The Difference

I'm on my way out, but this post from Spencer Ackerman's Iraq'd blog succinitly sums up the difference between Kerry and Bush's Iraq position.

Kerry and Bush share one major plank of an Iraq policy: Both support rapidly training and equipping Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, a position that used to be known as "Iraqification." This is the right strategy in the medium-to-long term. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld chose to make it a strategy for the immediate term, and the result is the chaos that a President Kerry would inherit. At this late hour, with anti-occupation fury a widely shared sentiment among Iraqis, adding more U.S. troops, even if it were an option, is likely to generate even more hostility, as the CSIS report referenced below points out. Bush made this mistake. A Kerry administration would have to live with it.

The key issue on which Kerry's position on Iraq diverges from Bush's is on internationalization. As I've written before, I don't see much hope for foreign troops in any significant number to relieve overburdened U.S. forces. However, Kerry's internationalization strategy doesn't only mean foreign troops. It means a renewed diplomatic push for debt forgiveness and foreign aid that Bush has been unable to produce. While I'm not expecting a President Kerry to hit the foreign-treasury jackpot, it's likely that Kerry could produce at least some diplomatic results that the loathed Bush can't.

Furthermore, Kerry does have at least one idea that I think is valuable for the future of Iraq on its own terms, and it's one that Bush probably will never embrace. That is, holding a regional conference on stabilizing Iraq, "in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq's borders and non-interference in IraqÂ’s internal affairs." This means dealing diplomatically with decidedly disgusting regimes like Syria and Iran. In particular it means dealing with Iran at a time of international crisis over its nuclear program. But, as a new poll from the International Republican Institute demonstrates (caution: PowerPoint), Iraqis view all the regional countries as playing net negative roles in the country. Unless there can be some attempt--and it might fail--to secure regional cooperation, Iraq will continue its swift descent into becoming the Lebanon of the early 21st century, with neighboring countries intensifying their attempts to coopt or prop up various Iraqi factions. It's not a question of such regional diplomacy being a particularly enticing option. It's a question of Bush's disastrous occupation bringing us to the point where we have to prioritize: Is the prospect of stabilizing Iraq important enough to us to bring us to the negotiating table with Iran--especially while we try to stop Iran's nuclear program? Bush's preferred approach is to pretend the dilemma doesn't exist, and have his speechwriters concoct some soundbite that portrays the resulting chaos as a speedbump on the inexorable road to Middle Eastern democracy.

In short, a Kerry administration will be inheriting an Iraq policy that will suffer from several severe constraints. Those constraints are due to the disaster of President Bush's occupation--notably, the unwillingness to send more troops to provide security early on and the subsequent inability for most reconstruction projects to actually occur, to name just two particularly cataclysmic mistakes. More than anything else, bitter experience demonstrates why Bush is unqualified for another four years of presiding over Iraq policy. Kerry might indeed lead the occupation further into the ditch. The last year has proven that Bush definitely will. And, given a choice between some measure of hope and no hope at all, I think the choice is pretty clear.

Despite the GOP spin, Kerry's position on Iraq has been rather stable. He's been for the war and against the methods we used to fight it. Since Bush's methods have led to disaster, I'm not unopen to new ideas to fight what remains a very important US objective.

Religious Thought

Religion isn't really the main subject of this blog, but this quote has always interested me.

West of Kabul, East of New York by Tamim Ansary Pg. 145-6

Are certain beliefs and behaviors good because God commands them? Or does God command them because they are good?

….If certain beliefs are good only because God commands them, it means that God might change his directives at any time. Logically its possible that justice and charity would suddenly be foul and murder good. Incest and Child Molestation might be celebrated deeds…while the moral and ethical weaklings among us would succumb to such corrupt and contemptible temptations as love, generosity and hope.

Unthinkable, you say, that God would ever promulgate such an ethos? Why not—because it wouldn’t be right? If you think that way, you’ve slipped over to the other side. You’ve assumed that right and wrong, good and bad have a status prior to God and more fundamental than He. If God cannot, from his almighty and unknowable will, enjoin murder and cruelty as virtues, God is not limitless or omnipotent.

Thoughts?

Too Good to be True

Could this be? I'm not REALLY optimistic about it, but it has the potential to be explosive:

TNR 09/02/04 "The Grumblers" by Franklin Foer

senior from Fordham University wearing an untucked white shirt stood to challenge the panel. "Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. It feels like we've had the third term of a Clinton presidency," he said, decrying the dramatic growth of government on the president's watch. "Is there any betrayal that we wouldn't support?" With so many party loyalists in the room, you might have expected such comments to elicit boos. Instead, there was scattered applause. One man shouted, "Yes!" Stephen Moore, the president of the Club for Growth and the morning's moderator, solemnly turned to the speakers. "Why don't we address this? It's a serious question."

It wasn't just a stray moment of discontent. For all the encomiums GOP speakers have been showering on George W. Bush from the podium at Madison Square Garden, conservatives--especially conservative intellectuals--have a far less rosy view of the president. Last month, Andrew Ferguson wrote in The Weekly Standard, "[W]e'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing." Or, as conservative columnist Bruce Bartlett told me, "People are careful about how they say it and to who they say it, but, if you're together with more than a couple of conservatives, the issue of would we be better or worse off with Kerry comes up--and it's seriously discussed."

Do I think that Conservatives are going to defect en masse to Kerry? Of course not (though the article insinuates that one conservative academic-who I've quoted before-Prof. Niall Ferguson of NYU, has now thrown his support to Kerry). But its pretty hard to motivate the base when they are geniunely angry at their party's standard bearer.

The more interesting consquence could be that this could be the first election in a 100 years where both candidates are generally disliked. The animosity towards Bush on the left is legendary, and now his "allies" on the right are grumbling too. Liberals tend not have any love for Kerry (they'd vote for a trained monkey before they would vote for Bush...I summarize this view, my own, as "Better a freak chance than no chance."). Of course, Conservatives geniunely do think Kerry is an oppurtunistic flipflopper, and some of the more paranoid ones are even buying into the SBVT crap being put out there.

Ironically enough, this might be the perfect time for a third party candidate emerge, but the only viable one is Ralph Nader, and he's even more loathed than Bush or Kerry put together.

Huzzah for democracy!

Back in Town

Hey everyone!

Hope y'all didn't miss me too much, but it look like Greg did a great job holding down the fort, so I don't think it was too rough on you. Thanks alot Greg!

I'm at college now, and internet access in my dorm is still pretty spotty. I'm guessing that things will be pretty hectic for awhile, so I don't know when I'll begin posting in earnest again, but I plan on starting as soon as possible. There's so much news I have to catch up on!

Anyway, cheers!

(and a very belated Congratulations to Professer Daniel Drezner, on the birth of his daughter)! Mazel Tov to the whole Drezner family)

Clinton

I send my best wishes to the Clinton family, and wish Bill Clinton a speedy recovery from his heart surgery. I'm sure that Dave would too, if he wasn't in 'Middle of Nowhere, MN.' Anyway, I know some of you probably think that Clinton was one of the worst presidents ever to set foot in the Oval Office; fine. Just don't let your politics interfere with your humanity.

Hundreds Dead in Russian School

An unholy cross between a Columbine-like school shooting and separatist terrorism has left, at latest count, more than 200 dead in a Russian School.

Not quite two years ago, a similar crisis occurred in a Moscow theatre. Here, Russian special forces used fentanyl to anesthetize everyone in the theatre before attacking. A great plan, but nearly 130 hostages died because of overdoses. Some, perhaps many of these deaths were preventable with naloxone (a drug which reverses the effects of fentanyl), but, because medics hadn't been warned, not enough was available. BBC Coverage of the theatre incident.

One would think that this hostage fiasco would have convinced Russia to shape up their counter-terrorism operations. It seems not. The story of the current crisis goes like this: a bunch of kids are being held as hostages, but one of the hostage-takers had rigged a bomb wrong. It fell, and detonated. Panic ensued, and the children (hostages) tried to flee, at which point gunmen opened fire. Russian Special forces returned fire, and tried to storm the building with a number of armed civilians (!). Unfortunately, no one had a clue - the special forces were not yet ready to assault the building; the BBC notes that some were in such a hurry to do something that they forgot to wear armbands that would let them be identified as friendly.

How many wake up calls does a country need before it realizes that competent counter-terrorism is important?

Anticipating Bush

What can I say, I'm psyched for Bush's speech tonight, and I'll be sure to write an analysis piece... tomorrow. Besides, I'd stand a significant chance of "misunderestimating" my favorite politician were I to write before watching. In the mean time, Tom Toles, editorial cartoonist for The Washington Post, raises a very important question: how will they decorate?


(courtesy of www.ucomics.com)

Realpolitik Online

Rep. Edward L. Schrock withdrew his re-election bid in Virginia's 2nd District. Today's Washington Post helps to explain why (page A7, By Peter Whoriskey and Chris L. Jenkins):

The claim that the Republican congressman pursued gay trysts had been presented to journalists and political opponents as far back as three years ago and had never found its way into print. But Michael Rogers, the publisher of blogACTIVE.com, which he says aims to expose the hypocrisy of gay politicians who vote against gay rights, ran with it Aug. 19. He posted an audio file in which a man asks "to get together with a guy from time to time to just to play," later suggesting oral sex.

Rogers's blog never offered proof that the voice was Schrock's, but it led Schrock to withdraw from the race 11 days after its posting.

[...]

Rogers said he was angered by stands that Schrock had taken on gay-rights issues, including co-sponsoring a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriages.

He scoffed at any suggestion that the congressman might have been misidentified on the audio.

"When is the last time a congressman resigned over baseless allegations?" Rogers said. "If the congressman believes it is untrue, I welcome him to file a libel or slander suit against me."

Dave promised his faithful readership (of how many...?) that I'd write on ethics. Here, it's easy to get other issues out of the way: I think the legality of this is pretty clear, assuming the story is true, and it's publication is probably also a helpful thing, since such writing helps to keep the media accountable. Ethical? I think not. Mostly, I have a problem at a fundamental level with character assassination of any sort: in politics, in the courts, or elsewhere. Attacks on character serve one purpose and one purpose only: subverting reasoned opinions by arousing base emotions. Attacks such as these twist our capacity for moral judgment, and eliminate our capacity for unbiased decision making. In most political societies, we think of that as a bad thing.

Let me be up front. I don't think we should erect far reaching sanctions against personal attacks (assuming they're true - otherwise, they're slander/libel). My view is that a little bit of social ethics would go a long way - don't publish private lives, and don't be personal in attacks. My personal favorite philosopher, Thomas Nagel, phrases this very nicely:

Thomas Nagel in "Concealment and Exposure"
Originally published in Philosophy and Public Affairs 1998 (vol 27 no 1)

Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court could have been legitimately rejected by the Senate on grounds of competence and judicial philosophy, but I believe the challenge on the basis of his sexual victimization of Anita Hill was quite unjustified, even though I'm sure it was all true. At the time I was ambivalent; like a lot of people, I would have been glad to see Thomas rejected for any reason. But that is no excuse for abandoning the private-public distinction: This sort of bad personal conduct is completely irrelevant to the occupation of a position of public trust, and if the press hadn't made an issue of it, the Senate Judiciary Committee might have been able to ignore the rumors. There was no evidence that Thomas didn't believe in the equal rights of women. It is true that Hill was his professional subordinate, but his essential fault was being personally crude and offensive: It was no more relevant than would have been a true charge of serious maltreatment from his ex-wife.

But consider the situation we are in: The only way to avoid damage to someone's reputation by facts of this kind, in spite of their irrelevance to qualification for public office, is through a powerful convention of nonacknowledgment. If this is rejected as a form of male mutual self-protection, then we are stuck with masses of irrelevant and titillating material clogging up our public life and the procedures for selection of public officials, and shrinking the pool of willing and viable candidates for responsible positions. I'm not objecting to the regulation of conduct at the individual level. It is a good thing that sexual coercion of an employee or a student should be legally actionable, and that the transgression of civilized norms should be an occasion for personal rebuke. What is unfortunate is the expansion of control beyond this by a broadening of the conception of sexual harassment to include all forms of unwelcome or objectionable sexual attention, and the increasingly vigilant enforcement of expressive taboos. Too much in the personal conduct of individuals is being made a matter for public censure, either legally or through the force of powerful social norms. As Mill pointed out in On Liberty, the power of public opinion can be as effective an instrument of coercion as law in an intrusive society.

from Concealment and Exposure

One good thing to come out of this is a sound demonstration of the effects of blogging. I'm feeling powerful already.

On the Ball

The New York Times Magazine points to the instability of the current Republican party and the possibility of a massive conservative civil war if Bush loses this election.

So now we have two sorts of Republicans. The first group is made up of people who still mouth the words about reducing the size of government but don't even pretend to live according to their creed. These Republicans, mostly in Congress, go home to their states and districts and rail against Washington and big government. Then when they get back to Capitol Hill they behave like members of any majority party. They try to use their control over the federal purse to buy votes. They embrace appropriations and champion pork with an enthusiasm that makes your eyes pop.

For them, the old anti-statist governing philosophy exists in the airy-fairy realm of ideals. When it actually comes time to make some decisions about priorities and spending, they have no governing philosophy and hence no discipline. The money just splurges out. ''The current version of the Republican Party is engaged in an outrageous spending binge, and they're being steadied and encouraged by Democrats,'' John McCain observed recently.

The money is appropriated in increments large and small -- a $180 billion corporate tax bill one week, a steady stream of pork projects all the rest. In 1994, there were 4,126 ''earmarks'' -- special spending provisions -- attached to the 13 annual appropriations bills. In 2004, there were around 14,000. Real federal spending on the Departments of Education, Commerce and Health and Human Services has roughly doubled since the Republicans took control of the House in 1994. This is a governing majority without shape, coherence or discipline.

The second group of Republicans is at least trying to come up with a governing philosophy that applies to the times. It understands the paradox that if you don't have a positive vision of government, you won't be able to limit the growth of government. If you can't offer people a vision of what government should do, you won't be able to persuade them about the things it shouldn't do. If the Republican Party is going to evolve into a principled majority party, members of this group are going to have to build a governing philosophy based on this insight.

This is hardly the only schism in the Republican party, however.

There used to be a spirit of solidarity binding all the embattled members of the conservative movement. But with conservatism ascendant, that spirit has eroded. Should Bush lose, it will be like a pack of wolves that suddenly turns on itself. The civil war over the future of the party will be ruthless and bloody. The foreign-policy realists will battle the democracy-promoting Reaganites. The immigrant-bashing nativists will battle the free marketeers. The tax-cutting growth wing will battle the fiscally prudent deficit hawks. The social conservatives will war with the social moderates, the biotech skeptics with the biotech enthusiasts, the K Street corporatists with the tariff-loving populists, the civil libertarians with the security-minded Ashcroftians. In short, the Republican Party is unstable.

Of course, I could be misreading the situation. The GOP could implode even if it wins this election (subscription only).

In any event, I just love being ahead of the curve (twice no less!).

(Credit to Daniel Drezner for the link, who as usual beat me to the punch.)

Campaign Finance Flipflop

This is too good to pass up.

At least the National Review is paying attention, though the timing is suspect.

Temporary Break

As I get ready to move into College at Carleton, I'm taking a one week break from August 31st to September 8th. During that time, my friend Greg Ihrie will be guest blogging over here, focusing on Ethics and Political Philosophy.

Once I get to college and get my legs back under me, one of two things might happen to this blog. The academic environment might stimulate numerous fascinating insights on a myriad of topics, all of which I'll pass on to my dear readers. Or I'll be swamped with work I'll barely ever post again. Keep your fingers crossed for the former!

Also, through my college I now have access to LexisNexis and Jstor. So assuming I do come back (and I'm really looking forward to testrunning those databases, so that's a big incentive to keep it up), my debate cards will probably increase astronomically in quality.

Israeli Spy?

This is not good.

More as information is released.

Kerry Slips

As you know, I've been very optimistic about Kerry's election chances in November, far more than most Democrats. However, recent poll data is disheartening.

Electoral-Vote.com reports that currently, Kerry is up 270 to 259 in the electoral college, with Colorado tied. Good news? Not really. That tally has Kerry winning both Nevada and Tennessee, neither of which I think is likely (though quite possible, especially in the latter case). It also has Bush winning Wisconsin, which I ALSO think is improbable, but tallying up the votes, and assuming that Wisconsin reverts to the Dems (but Colorado, Nevada, and Tennessee all go GOP) Kerry has 264 electoral votes and Bush has 274.

On the flip side, Kerry is within striking distance in FAR more states than Bush is. Bush can hope to flip Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico into the GOP column from 2000. That gives him 22 more electoral votes. By contrast, Kerry is challenging in Arizona, Missouri, Nevada, Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. That's 88 electoral votes. And while all of Kerry's big gun states (California, New York, even Pennsylvania and Michigan) appear somewhat safe for the moment, Bush has to fight tooth and nail to defend both Ohio and Florida, both which will be getting alot of Democratic (and Republican) airtime.

Daily Show

John Kerry just made the first appearance by a Presidential Nominee on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," a latenight news parody show that happens to be one of the sharpest satires of politics and media around today. While at first I though Kerry looked stiff, as the show went on I thought he looked more and more relaxed and by the end I concluded it was an impressive performance.

The New Republic also nominally complimented Kerry on his performance, though I thought they might have been a tad too harsh. I thought Kerry did a good job running with Stewart's jokes, but I also thought he made at least one good line of his own (meeting people in the men's room). Overall, it was an entertaining show. And how many times do we get to say that about John Kerry?

Kerry's Race to Lose

UPDATE: 8/23 @ 7:50 PM

Charlie Cook, noted Washington elections guru and editor of the National Journal has just reported that the race is now Kerry's to lose. Though obviously there is plenty of time and Bush could reverse his faltering numbers, this is good news for the democratic candidate.

For those of you who are interested, Kerry is maintaining a 296-242 lead in the Electoral College based on state polling.

In light of the above information, can anyone explain to me why my parents, steadfast democrats, are absolutely convinced Kerry is going to lose?

UPDATE: Noam Schieber (just back from vacation at TNR's etc. blog) reports on a story I read this morning and then just forgot about: A possible Kerry Landslide in Ohio. The pertinent part is buried way at the end of the article:

In a survey last week by the University of Cincinnati's Ohio Poll, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) led Bush among likely voters 48 to 46 percent, with independent Ralph Nader garnering 1 percent. A Gallup poll in Ohio also showed a two-point spread favoring Kerry, but when the pool of respondents was expanded to include all registered voters, not just people who voted last time, Kerry was ahead by 10 points [emphasis added].

Since turnout for Democrats is expected to be higher in Ohio this year than in 2000, this is yet another reason why democrats can be guardedly optimistic about November.

Gay Marriage Fight Heating Up

Another skirmish in the gay marriage wars just concluded, this time with Gay Marriage Opponents coming out on top.

A US Bankruptcy Court just upheld the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in In Re Kandu and Kandu. The specific facts of this case seem heartwrenching (both spouses in the lesbian marriage came down with cancer at the same time). Of course, the federal courts cannot allow such matters to influence their decision. However, I still think that time will bear out that DOMA is unconstitutional (to be fair, a US Bankruptcy Court ruling has very little precedential value, so this issue is still wide open).

As state courts continue to hand victories to gay marriage proponents, conservative defenders of traditional marriage have been reeling. The California Supreme Court ruling annulling the gay marriage licenses issued in San Francisco was hailed as a giant victory, when in reality it was a minor issue that was tangential, at best, to whether gay marriage is constitutional or not. This, on the other hand, is a bonafide conservative win.

Meanwhile, the SCOTUS Blog (link via How Appealing wonders if federal challenges to same-sex marriage prohibitions have already been decided. It cites an obscure case (Baker v. Nelson), dealing with a Minnesota challenge to same-sex marriage prohibition. The court's ruling was one line: "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." Gay marriage opponents are arguing that that ruling denies that gay marriage is required under the constitution. But that got me to thinking: Where's the federal jurisdiction for defining marriage anyway?

Justice Paul Snyder (the author of the Kandu decision) answers that question in that opinion thus:

The 10th amendment is not implicated because the definition of marriage in DOMA is not binding on the states and, therefore, there is no federal infringement on state sovereignty. States retain the power to decide for themselves the proper definition for the term marriage.

On the one hand, that seems to me to be an awfully narrow interpretation of what is uncontestably a state matter. Since the federal government defers to the states in every other aspect of marital law, from at what age one can marry to giving out the licenses themselves, singling out gay couples for special federal scrutiny seems to run awful of the court's ruling in Romer v. Evans. On the other hand, why can't the federal government create a seperate class of to hand out its own benefits?

Of course, none of this answers the very valid 14th amendment based objections to DOMA. But its food for thought none the less.

http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2004/06/gay-marriage.html

Educated Guess

Josh Benson notes an interesting proposal by the Kerry campaign on Education Reform.

Enter John Kerry. He's got two basic pitches on education. In the first, he blasts Bush for short-changing NCLB. This sounds nice, but politically, it's less than inspiring. Here's yet another Bush plan that Kerry voted for but now claims he was fooled on. Gullibility is not presidential.

Kerry's second pitch is the real winner. His education plan makes use of federal incentives to succeed precisely where NCLB failed. Like a good liberal, Kerry dishes the carrot. But as Jonathan Schorr's excellent article from the August Washington Monthly documents, Kerry's proposal is also "quietly radical."

The plan focuses almost single-mindedly (and wisely) on recruiting good teachers with a whole new pot of federal money. The catch is, most of the cash can only be used for standardized, merit-based salary increases, and only in concert with a streamlined process for firing bad teachers.

Linking teacher pay to performance has angered the teachers' unions. But that's the genius of Kerry's plan (politically and policy-wise). Unlike NCLB, where unions, districts, and state lawmakers can find common ground opposing heavy-handed federal mandates and threats, Kerry's plan simply dangles a pot of money for any school district that's willing to devise a new system. If the teachers unions don't want performance measures, they're left in the tough position of having to "explain to their members why they're walking away from potentially federally funded salary increases."

This seems like a really good idea. I think it has intuitive appeal, it shows that Kerry is willing to not kowtow to powerful special interest groups (while still benefiting a core constituency, I think this proposals is ultimately good for teachers), and it shifts debate onto democratic home territory.

I sent an email off to a former high school teacher of mine asking for her opinion on the proposal (since I'm sure there are a million nuances that I simply don't understand). When she writes back, I'll be sure to give her take on the subject.

Iraqi Nuances

I meant to post this yesterday, but I got sidetracked and forgot. But Daniel Drezner reminded me about it this morning, so here it is for y'all.

Fareed Zakaria (hardly a leftist apologist) writes an article in yesterday's Washington Post entitled "Why Kerry is Right on Iraq."

The more intelligent question is (given what we knew at the time): Was toppling Hussein's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes; Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject.

Mr. Zakaria FINALLY makes cogent what I and Sen. Kerry have been struggling to articulate for some time: That Iraq was a worthy endeavor, which makes President Bush's abject failure in its execution all the more contemptable. Zakaria continues:

Bush's position is that if Kerry agrees with him that Hussein was a problem, then Kerry agrees with his Iraq policy. Doing something about Iraq meant doing what Bush did. But is that true? Did the United States have to go to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their job? Did it have to junk the U.N. process? Did it have to invade with insufficient troops to provide order and stability in Iraq? Did it have to occupy a foreign country with no cover of legitimacy from the world community? Did it have to ignore the State Department's postwar planning? Did it have to pack the Iraqi Governing Council with unpopular exiles, disband the army and engage in radical de-Baathification? Did it have to spend a fraction of the money allocated for Iraqi reconstruction -- and have that be mired in charges of corruption and favoritism? Was all this an inevitable consequence of dealing with the problem of Saddam Hussein?

A laundry list of problems in the EXECUTION of our Iraq mission doesn't have to implicitly condemn the need for the action itself. Thanks to Mr. Zakaria for clearing that up.

Of course, the REAL news is that it has lowered Prof. Drezner's probability of voting for President Bush to .4 . I (assume that's 40% chance?). Whatever it is, good news for liberals!

Colorado Crisis

UPDATE: 8/18 @ 2:50 PM

USA Today reports that a proposal to allocate electoral votes in proportion to the percentage of the popular vote won by each candidate has made the ballot in Colorado.

Electoral-vote.com points out this could cause another world class headache for the Supreme Court, since proposal supporters want it applied to this year's race and it would likely shift the states electoral tally from 9 for Bush and 0 for Kerry to 5 for Bush and 4 for Kerry (Colorado is considered a longshot possibilty for the Democrat, but its close enough that Kerry could probably garner enough of the vote to pick up 4 electoral votes). In a close race, that could be the difference and give the election to Kerry. But obviously, such a result would immediately be challenged by Republican leaders.

Since I got this link from one of the sites, this is a good time to promote two websites that are invaluable to anyone following the political campaign. Tripias.com and Electoral-vote.com both take the latest state polls to show what the electoral vote would be if the election was held today. While obviously polling is an inexact science, and the public mood is always in flux, these still do a great job keeping me informed.

For the record, as of 12:30 AM on Wednesday, Electoral-Vote had Kerry up 327 to 211, while Tripias had it 316 to 222 in favor of Kerry. Missouri was the only differing point between the two sites.

NEW: Volokh Conspiracy also comments on this, as well as giving a link to a more in depth analysis by Ohio State Law Professor Peter Shane.

More Misc Cards

UPDATE: 8/17 @ 4:30 PM
Just some more miscellanous cards I've stumbled upon, various topics. I don't know how much will be useful for the current topic.

Justice Hugo Black, Majority Opinion, Younger v. Harris (1971, 401 US 37), on the meaning of Federalism

"The concept [of federalism] does not mean blind deference to 'States' Rights' any more than it means centralization of control over every important issue in our National Government and its courts. The Framers rejected both these courses. What the concept does represent is a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States."

A solid, balanced definition of Federalism, I think.

N. Stephen Kinsella, "New Rationalist Directions In Libertarian Rights Theory," Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 12 No. 2 Fall 1996.Gives a good summary of Hans Herman Hoppe's argumentation ethics, as well as some other libertarian rights justifications.

"[A]rgumentation, as a form of action, implies the use of the scarce resources of one’s body. One must have control over, or own, this scarce resource in order to engage in meaningful discourse. This is because argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting, by its very nature, since it is an attempt to find what the truth is, to establish truth, to persuade or be persuaded by the force of words alone. If one is threatened into accepting the statements or truth claims
of another, this does not tend to get at the truth, which is undeniably a goal of argumentation or discourse. Thus, anyone engaging in argumentation implicitly presupposes the right of self-ownership of other participants in the argument, for otherwise the other would not be able to consider freely and accept or reject the proposed argument. Only as long as there is at least an implicit recognition of each individual’s property right in his or her own body can true argumentation take place. When this right is not recognized, the activity is no longer argumentation, but threat, mere naked aggression, or plain physical fighting. Thus, anyone who denies that rights exist contradicts himself since, by his very engaging in the cooperative and conflict-free activity of argumentation, he necessarily recognizes the right of his listener to be free to listen, think, and decide."

This always seemed to me to be a ripe foundation for a kritik. Since your opponent is engaging in a discursive activity, he is effectively locked into accepting libertarian norms to avoid a performative contradiction. Kinsella states:

If participants in argumentation necessarily accept particular truths, including norms, in order to engage in argumentation, they could never challenge these norms in an argument without thereby engaging in a performative contradiction. This would establish these norms as literally incontestable truths."

Foreign Policy May/June 2004 "Ranking the Rich 2004," (no author given) is a study showing how generous/effective the rich are in terms of giving financial aid and assistance to the poor. There's lots of neat stuff in here, but this really jumped out at me

"Citizens in rich countries often think of environmental protection in terms of preserving the world for their children and grandchildren—people who do not participate in today's environmental degradation but who will suffer its consequences. Yet today's global poor are already harmed by irresponsible environmental policies. Rich countries are the primary users of scarce global resources, but poor countries are the most likely to be hurt by ecological deterioration and the least capable of adapting. These countries typically have weak infrastructures and social services, making them particularly vulnerable to the floods, droughts, and spread of infectious diseases that global climate change could bring."

Nice impacts, potential for a mindset challenge (only viewing environmental problems "to save the children"), fairness issues brought up.

And finally, something that may actually be of use to those researching the privacy topic Justice Anthony Kennedy, Majority Opinion, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003)

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

And also quoted within the opinion

In 1955 the American Law Institute promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for "criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private." It justified its decision on three grounds: (1) The prohibitions undermined respect for the law by penalizing conduct many people engaged in; (2) the statutes regulated private conduct not harmful to others; and (3) the laws were arbitrarily enforced and thus invited the danger of blackmail.

NEW:
This might be a stronger pro-privacy card Edward Bloustein, "Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser," 39 NYU Law Review 962, 973-974 (1964)

"[A] measure of personal isolation and personal control over the conditions of its abandonment is of the very essence of personal freedom and dignity, is part of what our culture means by these concepts. A man whose home may be entered at the will of another, whose conversations may be overheard at the will of another, whose marital and familial intimacies may be overseen at the will of another, is less of a man, has less human dignity, on that account. He who may intrude upon another at will is the master of the other and, in fact, intrusion is a primary weapon of the tyrant."

Another patchwork of random quotable material, courtesy of the friendly Debate Link staff!

I Rule!

My life has just been validated. I've been called "lucid" on a comment board at Daniel Drezner's blog. For those of you who don't know, I idolize Prof. Drezner, and his blog is the reason that I started mine. So while it would be better to get a compliment from Prof. Drezner himself, this is a pretty good substitute.

The article on which I was commenting on is here. Here's the run of comments which preceded the compliment:

Me:

"Superior process tops grand strategy every time. I don't think there is one meta-philosophy that can solve every single foreign policy problem that will ever pop up. A good policy process allows one to examine each problem individually and come up with solutions tailored to the unique situation. Sometimes that's sweet talk diplomacy, sometimes it's hardball, sometimes it's multilateral, sometimes it's unilateral, and sometimes it's war. I feel better knowing that a Kerry administration won't limit itself to one mindset."

Mark Safranski:

"'Superior process tops grand strategy every time.'

Just like in Vietnam ?

'A good policy process allows one to examine each problem individually and come up with solutions tailored to the unique situation'

What if the problems are interdependent and interrelated ?

Strategy is about accomplishing goals within a dynamic system which requires recognizing the variables and being honest with oneself what will move them. *Tactics* are the *how* you move the variables and this is where you are well served by a good policy process. Without a strategy though, you may be solving the wrong problem with your good tactics.

Great strategy is a lot like a great novel...the two are alike in that they are very seldom ever created by a committee."

ME:

Mark,

I don't consider myself particularly knowledgable about the Vietnam war, but wasn't "grand strategy" at least partly to blame there? We had a "grand strategy" of Containment/Rollback, to counteract the percieved Domino Effect. Thus, we viewed every single nation where communists seemed to be gaining ground through the same lens, as the first step to a catastrophic system crash where every country would become instant-marxist.

This blinded us to the fact that in Vietnam Ho Chi Minh was a national hero (ironically enough, because he attempted to convince President Wilson to actually apply his rhetoric on self-determination to places outside of Europe), and that the US supported politicians and dictators were extremely unpopular and not likely to be seen as an acceptable substitute for the communists. Thus, the strategy of "winning their hearts and minds" was fatally crippled by tactical mistakes such as supporting hopelessly corrupt leaders.

Its all speculation of course, but perhaps a process-based view of Vietnam would have revealed to US policymakers that Vietnam was not a huge threat to geopolitical stability, that it was relatively mild in terms of its affront to American values (as compared to say, Cambodia), and that it was a poor target for intervention because it played to virtually every stereotype the Communists put out about the West: The US rushing to the aid of ex-colonialists to prop up a universally despised dictator at the expense of a bona fide national hero. It really shouldn't have taken that much insight to see this was a bad idea.

Obviously problems can be interdependent and related, and a good process would account for that. "looking at situations individually" is not the same as "looking at them in a void." A solid policy process would look at all the variables from the ground up and then create a response tailored to those variables, which might include simultanous responses to other problems if need be. What it wouldn't do is artificially impose an preconcieved external narrative on events that might not (and probably will not) match the reality.

"Vagaboundplus":

...The Bush administration underestimated the degree to which foreign populations resent US influence over their national affairs. It must bruise Iraqi pride to see their nation patrolled by uniformed, English-speaking Americans. As a result, sympathy for the bold insurgents inevitably rises.

So, we've gotten ourselves into a situation where in order to provide some measure of security in Iraq, we have to clamp down on the insurgents, but by doing so, we risk alienating significantly larger sections of the population. It's a no-win situation and a consequence of Bush's failed diplomacy.

I encourage everyone to read David Halberstam's article on Bush in the current issue of Vanity Fair (the one with the lovely Reese Witherspoon on the cover). Halberstam correctly states that Bush (and Cheney,and others) continually fails to apply the lessons learned in Vietnam. David Schraub lucidly points out above what those lessons are, so it hardly bears worth repeating here ...

Am I probably taking way too much pride in something that, objectively is really minor? Sure. But it makes me happy, and that's what counts right?

Next stop, the blogosphere royalty!

Good for Bush!

I just read this article on CNN.com. I post it because I think it reflects better on President Bush than anything I've read in the past 4 years.

Some highlights:

Bush, who was joined for the interview by his wife, Laura, also took issue with a proposal by Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry to set a six-month time frame to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"That says to the enemy, 'Wait for six months and one day,' or it says to the Iraqis, 'The Americans aren't serious,'" Bush said. "The timetable is this -- not one day more than is necessary, and the commanders on the ground will let us know when."

He's absolutely right. I'm not positive if the terrorists really would just 'wait 6 months and a day,' but we have an obligation to stay in Iraq until our job is done. Kudos to the President for recognizing that.

"Senator Kerry is justifiably proud of his record in Vietnam and should be. It's noble service," Bush said. "The question is who can best lead the country in a time of war. That's really what the debate ought to be about. And I think it's me, because I understand the stakes."

Again, a fair assessment. Kerry was a good soldier, and no one (should) deny that. But ultimately the election is about who will be a better leader today, not 25 years ago. I disagree with President Bush that its him. But its the right framing of the issue.

To be sure, there still is alot here I disagree with. But overall, I thought it struck some very good notes. I'm not so dug in that I won't admit a fine gesture by President Bush, and this was one.

Gay News Day

Two bombshells dealing with gay Americans hit the news today. The first was the release of a decision by the California Supreme Court in Lockyer v. San Francisco. The court ruled that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom did not have the authority to ignore a state law because he deemed it unconstitutional, and annulled all of the marriage licenses issued to gay couples by the city. The ruling was 7-0 on the question of whether Mayor Newsom overstepped his authority, and 5-2 on the question of whether the same-sex marriages issued should be annulled.

Speaking as an avid supporter of gay rights and gay marriage, I think this decision was correct. The proper avenue for determining the constitutionality of a law is through the courts, that's been a key tenant of our constitutional scheme since Marbury v. Madison and the rejection of the position of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. I would be as unwilling to reject 200 years of precedent for a position I find favorable as I would be if a local mayor decided, for example, that a local ordinance banning assualt weapons violated the 2nd amendment and refused to enforce that. This does not, of course, absolve all the conservative groups of their hypocrisy on this matter. Their "core belief" in federalism, decentralization, judicial restraint, and "the will of the people" seemed to not slow them down very much in their rush to ask the courts to nullify the actions of an elected official. They happened to be right in this case, but the inconsistancy is troubling and reflects poorly on them.
The second part of the ruling is a closer question I think. I'm inclined to agree with the dissenters that the marriages shouldn't have been invalidated until after the decision had been reached on the constitutionality of California's marriage laws. However, I see where the majority is coming from, and certainly don't think their holding is that outrageous.

The second bit of news falls into the "simply bizarre" category. New Jersey Governor James McGreevey (D) declared he was homosexual, admitted he had an extra-marital gay affair, and announced his resignation effective November. A transcript of his speech can be found here (thanks to How Appealing for the link).
I don't even know what to think about this. I suppose the resignation was the honorable thing to do (for the affair, not simply because he was gay). And the speech seemed to hit the right note to my ears. On the other hand, I'm not even convinced his career is over. This man was seen as a rising star in Democratic circles. Could he run for congress or state office as a spokesman for the gay community? I'm not sure we can write off Mr. McGreevey yet.

Overall, a very strange day for Gay activists.

Judgment Day: Crowley v. Robbins

The debate between The New Republic's Michael Crowley and The National Review's James Robbins has finally come to a close. The topic was "Has the Bush administration fumbled homeland security?"

First of all, let me say that I've obviously weakened some of the conventions from a traditional debate round. Obviously, there isn't a "standard" to be impacted to, no one is extending anything, and there isn't a clear line by line. I tried to put the analysis side to side so I could see where points were being refuted.

In a close decision, I vote for Mr. Crowley.
1) The first thing that needs to be cleared up is "what constitutes fumbling." Mr. Robbins says that its giving the initiative over to the other side, as in a football fumble. Mr. Crowley gives the counter response of "have we done all we can to make ourselves safer?" I'm inclined to go with Mr. Crowley's interpretation, as it leaves more ground for debate. However, this is limited by the point Mr. Robbins brings up, that we have to be REASONABLE, and at some point you need to make balanced risk assessments.
2) At this point, we simply look to the areas of offense given by Mr. Crowley and see if they stand up. He gives three main areas of attack: Port Security, Chemical Plant Security, and Nuclear Security. Robbins does a good job with the former, but doesn't really knock out the latter two. His own evidence contradicts his point about Chemical Sec. cost, as Mr. Crowley points out. And Mr. Crowley aptly points out that Nunn/Lugar still needs more money because most of Russia's loose nuclear assets are still loose. All the experts agree on this, and the Chait article Crowley cites talks about this too. Mr. Robbins asserted positive actions by the Bush administration (outside of Mr. Crowley's framework)might be enough to outweigh, but they are only listed in the last post, where obviously they can't be contested by Mr. Crowley, so I can't look to them.
3) I think 2 is reason enough to pull the trigger, but the politics point Mr. Crowley makes is apt as well. Mr. Robbins admitted that the original opposition to DHS by President Bush was politically motivated. Thus, Mr. Crowley's claims that Bush cares more about what's politically convienant rather than pragmatically necessary gain alot of weight. The Chait evidence shows off a myriad of ways Bush has harmed HS in favor of tax cuts. Considering that Mr. Robbins claims "scarce resources" are the major barrier to remedying the harms outlined by Mr. Crowley, and the Chait analysis traces that action back to Bush's political decisions, that's a serious turn by Mr. Crowley.

For the above reasons, I vote for Mr. Crowley

Nature of Duties

In debate one often finds alot of high level talk of "duties" and "obligations." Below is a good card to keep people grounded and make sure that what they are saying is pragmatically feasible.
Professor James Urmson of Stanford University, Philosophy Dept., writes

If we are to exact basic duties like debts, and censure failures, such duties must be, in ordinary circumstances, within the capacity of the ordinary man. It would be silly for us to say to ourselves, our children and our fellow men, 'this and that you and everyone else must do,' if the acts in question are such that manifestly few could bring themselves to do them, though we may ourselves resolve to try to be of that few. To take a parallel from positive law, the prohibition laws asked too much of the American people, and were consequently broken systematically; and as people got used to breaking the law a general lowering of respect for the law naturally followed; it no longer seemed that a law was something that everybody could be expected to obey. Similarly in Britain the gambling laws, some of which are utterly unpractical, have fallen into contempt as a body. So, if we were to represent the heroic act of sacrificing one's life for one's comrades as a basic duty, the effect would be to lower the degree of urgency and stringency that the notion of duty does in fact posses. The basic moral code must not be in part too far beyond the capacity of the ordinary men or ordinary occasions, or a general breakdown of compliance with the moral code would be an inevitable consequence; duty would seem to be something high and unattainable, and not for 'the likes of us.'

Libertarians for Kerry!

How did I miss this one? (Ok, so alert readers may notice that it was written before I even started the blog. But I was still paying attention to the blogosphere even before I staked my claim to it).

For those of you who don't know, Jacob Levy is a Asst. Professor of Political Science at U. Chicago, and a writer I respect greatly (behind only his colleague Daniel Drezner at UC). As he says, he's never even VOTED for a major party candidate, and it ain't because he's a socialist lefty folks. And yet it looks like he's ready to bite his tongue and cast a ballot for Kerry come November.

Though I am not a libertarian like Mr. Levy, this passage does capture part of my opposition to President Bush:

I know a lot of Libertarians are leaning Democratic this year because they oppose the Iraq War. I'm leaning that way in part because I supported it, and thought it was a truly important project. Some combination, or some complicated interaction, of terrible incompetence; an absolute prioritization of political over policy considerations; and a serious contempt for outside, contrary, disinterested, or expert opinion have made a serious mess of Iraq, trade policy, fiscal policy, and much else besides.

I may be the only "liberal democrat" left who still unequivicably supports, in principle, our attack on Iraq. I have problems with how it was carried out, and the way the Bush administration seemed to place preconcieved notions on what ought to happen above their own experts notions about what was really going to happen. In other words, I think its because Iraq was so important and such an integral part of how America is going to be seen for the next 50 years that blowing it is unforgivable on the part of the Bushies.

And while it unfortunately wasn't Mr. Drezner himself endorsing Kerry, I did get this link from him. Ok, well not HIM exactly, but the people who are running his blog while he's off doing...something. How many degrees of seperation are we up too at this point?

Come on Mr. Drezner, stick your pride, get off the fence and endorese Kerry already!

Japanese Internment Blogwar

An incredible online blog war is going on over Michelle Malkin's new book, In Defense Of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror.

Eric Muller a Law Prof. at UNC, starts the shooting at The Volokh Conspiracy (you may have to scroll down a little bit, he has 10 posts, the last one should be the first one you see under August 5th, the first one should be the third post ABOVE August 3rd (IE, it was posted earlier on August 4th).

Ms. Malkin posts a lengthy response to Mr. Muller on her blog, where she takes on all 10 of Mr. Muller's points (and Mr. Greg Robinson's another internment expert whose comments Mr. Muller interspersed with his on Volokh).

Mr. Muller then proceeds to defend his original attacks here, and here. Again, you'll have to do a bit of scrolling past innane other stuff to read all of his arguments. But on the plus side, he has his own archive of his comments on his site that's undoubtedly far better than mine.

I can't think of anything more positive than dialogue like this. It proves that people are still paying at least some attention to what the other side says.

Blown Cover

TNR's Spencer Ackerman reports on the immense damage the Bush admin's leak of an undercover source has down to our war on Al-Qaeda. Just another example of how the Bush administration cares more about politics than it does about safeguarding Americans.

Also, The New Republic's Michael Crowley takes on The National Review's James Robbins on Opinion Duel on the issue of the Bush administration and National Security. Its truly a sight to see.

Finally, a new feature. To bone up on my debate judging credentials, and because I think it would be cool, I'm going to start judging any blog debates I see online (including and starting with the Opinion Duel debates). Before y'all start claiming "biased judging!" let me say flat out that I'll be judging on a tabula rasa paradigm. And also, tragically, that The National Review has so far been smacking the New Republic at this so far. Enjoy!

Judging Associations

Law.com reports on an interesting ethics change proposed to the American Bar Association (ABA). The rule change would prevent federal judges from belonging to groups that discriminate against homosexuals. The ABA already prohibts judges from belonging to clubs that discriminate on the basis of race or sex (while the ABA has no official legal authority, most courts use their recommendations, with modifications, in forming their own ethical standards).

I think both sides have persuasive arguments. On the one hand, I can see how it would be disconcerting for the judge hearing their case to be a member of an organization which discriminates against them. Such a situation would call into question the impartiality of the judge. On the other hand, their are serious freedom of association issues at stake, and it does seem a bit silly to ban judges from working with the Boy Scouts or the National Guard, both of which prohibit openly homosexual persons from membership. Of course, that both the Armed Forces and Boy Scouts are WRONG in prohibited homosexual members is very clear. But I doubt most people who join the Navy do it to express a deep seated hatred of homosexuals.

An important issue that needs some serious thought, that's for sure.

Free Press Card

For LDers researching on the "Media Monopolization is antithetical to the Public's Right to Know" topic, I offer a quote from Pennekamp v. State of Fla., 328 US 331 (1946) Justice Felix Frankfurter concurring

Without a free press there can be no free society. Freedom of the press, however, is not an end in itself but a means to the end of a free society. The scope and nature of the constitutional protection of freedom of speech must be viewed in that light and in that light applied. The independence of the judiciary is no less a means to the end of a free society, and the proper functioning of an independent judiciary puts the freedom of the press in its proper perspective. For the judiciary cannot function properly if what the press does is reasonably calculated to disturb the judicial judgment in its duty and capacity to act solely on the basis of what is before the court. A judiciary is not independent unless courts of justice are enabled to administer law by absence of pressure from without, whether exerted through the blandishments of reward or the menace of disfavor. In the noble words, penned by John Adams, of the First Constitution of Massachusetts: 'It is essential to the preservation of the rights of every individual, his life, liberty, property, and character, that there be an impartial interpretation of the laws, and administration of justice. It is the right of every citizen to be tried by judges as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.' A free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor an independent judiciary to a free press. Neither has primacy over the other; both are indispensable to a free society. The freedom of the press in itself presupposes an independent judiciary through which that freedom may, if necessary, be vindicated. And one of the potent means for assuring judges their independence is a free press.

A free press is vital to a democratic society because its freedom gives it power. Power in a democracy implies responsibility in its exercise. No institution in a democracy, either governmental or private, can have absolute power. Nor can the limits of power which enforce responsibility be finally determined by the limited power itself. See Carl L. Becker, Freedom and Responsibility in the American Way of Life (1945). In plain English, freedom carries with it responsibility even for the press; freedom of the press is not a freedom from responsibility for its exercise. Most State constitutions expressly provide for liability for abuse of the press's freedom. That there was such legal liability was so taken for granted by the framers of the First Amendment that it was not spelled out. Responsibility for its abuse was imbedded in the law. The First Amendment safeguarded the right.

You have to wade through some stuff about the importance of a fair judiciary too, but I think with some cutting it could be useful.

The full opinion can be found here,

Indebted

The Budget Deficit continues to soar through the roof, hitting a projecting $445 Billion for this year. With the economy slipping, Rahm Emmanuel put it very nicely:

One thing we can say of President George W. Bush is that we'll forever be in his debt.

Real Flip Flop

I posted earlier about a hilarious Daily Show clip that shows that Bush is just as much as a flipflopper as Kerry ever was.

Now Richard Cohen writes an impressive article in the Washington Post detailing some of Bush's numerous flipflops.

I tend to agree with what Bill Maher said on Real Time last week though: that all flipflopping means is that you are still thinking about an issue and adjusting to changing situations or new information. And while I generally don't like him, Michael Moore raised a good point when he asked Republican Rep. David Drier if Moore or Maher's conversion to the Republican party would constitute a "flip flop."

That being said, I think that Cohen ends his article with an important distinction between Bush and Kerry flipflops:

But it is the areas in which Bush's convictions have not changed that are the most troubling, and this includes a religiosity that comforts him in his intellectual inertness and granite-like beliefs that are impervious to logic, such as his tax policy and his relentless march to war in Iraq. Flip-flopping, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It can be an indicator of an alert mind, one that adjusts to new realities, or it can be evidence of ambition decoupled from principle. With Kerry it's a mix of both. With Bush, who changes his positions but never his mind, it is always the latter.

On the issues that matter, Bush has only changed his mind in response to the political impossibilty of maintaining his current view. This is the case with the 9/11 commission, and it was the case with the department of Homeland Security. You will never see a Bush reversal on the need for constant tax cuts for the rich because their isn't as large a political upshot. And that's very disappointing.

Washington Gay Marriage Victory

A Washington State Court has just ruled the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage illegal under it's state constitution. The case is Anderson v. Sims.

Just a quick note: If I hear a single conservative organization saying how this shows how the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision will quickly be forced to spread across the land, I'll go ballistic. This case dealt solely with the Washington state constitution and how its interpreted in Washington. Every other state has its own constitution, with its own clauses and interpretations. So while, yes, the FMA would have stopped this ruling, that's only because the FMA contained a clause telling states how they could and couldn't interpret their own constitutions, which is ridiculous.

The ruling, by the way, was stayed until the Washington Supreme Court could weigh in.

Jordan Blasts PA

Thanks to The National Review for the link.

The Israeli paper Maariv reports that Jordan's King Abdullah has harshly criticized the PA for failure to enact reforms, a mistake that has severely hampered their efforts to gain an independent Palestinean state on the maximum amount of 1967-occupied Israeli land.

I just loved Palestinean Communications Minister Imad Al-Faluji's response:

It is a shame that the Jordanian king chooses to criticize one side rather than the other

By golly he's right! Arab states need to stop their blatant favoritism for Israel and begin acting more aggressively in support of the Palestinean cause!

Politics of Osama-hunting, Revisited

Earlier this month I blogged on The New Republic's allegation of a Bush administration plan to announce the capture of a high value terrorist during the DNC. After initial, I started reading some more skeptical voices in, for example The Corner at The National Review Online, and I calmed down abit.

But lo and behold: Andrew Sullivan reports that a scenario very similar to the one the TNR predicted has just unfolded today, on the final day of the DNC.

While keeping a skeptical eye, this is somewhat suspicious.

11th Circuit Says No to Dildos

(thanks to How Appealing for the link)

In a 2-1 decision, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld an Alabama law banning the sale of sex toys. I thought this did a good job analyzing the ruling.

Personally, I liked this quote from the Alabama statute in question, exempting from the prohibition the sale of sexual devices

for a bona fide medical, scientific,
educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose.

(emphasis added)
What could judges and law enforces possibly need a dildo for? Perhaps Oklahoma Judge Donald Thompson could give us a clue?

You can reach the full decision of the 11th Circuit here.

Non-Conventional

Yes, I know, I haven't been posting on the Democratic National Convention. But I have good excuses!
1) I have mono.
2) I don't care what any of the speakers have to say.
3) For the only exception to #2, Barack Obama, I was at the rained-out Orioles/Red Sox game with my buddy, probably catching pneumonia to complement my mono. Second hand at least, Obama was phenomonal (The New Republic raves here and in variously lesser degrees here and here.

After tonight, when John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry officially accepts the nomination, we can put this entire thing behind us.

And for true election fun, try this from Addicting Games.

Slow News

Its been rather slow on the news front recently. So, I'll just post some funny links that people of the intellectual persuasion might find amusing.

Sartre Cookbook

Nietzsche Tech Support

A Post-Modern Essay Generator (just click refresh to make a new one!)

Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky commentating on The Lord of the Rings

And for all those who think that Kerry is a flipflopper: Bush vs. Bush

Gay Adoption

On a tied 6-6 vote, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied an en banc rehearing of Lofton v. Department of Children and Family Services. The case concerned the constitutionality of a Florida Statute which catagorically prohibited practicing homosexuals (but no one else, including drug abusers and criminals) from adopting children. The text of the denial ruling (along with its dissent) can be found here.

1) I think this ruling is just wrong. The court seemed to rest its decision on the idea that in order to challenge a statute under "rational basis" standards, one is obligated to disprove any possible rational basis for enacting the statute. From the Supreme Court case of Heller v. Doe a challenged statute under the rational basis test "must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there
is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification...It could be that the assumptions underlying these rationales are erroneous, but the very fact that they are arguable is sufficient, on rational-basis review, to immunize the legislative choice from constitutional challenge." The dissent makes a compelling argument that this controversy shouldn't be decided by a rational basis standard. However, even within that framework, I think the law fails. Certainly, one can argue anything, so the courts must make some sort of reasoned judgment about whether the argument is plausible or not. Simply asserted the legislature's professed rationale without any analysis as to its validity or internal consistency is no way to make a decision, even under such a deferential standard. Such a standard would have caused virtually all the cases cited by the court to have been decided in the opposite of their eventual rulings. For example, in City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (cited by the court), the "rational basis" for the denial of a zoning permit to an assisted living center for the mentally retarded was a) that people generally feared said group and b) a plethora of disingenious statements ranging from "the site is on a flood plain," to "local schoolchildren will harass the residents." For the latter rationale, the court dismissed the analysis on the grounds that the zoning board didn't have any similar requirements for any other type of similarly situated building (a flood plain is a danger to any building, and all sorts of people, from minorities to the elderly to hippies might be mocked by schoolchildren). The court then concluded that in abscence of any other reasonable rationale, the first justification amounted to nothing but an expression of animus on the part of the local community and could not stand. The parrallels to this decision are quite easy to see. The vast majority of the state's claims of rationale falter because it makes no effort to apply the same standards to similarily situated people (for example, its claim that it wants children in houses with a mother and a father is undercut by the fact that it allows single people to adopt). The only analysis it gives that arguably only applies to Homosexual couples is that the state might want its children to be "normalized" and that it would be weird and possibly harmful for predominately heterosexual children to be raised by homosexual parents who are implied to be outside the mainstream. Even beyond the substantial psychological evidence which shows that any harm to children raised by homosexual parents is fictive (which in itself is proven by the situation of the petitioning family), the flaws in this argument are transparant. First, as the dissent aptly notes, it gives no guidance on how to deal with homosexual children who presumably need a "similar" parent figure as much as heterosexual parent does. Second, it doesn't apply the same standard to other groups that could be termed "outside the mainstream" (like inter-racial couples). Ultimately, the statute legally places an actively homosexual person beneath a herion addict in the states perception of how apt they are to raise a child. That is patently absurd and profoundly irrational.
2) The 6th vote to deny rehearing was cast by Justice William Pryor, who was appointed by President Bush in a recess appointment. Had he not been present, the vote would have been 6-5 in favor of a rehearing, and the ruling might have been overturned. So for all those who view the appealate court nomination fights as a waste of time, this should be a wakeup call.
3) Am I the only one who has noticed that in cases such as these, even the conservative judges are loathe to defend the laws themselves, instead resting their arguments on judicial restraint? Justice Birch wrote in the majority opinion for the denial of rehearing:

I will conclude on a purely personal note. If I were a legislator, rather than a judge, I would vote in favor of considering otherwise eligible homosexuals for adoptive parenthood. In reviewing the record in this case one can only be impressed by the courage, tenacity and devotion of Messrs. Lofton and Houghton for the children placed in their care. For these children, these men are the only parents they have ever known. Thus, I consider the policy decision of the Florida legislature to be misguided and trust that over time attitudes will change and it will see the best interest of these children in a different light.

Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas

I write separately to note that the law before the Court today 'is ... uncommonly silly.' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources

This of course quoting Justice Potter Stewart in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut where he and Justice Black also talk about the stupidity of a law they believed they were obligated to uphold. Shouldn't conseratives do a bit of soulsearching if their own champions on the court are so vociferous in their denounciations of these laws even as they vote to sustain them?

Sandy Berger

Its been revealed that Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former National Security Advisor, took some classified Homeland Security documents while he was reviewing them for the 9/11 commission, and now claims he inadvertantly discarded a few.

Being 100% charitable to Mr. Berger, this was remarkably boneheaded. Being less charitable, it was possibly criminal, and one has to ask what his motives possibly could have been. Daniel Drezner is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (IE, that Mr. Berger was just plain stupid). The folks at Powerline and The National Review are far more suspicious.

Powerline posted a statement from House Speaker Dennis Hastert on the matter. The quote I found notable:

Mr. Berger has a lot of explaining to do. He was given access to these documents to assist the 9/11 Commission, not hide information from them. The American people and the 9/11 families don't want cover-ups when it comes to the War on Terror. They want the truth. And so does the U.S. House of Representatives.

Begging your pardon Mr. Speaker, but you led the charge against full accountability for 9/11 and against the 9/11 commission. So let's not get too self-righteous about the need for full disclosure.

Markets and Masses

CNN had an interesting article on the relative intelligence of crowds compared to the individuals that are contained within them. Indirectly, this is a powerful argument for capitalism that contrasts with the prevelant "dumb herd" mentality. If this seems interesting to you, also check out Tom Friedman's comments on "The Electronic Herd" in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree

Also hidden in the article was this gem of a card for those arguing on the impacts of the recent financial scandels.
James Surowiecki, author of "The Wisdom of Crowds" (as quoted by CNN.com on July 14 2004)

If anything can hurt markets, says Surowiecki, it's lack of trust. Capitalism has succeeded, he says, because people are willing to trust their money with strangers. The misstatements and financial chicanery of the late-'90s bubble have wounded that confidence.

"The challenge for capitalism is that the things that breed trust also breed the environment for fraud," he says. People can make money by working together -- but when the sums of money are as huge as they've been of late, it can be very tempting for people to subvert the system for their own gains.

And yet Surowiecki has hope that trust can be maintained and, indeed, markets can keep improving. Economists and psychologists have found indications that our first impulse -- as people and consumers -- "is to do the socially beneficial thing," he says.

Potter Politics

UPDATE: 7/19 @ 3:00 PM
From the "You Are Really Reading Too Much Into It" catagory, the New York Times gives us this wonderful diatribe on how Harry Potter reinforces the myths of neo-liberalism and the capitalist model.

Daniel Drezner should be credited with the link, and his "responses" to the article are also worth the read.

MORE ON POLITICAL POTTER THEMES
This also talks about neoconservative leanings of the HP world, though in far less post-modern langauge.

Fun stuff.

Full Disclosure

In response to the Bush administration's request for the footage from Sen. Kerry's controversial star-studded fundraiser, the Kerry campaign sent the Bush administration this letter. Highlights:

we will not consider your request until the Bush campaign and White House make public the documents/materials listed below:

-- Military records: Any copies of the President's military records that would actually prove he fulfilled the terms of his military service. For that matter, it would be comforting to the American people if the campaign or the White House could produce more than just a single person to verify that the President was in Alabama when said he was there. Many Americans find it odd that only one person out of an entire squadron can recall seeing Mr. Bush.

-- Halliburton: All correspondence between the Defense Department and the White House regarding the no-bid contracts that have gone to the Vice-President's former company. Some material has already been made public. Why not take a campaign issue off the table by making all of these materials public so the voters can see how Halliburton has benefited from Mr. Cheney serving as Vice-President?

-- The Cheney Energy Task Force: For an Administration that claims to hate lawsuits, it's ironic that the Bush White House is taking up the Courts' time to keep the fact that Ken Lay and Enron wrote its energy policy in secret behind closed doors. Please release the documents so that the country can learn what lobbyists and special interests wrote the White House energy policy.

-- Medicare Bill: Please release all White House correspondence between the pharmaceutical industry and the Administration regarding the Medicare Bill, which gave billions to some of the President's biggest donors. In addition, please provide all written materials that directed the Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress about the actual cost of the bill.

-- Prison Abuse Documents: A few weeks ago, the White House released a selected number of documents regarding the White House's involvement in laying the legal foundation for the interrogation methods that were used in Iraq. Please release the remaining documents.

Florida 2000

John Edwards is mentioning the Florida 2000 debacle in stump speeches according to CNN.com .

Good move? I'm think so, though its risky. The upside is motivating black and latino voters who might otherwise stay home at the polls. The downside is that Kerry/Edwards are opened up to charges of political pandering and dwelling on the past. But Republicans make that charge every day anyway. So I'm inclined to think this is smart campaigning.

Rebel Yell?

I think the Conservative wing of American politics is on the verge of a severe identity crisis, very similar to what the Liberals went through about 15 years ago. At the moment, far from being a coherent whole, the Republican party is split into at least four different factions:
1) The Rockefellers: As I blogged before, this group is close to being an endangered species. They lost the original GOP civil war to Ronald Reagan and the more fundamentalist right in the 1980s. The Rockefellers are fiscally conservative, but socially moderate. Their numbers are steadily decreasing as they are the polar opposite of the current predominant GOP group, the Fundamentalists.
2) The Fundamentalists: This group is currently in control of the GOP leadership. It is very socially conservative, but unlike traditional Republicans it is far less concerned with fiscal moderation. The Fundamentalists sprang out of the populists in the south and west that used to vote predominantly Democratic. This group was economically akin to the Democrats in terms of spending, but far to its right on social issues. While the type of spending the Fundamentalists prefer is very different than that of the populists (being more focused on the rich and corporations), the character of the populism movement is still present in their support for giant farm subsidies and pork projects.
3) The Traditionalists: This group is economically and socially quite conservative. Personified by Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel, it is the most recent group to display friction with the GOP leadership. Unlike the Rockefellers and Libertarians, it still has a reasonably strong following, and has gained the advantage recently by being seen as "straight-talkers." If a viable challenge does break out to the Fundamentalists, it will probably come from this group, with support from the remaining Rockefellers.
4) The Libertarians: Traditionally, this group has been the most isolated from GOP power circles, representing "extreme Rockefellers" in a sense. Many Libertarians are faced with an identity crisis at the moment, as the Democratic party (with its new found love-affair with fiscal discpline) is closer to their views on both social and economic policy. Unless the Republican party changes course soon, they could bolt en masse.

And if that wasn't enough, three of these four groups are internally divided on the merits of Neo-Conservatism vs. Isolationism (the Libertarians are pretty solidly isolationist, with the exception of a strong support of free trade)!

At the moment, the Republican party is still united behind President Bush (though we've seen chinks in that armor, McCain and the Rockefellers have started to find their voice again to protest certain Bush policies). If President Bush wins this election, the Fundamentalists will have enough of a mandate to maintain control of the Republican party. If he loses though, then a vicious internal party spate could develop.

The New York Times had an interesting article on the growing fissures within the Conservative movement.

What is Non-Partisanship?

Some Republican groups seem to have a trouble figuring out that one can be an honest conservative without engaging in vicious partisanship. From GOP USA (on the merits of various pro-Bush KETCHUP brands of all things!):

Attempting to address the specific charge by Bush Country Ketchup that it did not support Bush or Republicans, Oliver offered the paradoxical answer that he wanted W Ketchup to "be Republican but not partisan, having a positive message all Americans could agree on."

Paradoxical? It makes perfect sense to me, especially considering how many baseline conservative principles (Federalism, Small Government, Fiscal Discpline, etc) the Bush administration has ignored or demolished.

Now, you may think its a bit silly to be drawing conclusions about GOP mentalities from a debate on ketchup. But I ask you, which party is making Ketchup a valid point of partisan contention? Who's silly now?
 

FMA Fails in Senate

The US Senate just voted 48-50 on a procedural motion to bring the Federal Marriage Amendment to a vote. Though virtually all Republicans and Democrats agreed the bill had no chance of achieving the super-majority needed for passage, the symbolic denial of a majority to those who wish to encode discrimination into our constitution is significant.

Though I support gay marriage in general and thus would oppose any law or statute designed to bar it, the FMA should be abhorrent even to conservatives. At the very least, the amendment should restrict itself to federal definition and federal courts, leaving the ultimate decision on what marriage is to the individual states. That would be consistent with Conservative notions of federalism and states rights, as well as allowing the people to decide how their community wants to view this sacred contract. But the FMA, by imposing its dogma on both the federal government AND the states, violates these tenets and showcases the hypocrisy of the modern Republican party.

Republicans who voted against the cloture motion:
John McCain (AZ), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO), John Sunnunu (NH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Lincoln Chaffee (RI). Independent Jim Jeffords (VT) also voted against the motion.
Democrats who voted for the cloture motion:
Ben Nelson (NE), Zell Miller (GA), Robert Byrd (WV)

PA hit with $116 Million Dollar Judgment

The US District Court for the state of Rhode Island just came down with a ruling in Estate of Ungar ex rel. Strachman v. Palestinean Authority. Finding the PA and PLO default, they ordered a $116 million dollar judgment to the estate and heirs of Mr. Ungar, an American citizen who was killed in a suicide bombing in Israel. A nice counterpoint to the ICJ ruling, I think.

Relevant Case Code is Title 18 USC Part I Chapter 113b Sec. 2333(a):

Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney's fees.

The full opinion can be found here, though its virtually all about jurisdiction.

Division of Labor

Its amazing, and somewhat frustrating, that all the best arguments on the European/American division of labor have come AFTER I graduated. Anyway, from The New Republic, 7/13/04, Economist writer Robert Lane Greene writes:

...Britain intervened recently in Sierra Leone, and France sent troops to the Ivory Coast. Both were missions in former colonies with little strategic importance, but in which ugly humanitarian crises called out for intervention. With U.S. forces stretched thin in the rest of the world--and a domestic population leery of using the army for "social work"--these are not the type of interventions America would be inclined to take on.
A division of labor makes sense for both America and Europe. America will certainly continue to do the heavy war-fighting. After all, it's inconceivable that Europe would have to fight against a serious military power without any American help, a fact that Chirac does not seem to appreciate. Meanwhile, Europe can lead in small regional crises in the Balkans and in their ex-colonies (which, after all, take up most of the world). Europe can also do most of the "softer"--but far from easy--tasks like peacekeeping. Even Europe's smaller countries can make themselves helpful by developing divisions with special skills, such as Norway's mine-clearing and mountain experts, or the Czech Republic's mobile biological and chemical weapons detection units. With Europe and America both needing each other and both able to help, no one has to feel taken advantage of, or ignored.

Happy hunting everyone!

ICJ Ruling on the Israeli Fence

After much searching, I finally found the ICJ ruling on the Israeli fence. The National Review gives a brief synopsis about why the ruling is simply absurd. However, this quote particularly struck me:

The Court considers that the military exigencies contemplated by these texts [the 4th Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations] may be invoked in occupied territories even after the general close of the military operations that led to their occupation. However, on the material before it, the Court is not convinced that the destructions carried out contrary to the prohibition in Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention were rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

What exactly would convince them of the "absolute necessity" of Israel's military situation? Maybe a couple 100 more suicide bombings will have them come to their senses.
(A link to the whole opinion can be found here
A side note: Am I the only one amused to hear that the opinion in the case was written by a Chinese Justice? Because its not like the Chinese have ever experimented with putting up a big wall to keep out invaders and barbarians.

Tom DeLay is Corrupt...Nobody Surprised

Breaking News! The Washington Post reports that Tom DeLay is corrupt! Tommorow: Bill Clinton Revealed to Be Attracted to Women!

GOP Moderates

The American Prospect's latest article on the centrist wing of the Republican party has given me the opportunity to reflect on the state of GOP moderates.

The steady decline in so-called Rockefeller Republicans, dedicated to fiscal discipline but openminded on social issues has been one of the defining characteristics of recent political history. The Republican base has shifted away from upscale, northeastern suburbia and into the deep south and west, a region whose bread and butter is social issues, not economic ones. What economic desires they do have tend to come in the form of pork barrel spending and military bases, all which the GOP has adopted whole-heartedly at the expense of budgetary restraint. Virtually all of the GOPs moderates come from Northeastern states that are considered Democratic locks for the presidency (Sens. Snowe and Collins from Maine, Chaffee from Rhode Island, Rep. Shays from Connecticut, Gov. Pataki from New York). I won't go so far to say this is BAD for the Republican party; I mean, the fact remains that the majority of their voters are red-meat conservatives now rather than the Rockefeller tribe, and that should determine where the party goes. At the same time, one has to wonder how long the beleaguered moderates can last in a party beholden to its fundamentalists.

My home congressional district, which is overwhelmingly Democrat, was represented for 16 years by Connie Morella, probably the most liberal republican in the house, until she was ousted by Chris Van Hollen in 2002. I knew she was in trouble when the primary argument given by her supporters in favor of keeping her ran along of the lines of "Who do you think will have more influence: A first term backbencher in the minority party, or a 8 term veteran?" The sad thing was, I think that it was honestly a push, because I knew that the GOP leadership in the house couldn't care less about its moderate wing. To Tom Delay, there isn't a difference between Morella and Van Hollen, despite the nominal party affiliations.

The GOP is teetering on the edge of disaster. If it loses this election, there will be a bitter civil war between the party leadership and the "new moderates" (such as John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska) dissatisfied with the fundamentalist social and reckless economic policies that have come to represent the Republican party (tellingly, none of these "new moderates" would be considered anything close to moderate under the old standard). My dream scenario is that disaffected Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats all follow Jim Jeffords footsteps and bolt to create a new party in the center. Can anyone imagine the havoc a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have on this election?