal these guys are). They're sort of holding out hope that Thompson will be their man, but I have the feeling he will flop pretty quickly. So, what then? Who will be the conservative standard bearer? Huckabee or Brownback. Of course, I'm not saying that the nomination will ultimately go to either of those two (I don't think it will), but I do think one of them will be a bigger part of the campaign than they currently are. And I think this straw poll shows that Huckabee may be that guy.

Three Cheers for Eliot Spitzer

2007-08-07T09:29:00.000-05:00

I'm a Democrat, but I often have problems with the party's positions on economic issues, particularly with regards to the labor market. Thus, I salute Eliot Spitzer, Governor of New York:

Chiding lawmakers for ignoring "the realities of the marketplace," Governor Spitzer stunned fellow Democrats yesterday by vetoing a bill that would have reordered the priorities of welfare offices by forcing caseworkers to steer female welfare recipients to higher-wage jobs in male-dominated fields.

...
The legislation would have mandated that state welfare offices encourage recipients to seek training for "sustainable wage jobs" and promote employment in "nontraditional" fields. The bill defines "sustainable" as 185% of the poverty level, or $37,000 for a family of four. "Nontraditional" is defined as an industry in which one gender makes up more than 75% of the work force. The bill's official memo highlights as "nontraditional" jobs for women such occupations as furniture movers, taxi drivers, carpenters, chemists, firefighters, and aerospace engineers.
...
Mr. Spitzer, in his veto message, took issue with the bill on three major points. Saying that only one-third of parents receiving welfare have a high school diploma, Mr. Spitzer wrote that low-wage jobs, combined with education and training, offer many recipients a better "opportunity" for employment. Lawmakers, he wrote, failed to appreciate the importance of "securing employment even at a low wage and building an employment history over time."

"Moreover," he continued, "providing public assistance recipients with training that emphasizes positions that pay 185% above the poverty level ignores the realities of the marketplace, which has many fewer 'sustainable wage' positions available."

Here, here for Spitzer. Lest you think I am being cold hearted, consider the fact that simply telling poor welfare recipients to get high-paying jobs (and even training them) will not necessarily result in them getting those jobs. As Mickey Kaus points out:

Unless his veto is overridden, embattled New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer has seemingly saved his state's welfare reform from the Good Jobs Fallacy--the idea that it makes sense to tell welfare recipients to hold out for high-paying jobs ("aerospace engineers" and "chemists" are two of the professions mentioned)--before they have to go to work. Keeping recipients on the dole while they "train" for jobs they never get is a time-tested way of ... well, keeping recipients on the dole.

They have a better chance of climbing up the income ladder if, as Spitzer says, they build an employment history at a low-wage job first. There is empirical evidence that welfare reform in the 1990s, which placed an emphasis on getting people off welfare rolls into any job, even a low-paying one, actually did seem to reduce poverty:

During the Pataki administration, welfare rolls fell by about 1 million people. Between 1995 and 2005, the poverty rate for families of single mothers in New York City fell to 49% from 56.3%, according to a report published by the Community Service Society of New York.

The child poverty rate in New York State fell to about 21% in 2005 from about 26% in 1996, the year before Mr. Pataki approved new welfare policies to bring New York into compliance with stricter federal welfare guidelines, which included a five-year time limit for benefits and passed under President Clinton.

During the same period, work rates for never-married single mothers between 18 and 64 increased to 70% from about 52%.

And how absurd is the requirement that welfare case workers steer women to jobs in male-dominated fields? Not that there's anything wrong with women working as furniture movers or taxi drivers-- if they want to, that's great! But requiring it smacks of misguided social engineering. The case workers should concentrate on helping the women get a job, period, without regard as to whether that job is "male" or "female."

Bush Barks, Democratic Leadership Quakes, Congress Passes Warrantless Eavesdropping Bill

2007-08-06T18:58:00.000-05:00

You might think an administration as wildly unpopular as George W. Bush's would be unable to bully Congressional Democrats into rubber-stamping yet another bill that tramples on our civil liberties. Wrong! You can read the AP report for the gory details, or just check out Fred Hiatt's editorial in the Washington Post:

THE DEMOCRATIC-led Congress, more concerned with protecting its political backside than with safeguarding the privacy of American citizens, left town early yesterday after caving in to administration demands that it allow warrantless surveillance of the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens, with scant judicial supervision and no reporting to Congress about how many communications are being intercepted. To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law -- or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.

Because if there is one problem in America it is that the Bush administration is too constrained by laws. What's so frustrating about the Democrats' capitulation was how completely unnecessary it was. Now, if the Democrats really did need to pass every civil liberties-trampling law proposed by our Fearless Leader, or risk being thrown out of office, then their stance, though gutless, would at least be understandable. But the truth is that there is no reason for the Democrats to have gone against their principles on this issue. As Glenn Greenwald points out:

Karl Rove's election strategy prior to the 2006 election was to force the Democrats to vote against the Military Commissions Act and warrantless eavesdropping so that he could run around the country accusing them of being "soft" and "weak" on Terrorism. While Senate Democrats chose not to filibuster the MCA and thus allowed it to pass, Congressional Democrats did overwhelmingly vote against it. And most House Democrats voted against warrantless eavesdropping (the Senate never ended up voting).
As a result, Rove repeatedly boasted that Democrats were sure to lose because Americans would punish them for their refusal to be "tough" on the Terrorists...

Rove made national security -- specifically the Democrats' opposition to coercive interrogation, lawless detention and warrantless eavesdropping -- the centerpiece of the GOP 2006 midterm campaign....

How did that big, bad, scary "Soft-on-Terrorism" strategy work out? The Democrats crushed the Republicans in an historic election, re-taking control of both houses of Congress, protecting every single one of their incumbents, and vastly increasing their hold over governorships and states houses. Democrats won in every region of the country outside of the Deep South. Karl Rove's strategy of accusing Democrats of being "soft on terror" due to their opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, lawless detention and torture was a complete failure on every level....

We do not need to wonder or speculate about what might happen if Democrats obstruct warrantless eavesdropping legislation and Republicans are then able to make an issue of it politically. That already happened in 2006. That was Rove's whole strategy. It failed miserably, across the board. And yet the Democratic leadership just permitted, and many Democrats supported, a wild expansion of George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping powers based on a jittery fear of this already-failed tactic, if not based on actual support for these increased eavesdropping powers.

Against all logic, the Democratic Leadership is still terrified at thought that the big, bad Republicans might accuse them of being soft on terror. (As if voting for this bill will prevent that.) What a disgrace. Thank goodness that the legislation expires in six months. Maybe that will be enough time for the Democrats to grow a spine.

Judith Giuliani Fights Back, Ineffectively

2007-08-04T17:45:00.000-05:00

Rudy Giuliani's wife, Judith, has received overwhelmingly negative press coverage thus far in the campaign, like this Vanity Fair article. The reasons range from her strained relations with campaign staffers to the fact that she had an affair with Giuliani while he was still married to Donnna Hanover. So Judith has recently set out to turn her image around. From her interview in the New York Times:

A daughter of small-town Pennsylvania, a former nurse and working mother who struggled to raise a child on her own, she cuts a figure that Mr. Giuliani’s aides say will appeal to Republican voters. Husband and wife agree that Laura Bush is a model for Mrs. Giuliani.
But Judith carries some distinctly un-Laura baggage. Like her husband, she has been married twice before. They also had a secret affair for a year before Mr. Giuliani announced it to the world — and to his second wife, Donna Hanover — at a news conference.

Her relations with Mr. Giuliani’s children by Ms. Hanover are by all accounts deeply strained, despite her efforts at rapprochement. And his son and daughter, ages 21 and 17, have said they do not plan to campaign for their father.

Sharply critical articles, most recently in Vanity Fair, have described Mrs. Giuliani as an imperious striver who shops extravagantly, demands a separate seat on the campaign plane for her Louis Vuitton handbag and has compiled a hit list of campaign aides she wants fired.

Now, with his wife’s public role scaled back, at least temporarily, strategists are asking dueling questions: Can he win over socially conservative voters if his wife is not by his side? Can he win them over if she is?

Maybe, maybe not. The Giuliani strategy is to send out Rudy and Judith to speak candidly about the details of their romance and the problems their marriage has caused on the campaign trail. The goal: to humanize them. I don't know it that will help, though. Check it out:

Until now, the Giulianis have declined to discuss the matter, calling it “a romantic secret.” But in the interviews, the couple provided their version of their introduction, saying that they met at Club Macanudo, a cigar bar on East 63rd Street, in May 1999. They said they were introduced by Dr. Burt Meyers, a specialist in infectious diseases at Mount Sinai Hospital who was there with Mrs. Nathan and had met Mr. Giuliani when his mother was a patient there.

After chatting for an hour, mostly about her work in the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Giuliani asked for her phone number, they said. “She gave me a piece of paper to write it on,” he recalled. “One of our other romantic little secrets is I’ve kept it all these years in my wallet.”
After they began dating, Mrs. Giuliani had plans to fly to Hawaii on a vacation awarded to leading sales managers by her employer.

“He said, ‘Please don’t go,’ ” she recalled. “ ‘You’ve already become too important to me.’ ”

Personally, I don't find this little story endearing at all. I just can't sympathize with Giuliani when he's cheating on his wife. Now, I don't think his personal life is particularly relevant to the job Giuliani would do as president. (There are other reasons why he would be bad at that.) If I wanted to vote for him as president, this wouldn't stop me. However, it remains to be seen if Republican primary voters will be so forgiving.

The Lighter Side of Lobbying

2007-08-04T14:28:00.000-05:00

I was watching the Democratic candidates debate at the YearlyKos Convention (I wasn't there; it was streamed online), and of course, the question about lobbyist contributions came up. I was pleased with Hillary Clinton's response, because she was *gasp* honest! She said that yes, she would continue to accept contributions from lobbyists, because as some Democrats seem to forget, there are lobbyists for all sorts of causes, not just oil and military contractors.

She also said that she wouldn't promise to visit all 50 states in her campaign. While this isn't really anything to be proud of or to rally behind, it's refreshingly honest. For all the political calculation that Hillary has been accused of, she has not given the answers that Democrats want to hear; she has given honest answers. She'll take lobbyist money, she won't promise to visit all 50 states, she won't promise to meet with the leaders of Cuba, Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc.

I'm still an Obama supporter, but I've been extremely impressed with Hillary lately. She isn't making empty promises just to get applause from a liberal crowd. I can really appreciate that.

Talk About Counterproductive (NFL Edition)

2007-08-04T14:11:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe reports (free registration required) :

In a high-stakes struggle for control of NFL news in cyberspace, the league has prohibited news organizations from airing more than a total of 45 seconds per day of online audio or video of team personnel from its stadiums. The action could foreshadow other major sports leagues imposing similar restrictions.
The NFL wants to prevent news organizations from diminishing the potential value of its online properties: NFL.com and all 32 team websites.

This is a very short-sighted decision. The NFL is making a mistake by treating independent media outlets like the Boston Globe as competitors. One of the reasons that football is so popular is the media coverage, which builds excitement for the games themselves. Shouldn't the NFL want video clips of its product distributed as widely as possible? When I see a video of Lawrence Maroney blowing by tacklers, it fires me up for the next Patriots game. Then there's this:

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the 45-second rule reflects the league's attempt to balance the needs of news outlets with the league's need to protect its media assets. The policy also requires news sites to remove NFL audio and video from their websites after 24 hours of usage.
In addition, news websites that use audio or video from NFL facilities must provide links to NFL.com and that team's Web page. News sites also are barred from running advertisements alongside the NFL content.

The bigwigs in the NFL apparently believe that the media should cover football for free. Somehow, I suspect that this will lead to less coverage. Good work, NFL! I won't be visiting NFL.com any time soon.

On Mitt's Fear of Youtube

2007-08-04T10:16:00.000-05:00

Oh, Mitt. Why are you afraid of Youtube?

Recently, after the Democrats participated in a CNN debate in which all of the questions were actually Youtube videos, our old pal Mitt Romney had a rather unpleasant reaction. He said, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," referring to this video:

The original title and theme of this post was going to be "On Mitt's Arrogance," because he thinks that the presidency is so elitist that it should be shielded from "silly" questions (although, the question was quite serious; it was simply asked in a silly way) from those least knowledgeable of people - voters. Indeed, composing questions ought to be left up to those hacks at CNN, right?

However, I think it goes deeper than that. Mitt isn't simply upset that presidential candidates are being asked questions by snowmen. He is upset that their being asked real, and quite possibly uncomfortable, questions. The Republican party is in shambles, and as we know, Youtube is a liberal haven:

So, those crazy liberals at Youtube and CNN are sure to be meaner to the Republicans. Indeed, conservative blogger Hugh Hewitt says, "If the G.O.P. candidates agree to this format, expect a series of cheap shots about all of the top-tier candidates." This may be true, Youtubers may very well send in loaded questions, but does this speak more to the bias of Youtube/CNN or the quality of the GOP's top-tier candidates? Let's face it, the Republican Party is weaker than it has been in many years, and the top-tier candidates all have numerable problems. Is pointing out these weaknesses a symptom of some sort of media bias? Or is it a symptom of a sickly Republican party, which needs to put forward candidates who can respond to these criticisms if it wants any chance at winning in '08?

I think it is the latter.

So, Mitt's annoyance at Youtube is really annoyance at his own party. He expects that the Youtube public will see the problems that his party and he have and will submit questions trying to make him explain those problems and how he or the party more broadly can deal with them. So, Mitt isn't anti-Youtube just because he is an elitist douche bag (but, to be fair, he is an elitist douche bag), he is anti-Youtube because he is afraid of answering unscripted questions from an angry public. He is afraid of doing the job of a presidential candidate: responding to the public about things that actually matter.

For shame, Mitt. For shame.

Mom of the Year?

2007-08-01T15:01:00.000-05:00

Apologies to stray off the political talk slightly, but I think this story from good ol' Fox News is an example of the problems within the foster care system:

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A Florida woman accused of using aliases to adopt 11 New York children received as much as $2 million in child welfare payments even as she starved, bound and abused them, police said Tuesday.
Investigators initially believed Judith Leekin, 62, had adopted nine children, but authorities in New York said Tuesday that Leekin adopted 11 children in all from New York City's foster care system between 1993 and 1996.

Authorities believe Leekin held the adopted children like prisoners in her Port St. Lucie home, often handcuffing them together and forcing them to soil themselves because they weren't allowed to use the bathroom.

Leekin made about two million dollars total (which is about $55 a day of state funds) to abuse children. I'm going out on a limb to say nobody checked up on her. Oh, and what tipped off authorities that this lady was running the foster home from hell?

The case came to light July 4 when an 18-year-old woman was found wandering in a grocery store in St. Petersburg, about 200 miles away from Leekin's home. The woman told police Leekin had adopted her 13 years ago and abandoned her at the store that day.

What a class act.

President Bush threatening to veto a plan to expand children's health insurance? What a shocker

2007-07-31T15:01:00.001-05:00

President Bush threatening to veto a plan to expand children's health insurance? What a surprise:

The Senate plan would expand children's health insurance by $35 billion over the next five years, while the House is expected to take up a competing proposal later in the week that could boost the initiative by $50 billion during the same time frame.
Bush, however, has vowed to veto either plan, saying that the new coverage would encourage people to leave their private insurers for a government-run program. The White House reiterated its opposition yesterday, condemning the Senate bill as essentially extending "a welfare benefit to middle-class households" earning up to $83,000 a year.
On the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Orrin G. Hatch -- an influential Utah Republican and one of two original cosponsors of the SCHIP bill that became law in 1997 -- said "mistakes" by the administration "have caused us a lot of problems here."
"We are trying to do what is right by our children, who are currently not being helped by our healthcare system," Hatch said. "If we cover children properly, we will save billions of dollars in the long run. Even if we didn't [save billions], we should still take care of these children."
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Jr., a Republican from Kentucky and a lstaunch White House ally, said that while the children's health insurance program has been a "tremendous success," the Senate legislation was far too generous.

Silly Orin Hatch! Apparently Hatch, and the other Republicans supporting this bill, didn't get the memo. In today's Republican Party, "family values" means "being afraid of gays," not "giving children health insurance." That's for Democrats like Ted Kennedy. President Bush and Sen. McConnell couldn't care less how effective the plan is, or how many billions of dollars it will save. They're more afraid of the slippery slope. They think it will lead to "government-run health insurance." First health care for old people, then children-- the next thing you know, every American might think they deserve medical care! Then we'll end up like all those other countries!

I can't help but post the World Health Organization's rankings of the world's healthcare systems:

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

Hey, what's the difference between all those other countries and America? They have government-run health care systems!

Mitt's Three-Legged Stool

2007-07-27T14:01:00.000-05:00

Mr. Romney has long described his view of conservatism as a "three-legged stool," the legs being a strong military, a strong economy, and strong family values. If you take one of the legs away, the stool doesn't stand. He demonstrates in a video provided by the Times.

I know politicians tend to over-simplify things to sound appealing to voters, but this is simply absurd. To describe the proper approach to American government as a "three-legged stool" leaves a lot to be desired. Aren't there other things than military, economy, and "family values" required to make a strong country? How about good schools? Good healthcare? Fair voting practices? Protection against corruption? Hell, why not throw in respect for the Constitution? But, if we admit this, removing the "family values" leg would not make the stool collapse, as the other legs would be sufficient, Mitt Romney's oh-so-effective stump speech would be ruined, and rationality would reign over us all.

If only.

It seems pretty clear to me that abandoning government enforcement of "family values" (which I read as bigotry) would not ruin America. After all, respect for Constitution should allow everyone to pursue their own notions of family values. But that's not adequate, apparently. We all need to have Mitt's family values.

Cindy Sheehan to Take On Nancy Pelosi

2007-07-24T20:44:00.000-05:00

Apparently the famous (or obnoxiously infamous) anti-war has decided to run against Nancy Pelosi as an Independent in the next election. See ABC News. Why? Because Pelosi has wrongly taken impeachment of the table. Fair enough; maybe it shouldn't be off the table, but there is a rather large problem with running a one-issue campaign and making that issue impeachment.

The next House election is in 2008, when there also happens to be a presidential election. The newly elected Congress will begin its session on January 3, 2009, leaving 17 days left in Bush's second term. At that point, I think we can just wait it out.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. After all, the idea may very well be simply to hold Pelosi accountable for taking impeachment off the table rather than to actually launch impeachment proceedings. That works to weaken Sheehan's case. Instead of "I will work to impeach Bush," she would be saying "I would have worked to impeach Bush." I know that San Francisco district is mighty liberal, but it isn't liberal enough to go for that.

More importantly, I've never supported the impeachment of Bush. First, if impeachment proceedings were brought and he were found guilty (of what, I don't know), we would have Dick Cheney as President, and I surely don't want that. Second, I just don't see what he would be charged with. The President can be charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors." Unfortunately, "being a bad President" and/or "lying to the American public" do not fit into that category (as a side note, lying to the American public while under oath does fit under that category as perjury - hence the Clinton impeachment).

A Catholic's Paradise: No, Not Heaven, Ave Maria, Florida!

2007-07-24T13:51:00.000-05:00

Perhaps you have heard that the founder of Domino's Pizza, Tom Monaghan, is developing a Catholic planned-community called Ave Maria in Naples, Florida to exist alongside the new Ave Maria University. The general idea is to provide a place for good Catholics to coexist with other good Catholics. But, this raises quite a few legal questions.

How exactly can one enforce "good Catholicism" in a community? Monaghan has suggested that commercial leases would not be given to anyone who would distribute contraceptives, pornography, or perform abortions, prompting a quick response from the ACLU. I imagine the community will try to find some sort of loophole to ban these things, but the ACLU will be watching them closely.

The town is planned to have two schools: one private parochial school and one public school. I imagine the ACLU will be keeping an eye on that public school, as well. After all, if parents are insane enough to actually drag their children into a planned Catholic community but for some reason can't send them to the parochial school, they will still want the same "character education" (read: prayer in classrooms) that the parochial school instills. I don't doubt that this public school will raise First Amendment concerns.

Beyond legal questions, this poses some sociological and philosophical questions. Is this kind of living appropriate? Is trying to make believe that the world is Catholic healthy? How will this kind of community affect children? Will this make issues of tolerance even worse in this country? I think the answers are no, no, badly, and yes. I see nothing wrong with wanting to be around similar people, but that is what clubs, organizations, and churches are for. If Catholics want to be around Catholics, go to Church. Don't drag your families to some sort of Catholic utopia. I don't compare people to Nazis very often because it is generally a dirty trick, but this seems rather Nazi-esque. Sure, there is no genocide, but the goal is the same: eliminating people who are different. It's not healthy. Not at all.

Some Musings on the Youtube Debate

2007-07-23T20:40:00.001-05:00

CNN held a debate tonight in which viewers submitted questions via Youtube. Of course, CNN got to choose which questions were asked, but still, it was revolutionary... or so CNN tells us.

My favorite point of this two-hour debate came right at the end. There was a ridiculously naïve question posed asking each candidate to say something good and something bad about the candidate to his or her left (it was naïve because Gravel was the only one to actually criticize the candidate to his left). The ever-classy turned to Dennis Kucinich and said, “the thing I like best about you is your wife.”

And I see why.

And she's British! I can’t explain how he wound up with her. Maybe they got stoned and spun into each other at the latest Phil Lesh concert.

On to some specific thoughts on each of the candidates. Mike Gravel. I'm torn about Gravel. He has some legitimate points, and he isn't afraid to speak his mind, but he's really wasting our time. He seems to spend all of his time complaining about how little time he gets. Granted, this is a legitimate point. As Chris Dodd's "Talk Clock" shows, Gravel got the least amount of time in this debate:

And in an earlier June debate:

So, Gravel has a point, but shouldn't he be spending his time making other points besides how little time he gets? This sort of attitude antagonizes the moderator, as could be told when Anderson Cooper was much more willing to let other candidates speak past his call of "time."

To defend Gravel for a second: saying that soldiers in Vietnam died and that soldiers in Iraq are dying in vain is not un-American. Saying that they died in vain is not a criticism of the soldiers; it is a criticism of the policy. It isn't saying "You soldiers failed." It is saying "Your leaders failed." If someone thinks that a war is not worth fighting, then any soldier dying in that war is dying in vain. But, it doesn't sound nice.

Chris Dodd. I wouldn't say Dodd hurt himself (after all, he's been hurting pretty badly as it is), but he didn't help himself either. From waffling on gay marriage (not providing a sincere reason for refusing to go beyond civil unions) to simply sounding like a lecturing old man (approaching Gravel-esque, even), Dodd simply did not seem strong.

John Edwards. I thought it was funny that Edwards said that he did not like Hillary Clinton's jacket. Overall, I think he performed okay. Just okay. He seemed awfully caught off-guard on the gay marriage issue, but his response did sound sincere, unlike Dodd's. He said, rather convincingly, that he has personally wrestled with the issue, but that his religion should not dictate American law. Fair enough. He needs to drop the "son of a mill worker" thing. We heard it in 2004, and it obviously didn't work. It seems unbelievably phony these days. However, he did have a very good "Youtube-style" campaign video (every campaign had to provide such a video):

Hillary Clinton. As front-runner, Hillary generally played it safe, and tried to downplay differences between the candidates, calling the Democrats "united" (sparking a "We are not united!" from Mike Gravel), and saying that any of the candidates would make a great President. However, she still managed to impress me. I think she is getting a lot better at not seeming stone-cold. She spoke with force tonight, but seemed human and passionate. Policy-wise, there was some waffling, like her refusal to say that she would meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When Obama said that he would meet with them as President, Clinton basically said that she would not meet with them without appropriate planning. Well, yeah. Appropriate planning was assumed! But, I am beginning to change my feelings about Hillary. I think she would make a great President.

Barack Obama. I think it's going to be extremely difficult for Obama to gain ground on Clinton without attacking her - besides stressing that he was against the war from the beginning, that is. I don't think saying that he has always been against the war is going to do much these days. It may help him slightly, but people want to move forward, and he will have to show why his Iraq strategy is better than Clinton's. He had some good attacks on special interests (as did Edwards and others, for that matter), but that is not truly setting him apart. I think he's going to have to try to sell himself as a "Washington outsider," to turn his inexperience into a good thing.

Bill Richardson. Richardson is the so-called "resume candidate." He has had an amazing career in American and international politics, but he simply does not have the ability to really connect with TV viewers. He seems uncomfortable in front of a camera, which is a real shame, because he has some great ideas (e.g. sacking No Child Left Behind) and would make a great President.

Joe Biden. I think ol' Joe actually helped himself this time around. I think his humor actually struck a chord this time instead of just making him sound like a sleazeball. And he came across as an authority on foreign affairs (particularly Iraq). Still, he has no chance of breaking out of the bottom tier.

Dennis Kucinich. He sounded like he as hosting an infomercial. It was obnoxious. He kept repeating, "Text peace, 73223" throughout the debate. Apparently these text messages will be sent to President Bush and this will bring the boys back home.

Right.

Evangelicals and republicans: strange bedfellows?

2007-07-23T12:58:00.000-05:00

I was reading this very long (but very interesting) article about Ron Paul in the Times, and one passage really struck me:

“I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”

We hear the "this is un-Christian" argument all the time in American politics, but rarely is it directed at the evangelicals. Indeed, it is typically left to the evangelicals themselves to throw that argument around. But, it's refreshing to hear someone say it like it is, and it raises an important question. How much of the Republican party's platform really is Christian?

Now, I should note that I am no religion scholar. I was born and raised a true-blooded agnostic. The only times I have attended Church have been weddings and funerals. I have never read the Bible, but I still think I have a relatively decent grasp of the kind of vision Jesus Christ had for the world, and despite my religious leanings, I agree wholeheartedly with that vision, because here's the deal: it's a liberal vision.

Let's consider, say, taxes. While I cannot point to a specific passage, it seems that Jesus would have generally supported a Robin Hood style "take from the rich and give to the poor" type class system. I have a hard time believing that Mr. Christ would have been a hard-nosed free-market Capitalist. So, it seems to me that the "Christian" system of taxation would be a graduated tax, taxing the rich at a higher level than the poor, for the improvement of the whole community, not a flat tax.

By the way, I realize how silly it is to think about what sort of taxes Jesus would have supported, but I think it's a worthwhile endeavor anyway.

Along similar lines, I don't think Jesus would have supported the "Get a job!" mentality that so many Republicans have when it comes to the existence of the welfare state. The welfare state (while it may very well have flaws) seems to be a shining example of Christian charity.

Abortion. While Jesus may very well have been "pro-life," the definition of "pro-life" has to extend beyond the moment a baby is born, or for that matter, the moment someone sinks into a coma. It seems that the only time Republicans want to "protect life" is when a fetus is in the womb or someone is in a vegetative state. What about all the time in between? Is it pro-life to see to it that a baby is born, but then to kick the mother and newborn out of the hospital for wont of insurance? Is it pro-life to allow poverty to thrive? Is it pro-life to send young men and women off to a foreign country to die for no real reason?

I don't think so, but hey, I'm just a stupid agnostic, right?

Gay rights. I think it's funny that Christians (I'm generalizing, of course, so I apologize to all of you progressive/liberal/sane Christians out there) put so much emphasis on homosexuality being a sin. I'm not arguing that it isn't, but there are plenty of things that are sins that are not as despised as homosexuality. Adultery, for instance. Senator David Vitter has admitted to being an adulterer, but I have yet to hear of evangelicals clamoring for his resignation. But, can you imagine how they would've rallied if he had announced he was gay? The point is this: Jesus taught tolerance, not just for some people, for everyone.

Immigration. "Love thy neighbor."

Free speech. Jesus was a revolutionary. He was counter-culture. To think that he would support the silencing of a vocal minority for the "comfort" of the majority seems absolutely absurd.

This all shows why I am so fundamentally opposed to organized religion. This guy Jesus (or the authors of the Bible) had some marvelous ideas, but once they got mixed in with power and politics, they got corrupted. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Democrats are by any means above this kind of twisting. My point is this: religion and politics have to mix, because people's opinions are informed by their religion. However, people need to take a long hard look at what their religion truly stands for. I don't mean that they need to listen to their priest when he says that pro-choicers can't take communion. I mean that they need to seriously look into the core of their religion and see what the fundamental goals and values are. They need to trust themselves as interpreters of the Bible; not their priests or pastors, and certainly not politicians running for President. They might be surprised what they find.

On the Benefits of Judicial Dishonesty

2007-07-18T23:08:00.000-05:00

Dahlia Lithwick over at Slate has an interesting article praising Antonin Scalia's candor in discussing precedents he would like to overrule.

Yes, someone at Slate has praised Antonin Scalia.

No, this is not the apocalypse.

So anyway, Justice Scalia has mentioned that he would vote to overrule New York Times v. Sullivan, which set relatively strict standards for bringing a libel suit (in particular, it established that supposed victims must show that an author of false statements had been acting with "actual malice"). Most Court watchers will say "Hey, Justices can't pre-judge cases like this! He should recuse himself!" Perhaps he should if such a case comes up, but that isn't really the point. Ms. Lithwick argues that this sort of pre-judging isn't inherently bad. Sure, if the two options are pre-judging and principled decision-making, then the latter is clearly better. But she argues that (and I agree that) the options are more like boisterous prejudice and silent prejudice. In other words, the justices act with ideological goals in mind, but most keep them to themselves. Fair enough. So, if these are the choices, she thinks that the out-spoken model is better, because

I'd rather hear the battle plans than not. It's precisely the sort of candor that has been most lacking at judicial confirmation hearings, where each nominee instead takes the fashionable line that precedent is all but sacred.

While I agree that confirmation hearings as they exist now are largely a waste of time, I'm not sure if shouting that the Court is just a bunch of ideological hacks is a good idea either. If we imagine a Court full of Scalias, we would have nine justices saying "I think this case should be overruled; I think this way about this issue, etc." While this honesty may be refreshing, I think there is something to be said about the "Judicial Myth": the belief that judges are somehow "above politics."

The Judicial Myth grants the Court a certain amount of institutional respect; it is viewed as not engaging in the kind of dirty politics that the elected branches so often engage in. I mean, come on, it seems a lot easier to respect John Roberts than Joe Biden, and I'm a Democrat! I think if members of the Court began speaking out about political issues prior to actually getting a case, the Court would lose that prestige. Of course, one can argue, "but Fz, if the Court really is just a bunch of ideological hacks, shouldn't it lose its prestige?" Yes, if that were true, it should. But, it isn't. The Court is engaged in politics, yes. And the Justices all have ideologies, yes. But, the kind of politics they engage in is inherently different than the kind the elected branches engage in. When we hear the term "politics," we generally think of it pejoratively. We don't think of politics as the debate between two sides of an issue, which is what it really is, or at least should be. We think of special interest groups, and lobbyists, and DC Madams. While I wouldn't be surprised if Clarence Thomas's phone number showed up on the DC Madam's list, the Court avoids this sort of politics. Its area of politics involves dealing with inherently political issues. And, like all Americans, judges have deeply-felt opinions on political issues. These opinions will naturally inform their jurisprudence. But, this doesn't mean they're all ideological hacks.

It means they're human.

As long as we have humans serving as judges, we will have to deal with the idea that they actually have opinions about things. However, even though this seems sort of obvious, it does not follow that judges should go on spouting those opinions. While it may be interesting to find out what is truly lurking in the mind of Samuel Alito, it would be harmful to the judicial process. I think it would give the false impression that judges do not make principled decisions. And while I disagree with Scalia on many, many issues, I must admit that his decisions are principled. He may be eager to overrule certain things, but this is because he has put in a lot of intellectual energy thinking about these things. Hell, I would be more worried if a judge didn't think about issues until a case came before him. I think that pre-judging (or at least pre-thinking) is not a bad thing. But, I don't think many people would agree with me on that. If they hear judges saying what they want to overrule, they would not think "this is an expression of principled legal thought," they would think "this is an expression of politics," with all its pejorative glory.

So even though the Court is a political actor (a principled political actor) , we definitely do not want the public thinking that the Court engages in "politics." So, Supreme Court Justices should keep their damn ideas to themselves.

More like, “don’t ask, don’t HELL!”

2007-07-18T17:53:00.000-05:00

A brief introduction for our friends at Ursinus: those of you who follow me and Fz’s Communism for Dummies column are probably familiar with our ongoing feud with the Internet sinkhole that is Conservapedia. I did not provide the link for their site because a) giving them more web traffic, even negative web traffic, only encourages them, and b) anything bad that can be said about Conservapedia has already been said. Far be it from Fz and I to beat a dead horse.

Instead, let me reveal to you a little-known fact about our feud. We received an email from a Conservapedia sysop who was irrationally angry about a tiny little mention we made in one of our columns that anyone who vandalized Conservapedia would receive 77 virgins in Heaven. Or something like that.

Now, that in itself is not really worth noting. What is worth noting, however, is that said disgruntled sysop made it a point to mention his considerable stint in the U.S. Navy. This struck us at first as an odd thing to say (something along the lines of “Hey! My irrelevant career qualifies me as an intimidating figure, unhampered even by the anonymity of the Internet!”), but, after we stopped laughing, we soon realized its dire implications. Ladies and gentlemen, there are conservatives in our military.

I was just as shocked as you.

Now, I cannot imagine that recruiters don’t screen for this kind of behavior early on in the application process. What that means, then, is that conservatives are hiding their political affiliations – going into the closet, if you will – in order to infiltrate our armed forces. This clearly cannot stand. Can you imagine the damage that would be done to troop morale if conservatives were allowed to work alongside our normal soldiers? There’d be mutinies left and right! Not to mention, of course, that banning conservatives from the military is really in their best interest, too. Were a solitary conservative soldier put in with a company of liberal soldiers, the harassment and hazing that would inevitably result would not only endanger the conservatives’ life and well-being, but ultimately our way of life, as such disunity would dissolve the cohesive bonds which make our armed forces the effective fighting machine it is today.

On behalf of the American people, I am calling on you, our country’s military recruiters, to throw out your policy of “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” in regards to a soldier’s political affiliations and institute strict background checks and screenings to keep conservatives and lesser Republicans from trying to defend America. Be especially wary of those who have voted for Bush, those who advocate things like “strict constructionism,” “Reaganomics,” or “Jesus,” and especially Toby Keith fans. Remain vigilant - the fate of the nation may depend on it.

A New Contender for the Republican Nomination

2007-07-18T09:41:00.001-05:00

Some people think Fred Thompson is the hot new thing in the race for the Republican nomination. However, they are overlooking a new contender who has surged into the lead. Who is this dark horse, this man of mystery? Is it Ron Paul? After all, Paul, the anti-war libertarian, has received more than half of all campaign contribution from members of the military to Republican candidates:

52.53% Ron Paul
35.4% McCain
7.9% Romney
5.2% Giuliani
2.2% Hunter
2.6% Others

Shocking, no? Sadly, Paul still lingers at the bottom of the actual polls. He is not the dark horse of which I speak. Instead, I'm talking about "None of the above." That's right. According to the latest AP-Ipsos poll, almost 25% percent of Republicans chose "None of the above" when asked which candidate they prefer. That's higher than Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain, or any of the other Republican hopefuls. I can only hope that Mr. "None of the above" has the cajones to withstand the inevitable barrage of negative attacks that are sure to follow the release of these new numbers. Good luck, my friend!

Al Sharpton is at it Again (and pictures of Beyonce HOT HOT HOT)

2007-07-17T19:48:00.000-05:00

I never thought I would link to FOX News on this blog, but I could not help myself. Al Sharpton went on to Hannity and Colmes and whined about tmz.com's use of the term "roboho" to describe Beyonce Knowles' get up at the BET Awards. First of all, I don't think tmz was too out of line here:

But, hey, the Reverend was there. He knows what he saw!

I happened to have been there that night, because it was the night I did a tribute to James Brown at the BET Awards, and the outfit was a totally clothed outfit. You cannot see anything but her face.

Maybe he had to run to the bathroom during the part shown above. But regardless, the debate focused on two issues. First, whether saying that her outfit was a "roboho get up" is saying that she is a roboho, and second, how exactly free speech plays into this.

Rich Lowry, filling in for the absent Mr. Hannity, asked the Reverend "If a robot were to dress like a prostitute, isn't that the kind of outfit it would wear?" I would have to say the answer is yes. But, this does not mean that I think Beyonce Knowles is either a robot or a prostitute. Indeed, she is neither. She is a performer, who occasionally dresses up like a robotic prostitute. And there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, especially in the context of a joke. Well, the Reverend thinks there's something wrong with it and any use of the word "ho" in any context. Will he go after Santa Clause next?

Har har.

Anyway, the Reverend argues that people are free to use the word "ho" as they wish so long as he is free to express offense. But, as we have seen in the past, Sharpton goes well beyond expressing that he is offended. He campaigns for people who use the word to lose their jobs (or, to make a verb out of a proper noun, he Imuses people). This is not simply engaging in a simple debate about semantics. This is seeking to eliminate a certain set of words from the English language and to punish anyone who does not follow along. He states his goal less harsh tones:

We in the National Action Network have been embarked in a decency initiative.... We're getting ready to do a 20 city vigil where we have asked for the 'N' word, the 'H' word and 'B' word to not be used.

Oh, and just in case you didn't know what the National Action Network means, he provides a helpful explanation:

With the word “National” representing the scope of our activities, and “Network” reflecting the methodology of expansion.

Thanks for clearing that up, Rev.

Of all the problems facing the black community (although the Reverend is quick to say he isn't playing the race card - but the problem is that in Rev's 52-card deck, they're all race cards), the Reverend has chosen this, the use of the term "ho" in off-color jokes, as his crusade. You know, I used to have some respect for the Reverend, when he talked about real political issues and said things that other political figures wouldn't think of saying. He may not have had any relevance in American politics, but at least he was interesting. Now, he's just wasting his and our time.

Sweeping Tuberculosis Under the Carpet

2007-07-16T21:12:00.000-05:00

Remember Andrew Speaker?

Remember how he had tuberculosis?

Remember how he threatened the lives of others?

Well, meet Franklin Greenwood. Franklin, a fifty year old citizen of Arkansas also has tuberculosis. You see, he had been held in isolation at the University of Arkansas for Medical Science after X-rays found he had a disease in his lungs that was pretty consistent with TB. However, there was a slight problem. On July 1st, Mr. Greenwood jumped out of his third floor apartment and escaped. According to one health official, there were going to be no plans to inform the public that Mr. Greenwood was on the loose:

"We never would have gone public. This is not our initiative," said Dr. Joe Bates, deputy state health officer. "This is an exceedingly rare experience and we don't have a standard protocol, but its always worked well for us to deal with it like we did with in this way -- find the person and get them under treatment."

That's excellent. I'm really glad the state of Arkansas has the best interests of their citizens in mind. Let the crazy man with a deadly illness that can potentially spread and kill others roam free without warning. What a splendid idea that would've been. Of course, while the Andrew Speaker story is still getting plenty of press (according to Google News Search, there are two thousand or so stories featuring his name), the Franklin Greenwood story has gotten only a minuscule amount of coverage (88 links).

Considering this was a major, major fuck up that is still unresolved (he hasn't been caught yet, folks), you'd think the media could try a little bit more and cover a story that has current relevance.

In Defense of the New York Times (and John Edwards [and liberalism])

2007-07-16T18:09:00.001-05:00

The Times has a pretty standard article about John Edwards' trip to New Orleans. It discussed his stated purpose (poverty, of course), listed a few questions from reporters about non-poverty issues (i.e. Louisiana's sad excuses for representatives - particularly Senator Vitter and Congressman Jefferson), and gave his smooth-as-ice responses. It didn't criticize; it didn't cheer. It just told. But, it elicited this response from a reader:

Did he ride into New Orleans in his Porsche, or his private jet?
The Champion of The Poor…as he lives as far away from the poor as possible?

Absurd…only a liberal hallucinator would go for this non-sense…the same crowd that accepts statements like “we voted against the war before we voted for it.”

…same crowd that calls the Iraq war a quagmire, even though we destroyed the 5th largest military in the world in a matter of days, and the amount of casualties sustained thus far is far below any figure that military planners even imagined.”

Liberalism and Islam are the recipe to the destruction of America.

…feel proud liberals.
The NY Times is undermining this nation everyday…this article continues the madness.

I've defended John Edwards against this attack before, but it bears repeating. Someone does not have to be poor to stand up for the poor. Just as it took action on the part of white people to make the goals of the civil rights movement a reality, it will take action on the part of astronomically wealthy people (the only people capable of reaching the highest seats of government) to make any attempt at ending poverty (which is probably a naive goal anyway, but we'll let that slide).

Next, this ridiculous Iraq claim. It isn't a quagmire because we beat the Iraqi army in a matter of days and we didn't have as many casualties as some people thought? First, no one is claiming that the Iraq war is a quagmire because of the Iraqi army. After the first week or two, the war had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraqi army. And second, the quagmire-esque state of a war is not measured by deaths, it is measured by how much progress is being made or is capable of being made. There are plenty of wars in American history that had heaps of casualties but were not quagmires. This guys arguments simply don't deal with the quagmire argument.

At all.

I love that this guy thinks that liberalism and Islam are the harbingers of the destruction of America. Oddly enough, the combination of the two (i.e. Liberal Islam) would solve many of our problems. I, for one, fail to see how equal rights, fairness, and/or worshipping Allah will destroy America, but his conclusion, "...feel proud liberals" has an air of authority, so I'll accept it.

Even if you are a conservative and are offended by the Times' slightly liberal slant (which is nowhere near as noticeable as Fox News' conservative slant), it is a big stretch to say that it is undermining the nation, and that a simple article explaining a candidate's appearance somewhere is "madness." God, what would this guy say if he saw the op-ed page?

Gilmore is Out!

2007-07-16T15:58:00.000-05:00

You may be asking yourself "Who is Gilmore?" And hey, that's exactly the reason he just dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for President. See the Times.

Gilmore wasn't the first to go, though. Remember back when Tom Vilsack was vying for the Democratic nod? Ah, those were the days. Even though Vilsack's decision to step down didn't create a domino effect, causing other presidential hopefuls to realize how much time and money they're wasting while embarrassing themselves and their families in the process, I wonder what effect Gilmore's will have. I mean, how long are Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson and Mike Huckabee and Joe Biden going to stick around? (I leave out notables like Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel because they're either there "providing a voice that isn't being heard" or fucking insane).

It is my most sincere hope that Gilmore's decision will cause other candidates to evaluate themselves and say "Hey, you know what? I'm wasting everyone's time here. What a tool I am!" Because honestly, debates can mean something. They don't have to be Chris Matthews looking like a Border Collie being outrun by the sheep he is trying to round up. They can provide useful insights into the candidates' thought processes, and more importantly, their policy proposals. But, as it is now, they look like Brit Hume leading a game of Seven-Up with a class of kindergarteners. It's downright pitiful, and it doesn't have to be that way. If some of these clowns would just realize that their own vain pride is not enough to win an election, this election process might take an important step toward being taken somewhat seriously.

Maybe.

Too Good Not to Post

2007-07-15T20:07:00.001-05:00

Check out this music video/editorial cartoon from Nick Anderson at the Houston Chronicle (Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan). It's too good not to post. It's also a bit disturbing, so be warned.

CNN defends Dr. Sanjay Gupta

2007-07-15T16:00:00.000-05:00

Remember the Michael Moore-Sanjay Gupta controversy? Dr. Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, claimed that Moore fudged the facts in SiCKO by saying that Cuba spent only $25 per person per person on health care. Of course, it turned out that Moore did no such thing; he had given the correct figure, $251. Outraged, Moore went on Wolf Blitzer's show and gave CNN a well-deserved tongue-lashing. Then Moore posted a long response on his website (here and here) detailing the problems with Gupta's review of SiCKO. I decided to be a citizen activist (as opposed to my usual habit of getting outraged and forgetting to do something about it), and sent off an email to the CNN Situation Room email address requesting that the network issue an apology to Moore.

Now CNN has posted a point-by-point rebuttal to 11 problems Moore pointed out in Gupta's review. Some of the counter-arguments made by CNN are convincing, mostly the ones where they claim that Gupta was actually agreeing with Moore. Two of them merit further discussion:

POINT NO. 6:
FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:
CNN: (PAUL KECKLEY-Deloitte Health Care Analyst): "The concept that care is free in France, in Canada, in Cuba -- and it's not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. As a proportion of their household income, it's a significant number ... (GUPTA): It's true that the French pay higher taxes, and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list."
"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):
"SiCKO" never claims that health care is provided absolutely for free in other countries without tax contributions from citizens. Former (member of the British Parliament) Tony Benn reads from the NHS founding pamphlet, which explicitly states that "this is not a charity. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers." "SiCKO" also acknowledges that the French are "drowning in taxes." Comparatively, many Americans are drowning in insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and medical debt and the resulting threat of bankruptcy -- half of all bankruptcies in the United States are triggered by medical bills (Medical Bills Make up Half of Bankruptcies, February 2005, MSNBC).
CNN RESPONSE:
On Moore's Web site "Prescription for Change" (http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/health-care-proposal), item one is a call that "Every resident of the United States must have free, universal health care for life."
One of Gupta's overall critiques of the film is that Moore leaves viewers with an impression, as he does on his Web site, that universal health care comes without cost. In fact, substantial taxes are required to pay for such programs around the world.

This is the worst argument CNN makes in the rebuttal. SiCKO repeatedly compares the per-capita health care cost in various countries. It certainly does not give the impression-- and neither does Moore's website, as far as I can tell-- that medical care appears without any money being spent, like a magic pony. No adult would believe such a thing, and SiCKO doesn't say that's how it works. The movie does not deny that universal health care is funded with taxes. It does point out that health care is free at the point of use. If you're sick, you go to the doctor and you don't get charged a thing. You don't get bankrupted by your medical bills. Next point:

POINT NO. 8:
FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:
CNN: "But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts, and he did fudge some facts..."
"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):
This is libel. There is not a single fact that is "fudged" in the film. No one has proven a single fact in the film wrong. We expect CNN to correct their mistakes on the air and to apologize to their viewers.
CNN RESPONSE:
Gupta believes picking and comparing numbers from different places and times to suit an argument is not the best approach to a complicated issue like this one. Again, as pointed out earlier, by mixing types of data and time periods in some of Moore's comparisons, Gupta felt that the film effectively fudged points that could have been made just as compellingly by comparing data from the same source and time period.

Previously, CNN pointed out that Moore, at least at one point in the film, compared Cuba's health care costs in 2005 to America's in 2007. He did that because he was using the most recent figures for each country, but still, it's not good statistics. A half-point to CNN here.

Despite having at least one decent defense, CNN and Dr. Sanjay Gupta do not come out looking good. The "universal health care isn't a magic pony" criticism is transparently ridiculous, and they have already admitted that they made a wrong "transcription" of Moore's numbers about health care costs in Cuba. Hopefully they will be more careful next time.

Al-Qaida Mad As Hell (And Not Going To Take It Anymore)

2007-07-12T11:02:00.000-05:00

According to this Associated Press article, Al-Qaida, like the demonic car in Stephen King’s Christine, has managed to successfully rebuild itself:

A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001. A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the document _ titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" _ called it a stark appraisal. The analysis will be part of a broader meeting at the White House on Thursday about an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

This is not news we can take lightly, America. If we are to interpret this report correctly, we are at as great a risk of suffering a terrorist attack on our soil as we were just before 9/11. But our President would rather sit on his hands than take the bold, effective measures we need in a time like this. That is why we, the voters, need to start a massive letter-writing campaign to our congressional representatives, urging them to authorize a massive military effort to stop these terrorists before they can hit us. Specifically, we need to launch an invasion of Afghanistan.

It’s right there in the article; al-Qaida’s stronghold is the volatile region along the Afghan-Pakistan border. I have no doubt in my mind that an invasion of Afghanistan would successfully route out these terrorist elements and disrupt the well-oiled terror machine currently operating there. Should stragglers try to take refuge over the border, a combined effort on the part of the United States and our allies in Pakistan would no doubt be able to squeeze out these rats in their cave and eliminate them.

All it would take is determined, calculated effort on the part of our leaders to get this done. But alas, the current Administration would rather worry about trifling matters like immigration reform, stem-cell research and the war in Iraq to bother with the real issue at hand – terrorism. That is why we need to tell Congress, in no uncertain terms – get our troops out of Baghdad! And put them in Kabul!