EXCELSIOR!

Logic

2008-04-05T09:05:00.002-05:00

I woke up this morning to C-SPAN radio (no comments). More specifically, I woke up to hear a Hillary supporter parroting the line that Obama's "argument" that he has won far more states than Hillary is irrelevant because red states such as Wyoming will never vote for a Democrat come November, whereas Hillary has won the big blue states such as California and New York that Democrats historically have won and must win. She then asserted something to the point that blue states should therefore have more delegates, a horrible idea in my opinion that would enshrine the current divisions and disenfranchise Democrats in Republican dominated states. Obama seems to stand a better chance than the polarizing Hillary of flipping some formerly red ("purple") states such as Virginia and even making a strong enough showing in staunchly red states to force McCain (who is not embraced by social conservatives) onto defense. Leaving that aside though, the Clinton argument IS logical. Yes, the Democrats must win the Gore-Kerry blue states to stand a chance of victory, and yes states where Obama has beat Hillary such as Alabama and Wyoming will probably go for McCain in November. Clinton and her supporters buy into the almost wholly static red state-blue state divide (a very new phenomenon by the way) in which the only path to victory is flipping Ohio or Florida to the Democrats column, something Gore arguably and Kerry unarguably failed to do. Yet, as the Clintons and their supporters shake their heads knowingly and make this argument (oh the naive latte sipping trust fund Obama babies!), they either fail to see or hope no one else will see the logical implications of their assertion; namely that if there are red states that will not go blue, then there are surely blue states that will not go red. Therefore, barring some major meltdown, Obama would probably win the core blue states, and McCain would probably win the core red states. This is why IMO Obama's stronger appeal in the purple states is so compelling. With Hillary, Democrats could have the same Gore-Kerry map and lose again by a hair if the Ohio-Florida hail merry is thwarted (again). Obama offers an opportunity to pull in new states and thus opens up multiple paths to victory. Could Obama lose in November? Absolutely! But it won't be because California and New York vote for McCain.

Let Obama Be Obama

2008-03-10T14:27:00.005-05:00

Apparently Wolfson qualified his statement by saying that by the convention Obama might be able to pass the "threshold" on national security to be a suitable CIC in waiting as Hillary's VP . This reasoning shows how little stock they really put in their own argument of Obama's unreadiness. If Obama is not ready today, what magical experience is he going to garner between now and August 25 that will make him suitable to the Clintons? Does lasting out a campaign against Hillary suddenly give him the national security gravitas they accuse him of lacking today? As a poor impersonation of the late Johnny Cochran said in Southpark: "That does not make sense!." Cue the diagram of Chewbacca...

Of Florida, Michigan and Cookies

2008-03-07T21:33:00.004-06:00

The standoff over Florida and Michigan's delegations to the Democratic National Convention is a lot like kids who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The decision by Florida & Michigan Democrats to move their primary ahead of South Carolina's against the decision by the DNC seems to have been based on two assumptions:
1) As in 2000 and 2004, the nomination would be won early, probably by Hillary Clinton, and as battleground states with large delegations Florida and Michigan should be in on the process. Not satisfied with their inordinate influence in November, the state parties argued (much as Hillary Clinton now has) that small states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina don't matter enough to hold such an important pole position in the party nomination contests.
2) Because they are so large and important in November, the DNC would fold and give in to their demands for fear of alienating voters before the general election.

Both of these assumptions were flawed. The open nature of the 2008 Democratic field with no incumbent of VP meant this year's nomination race was likely to last longer. This is especially true with the proportional awarding of delegates (not a feature shared by the Republicans) which has made it very difficult for any candidate to score a knockout blow, especially once the field was narrowed down to two strong candidates. The second assumption underestimated the cohesion of a more energized national leadership that is finally seeking to strengthen the traditionally weak American party structure at the national level, mirroring the increasing partisan cohesion in both Houses of Congress.

So, to my cookie jar analogy. After pushing their contests ahead, Howard Dean and the DNC made it very clear that their delegates would not be seated and the candidates duly agreed not to run in either state. Having been caught with their hands in the cookie jars, it was made clear that they could not throw and tantrum and use their considerable electoral weight to get their way. At this time, the state parties could have backed down and stepped away from the jar; all reasonable Democratic leaders realized the danger of alienating voters in Florida and Michigan and if the state parties had conceded and moved their contests back the whole conflict could have been swept under the rug. Instead, they stared straight into Dean's eyes and deliberately ate the cookies. They held their contests; in Michigan Obama was not even on the ballot and in Florida both candidates (largely) ignored the state. Now that it appears the race could go on through April or even through the convention, Florida and Michigan are demanding to have their delegates seated because it wouldn't be "fair" to exclude their voters from the nominating process.

Since the votes were deeply flawed and biased against Obama, the only reasonable option is to hold a second contest. Dean and the DNC support this, even urge it, yet they wisely refuse to completely blow their hard won credibility and pay for the contests out of national funds, no matter how helpful it might be politically in November. Having eaten all the cookies and without really apologizing, the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties are now demanding that the DNC to buy more because it wouldn't be fair to the rest of their family (voters) who were denied them because of their own selfish stubbornness. Like any good parent, Dean recognizes that while it is not fair to punish those who did not break the rules, it is incumbent on the offender to make amends; the state parties should have to pay for the new elections necessitated by their misconduct and their obstinate refusal to change their plans once it was clear they would be punished.

The role of the Clinton campaign in this imbroglio is equally disturbing. Having agreed not to campaign in either state, Hillary nevertheless showed up in Florida for a "fundraiser" just before the primaries, posing for the cameras and justifying her "non-campaigning" by the silly argument that Obama had broken his pledge by running a national add during the Super Bowl that was shown in both states (where apparently football fans watch the same national channels as the rest of us). Despite her agreement to the disqualification of the state's early primaries, she has sought to use the flawed contests to her advantage, claiming "victory" and demanding that their delegates be seated if it helps her mathematically. This solidarity between the Clinton camp and the states is patently self serving and ironic since in is characterized by shared disdain for the "unimportant" smaller states (that have gone for Obama) and because they all got into their predicament by banking on a quick Clinton victory as indicated by early polling based largely on her name recognition. The Clintons weren't complaining when the media broadcast her inevitability argument and polls topped 50% for her, only when they dared to question her when it turns out she wasn't anointed after all.

should stick by its guns because in the longer term a stronger party will be necessary to preserve Democratic competitiveness as the In the short term, the best solution for all would probably be a new votes later in the primary season funded by the state parties. For both candidates and the party this offers a chance to increase legitimacy whatever the outcome of the process, even though the use of state funds on a second primary could hurt down ticket races. Hillary can try to re-enforce her strength in larger states while Obama surely hopes to do better than he did last time around where he couldn't utilize his considerable retail campaign skills. For the long term good of the party, the DNC should stick to its guns and preserve its newfound clout as it's RNC counterpart regroups after the Bush era. Finally, something should be done about this nomination system, which is patently broken. Hopefully the upshot of this year's chaos (from which the Republicans were not entirely exempt) will lead to a well crafted reform of the nomination system towards a more thought out one that strikes a balance between states of various sizes and regions. Then there will hopefully be enough cookies for everybody.

When Spin Becomes Rediculous

2008-02-29T14:51:00.004-06:00

Wow, the chutzpah! The Clinton Campaign now claims that anything short of a "decisive" Obama victory in EVERY MARCH 4TH STATE will be a victory for Hillary regardless of the delegate gap which she has virtually no chance of closing in Tuesday's voting. Now, "spin," the art of putting the best face on news is a well honored political tradition and perfectly understandable for a campaign trying to sell their candidate to American voters. But, to be effective, spin must have at least some basis in common sense or reality. The trick is to persuade people to adopt your favored interpretation of events. When it loses even this connection it becomes ridiculous, hollow and little more than the worst kind of 1984 propaganda. The truth is Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner and (on the advice of Mark Penn) ran her campaign as a virtual incumbent. Obama has come from behind through his embracing a more hopeful and coherent message. Also, apparently, people like him more since the more time he spends in a state the better he does whereas Hillary seems to have the opposite effect when voters get to view her up close. The Clinton Campaign has not really adjusted much, instead attempting to belittle Obama's victories and blaming the media with a fervency of a Right Wing radio host. In the words of Maureen Dowd: "It is only because of the utter open-mindedness of the press that Hillary can lose 11 contests in a row and still be treated as a contender."

Furthermore, the memo's claim that "the majority of [Democrats] have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date" is a red herring. Yes, Hillary has led amongst registered Democrats while Obama has often beaten her with the support of independents and steadily closed the gap. BUT, a look at the turnout and excitement and because of the very loose definition of party registry and identification (not to mention the need for independent support to win in November!), for all intents and purposes the independents who voted for Obama are Democrats. In the end, if they vote for him in November what does their label matter? The Clinton Campaign’s charges might as well be an admission of surrender in November and reflects a very similar mindset to that which propelled George W. Bush to two very narrow victories: bring out the base in your core states and ignore the rest, a 50%+1 strategy.

Obama generates excitement and promises greater national competitiveness outside of core Democratic areas, even bringing formerly red states like Virginia into play. In contrast, Hillary’s huge negatives and the almost visceral hatred of her by Republicans and independent conservatives not only will boost their turnout and unity around McCain, but locks her into a strategy of just seeking a few more votes around the margin than Kerry won in 2004 in order to flip one or two states. Now that the Republicans have all but chosen John McCain as their nominee, it is vital that the Democratic nominee can attract independents amongst whom the maverick Arizona Senator is generally popular. At the end of the day, if Obama is able to change even this aspect of our politics, then it will be change worth having.

Mendacity (It's Been a While!)

2008-02-28T09:20:00.008-06:00

Senator Obama visiting Kenya

President Bush with Saudi King Abdullah

Senator Clinton Kissing Suha Arafat (Who attacks Jews using the blood libel)

After the Clinton campaign's underhanded and clumsy attempt at fear-mongering in distributing a picture of Senator Obama in Somali garb, the attack has been picked up by the Republican party which is far less circumspect about it. They are using it to attack Obama's support of Israel. As a supporter of Israel and a Jew who seeks to stay informed beyond pictures, I find this both insulting and silly. A picture can be worth a thousand words, or perhaps none at all when placed in the context of standard courtesy and good diplomatic tact when American leaders visit other countries. So, the Clinton campaign continues is promise to "vett" Obama by using the tactics of shadowy insinuation that they apparently have learned from decades of "fighting" the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. In doing so I fear they have come to embody many of the traits that they so disdain in their opponents. Thus, when it comes to 2008 and the future of the Democratic Party and the United States, I feel it is time to bid them (and the horse they rode in on) a fond farewell. Their day is past and hopefully the people of Texas and Ohio will convince them of it.

What Weapons?

2007-12-05T08:40:00.000-06:00

The release of a new intelligence assessment stating that Iran halted it's nuclear weapons program in 2003 is groundbreaking on many levels.

First, it shows how much weaker the Bush administration is today compared to during the lead up to the Second Iraq War. We all remember talks of bullying and selective use of intelligence to bolster the WMD threat from Iraq, most notably by former proliferation Tzar and UN-Ambassador John Bolton (who also bullied analysts regarding intelligence of other members and fellow travellers of the "Axis of Evil"). That the intelligence community has now done such a 180 even as we negotiate for tougher sanctions is a promising indication of greater independence, coordination and de-politicization in the intelligence services. Nevertheless, the abrupt and unexpected about face on such a sensitive and prominent issue should lead to a major auditing of our intelligence assessments in general.

Second, barring any "incidents," this report should undermine any conceivable rush to war before January 20, 2009. There was a clear momentum on ratcheting up threats towards Iran, this more or less takes a needle to that balloon. HOPEFULLY this will lead to a more long-term and nuanced policy that will seek to aid (however indirectly) the internal forces seeking to change Iran and do away with the belligerent and xenophobic regime there.

Finally, this is a huge short to mid-term victory for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He now claims "victory" in his conflict with Washington and vindication of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. This is taking things a bit too far considering the continued lack of transparency of that program and the potential duel-use of the technologies it is developing. In the long term, however, we can hope that the lowering of tensions and a (again hopefully) more nuanced and diplomatic "sticks-and-carrots" approach to Iran will undermine Ahmadinejad and his hard line allies since the President has relied on his populist anti-Americanism and nuclear defiance to shore up his popularity, especially as he engages in crack downs on civil liberties and freedoms.

Iran is a threat to the region. In our relief that it's claws are perhaps not as sharp as we had feared, we should not grow complacent. Now is the time for a more robust strategy on containing Iran's regime and hopefully fostering an atmosphere where, over time, Iran can embrace liberal values and take its rightful place as a respected member of the international community, respecting its citizens and at peace with its neighbors.

Throwing Stones

2007-11-12T08:55:00.000-06:00

Attacks by Hamas security forces in Gaza upon Fatah supporters gathering to commemorate Yassir Arafat are an instructive reminder of the continued violence in the Gaza strip. Particularly interesting is the justification used by the Hamas security forces for indiscriminately opening fire on the crowd, killing at least five people and wounding over thirty: that protesters were throwing rocks at security compounds. This is particularly interesting in this context because of the frequent use of children by Palestinian terror groups (like Hamas) to throw rocks at Israeli soldiers. When Israeli's respond with tactics designed as non-lethal (rubber bullets, tear gass, etc.), the same "leaders" who sent the children out in the first place condemn the self-defense of soldiers and go on and on about Israeli cruelty. Clearly, when Hamas is the target, such niceties are not observed and metal-bullets are used liberally to break up crowds from different factions. I can only imagine that pictures of Arafat smiled down benevolently upon the violence that is the legacy of his decades of false promises and failed leadership.

God's Light and Congressional Scrutiny: The Best Disinfectant

2007-11-06T09:02:00.000-06:00

Finally someone is seriously looking into the huckster shams of TV's most outrageous "give me money and God will love you" televangelists. Even better, the person asking them to report their finances to Congress is Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa. Hat's off to Mr. Grassley on this one and at least no one can turn this into a "Democrats hate God" issue. Hopefully, this will expose how these snake oil salesmen (and women) use the promise of salvation and good fortune to attract huge "donations" to their ministires to fund their lavish lifestyles. Now if only the despicable Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church would slip up somewhere so that they could be legally called to account...

Back Up

2007-11-04T10:48:00.000-06:00

So I just saw that I haven't posted since October 10th and I feel really bad about it. I guess everyone needs a vacation...er going to work at least. I'll try and get back on the horse ASAP, there's a lot to talk about. Might try more of a free form, stream of consciousness format, not always linking to stories and trusting you the reader to track down more info. But that'll probably make me nervous, so I'll end up linking anyway. I'll try to get on it Monday.

SCHIP...For the Kids

2007-10-10T08:33:00.001-05:00

So I've been following this debate over SCHIP. President Bush and the Republicans want an small increase in funding that will essential index inflation but not cover any more children, the Democrats want to expand what they see as a successful program to provide health coverage for some of the millions of children not covered by health a. Republicans cry "SOCIALISM!" and point out that expanding government coverage too much will drive up premiums for all Americans as younger (generally healthier) people with resulting lower premiums are not there to balance out aging Americans with higher premiums. Democrats had a 12 year old boy, Graeme Frost, who was covered by the program when he and his sister were badly injured in a car accident, but President Bush still vetoed the bill. Republicans then began to attack attack the boy and his family and Rush et. al. jump on the bandwagon of. Their attacks, as usual, are based on a partial interpretation of the facts and chest-thumping hyperbole. Defenders of the family have easily poked holes in their attacks, but since Dittoheads are not well known for seeking information outside of Rush's daily show this will probably not really matter. Rush went so far as to link his attack on the Frosts to his recent attack on anti-war veterans, proudly standing up for his TRUE AMERICAN values (which don't generally include free speech and reasoned debate).

Anyway, that's sorta my recap. What I find funny is that in all their hand wringing about the dangers to the insurance industry, Republicans have glossed over the problem of uninsured Americans that currently number 47 million and growing. They offer no real alternative to the Democrats' incremental policies, and so far their Presidential candidates have not put out comprehensive health plans to deal with the problem. Whatever one thinks about the Democrats plans, whether they be too much or too little, a band-aid for a broken system or creeping Socialism, the debate should start with acknowledging the problem. By ignoring the problem on ideological grounds, the Republicans seem to be leaving the issue of healthcare and insurance solely to the Democrats. They might regret this abdication in 2009 if there is a Democrat in the White House and a larger Democratic majority in Congress.

The Official Line

2007-09-25T08:26:00.000-05:00

For those of you who saw all or parts of Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday, here is the official IRNA (Iranian State News) release about the speech. You can decide for yourselves whether this assessment reflects reality. Hopefully the Iranian people can get around the restrictions against "un-Islamic" programming and access a complete recording of their President's speech and his "introduction" by Columbia's President Bollinger. Unfortunately, if they are unable to do this then I fear this exercise in "free speech" will only serve Mr. Ahmadinejad's purpose of bolstering his support at home through political theater and propaganda and the glowing interpretation of IRNA.

The Inconvenient Truth

2007-09-24T14:38:00.000-05:00

I just finished watching Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rambling speech at Columbia University about, well, science and truth and this that and the other. Basically it was an hour of padding in which he said nothing and gave all of his standards tropes despite harsh criticism from the University's President Lee Bollinger. The most telling and unscripted moment came when he was asked about the execution of homosexuals in Iran. His answer was novel to say the least (click link to see video).

With an audience that, judging by the applause, was pretty mixed between those supporting and opposing his "viewpoints," this answer drew the only audible boos and for sure the only laughter (his joke about "retarded" world leaders wasn't a crowd pleaser). Unfortunately, given the hostility of the current Administration and its supporters towards gay rights, Ahmadinejad's assertion that homosexuality does not exist in Iran will probably not be taken to task by our government even though it is the most clear, concise and obvious lie he told the gathering and also the easiest to disprove. Perhaps James Dobson will try to get in touch with the Iranian President to discover how they have achieved such a miracle...

Here is a link to a site with resources regarding the persecution of homosexuals in Iran, including graphic pictures of the execution by hanging of two young gay Iranians whose existence President Ahmadinejad denies.

Ends, Means and Liberal Democracy

2007-09-21T08:46:00.000-05:00

In the spirit of my last post, I just wanted to post a link to this thought provoking article from the Economist that introduces a new series about the balance between civil liberties and security in the age of terror. I'm not going to repeat Ben Franklin here because so many others have, but his warnings about trading liberty for security come to mind. The issue is of course a very difficult one, however I think this article offers a compelling counter-argument against the "security first" arguments that have become so ubiquitous since September 11th.

Trust Them

2007-09-20T08:39:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration does have reasonable justifications to push for updating surveillance laws; no one can deny that technology has drastically changed since the original FISA laws were passed in the 1970s. That said, the consistent resistance to any forms of oversight for these controversial programs displays the stubborn adherence to secrecy and expansion of Executive power that has typified this Administration. Yes, perhaps there needs to be greater resources for those who oversee surveillance, but as a whole the system was not "broken" and the Administration has never offered a compelling reason to forgo the oversight vital to the protection of civil liberties. President Bush likes to say that we just don't have time to go through the niceties of oversight; yet by all accounts the FISA Court has historically been very very flexible in granting warrants, even retroactively when necessitated by events and only very seldom denied a warrant request. Democrats are willing to move forward given sufficient safeguards, yet the administration stubbornly clings to its assertion of Executive privilege and threatens dire consequences to American safety if they are not given everything they ask for. As always, the Administration implies that opponents of unlimited Executive power are indirectly endangering American lives and aiding terrorists.

In the end, it seems that the Administration is simply loath to grant any oversight authority to the other branches of government. That is a threat to our Constitutional system of checks and balances, which most Americans traditionally think is a pretty good idea even if Vice President Cheney considers them quaint. Then there is the Republican Party, the party of small government who for the last six years has rolled over repeatedly whenever this Administration has asked us to trust them and trust government with unprecedented powers of surveillance and extra-judicial detainment of American citizens. The maintenance of our civil liberties should not be a partisan issue, just as protecting Americans should not (and I truly believe isn't) despite the veiled accusations leveled by the Administration and its most ardent supporters at any who question its methods or competence.

Don't Mention the War

2007-09-17T08:44:00.000-05:00

Why is it so "shocking" that Alan Greenspan asserts that the Iraq War "is largely about oil"? Is this really news to anyone? This is another example of slippery language; many have and will (Drudge did in his link) misquote the Maestro of Wall Street saying that the war was "for" oil, a more controversial claim, while acknowledging that it is "about" oil should be a no brainer. Realistically, if Iraq did not have oil we really would not be involved there (or in the rest of the Middle East for that matter); the region is of such vital economic and strategic importance to the US because of the black gold under the barren sands. Now there is valid criticism to be made that the evidence of Saddam's WMDs was massaged (at best) and already unraveling before the invasion, but, again without oil would we really have believed Sadaam had the resources to fund a robust weapons research program? Oil is why the US intervened in Iraq while Mugabe still perpetrates his crimes in Zimbabwe. It's also why you hear more about Darfur, ironically as Sudan's increasing oil exports affords its genocidal government the shield of Chinese political protection. Reasonable people can disagree about the mix of the ever-evolving cocktail of "reasons" for the invasion of Iraq and about the failure of the Administration to stick with one or the other, but it is unreasonable to assert (as many of the Administrations supporters now do) that the war is not in any way "about" oil and was all about freedom, flowers and democracy. Well, those and mushroom clouds.

More Bin Laden Tapes

2007-09-08T09:02:00.000-05:00

Well, whether he's "back" or simply hung around too long, Osama bin Laden has released a new tape where he shows the attention he pays to US media and weighs in on our politics while criticizing our democracy. Like his tape just before the elections in 2004, it seems an effort in reverse-psychology to rally support for the Bush Administration that has played into his hands. It might have this effect judging from some of the responses from readers comparing bin Laden's message to that of the Democrats and the ubiquitous "Michael Moore." I hope most Americans will recognize the guile and artistry to his message and see that by deliberately mentioning the Democrats and statements by anti-war groups he is attempting to discredit them while stirring up "patriotic" support for the war and the President so that Al-Qaeda and its allies (and even those who claim to dislike the "foreigners") can continue killing Americans in Iraq. Think about it, are his realistic goals really a Islamist United States or is he perhaps pursuing more realistic goals of influencing our own policies to play into his own agenda? However evil one believes him to be, he is also intelligent and cunning and to hue to his larger message of an Islamist world is to miss the more subtle goals he seeks to obtain. This will probably be used by Republicans in the Administration, Congress and on the campaign trail to tar Democrats as appeasers and fellow travelers; I hope these tactics fail.

Back?

2007-09-06T23:15:00.000-05:00

So, according to Drudge, Osama bin Laden is "back." But, to misquote the Austin Powers films, in many ways bin Laden never left. On a more serious note, contemplate the six years as of next Tuesday in which he has remained at large and free to plot against the United States and our allies. We did manage to capture and kill Saddam Hussein before discovering that the (original stated) reasons for attacking Iraq were false. As the sixth anniversary of 9/11 approaches and we begin to seriously contemplate who will be our next leader (I guess it's really serious now that Thompson has actually declared), maybe we should also consider if the path chosen by the current administration has been the correct one and if not, who will best lead us onto a better one. Not going to give an answer here, this is a think piece.

Efficient Government...and COLLEGE FOOTBALL!!!

2007-09-02T00:08:00.000-05:00

However one feels about the Federal government's role in rebuilding the Gulf Coast, I find the complaints made by Presidential candidate and anti-immigrant crusader Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) in his call to cut off the New Orleans "gravy train"interesting. He laments the estimated $1 billion lost to fraud and abuse, which sounds like a lot until you compare it to over $114 billion he cites as having been spent on reconstruction efforts in the last two years. That means less than 1% has been lost to corruption. If so, then Mr. Tancredo has perhaps highlighted the most efficient and above-board Federal program in history!

On a completely unrelated note college football season is now officially started and it was an exciting night. A big Roll Tide and a round of Rammer Jammer for Alabama's debut game under coach Nick Saban and a 52-6 victory over Western Carolina; hopefully this is the start of a beautiful relationship. Also, congrats to the Southern Conference's own Appalachian State for beating No. 5 Michigan and becoming the first Div. 1AA team in history to defeat an AP ranked division 1A team, since my So-Con alma matter College of Charleston doesn't have a football team, might as well cheer for App State. And, finally, a big cheer for Georgia Tech for (hopefully) taking the knees out of another overrated season for Notre Dame and their legions of fans in the sports broadcasting business. All in all, a good night.

I Was Wrong

2007-08-28T16:45:00.002-05:00

Still working on my dissertation, but I just wanted to point out the error in my August 13th prediction; Attorney General Gonzalez has stepped down. The President has a steadily dwindling circle of "good people" in his inner circle of friends from which to find a replacement from. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff seems has been mentioned as a likely replacement. I don't think Chertoff is a bad guy, but is choosing the man in charge of DHS during Katrina to re-organize and restore morale at the Justice Department really the best you can do? Besides, at a time when DHS is still new and in need of steady leadership, is it really smart to remove a current chief and replace him with the third Secretary since in under six years? Surely there are other options. Where's Harriet Myers?

In all seriousness, if he wants the job Senator Orin Hatch would probably be about the best of the choices I've heard so far. But, unless he's planning to retire after this term, why would a powerful and long serving Senator want to sign on to work for a lame duck administration at the head of a Justice Department which has been run into the ground by incompetence? Personally, I think the best choice for all would be to simply appoint current acting AG Paul Clement to fill the post for the remainder of the Bush administration. This should avoid a bruising confirmation battle and, though he's young and relatively unknown, the fact that he's from within the DOJ should make him at least as effective of any of the more "qualified" candidates. I don't see any other options that would be better while also being politically acceptable to the President, who is not known for his emphasis on competence.

Iran

2007-08-25T11:57:00.000-05:00

The tragedy of much of the Islamic world is that despite their hatred of each other, the Islamists and the corrupt Dictators in the region share a fear and hatred of the middle class and the liberal values which arise from such people as a threat to the absolutism each side wants. So, for decades, any hint of liberalism has been put down leaving only the corrupt dictators and the religious fanatics as the cohesive options. Hopefully one day there will be a real revolution in the region, perhaps the increasingly silly and petty repressions in Iran will help to awaken the people of that proud and ancient state to overthrow the leaders who have mismanaged their country and economy for decades. The US is not blameless here, in the 1950s along with the British we undermined democratic governance there in favor of the Shah's regime in the 1950s. In the words of former Secretary of State Albright: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." Rather than trumpeting threats to attack Iran which play right into the hands of the current regime by providing a unifying external threat, the US and Americans should do all it can to support those forces which wish to promote liberalism and true democracy there. This might be limited to simply announcing our sympathy with such forces while avoiding any direct aid which will be used to tar such groups.

Unlike Iraq, Iran is an ancient state which can trace its roots back to the Persian Empire of antiquity. Despite the "supervision" of the clerics and the corruption and extremism of the current political leadership, there are genuine democratic aspects to the current system. It is also a country with great natural wealth, a large and well educated population and an important geographical position. Therefore, when the time comes, there will be a chance for the more liberal and secular generation of today and tomorrow to take back their state just as the people of Eastern Europe overthrew the Communist dictatorships that had been imposed upon them. America only needs the patience to await such events and the wisdom to avoid alienating this new generation.

Dissertation

2007-08-24T03:11:00.000-05:00

I'm finishing my dissertation in the next few days and will be back to posting regularly soon. In the mean time, congratulations to Lindsey Lohan for getting only one night in jail with community service and probation for misdemeanor cocaine possession and her second DUI. Lucky for her, there was not enough cocaine for felony charges (I wonder if they checked her bloodstream?). I guess she's also lucky she's not a poor black male. I leave you with this clip on the matter by the incomparable Billy Dee Williams.

Of Religion and Politics

2007-08-19T11:32:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I read this endorsement by Anne Rice, the popular author originally of horror novels who now focuses her writing on Christian themes. As a public figure who I am familiar with I found her statement and reasoning very interesting. It offers, I think, a good example of how a person's faith can play an important role in how one approaches the secular world in general and politics specifically. It also illustrates the importance that we accept each person's faith as a personal one which is unique from that of others even while falling under a larger denomination or movement.

Ms. Rice is Catholic and in her life and works displays the very vivid fervor of someone who has recently returned to faith having considered herself an atheist for years. In her essay she explains her belief that her values, especially those of helping others, are best served (in our political system) by the Democratic party and in particular she endorses Hillary Clinton as her choice for President. She has come to a personal decision informed by her faith which, as a public figure, she has decided to explain to others. Of particular interest is her decision that on an issue as fraught with controversy as abortion, the Democrats are the best to deal with the issue. This is despite the growing trend in recent years of some in the Catholic church hierarchy taking strict positions on abortion and gay rights which would, by example of refusing religious rites to politicians favoring legal abortion, seem to urge Catholics to vote for only the most strictly anti-abortion candidates. Ms. Rice rejects such black-and-white positions and instead uses her faith informed by her reason to recognize that, while like her church she sees abortion as a human tragedy, it is not something that can be swept away with a new court ruling or outright bans. The truth on this issue is that whichever side one takes on this debate, it is generally agreed that steps should be taken to reduce the number of abortions. Pro-choice groups and politicians take the position that sex education, access to contraceptives and easing poverty can reduce the numbers of abortions. While Ms. Rice calls herself pro-life, she shares these beliefs and shows how limiting the pro-life/pro-choice labels are. Those who most fervently champion ending legal abortion without the pragmatism of Ms. Rice are the very same people who in their ideological or religious purity denounce the very policies which would reduce the demand for abortion; this is a contradiction within the Catholic Church which seems to equate the use of contraceptives with abortion and thus demands the prohibition of reproductive services while also endorsing policies (against contraceptives and sex education) which perversely increase the demand for such services.

So in the end this is an example of the proper place of faith and morality in our Republican government. Wherever one goes to to find morals and values, these should be guiding principles that inform your decisions rather than a symbol you wear on your sleeve or a rigid faith whose dictates you follow despite your God given gifts of reason and judgment. While she does not mention it in this post, Ms. Rice is also in favor of marriage equality and sees her role as a Catholic as working to change her church's position rather than conforming to its dictates when she believes it to be wrong. This is a personal issue for her because she has a gay son, Christopher Rice, who she obviously loves (and who has followed in her footsteps as a very able writer). She discusses these views while describing her travels promoting her most recent book, including a visit to Birmingham where she was a guest at my synagogue.

I believe that moral people, whether religious or not, can and should apply their beliefs when making decisions regarding the direction of our country and their decisions as citizens. I also think, as Anne Rice does, that it is important to look beyond the current rulings of "authority" within ones religion and seek out your own truths about its teachings and their application to our world. Even if I disagree with the conclusions one might reach after such a searching of ones soul, I can respect it as long as it is done in, for lack of a better term, good faith.

Yeah, It's Hot

2007-08-17T17:48:00.000-05:00

I know that weather is usually something you talk about when you don't have anything else to say, but in this case I'll make an exception. Just so y'all know what it's like here in Birmingham lately. Today started with some light showers for the first time in over a week, which brought the temperature down to a brisk 87*F. But, by the time I left the gym this afternoon my thermometer said 104*F (that's 40*C, but 104 just sounds soooo much cooler, or hotter in this case). Anywho, now Drudge has noticed so I guess more people feel our pain. I mean, you know it's bad when we're all hoping for a tropical storm to hit our state.

Comments Welcome

2007-08-14T22:32:00.000-05:00

By the way, if you have time I'd really appreciate some comments on my posts if you have any. I'm still new to blogging and any ideas, suggestions, debate or commentary would be most welcome. Also, I'd love to know who is stopping by so please introduce yourselves. If you don't want to comment that's perfectly fine also. I mean, it really doesn't bother me that you don't comment, it's just that I'd like to hear from you. Really.

Michael Vick bin Laden?

2007-08-14T21:54:00.000-05:00

I'm no fan of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. Besides the incredible cruelty involved, I think that an athlete earning over $15 million a year (before endorsements and other deals) is monumentally stupid and criminally arrogant to think he could get away with running a dog fighting ring on the side. In fact, I think he managed the amazing feat of committing the only crime heinous enough to bring PETA and angry middle-aged white male Republicans into battle on the same side. But, I still had a laugh at this Fox News report on Vick's latest legal troubles. It would appear that the embattled QBs dogfighting exploits were simply fund raising for a far more sinister plot involving Al-Queda and Iran, apparently a dog-fights for missiles scheme. This according to a Federal suit filed by an inmate in South Carolina, who accuses Vick of stealing his dogs and is seeking $63 billion in damages! I hope that the U.S. District Court in Richmond doesn't spend too much on the paperwork for this one. I leave you with the link; we report, you decide.

The Collapse of the Right?

2007-08-13T14:20:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to post a link to this great article from, of course, The Economist offering a thorough analysis of the problems faced by the Conservative movement and the Republican Party. Also, reasons why Democrats and Liberals should not be complacent. As always, good stuff.

The Man Behind the Curtain Makes his Exit

2007-08-13T11:49:00.000-05:00

Well, it looks like "Bush's Brain" Karl Rove (or "Turdblossom" as the President fondly calls him) will be leaving the administration at the end of the month to "spend more time with his family." Since his son is leaving for college this year, this is highly convincing. Considering the general ineffectiveness of his tactics in 2006 and the anger directed at him by many Republicans in Congress (with both sides blaming the other for defeat in the midterms), this is hardly surprising. It is also questionable as to whether, at this point, Rove's departure will make much difference.

If Chief of Staff Bolton has given the "leave before Labor Day or stay on for the long haul" talk to the Bush team, it will be interesting to see if anyone else goes. Also, if Attorney General Gonzalez does not step down, then I guess the continuing fight over his incompetence and mendacity will continue at it's siegelike pace and will probably leave Gonzalez to finish out his term with the President. After all, if Gonzalez goes, whoever is caretaker Attorney General might actually investigate administration activities ranging from the firing of Federal Attorneys to wiretapping on American citizens that is only now being made "legal" through legislation. It's doubtful anyone will be confirmed for the permanent position, so a temporary fill in might not be strongly under the control of the Administration politically, without Gonzalez the genie would be out of the bottle, so he'll probably stay on as long as he has "the confidence" of the President because, hey, isn't that what the position is all about even if the majority of Americans think you're corrupt and incompetent? As for Rove, if anything his departure might hurt Democrats who are fond of using Rove as the ever-present bogeyman, especially Hillary Clinton who seldom fails to mention him when railing against the Administration.

Anyway, Rove will probably write a book and do well on the speaking circuit to the big government social conservative crowd. It will be interesting to watch for any contact between him and Republican Presidential campaigns either during or after the primaries. But, at the end of the day, it seems that Rove's day and in a larger sense that of George W. Bush has passed and the only question for the next President whether he or she be Republican or Democrat is how far to distance oneself from the current President.

The Danger of Debt

2007-08-08T11:42:00.000-05:00

Republicans often accuse Democrats of "tax and spend" policies and such accusations are not without a degree of truth. But George W. Bush and "big government Conservatives" who support him have engaged in a dangerous policy of "cut taxes and spend," in a time of war no less. Yes tax cuts do spur the economy, but at the end of the day the income never quite catches up to the losses of the tax cuts. In the Clinton years and with credit to both the President and Congress, the United States was projected to have budget surpluses for the first time in years. The instinct of Republicans was to immediately "give this money back" to the people, especially the wealthy who pay the bulk of taxes in this country rather than continuing policies of fiscal discipline and making serious efforts to trim national debt. They continued this policy after 9/11 and the economic slowdown that followed. Though there has been recovery, and by some projections (often leaving out ballooning military costs associated with the war in Iraq) the deficit is closing, there is no realistic possibility of surplus and balanced budgets in our future under current policies.

But, according the Administration and its economic supporters, this is no problem. Neither is letting the dollar, the international reserve currency since World War II, fall to historic lows against other world currencies. Their argument is that there is no danger in debt because the United States’ economic position and the dollar's dominance are so unassailable that no one will ever call in our debts. Therefore, these advisers forecast no danger in the fact that a growing proportion of our debt has been held in a small number of countries, most notably in East Asia with China, Japan and South Korea holding significant dollar reserves. While there have been grumblings in all major dollar holding countries about the devaluation of the dollar (drastically cutting the value of their reserves) and talk of perhaps diversifying into Euro holdings, only just recently has a major creditor hinted openly at the possibility of economic warfare using the dollar as a WMD of economic blackmail.

That this creditor is China, a budding superpower with increasingly global ambitions whose relationship with the US is complicated and fraught with dangers for conflict should unnerve even the naysayer. Will China take the step of rapidly liquidating its dollar reserves? Such a step would greatly damage the economic growth upon which the Communist Party relies to maintain it's grip on power. Nevertheless, there is a danger that if the Party was pushed into a corner by domestic unrest or international conflict then such an option would be used. Furthermore, like the nuclear standoff in the Cold War, just the THREAT of such an option can have a great influence and that clearly seems to be what Chinese policymakers are aiming at in acknowledging the possibility openly. For now, the threat has been leveled at threats of China bashing protectionism, especially be Democrats in Congress. While I hope the Democrats are sensible in this and return to the largely free-trade policies of the Clinton years, threats by China over this issue are most likely bluff and bluster. But what happens if conflict flares in the Taiwan Straits? Or if the Communist Party engages in a large scale clamp down with massive human rights consequences? Or if the increasingly assertive Chinese foreign policy and quest for raw materials leads to a more open alliance with states such as Iran and Venezuela? China already exercises a veto over any threats to North Korea, but an economic threat is perhaps more viable than a military one. All of these possibilities are chillingly plausible and could limit US options and responses to such crises.

Until we have a President and Congress who again area serious about balancing budgets and bringing the deficit under control rather than playing an economic shell game, then the danger of economic blackmail only grows. Furthermore, if the dollar continues to slide and more states diversify their hard currency holdings, the US will lose the great trade advantage it has enjoyed with being able to cover its debts and trade deficits with its own currency, an ability much abused under trickle-down Presidencies. In the end, the need to service a growing debt simply robs funds from vital programs and gains us nothing in return. Hopefully the next President will recognize the danger in unrestrained deficit spending and take steps necessary to putting our economic house in order.

The Central Front in the War on Terror

2007-08-05T11:23:00.000-05:00

With years of evidence washing away the Administration's justifications for war with Iraq, it is now fairly clear that the invasion of Iraq was not a part of the "War on Terror." The fact that today it is a training ground for Al-Qaeda, Iranian agents and homegrown Iraqi insurgents is also beyond argument. But, it was originally a war of choice. As British Prime Minister Gordon Brown pointed out at Camp David (before President Bush tried to put different words in "Gordon's" mouth), the real front line in the war on terror has been and remains Afghanistan. It is there that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were sheltered by the Taliban and it is there that today the Taliban is far from defeated and Bin-Laden still holds influence from his likely hideouts just across the border in Pakistan. Afghanistan is larger than Iraq, with a larger population, and sits in a strategic location bordering Pakistan, Iran and the countries of Central Asia where the US is currently playing a strategic chess game with Russia and China. What it lacks, of course, is oil. But failure in Afghanistan would be as bad or worse a blow to the fight against extremism. And as much as the Administration tries to spin it as a great success, there are major and growing problems as shown in this new article in The Economist. Those who berate opponents of indefinite occupation in Iraq should also take a look at Administration’s mishandling and lack of focus in Afghanistan and the drain that the fight in Iraq has had on this, arguably more vital, theater from which we have been attacked before and where our greatest enemies still hold sway.

Will This Help AG Gonzalez?

2007-07-31T09:32:00.000-05:00

So I guess I'm on sorta a Dick Cheney kick; it's just that he recently seems to have left the bunker and been unusually visible. So, my thought is, does Dick Cheney vouching for your character and honesty help or hinder you? And perhaps it's not helpful using this as a chance to take a swipe at the chief Senate investigator, Patrick Leahy. At least he had the tact to not be more specific and tell him to go "F*CK HIMSELF" again...

Mondale's Thoughts on the Cheney Branch

2007-07-29T20:22:00.000-05:00

Former Vice President Walter Mondale's thoughts on the institution the Vice Presidency and the changes wrought on it by Dick Cheney. Very interesting. Also, another article from The Economist on Cheney and the new Stephen Hayes biography of the VP.

The Empire Strikes Back?

2007-07-28T15:44:00.001-05:00

So apparently the British forces in Iraq are being blamed for the appearance of man-eating beasts in Iraq. Apparently, so the theory goes, these badgers of mass destruction were released to sow panic on the population as part of sinister British plans. Iraqi veterinarians have attempted to dispel these rumors saying that these animals, known as "Al-Girta," are not new to Iraq and were present before the 2003 invasion. In a Monty Python-esque quote from the British military, Major Mike Shearer has attempted to dispel the rumors: "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." Of course, this will probably not prompt the propagandists to quit spreading the rumor, nor will it prevent conspiracy theorists from noting that Major Shearer did not deny the existence of Her Majesty's man-eating badger units...

Executive Infallibility

2007-07-26T15:48:00.000-05:00

So I was trying to think of a catchy term to encapsulate the Bush administration's endless grab for greater executive power, secrecy and immunity from accountability. Then, it hit me, "Executive Infallibility," modeled somewhat on the divine and perfect authority claimed by the Pope. Thus, whenever you hear an administration spokesperson referring to the obvious rightness of something because Bush or Cheney said it was so, or signing statements where administration lawyers allow Bush to sign his own personal interpretations of the law, or even when those like Gonzalez are caught with their hands in the cookie jar and compound things by blatantly lying before the truth inevitably begins to come out and adds contempt and obstruction to their list of offenses, don't worry, it's just Executive Infallibility folks. So for the next 18 months relax and don't worry, the President and Vice President have everything well in hand; they know what they are doing so you don't have to.

Separation of Church AND State

2007-07-25T20:08:00.000-05:00

I'm not usually into linguistics, but I had a thought the other day. Being back home in Alabama got me to thinking about Church/State issues. I believe the attempt of the Christian Right to re-write history to make the US a "Christian Nation" is one of the great threats to our Republic as well as the pluralistic religious institutions that have been able to thrive here under the system set up by the founders. So, I began mulling over the meaning of the phrase "separation of church and state." Now historically in light of documents such as Jefferson's letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, the prevailing fear at the time was the interference of the government in religious affairs. This issue, familiar to all of us in the story of the Puritans and the founding of Massachusetts, can be summed up as the "separation of church from state." The corollary of course is the idea of the "separation of state from church" which is a cornerstone of classical liberalism, the fertile soil from which our Constitution sprang. The Founders sought to create a government based on reason, rule of law and protection of minorities within a democratic polity. Combined together, these form the idea of the "separation of church and state. The and here is very important, combining the two from concepts and implying a two-way street in which both of these institutions is separated from the direct influence of the other. In other words the State will not establish a state church or tell religious groups what they may and may not teach, while the churches in turn will not actively engage in politics or exercise influence over the government to foist its dogma and views on others who do not share their faith.

Today, Christian fundamentalists whose churches have thrived under this benign doctrine push for a new interpretation which enshrines the first interpretation while scoffing at the notion that churches as organized entities (rather than individuals) should refrain from doing its utmost to convert its teachings into public policy. But, and here is the elegance of the and concept; once either institution infringes on the separation then both are hurt by the contact. In its extreme, this can lead to groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church (www.godhatesfags.com) giving all Christians a bad name, or overzealous school administrators who infringe on the rights of individuals to engage in private religious devotion due to a misinterpretation of the law. In the end, I think we would all be better served if individuals, whatever their faith, did a better job of acting upon the moral teachings of their beliefs (whether they be religious or humanist or a mixture of both) and live their lives as a display of their beliefs rather than trying to use the state to force their beliefs on others. There are those who seek to impose their particular brand of religion on all Americans, whether it be through teacher led prayer in school, the promotion or even acceptance of violence against those they disagree with (such as violence against family planning workers), hate filled bigotry towards homosexuals or those of other faiths. To them, I say look at our history and our institutions which have allowed your religions to thrive and then look at countries where the state and religion have intersected. At best, you have the largely atheistic states of Europe, at worst you have stagnant, oppressive and even violent societies typical in many Middle Eastern states. Religion and humanistic morality are at their best as a personal virtue which should be lived and shown by example. We are a nation whose population is predominately Christian, but we are NOT a Christian nation.

Executive Privilege

2007-07-21T10:09:00.000-05:00

The White House is again attempting to expand executive powers by essentially claiming that no members of the executive branch, including US Attorneys, should have to respond to orders of Congress once the President has decided to invoke Executive Privilege. In essence, they claim that if the President asserts something, it is obviously correct and thus legal and binding. This goes along with the Unitary Executive theory and is a serious threat to the checks and balances within our system in that it seems generally to be invoked as an expedient to block scrutiny of the Executive and in effect place it above the other branches and above the law. Yes, this is happening in a political context of the fight over the firing of US Attorneys, but this relatively minor controversy has largely been fanned by revelations of incompetence and the appearance of dishonesty by members of the administration up to and including Attorney General Gonzalez who, if his stonewalling testimony is to be taken at face value, lacks the short and long term memory capacity to run such an important department. Harriet Myers refusal to appear before Congress, even to personally claim executive privilege and refuse to answer questions, is the definition of contempt. Imagine if Nixon had succeeded in upholding the extreme breadth of executive privilege that the Bush Administration now claims; when the President alone with the advice of pliable lawyers can simply decide to not acknowledge any investigations into the conduct of his administration, then public scrutiny of the Executive is impossible and that is a threat to democracy. Executive Privilege, traditionally assserted in sensitive matters of national security, has been used by this Administration (especially the Vice President) to shroud the day to day operations of the Executive branch in secrecy; we are not to know who is advising our leaders or how decisions are reached. Most Americans believe that Presidents are not Kings and thus are not above the law; neither are their friends.

A New Low for Bill O'Reilly? Yes it's Possible.

2007-07-20T19:43:00.001-05:00

Bill O'Reilly cites unspecified sources who state that Natalee Holloway was not in fact murdered but instead died of a cocaine overdose. He does not couch these allegations in terms of "might have," but instead says "the Factor has learned." Check the article to see what I'm talking about. So, to re-cap, O'Reilly cites an unnamed source leveling allegations that the 18 year old girl who disappeared in Aruba died of an accidental overdose of illegal drugs. I guess her body then just vanished because Bill's source seems to shed no new light on that mystery. Apparently this source was clairvoyant or knows something that he or she has not released to the official ongoing investigation into her disappearance. This strikes a bit close to home since Natalee and her mother lived down the street from me. While I did not know her (her family moved in after I'd left for college), she did go to my highschool and I know some of the other Mountain Brook students who were on the trip with her. Anyway, I'm glad O'Reilly has such certainty in his source to engage in such a slanderous attack on a young girl who is believed to be dead and cannot defend herself. Way to go Bill. You are entering the "No shame zone."

Oprah's Man

2007-07-18T11:25:00.000-05:00

Oprah Winfrey is now publicly endorsing Barack Obama for President and planning to host a fund raiser for him in September. Interesting since a few years ago she was calling on Hillary Clinton to run for President. As one of the worlds wealthiest women (worth over $1.5 billion) and a very influential media personality, her endorsement could be very important to pushing Obama over the top, especially among women who might favor Hillary. It will be interesting to watch how active Oprah is in backing Obama in the next few months...

Whoops

2007-07-13T11:42:00.000-05:00

So Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were caught on the tape by Fox News after a forum in Detroit saying their people should talk in an effort to push the second-tier candidates out of the debates (here's the video). Given the unpredictable nature of elections, not to mention the interests of free speech and fairness, this would seem to smack at the idea of a well-informed democracy. It's only July and a lot can happen before the first primaries in February of next year; it's a bit early to begin weeding people out. In most elections, second-tier candidates who don't take off drop out after a certain point and that is bound to happen to both the Democrats and Republicans over the coming months. Once that happens, the top candidates are bound to get the more intimate debates they desire. Anyway, this comes off as extremely negative to me and could hurt the Democrats as a whole later on; it just looks very bad. On a positive note, Obama was not involved in the exchange, indeed Clinton and Edwards seemed to clam up when he came to shake their hands. So, for Obama supporters this could be good news...

Well, there it is...

2007-07-11T22:03:00.000-05:00

Al-Qaida is now estimated to have regained it's organization and strength to pre-9/11 levels. What more is there to say? After taking its eyes off the ball to pursue a war in Iraq based on Neoconservative ideology and very little good sense, the failure to focus on those who attacked us has left them as strong as ever after nearly six years of "The War on Terror." Imagine if you will that we had poured half the resources spent on Iraq into Afghanistan and Pakistan. If such a serious and wholehearted effort had been made, would Bin Laden still be alive? What if the aid squandered in Iraq had been used in a determined effort to rebuild Afghanistan, a state that few realize is larger and more populous than Iraq, how would that country look today? Imagine too that our heavy handed stumbling around and alienating much of the world had not happened, and we enjoyed an environment of far greater cooperation where our NATO allies backed us fully and our "allies" in the Middle East and Pakistan were not dealing with populations inflamed by extremists using the propaganda gifts given of Abu-Ghraib, Guantanamo and the streets of Baghdad. Would Al-Qaida and the Taliban enjoy safe haven in Pakistan and portions of lawless Afghanistan? Why was it decided that Iraq more important than Afghanistan in the fight against extremists? What if Bush and Cheney had not been in charge in the aftermath of 9/11, where would we be today? They might say "don't focus on the past, what is done is done"; but still...what if?

No Comment (except WOW!)

2007-07-11T21:55:00.001-05:00

The Nation's Doctor or a Political Hack?

2007-07-11T00:48:00.000-05:00

In another example of ideology trumping science, here is an article on the experience of former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona who has told Congress of blatant politicization of health issues . This is very interesting information as the Senate prepares to hold confirmation hearings for President Bush's nominee to become the next Surgeon General, Dr. James Holsinger, Jr. If his record on gay issues is any indication, Dr. Holsinger would seem to be much more attuned to the ideology of the administration whose health policies tend to favor religious taboos and dogma over science and reason. This should be interesting; I wonder who is coaching the good doctor?

See my June 7th post for more on Dr. Holsinger.

Nixon's Man?

2007-07-09T21:45:00.000-05:00

Here is an illuminating article regarding Fred Thompson's role in the Watergate scandal based on newly released Nixon tapes. Thompson has appeared as something of an empty vessel into which conservatives have poured their hopes; but when and if he declares his past record will be scrutinized and stories such as these could be highly damaging. I wonder if this and other recent revelations that he might have lobbied for pro-choice groups (which he denies) has caused him to reconsider since many expected him to officially announce his candidacy over the July 4th holiday. Oh, and the article is also pretty hilarious in that unique way that only Nixon's confidential recorded conversations are.

A Tragedy

2007-07-09T00:26:00.000-05:00

"This above all: to thine own self be true." Hamlet (Act I, Sc. III)

When historians look back at the steady march to war in Iraq, Colin Powell will emerge as a tragic protagonist. Today he is gradually becoming more open about his misgivings before the invasion. Seen as one of the most accomplished advisers in a "dream team" that would guide the somewhat inexperienced President, Powell was (after 9/11) sidelined and cut off by the more Hawkish members of the administration led by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Although today regarded as something of a hindrance by the Neocons after taking over Powell's position, Condoleeza Rice (then National Security Adviser) tended to side with the "Vulcans" as they were known and seems to have actively assisted in curtailing Powell's access to the President. Powell, who combined military experience with diplomatic and strategic understanding was probably the best placed to give solid "big picture" advice on Iraq and it now appears that he did so in vain. Ironically, his views mirrored those of the elder President Bush whose warnings of the dangers of occupying Iraq were ignored by his son (whose rivalry with his father seems to lead him to willfully disregard the former President's views). Many suggest that Powell should have resigned to call attention to his misgivings, but therein lies the tragedy. Colin Powell was a career soldier who had been promoted to the heights of his profession by the elder President Bush. His background appears to have been a double edged sword in that while it gave him keen insights into the issues entailed by a second war with Iraq, his sense of loyalty and duty and a soldier's ingrained sense of deference to civilian authority (so important in a democracy) combined with his personal loyalty to the Bushes seems to have prevented him from making the personal political moves that would have brought his concerns out into the open. Could Colin Powell have stopped the war? If anyone could (excluding it's architects) it would have been him. Yet such an action were simply not in his character or experience. He remained loyal, was personally humiliated by the unraveling of the WMD intelligence he has presented at the UN, and was then pushed out of the administration all together for daring to challenge the Neocons. While today he has made himself available to advise all '08 candidates, the particular attention paid to his advising of Democrat Barack Obama must offer some quiet rebuke to those who scoffed at his warnings. It will be interesting to see any further role Powell plays in the lead up to '08 and beyond; I for one would welcome his participation as one whose past experiences will prove invaluable to prevent the same sorts of mistakes from being repeated.

The Economist and I Agree

2007-07-05T13:47:00.001-05:00

Here is a good article from the Economist mirroring my opinions and offering a good analysis of recent events. Recommended.

On Vacation

2007-07-03T23:53:00.001-05:00

Well, I've moved back to the United States as of the 1st. I'm in Florida celebrating Independence Day now, but I guess I might as well offer a few thoughts. Immigration reform failed, no huge surprise but still depressing. After two chances, once with a Republican Congress and once with a Democratic one, Bush has failed to push through immigration reform. This sadly vindicates my long held assertion that the only thing worse than a President you seldom agree with is a President you seldom agree with who drops the ball every time you do agree with him. Then he commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby, who had been given a minimal sentence by a Republican appointed judge after being convicted by a duly appointed jury in a case pursued by a Republican appointed prosecutor. For lying to investigators and the jury he should at least have served three or four weeks in minimum security like Paris Hilton, overcoming his claustrophobia and finding God or something equally inane. Now, I'm back here watching cable news where you would think that London had burnt to the ground. Family and friends are "glad I'm back safe" and Islamo-Fascist leaders are getting more air time than ever before after three terrorist attacks were thwarted by a combination of luck, courage and vigilance but thwarted none the less. Meanwhile, the British continue to use public transportation, go to work and live their lives in line with their proud traditions of the "stiff upper lip" when faced with adversity or threats. CNN, Fox News et al. with their hysterics could take a lesson from this. Riding down to Florida today and listening to XM Radio, BBC World was covering cricket while American news were continuing repetitive speculation over the motivations of the terrorists in the UK. Well, anyway, those are my thoughts. Happy 4th to all you Americans, sorry about the Revolution to my British friends and, well, good night and good luck to everyone else.

Whoops, He Did it Again

2007-06-26T11:14:00.000-05:00

President Bush is not known as one of the world's great orators. However, sometimes his misspeaks seem to be almost a Freudian slip of some kind. He doesn't just jumble words or stutter (though he does that plenty), but actually ends up saying things that play right into his opponents hands and contradict his entire message. Usually I find this mildly embarrassing in our nation's Chief Executive, but it is downright frustrating when it has to do with something I support him on. So, just before a vital vote on immigration reform, President Bush has called it "amnesty" when what he was trying to say was that it "wasn't an amnesty." Yes, the exact opposite of what he meant to say (isn't the first time). As usual, he did not acknowledge that he had misspoken and immediately correct himself; either he didn't realize his mistake or considers it a sign of weakness. Giving him credit as being intelligent enough to realize a mistake like that (not everyone would), I find it shocking that after all this time no one has sat him down and explained that sometimes when you really mess something up, it's alright to go back and clarify.

While all of this might seem trivial, this particular slip up gives last minute ammunition to opponents of comprehensive immigration reform where they can use the President's own words against him at a time when it's chances of passing the Senate already look slim. As I've said before, the plan is by no means perfect, but with the nature of compromise it is probably the best we can get right now. At least would mark a major step forward and give a starting point from which incremental changes can be made over time to improve the policy. But if it doesn't go through now the President and supporters of reform will have missed a crucial window of opportunity to make such an important step (for the second time) and leave us back to square one with a system that both sides believes is broken.

I can only shake my head and continue counting down to 2008.

Wiretaps and Civil Liberties

2007-06-24T08:06:00.000-05:00

See what pinko-Communist anti-American Federal Judge Royce Lambeth has to say about warrantless wiretaps. Clearly he's against The War on Terror and an example of judicial activism run amock. Pah, Civil Liberties in a time of perpetual war? As Dick Cheney would say, "how quaint." But I guess that's what you get when you allow wishy washy Democrats like Ronald Reagan to appoint judges. I would note that while on the FISA court he was somewhat like Sam I Am and was willing to approve warrants in his car, or from his home (at 3am), or from anywhere by cell phone...clearly we can't let such petty bureaucratic procedures slow down surveillance of American citizens.

Peace in the Middle East

2007-06-21T05:47:00.000-05:00

Here is a great editorial from the NY Times about the current events and the larger context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It looks like steps are now being taken by Israel, the US and EU to consolidate Abbas' power in the West Bank while maintaining pressure on Hammas in Gaza. If this becomes a stable arrangement, there might be a chance for some movement. I wonder if anyone has thought of assigning the dynamic duo of Bush '41 and Clinton to work on the issue? With Clinton's popularity and reputation as an honest broker and '41's reputation for coalition building and his relationship with the Saudi's, they might just be the team to lead the efforts. If President Bush is seeking a positive legacy, this might be a Hail Mary sort of chance, though for obvious reasons he'd have to be pretty hands off with the direct negotiations, leaving them to the bipartisan and respected predecessors. With Ehud Barak once again leading Labour, there could be a chance if all are bold enough to reach out and Abbas is brave enough to negotiate in good faith. By severing the links between the hotheads in Gaza wherein attacks from that area will not derail the process, there could be a chance. A Palestinian state in the West Bank would be a major step and Gaza absent Hammas could sign on later to a fait accompli. To work, Abbas would have to accept that settlements contiguous to Israel proper, namely those around Jerusalem, will not be dismantled. The Israeli leadership would have to be willing to give up all other settlements, perhaps with compensating land exchanges in other areas for both the Palestinians and the resettlement of settlers; some sort of arrangement over Palestinian access to Jersualem would also have to be worked out. The problems are the same as they have been for years, but pragmatism could turn the current crisis into an opportunity; there might never be a better time.

The Show Musn't Go On!

2007-06-17T05:46:00.000-05:00

After 35 years The Price is Right uber-host Bob Barker has hung up his showcases and entered a well earned retirement. Apparently there is talk at CBS that a new host will be hired and the show will continue. Rosie O'Donnell, "a big fan," has her hat in the ring along with several men to replace Bob. After decades of timeless pricing-game excitement in which only the prizes changed, I personally would have no interest in the show post-Barker. It had a good run, but the timelessness of the show was part of it's charm and any host would bring changes. Can we really see Rosie bantering with the "Price is Right girls" and holding that thin little microphone? Could she resist opening her mouth and starting a feud with, well, anyone? Next they'd be wanting to change the set! And is she or any of the other candidates willing to dedicate decades of their lives to the iconic game show? This isn't a few months on The View where you can cut your contract short to "pursue other options" when someone pisses you off. As a fan who used to watch the show over lunch between school and work, I would beg that the show be allowed to die gracefully with the caveat that Bob Barker's DNA be kept for the day when cloning technology will allow the re-creation of the show's only true host. Then we can have the pleasure of watching Bob 2.0 introduce package vacations to Mars and cars without wheels. Nothing else could do justice to this delightful slice of Americana or to the legend that is Bob Barker.

He wasn't using it anyway...

2007-06-16T17:45:00.000-05:00

More news from Gaza, where several private residences have been raided including the house belonging to the deceased Yasser Arafat. Along with furniture, clothes, pictures, electrical wiring and pipes, looters under the eyes of Hamas militants made away with Arafat's Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe they'll do the right thing give it back to the Swedes, since Hamas seems to be even less willing to truly seek peace than the deceased Arafat. Do I need to point out the irony in all of this?

And Then There Were Two

2007-06-15T08:33:00.001-05:00

Well, it looks like there are now effectively two Palestinian territories, Hammas controlled Gaza and the Fatah controlled West Bank. This seem to offer an object lesson on the dangers of religious fundamentalists pose to any democratic process; they are not willing to share power and eventually seek to seize it all for themselves. Maybe also the "moderate" Arab states will realize that dealing with Hammas is like playing with fire, and after the Saudis spent significant capital brokering a coalition government they must be quite upset. As for Gaza, it seems destined to continue its downward spiral as things get worse and worse for the tiny blighted and isolated area and the desperation there will undoubtedly create new dangers. The Palestinian population at large must regret voting in Hammas in a protest vote against the corruption of Fatah; Hammas Islamist agenda is not shared but the bulk of the population but now it looks like the residents of Gaza are more or less stuck with it. Maybe some good will come of this. If the split endures it might create a situation where some sort of peace process can move forward for the West Bank without the headaches associated with trying to negotiate over two geographically disconnected areas. But, with the Palestinian leaderships propensity to never miss opportunities to miss opportunities, one has to be skeptical.

Concert of Democracies?

2007-06-12T07:31:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to point out this very interesting article from the Economist regarding the nascent idea of a "Concert of Democracies." Food for thought, and since it's been brought up by both John McCain and Bill Richardson already, we might be hearing more of it.

OK, so I was wrong...

2007-06-10T18:40:00.000-05:00

Apparently President Bush is hugely popular in Albania. They've even re-named the street in front of their Parliament in his honor. He also pretty much promised independence for Kosovo (with its majority Albanian population) with or without Russian agreement. It seems he is finally taking a hard line with Putin after their meeting at the G-8 Summit in Germany. Maybe the Bush-Putin honeymoon is over? Anyway, I can almost hear Willie Nelson singing: "Albania, Albania..." (it truly is hard to rhyme).

Nothing Special

2007-06-10T11:59:00.000-05:00

I believe it's a problem when the President of the United States, the "leader of the free world," can't go anywhere without attracting large protests both peaceful and violent. While grocery shopping yesterday I stopped to watch the plasma tvs in my local Tesco, where the BBC was reporting marches-cum-violent protests in Rome against President Bush's visit. I did not realize how bad it was until I noticed that the protests didn't even register on the Drudge Report. In other words, the rampant anger at the President of the US is so commonplace nowadays as to be a non-story. Paris Hilton's incarceration escapades were prominently featured, as were George Michaels', but as for George W. Bush there was nothing. Of course they were mentioned in stories about his meeting with the Pope, along with the expected embarrassing flubs of protocol, but no banner headlines about the tear gas in the streets. Granted, amongst the protesters there were the usual suspects of anarchists, un-reconstructed communists...primarily students with dreadlocks (not that there's anything wrong with that)...but the scope of these protests and their ubiquity is what makes them unnerving in that they are attracting a far larger crowd beyond the typical anti-WTO/globalization/meat-eating crowd. The President of the United States cannot travel in Europe, Latin America or Asia without significant protests. That's scary. We can only hope that the silver lining in this is that the deification of Bush will mean that some of this will dissipate after the 2008 elections...

What's the deal with George Michael?

2007-06-07T21:25:00.000-05:00

I still do not get the British press' fascination with George Michael. Here is the most recent article. By my non-scientific observations (and lack of really caring) I think he's mentioned more often than the Queen and only slightly less than Tony Blair but more than Paris Hilton. His amazing melt down of a life is played out blow by blow in tv, internet and both free and paid print media. I mean, it's rather sad, but I don't get it. OK, so now I'm commenting on it, so I guess I've been here too long. But I still don't really care. It's just one of those questions, like the French and Jerry Lewis or the Germans and "The Hoff."

Sweet Home Alabama

2007-06-07T19:01:00.000-05:00

I always cringe when I see my home state has made the national news; this little tidbit does not disappoint. I swear, there are a lot of good things in Alabama, honestly.

Another "Good Man"

2007-06-07T13:34:00.000-05:00

President Bush has made yet another controversial nomination, this time to fill the position of Surgeon General. While the administration claims to have been unaware of the scientifically dubious writings of Dr. James W. Holsinger, Jr. regarding homosexuality, that would be highly surprising given the extensive background checks and professional assessments one would expect for such a high-profile appointment. So, once again it's either gross incompetence or ideology and I place my bets on ideology. Well, that and a healthy helping of mendacity about their knowledge of Dr. Holsinger's work and their own motives for his appointment. In the words of Dr. Holsinger: "Res Ipsa Loquitor-The Thing Speaks for Itself!"

One would think that this President and his advisers would learn their lessons and not play politics with such an important position, especially given the increasing dissatisfaction with this administration (and the Democratic Congress) which will limit it's ability to force through such a nomination, not to mention the very real health risks on the horizon that the next Surgeon General will need to grapple with. Well, at least they're continuing to show consistency in failing to learn from past mistakes. Hopefully, if Dr. Holsinger has not changed his views on the subject and continues to hold his religious beliefs over his scientific duties, he will have the good sense and decency to withdraw his nomination.

Blog Design

2007-06-05T20:20:00.000-05:00

Dear readers,
It's getting close to exams so I probably won't post as often for now. I was wondering what you thought about the design of the blog. Is there anything you'd like changed to make it more user friendly or easier to read? Just wondering.

Oh, I will say that this almost makes me feel sorry for President Bush. It must really be sad losing all of your friends; well at least the ones you haven't given appointed positions in your administration or an international organization, which they might or might not have blown by now. Wonder what our esteemed AG's future holds?

Mobilization

2007-06-04T18:02:00.000-05:00

My internet connection is rather slow and I was unable to watch the last Democratic debate in New Hampshire last night. I have now watched the first third in archive and would like to comment on an argument made by Hillary Clinton. Her contention (and she is not alone in this) that voting to give the President the authority to invade Iraq did not guarantee such an invasion and that President Bush betrayed his "promise" to allow the inspections to run their course is politically correct and, I would argue, disingenuous.

Think back to 2002-2003 as the invasion was coming together. Once authorization was granted and the buildup of troops and equipment began, did any of us who were paying attention really believe that the invasion wasn't inevitable? I remember sitting in a sophomore Middle East Politics Class at C of C and discussing the upcoming war as if it had already begun. The problem goes back over a century to the dawn of industrialized warfare. The case study is the tragic start of World War I. Once the opposing powers had mobilized, war was inevitable because the cost and disruption of mobilization was so high. Once Russia began to mobilize, Germany had to mobilize; leading to a French mobilization and so on. Once the troops were on the border and ready to initiate the war plans, there was no turning back. Mobilization was tantamount to war.

While the advent in the US of a all-volunteer army would seem to stop this since a national mobilization was not needed, the paradigm remained the same as massive cost and disruptions to regular deployments was caused by the buildup. Anyone who thought that the 200+ thousand troops would just sit there and then leave without invading was lying to themselves. Once the troops are deployed, there really is no turning back because the goal was regime change and Hussein wasn't going anywhere. The Senators and Congresspeople who voted for the war at the time, Edwards, Clinton, Biden, McCain et. al must have known this. We knew it in our classroom, surely they knew it in the Capitol.

Putin and the Zen of Democracy

2007-06-04T16:53:00.000-05:00

Wow, Vladimir Putin is pretty ballsy; apparently he's not just the world's only true Democrat, but has to stretch back to Gandi to find intellectual soul mates. I find it especially interesting that he cites tough riot control tactics in other European countries, I guess preemptively breaking up any shows of dissent don't count. It's amazing that as his rhetoric growingly matches that of Ahmadinejad and Chavez, comparing the US to Nazi Germany, he still enjoys the special friendship with President George W. Bush, who has invited him to the family compound in Kennebunkport. I think when President Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul, Putin was wearing special KGB contacts. Then again, it does help to actually have nukes out the yin-yang I guess.

Unfortunately our own policies undermine our ability to call him on his increasingly bellicose language. Our unilateral scrapping of the ABM Treaty in pursuit of a missile defense system of questionable value has made us less safe, not deterring rogue states while leading established nuclear powers like Russia and China to vastly increase their abilities to overwhelm any conceivable defense by enlarging and modernizing their rockets. Meanwhile, the "shield" is hit-or-miss in prepared and carefully controlled tests. To quote Han Solo said: "Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living? That's something else." Much easier to just destroy the rockets on the ground than to wait until their in the air; terrorists aren't going to use ICBMs when they have thousands of willing to bring a WMD in by hand. Scrapping the ABM Treaty (and developing new atomic weapons) with so little regard for the response of others has made us less secure and given us little credibility in opposing Putin's decision to do the same on the deployment of intermediate range missiles. Similarly, we bring of Chechnya, they bring up Iraq, we bring up crackdowns on the opposition, they cite Abu Gareib and Guantanamo.

Whoever the next President is will have quite a challenge to regain our moral footing and respect to get others to cooperate with us. Meanwhile, Putin will continue to run circles around his "friend" as he vilifies the US to further legitimate his hold on power and prepares to anoint a successor while remaining in charge "behind the scenes." At least Secretary of State Rice is in her element again; her training as a Sovietologist must really be coming in handy right now.

Comments technical fix!

2007-06-01T15:58:00.000-05:00

It was brought to my attention that I did not allow anonymous comments to be posted, I've fixed this now so you no longer have to be a blogspot or google member to leave a comment.

This hits a bit close to home...

2007-06-01T15:41:00.000-05:00

The summer I got out of college in 2004 I worked for a law firm (Ok, my Dad's). At the time, the former Democratic governor Don Siegelman was under yet another legal assault on his ethics. The widespread view in the legal community seemed to be that it was politically motivated by two new U.S. Attorneys recently appointed by the Bush Administration. Well, here it is, linking the prosecution to Karl Rove. The fact that the case alleging the connection was brought by a staunch Republican would seem to give it greater weight. Personally, I like our current governor, Bob Riley (a Republican) and the fact that his son seems to be connected to this is worrying. But, I guess politics truly is a "bloodsport" so it shouldn't be shocking.

Now that Rove & Co. stand much weakened in esteem and influence, this is an interesting reminder of how omnipotent they once appeared. Now Siegelman stands convicted, so I'll leave it up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions about how kosher this all was. Thanks to my good friend Will for sending me this article.

Run Fred Run!

2007-05-30T17:24:00.001-05:00

It now appears likely that Fred Thompson will throw his hat in for the Republican nomination sometime on or around Independence Day (July 4th). I for one say the more the merrier. If Al Gore decides to try for the Democratic nomination, I say go for it. It's very rare to have a Presidential race with no incumbent or heir apparent, and I for one think it will be a good time for both parties to mark out where they stand and offer American voters a real broad range of choices in the primaries and hopefully a very strong match-up for the general elections. So, with no president or vice-president running (PLEASE DON'T SURPRISE ME DICK!), 2008 promises to be an exciting year for political junkies and a rejuvenating year for political interest and awareness in the United States. With all the big issues at stake today, there couldn't be a better time.

Support the President

2007-05-29T13:27:00.000-05:00

They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee, and that explains a lot of proposals that break through the institutional and partisan gridlock in Washington to become law. The bi-partisan Senate immigration plan supported by President Bush is such a policy. Is it perfect? Of course not. But perfection is in the eye of the beholder, and a policy which anti-immigrant Conservatives attack as "amnesty" and immigrants rights groups attack as cruel would seem to be striking a pretty good balance. The truth is that something needs to be done. If this passes and is signed by President Bush, it will not solve the problem for all time (a poor choice of wording by the President as asual, see link) but it can be the start we need to begin true reform and keep putting this problem off.

So, as a person who often disagrees with this President, I am perhaps most frustrated with him when his squandering of political capital prevents the success of policies I agree with because, let's face it, this bill will not be shot down by the Democrats. Is it a thoroughbred? No. But will it's comprehensive nature carry water? To strain the analogy; maybe even two humps worth.

On a mission from God?

2007-05-29T13:16:00.000-05:00

Tom Delay receives his marching orders directly from the Heavenly Father, and other interesting observations on the Republican party. Also, breakfast with Newt Gengrich; all in this issue of the New Yorker.

What Constitution?

2007-05-28T19:32:00.000-05:00

And speaking of the Constitution (smile and nod), I just wanted to point out this article in Newsweek about the ever widening scandals at the Department of Justice.

Falwell Smiles Down

2007-05-28T18:35:00.000-05:00

Jerry Falwell's body may have barely started a'moldering in his grave, but it appears that his spirit is already quite active. This evidenced by a probe launched by a Polish government appointed "children's rights" watchdog into whether Tinky Winky of the popular children's show Teletubbies is gay. To quote spokeswoman Ewa Sowinska: "At first I thought the purse would be a burden for this Teletubby ... Later I learned that this may have a homosexual undertone." Luckily, her early concern for poor Tinky's welfare was replaced by revelation that this could, in fact, be a part of the sinister international homosexual agenda to make all children gay. Wherever he is, Rev. Falwell must be having a good laugh over this; and not for the obvious punchline that due to the miracles of syndication Poland is re-hashing a "controversy" he launched in the US way back in 1999 (I heard a rumor that Pamela Anderson might leave Baywatch...). The human rights backsliding in Poland, which was at the forefront of the first round of post-Communist states to join the EU, is quite worrying. But, then there's always Russia.

Ok, long again.

2007-05-28T17:41:00.000-05:00

I'm still working on blog style writing. That was a bit shorter than my last long post, and I guess I should withdraw any blanket promise of brevity. In general I will strive to be as short as possible, though I tend to qualify and explain (aka ramble) a bit. I will continue to try and hone my writing but since I'm in the midst of exams, papers and dissertation please forgive a little extra fluff for the time being ;).

When Appearance Matters

2007-05-28T15:28:00.001-05:00

The quaint term that keeps coming to mind in regards to this whole Paul Wolfowitz imbroglio is "the appearance of impropriety." No surprise he's blaming "the [liberal] media" and "an overheated atmosphere at the [world] bank." As a "lay person," it would appear to me that he used his position at the bank to secure special treatment for his girlfriend Shaha Reza, getting her a new job at the State Department through the World Bank to avoid conflicts of interest (good idea) but then seeing to it that she was well compensated; her tax free bank salary rose to $193,000 a year before raising red flags (bad idea). By way of comparison, Secretary of State Rice's salary is $186,000 BEFORE tax.

I'm generally skeptical about claims of blanket media bias and believe that it generally is a two edged sword depending on whose having the juicy scandal at the moment. The hostility of other major donor countries, especially from Europe, is a somewhat weak defense since the administration nominated and pushed through Wolfowitz for the position knowing his unpopularity with much of the rest of the world as a major architect of the Iraq war. But, assuming the existence of such prejudice in Mr. Wolfowitz's case, wouldn't that be an even better reason for extra vigilance in avoiding any appearance of impropriety? In many firms and organizations, that is why employees (in the same department) are discouraged from romantic involvement (especially when on is in a position of authority over the other). It would appear that in helping to arrange Ms. Reza's reassignment to State, Wolfowitz was fully aware of this standard. However, to remain involved in the details of her employment after that point shows a serious lack of judgment, arrogance, or a combination of the both. So he blames the advice of the legal councilors at the bank? That's fine except this sort of issue would seem to be one well within the common sense of a person who has held high positions in government and was then serving as president of a major international organization.

While it's admirable that Mr. Wolfowitz then tried to shift the debate back to the failure of wealthy countries to meet their donor commitments, it is clear that by that point he had lost credibility and it was best that he left the already troubled institution before dragging it down further. Bottom line, Wolfowitz should have known better.

Would another person have gotten more slack? Sure. The moral and of the story then, for the US government and especially the current administration and President Bush, is that after really pissing off most of your allies its best not to then rub their nose in it by forcing through unpopular nominees just because they happen to be "a good guy/girl." It's sorta like the President nominating his personal counsel to the Supreme Court, or another "good guy" to be U.N. Ambassador. I don't know, has there been a trend here? Maybe the lesson will sink in before '08.

One little clarification...

2007-05-27T19:11:00.001-05:00

Oh yeah, looking back over the really long post from yesterday, I want to clarify that I did not mean to imply that the allegations of the Clintons putting out a hit on people while in the White House are something that "might or might not be true." I think that most sane people can agree that they are ridiculous. I mean, I don't think even Dick Cheney would do that. Now if Pat Robertson had ever been elected to the presidency, he might have asked that certain people be "taken out." But, I mean, was Pat ever really a serious contender anyway? Even if he can leg press 2,000 pounds.

Libertarian Wisdom

2007-05-27T16:13:00.000-05:00

A good article on the impact that affluence has on American politics. The article centers on a book by Brink Linsey, VP of the Cato institute and offers a compelling argument for the "big picture" of American politics. In the day to day it is easy to get caught up in the tunnel-visioned bickering between the parties, it's good to step back from time to time. I think I'd like to read this book.

Other than that, a relatively slow news day without much to comment on...at least according to a perusal of Drudge Report.

That was too long

2007-05-26T19:39:00.002-05:00

Ok, that was way too long, I got tired reading it. Well, I figure at least it will sort of give you a view of how I think. But no more essays like that, I just have been holding that in for a while (see why I want to let it all out?).

So, how about Fred Thompson's response to Michael Moore's invitation to debate him on health care? Having been to Cuba (legally) I am in favor of ending our counterproductive embargo policies towards our neighbor. If we can trade with Vietnam, with whom we fought a bloody decade long conflict, surely we can do the same with Cuba. I mean, after 50 years it's sorta clear that it's not going to topple Castro and there's a strong argument that the embargo is what has kept him in power. Trade and engagement are generally the better policy with most opponents when we aren't at war with them.

Regardless, Thompson's response is a beautiful thing and a perfect display of why many Reagan Conservatives are salivating over the chance to run an actor again. I think he would add an interesting twist to 2008 race and I for one hope he runs. Do it for the Gipper Fred.

So, about Hillary...

2007-05-26T19:10:00.000-05:00

Ok, I'll preface by saying I generally hold a positive view of Bill Clinton. I grew up with him as President and appreciate his great strengths as the occupant of the Oval Office. He also has many weaknesses, but I'd trade in a minute with what I consider weaknesses with his successor.

But this is about Hillary. I want to like her, I even did for a while, but I simply find that her positioning and re-positioning to balance between "moderate Hillary" and "liberal Hillary" are just too transparent. I think the day I lost faith in her was the day she pushed for a law against flag burning, a silly half-way measure between allowing free speech (a good thing, right?) and pushing for a Constitutional amendment. Now I'm usually all for compromise, it's how things get done in Washington, but this was an issue that needed no solution. To paraphrase President Bartlett ;), is there some rash of flag burning that I don't know about? This is a non-issue that Republicans bring up from time to time to paint Democrats as un-American, and here's Hillary jumping at it like it's a real issue in need of a solution because, I don't know, does that woo moderates? At this point, she is not my first choice for Democratic candidate, though I am not firmly decided yet and will not rule her out (full disclosure, I'm leaning towards Obama, but it isn't even 2008 yet so there's still a lot to learn about everyone).

So, with that stated, I'm fed up with all the books smearing the Clintons and was seriously annoyed to see that two more are coming out soon. The fact that they're by respected journalists is equally annoying as I think we've had enough and, as usual, they seem to be peddling rumors and innuendo by former friends and associates. My view on this is that they are a political couple, no one has ever thought otherwise, they have been in the limelight for decades first in Arkansas and then on the world stage. There has never been any cover up of the fact that Hillary is an ambitious, intelligent, flawed and at times ruthless politician. Wow, is this news, she's a Senator whose been running for the Presidency since her husband left office. Most other candidates share the same traits she does to varying degrees. If she wasn't a woman, this wouldn't be a story. I mean, she's got her rough edges, but she's no Richard Nixon.

These periodic books on what little private lives the Clinton's enjoy are useless to the debate and each one further poisons politics. The are read by partisans who have already made up their minds, and simply hash and re-hash stories that might or might not be true. Is Hillary a lesbian? Was Bill going to divorce her, or was it the other way around? Did they have people killed while they were in the White House? Are they good parents? Do we really need to know and is there any absolutely true answer to be had on any of these questions? In the end, the personalization of politics has a caustic effect on our Republic.

While we're at it, John McCain is not the Manchurian Candidate, Mitt Romney is not trying to turn the U.S. into a Mormon state, and even if Bill and Hillary planned for her to be President after her, could they then snap their fingers and make it happen? At the end of the day, it is up to the informed citizen to inform him or herself about those who represent or seek to represent them in our system, from the local level up to the presidency. While "character" issues and other background can be enlightening, the public record is generally much more important for those seeking to make informed decisions when voting and participating in our system.

So, that's a long way of saying I don't plan to read Her Way or A Woman in Charge and the Clinton campaign is right to use whatever tools at their disposal to counter attack; after all if Hillary doesn't learn from John Kerry's campaign, who will?

EXCELSIOR!

2007-05-26T18:29:00.000-05:00

Dear reader,

excelsior-1. Latin phrase meaning "higher." Also the state motto of New York.
2. Slender, curved wood shavings used especially for packing.
3. A starship in the fictional Star Trek series, Captain Sulu (George Takei) commanding.

Well, those are the definitions I found when trying to find a blog title that wasn't taken. I think I'll generally stick with the first; not that packing things in wood shavings isn't an interesting topic for a blog, far from it, I mean...nevermind. As far as the Star Trek reference, just my way of slipping in that I am, indeed, a proud geek from way back and happen to find George Takei hilarious, check out some YouTube clips some time ("Oh my!").

I'm already rambling and it's my first post. I figured I'd start lighthearted since, focusing on definition #1 I will be absolutely serious from now on. No joke. Oh, and use of a word translating as "higher" should not be taken to related to any illegal substances, shame on you for thinking that.

So, Michael, what is this blog about? It will generally focus on my thoughts on the news and world as I see it. That sounds pretty damn pompous now that I read it, but hey, isn't that what a blog is for? I will probably focus on politics, can't help it, but will often stray into other topics. "Excelsior" is a subtle reminder to myself to try and do a good job, to elevate discussion where possible and generally do a good job with this. This is my first blog, so please bear with me (I just checked, if I had asked you to "bare with me" I would have been inviting you to disrobe with me...this isn't that kind of blog).

So, with the shattering of a fine bottle of champagne I christen my little corner of the web Excelsior! and will strive to put out a quality product that we can all enjoy together. Please comment with any criticisms, insights or advice either on my topics or my blogging style.

Thanks for reading,
Michael