Defensive Lapse

Former co-blogger Greg Ihrie has tipped me off that our new missile defense system is ready to be deployed. Now, by that statement, you might think that it would stand some chance of, I don't know...working? But you'd be wrong!

The paucity of realistic test data has caused the Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator to conclude that he cannot offer a confident judgment about the system's viability. He estimated its likely effectiveness to be as low as 20 percent.

"A system is being deployed that doesn't have any credible capability," said retired Gen. Eugene Habiger, who headed the U.S. Strategic Command in the mid-1990s. "I cannot recall any military system being deployed in such a manner." (Washington Post, 9/29/04)

At least we have a 20% chance of being protected from...the USSR? Russia. Or whoever it is that has ICBMs these days.

Oh right, North Korea! The Bush administration says that this system is necessary to counter the North Korean nuclear missile threat, which is admittedly a serious concern. But as Michael Levi points out, a missile defense system isn't going to fix the problem.

Against a quickly evolving threat, though, isn't some defense better than none? If such a threat existed, perhaps; but it's not clear that the threat the new missile defense is designed to meet is anywhere close to existence. Near-term worries center around nuclear-armed rogue states, especially North Korea. Jane's Defense Week caused a big stir last week when it reported that North Korea was in the advanced stages of developing two new long-range missiles, based on obsolete but still useful Soviet motors. The first missile, a land-based rocket, could not have reached the United States. The more worrying scenario involves engines for old Soviet submarine-based missiles used to build a new submarine-based rockets. Mated with several first-generation Soviet submarines that North Korea has purchased, those missiles could, theoretically, carry nuclear warheads and be used to attack the continental United States.

If the reports are true, they mean that North Korea is on its way to assured targeting for the American homeland. Doesn't that justify the Alaska deployment? Well, no, since the defense, even if it worked according to plan, wouldn't be able to protect against these missiles. The Alaska defense is optimized against North Korean missiles fired from North Korea, not all missiles North Korea happens to control. In contrast, the new missiles reported by Jane's would be carried away from North Korea on submarines and be fired from considerably closer to the United States. Most likely, the Alaska system would be ill-placed to intercept them. (TNR 8/11/04)

Levi doesn't think that the placement in Alaska will necessarily HARM the US, just that it won't actually do us any good and is a giant waste of money. This is partially true, but what it neglects is the further antagonization the shield will have on an already antsy North Korea. I doubt that they'll do anything extreme like attack us while our system is still vulnerable, but it could spur them to research countermeasures against such a system, which only makes the US less safe. Furthermore, by sending the message that the US will continue to focus solely on nuclear weapons, rather than the situation holistically, what we're really telling North Korea is that Nukes are still a bartering chip. After all, if we're willing to plunk down $100 billion on shoddy technology, it has to mean something to us right?

A program that wastes money in order to make the US less safe while not actually fixing the problem it's targeted at. It would be the worst form of liberal excess. Except, as is so often the case these days, it's President Bush who's doing it.

Debater on the Debate

Jed Glickstein, the 2004 National Forensics League champion in Lincoln-Douglas debate, gives his advice to candidates for their forthcoming debate. Considering that he's a more talenting speaker AND analyzer than either of the two candidates (or virtually any politician for that matter), they should listen up.

I particularly liked this soundbite:

"High school debate is a bunch of kids who dress up in suits on the weekend, and they pretend to talk about issues, but they really don't have any power. And political debate takes place between two of the most powerful people in the world, but they essentially don't talk about the issues, it's all very surface level."

Ironically, though I've spent four years spending the majority of my time researching, analyzing, writing, and debating about issues, I don't want to go into politics. I find it all fascinating, but after observing politics for so long I've realized that knowing information and having coherent arguments is at best irrelevant to the electoral process and at worst harmful (ex: Gore 2000). Being knowledgable and insightful makes you "the class nerd," "aloof," "unable to connect to the average American," and worst of all, might force you to take a position that doesn't pander to the right interest group. I can guarentee you that the best high school debaters, if they debated the way they did in rounds, would never win a single election anywhere in the country. It's not because they know too little, its because they know too much, and they aren't afraid to let it be known.

Deaniac

The New Republic's Etc. blog tipped me off to TNR editor Peter Beinart's musings on what the election would be like if Howard Dean was the Democratic candidate.

Beinart essentially makes the argument that Dean would be doing better off than Kerry because the focus of the election would be on Iraq, rather than flipflops. And he reasons, not without justification, that a continued focus on Iraq would help any Democratic candidate immensely. That being said, I think there are a few flaws in Beihart's argument.

First, Beinart seems a bit too dismissive about the likely impact of the GOP branding Dean as "the second coming of McGovern." Beinart argues that Dean can play defense by noting that he supported the Gulf War, and can turn the tables by getting aggressive on homeland security or the Saudis. In a just world, this would work, but it labors under the mistaken assumption that truth has any bearing on how voters percieve candidates. As TNR's own Jonathan Chait has pointed out, the media covers politicians in such a way to reinforce the existing storyline, regardless of whether the surrounding facts back it up or not (subscription only). The storyline on Dean is that he is a peacenik hard lefty, despite his commitment to a balanced budget and "A" rating from the NRA, neither of which is characteristic of your prototypical leftwinger. Since the press had already labeled him the liberals darling, he wouldn't be able to shift center during the election and make the voters believe him, because Americans had been told for months by their local newspapers that Dean was the favorite son of the hippie wing of the Democratic party.
Second, I don't think Dean's Iraq stance is an asset. The best attack the Democrats have on Bush still isn't that he decieved us, or missing WMDs, or anything like that. Its that Bush refuses to fight the wars he gets us into. Dean can't attack Bush on his Iraq policy failures because his solution--withdrawal--wouldn't fix the problem, it'd make it worse, and everyone knows it.
Third, even if Dean could translate his Iraq war opposition into electoral gains, I'm disturbed by the ethical implications. Regardless of whether or not its good politics, Dean's position on Iraq--that we should withdraw--is flatly wrong. Its bad for America, and its bad for Iraq. Isn't the subordination of principles to politics one of things we DISLIKE about Bush (subscription only)? Call me a hopeless idealist, but I don't think that Democrats should stoop to that level.

The REAL question is what the election would be like if Joe Lieberman was the Democratic nominee (subscription only).

Ralph Reed on The Daily Show

I was pleasanty surprised with Jon Stewart's interview of Ralph Reed on "The Daily Show" last night. For those of you who don't know, Ralph Reed is the former head of the Christian Coalition and currently Bush's Southeastern Regional Campaign Chief. Stewart managed to elucidate some very good points about our political process amidst his questioning ("So Ralph, would you like to lower expectations about Bush's performance in the debate?" Mr. Reed immediately obliged). Stewart clearly showed a liberal bias, and to Mr. Reed's credit he took it in good humor. But in the midst of everything Stewart managed to throw in some tough allegations
1) Iraq was a diversion for the War on Terror
2) North Korea is and was a greater threat than Iraq was
3) The Bush campaign loves to spin.

All in all, an impressive performance.

Kerr's Challenge Episode Two: The Response

Earlier today I wrote a response to Orin Kerr's challange to pro-war bloggers. Prof. Kerr has now posted the first grouping of responses to his challange (in which you can find my original post). I'd like to just share my thoughts on what was said by others.

The first thing I'd like to note is that I apparently was absolutely right when I guessed that I'd be the only liberal responding to this. Virtually all the posters appeared to be rockribbed conservatives, and no one seemed to have any doubts as to the original validity of the war (Relgious Middle being perhaps the sole exception, and to be fair, most formerly pro-war bloggers who have changed their minds probably wouldn't have responsed to the challange at all). And WAY too many bloggers blindly asserted that Kerry would be worse on Iraq without saying anything to back it up, or even addressing Kerry's Iraq Plan.

Another fascinating thing was the continued reliance on security issues rather than humaniterean/democratization reasons to justify the war (Cafe Hedonistix and Justus for All are happy exceptions, One Fine Jay uses both). Now, I realize that the latter justification probably holds more appeal to liberals like me than it does to your average Republican. But I thought that the record had more than borne out that Iraq was not a threat to the US per se. At best he was a regional threat, but Iraq never was close to possessing the capabilities to get whatever WMDs he did possess to US shores. Alot of these posters seem to conflate the statement that "Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug" (true) with "he has the ability to destroy America" (absurd). The point that Saddam supported terrorists is true and salient, but has been overhyped. Muslim extremists posed as much of a threat to Saddam's secular regime as it did to America. In terms of supporting terrorists, Hussein was a small fish in a very big pond.

Along the same lines, far too many posters were willing to declare our "mission accomplished" simply because we had kicked Saddam Hussein out of power. This strikes me as absolutely absurd. If Iraq forms a new government that is run by radical extremists, we're no better off just because our enemy has a name change. The people who did recognize that Democracy was important (Olive Tree for example) seemed to briefly gloss over it or phrase it in terms of "Iraqi quality of life." They didn't appear to recognize the fact that the lack of a functioning democracy in Iraq would profoundly discredit the United States and likely undo any gains we made from the war in the region. Democracy isn't an optional bonus to US involvment (as Moonage Political Webdream implies) but a pre-requisite to any and every other reasonable measure of success in Iraq. Unfortunately, pretending like democracy isn't relevant gives Bush the political cover he needs to run from Iraq before we finish our job. Doing that will end up making the US less safe than when we started.

Another trap many bloggers fell into was saying that "Iraq isn't that bad, look at how fast we conquered it!" A good example comes from from Pete the Elder

Here is an Andrew Sullivan quote from one of his less hysterical days that sums up my thoughts well: 'If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out... well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success.'

He's absolutely right about that, our ability to win the war quickly and relatively bloodlessly was an incredible statement about the efficacy and talent of our armed forces. However, the reason I'd have announced the above scenario a great success a year in a half ago is that I wouldn't have dreamed that, under those circumstances, we'd be facing a large and growing insurgency, an inability to control the country, and the prospect of a functional democracy rapidly spiraling out of reach. It doesn't matter if we don't have a single new casualty, we've still failed in Iraq if there isn't a functional democracy at the end of the day. Whether or not the news is good or bad is directly a function of how likely a democracy is going to develop under the current circumstances, and under THAT framework, we're doing worse every day. Yes, many Iraqi voices claim that things are getting better, which is a positive development. But bodycounts and bombs talk pretty loudly in of themselves, and it can't all be chalked up to media bias.

One thought that only occured to me just now is that alot of bloggers seem to be almost too objective in creating the criteria for success. The problem, as I see it, is that we could be doing everything "right," but if the Iraqi's still see us as "wrong" then we're still going to lose. Its that simple. That's why perception is as important is reality. Take for example, attacking insurgents in Najaf. I think that, objectively, that's important in the war against the insurgency. But the Iraqis could interpret it several ways:
1) A critical battle against anti-democratic insurgents
2) Liberating a religious holy place from armed rebels, so that its safe for pilgrims to travel there
3) US infidels descrating sacred ground
4) The central government crushing opposition and consolidating power
...etc etc.
How well we do in making it so that Iraqi's percieve our actions as "good" is essential to our prospects for success.

To sum up, while many of the bloggers had some excellent arguments, a few characteristics were common:
1) Too much emphasis on what we've already done while minimizing how the current situation puts it all in jeopardy.
2) A general minimization of the immense importance of a functioning democracy.
3) Very quick dismissals of negative news from Iraq while hyping the positive (even positive news from months ago)
4) A failure to see any middle ground between "staying the course" and "abandoning Iraq." Can't we shift policy but stay in Iraq, using the lessons we've learned thus far to make our mission more successful?

Kerr's challenge

Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy has challenged pro-war bloggers to answer a few questions:

First, assuming that you were in favor of the invasion of Iraq at the time of the invasion, do you believe today that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? Why/why not?

Second, what reaction do you have to the not-very-upbeat news coming of Iraq these days, such as the stories I link to above?

Third, what specific criteria do you recommend that we should use over the coming months and years to measure whether the Iraq invasion has been a success?

As the sole liberal who remains in favor of the Iraq War (or so it seems), here's my take:

1) Honestly, it depends on the criteria you use, and I think the original reasons given by the Bush administration have been discredited. However, my reasons for supporting the war were always humanitarian based. I think that the US has an obligation to bring about positive change in the world, by removing oppressive dictators and promoting democratization. Unfortunately, this blurs the issue, because I think that if President Bush had used this justification then we'd have gotten considerably more international support (or at the very least, less animosity) than we are seeing today, and that in turn would have translated to a more support and less animosity on the ground as well. For the war on terror to be won, Muslims must see the world is as concerned with improving their lives as it is with ending them. The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator, that he was a threat to regional stability, and that he was one of the worst human rights violators of our time remain true today, and gives the US all the reasons it needed to intervene.

2) Clearly, the war has been bungled. That's beyond a doubt. The Bush administration has decided to put its head in the sand, and worse yet, its placing political concerns over the necessary actions that we need to win in Iraq. The next administration, be it Bush or Kerry (though given past performance, I don't have much faith in either to do it), has to hold two seemingly opposing things in balance. The first is a renewed, aggressive effort to crush the terrorists in their strongholds, like Najaf and Fallujah. The second is regaining the trust of an Iraqi people who seem to view the US occupation more and more negatively every day. How can we do this? By aggressively courting the elements in Iraqi society that a) aren't affiliated with the extremists and b) still have credibility with the Iraqi people. That means that the interim government (and the US) has to work really hard to make Ayatollah Sistani an asset, not a liability. Firing one of his top allies in the government and provoking a boycott is a bad place to start. A good place to start would be making a renewed effort to show how we're acting for the Iraqis, rather than in our own selfinterest. If the Iraqis don't see tangible benefits from American projects, they'll naturally get suspicious of our motives. But if we show them how the insurgency makes them worse off and that we can provide a better path, we can win back the vast majority of the population that wants to live in a democratic state.

3) The ultimate criteria for success can only be Iraq as a functioning democracy. This can't be stressed enough. If Iraq is stabilized, but under an authoritarian government, then the Islamic world will see that at best, working with the US will mean trading one dictator for another. At worst, they'll see it as trading an Islamic dictator for an American patsy, which will increase the already swelling tide of anti-American extremism present in the region. Though obviously stability is important, the key point is that it must be made clear to the Iraqis that the possibly heavyhanded tactics necessary to bring about stability (for example, taking out the hornets nest of terrorists in Fallujah) are being done in order to make democracy possible, not just to strengthen the hand of the central authorities. All the polls still show that Iraqis are optimistic about the prospect of democracy, and that positive mentality needs to be harnessed by the allies and interim government. If Iraq collapses into civil war, as the National Intelligence Estimate thinks could be likely, then it will become the biggest breeding ground for terrorists in the world, and probably will ruin any chance of stabilizing the region for decades. Unlike Afghanistan, which is geographically isolated from most of its neighbors, a civil war in Iraq would almost certainly draw in Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and possibly Jordan as well. And for anyone who isn't scared at that prospect, imagine Lebanon, but multiplied by 10 and entirely blamed on the US. In the short term, success can be measured based on how enthusiastic Iraqis are taking to coalition actions to bring about democratic reform, and how willing the interim government is to implement it. If our pro-democratic actions are not seen that way, but seen (correctly or not) as building blocks to dictatorship, then we're doing something wrong. Longterm success is measured by a reasonably stable, pluralistic democracy that manages to balance the rivalry between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds.

Fire away!

Not a Flipflop

Yet another great explaination for why Kerry hasn't flipflopped on Iraq comes from Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig:

As with most Americans, at the start, Kerry supported the war in Vietnam. Unlike almost all Americans of privilege (see, e.g., George Bush and Dick Cheney), Kerry demonstrated his support by volunteering to serve in that war. But after his experience, he—as almost all Americans—came to believe that war was a mistake. Our government had lied to get us into the war; it had lied about its prosecution of the war. Based upon the facts, he changed his mind.

The same is true about the war on Iraq. As with most Americans, Kerry supported giving the President the authority to go to war. As with most Americans, Kerry expected the President would exercise that authority in a way that did not unnecessarily put America at risk. But after his experience, he—as with most Americans—came to believe that war was a mistake. Most of us believe our government lied to get us into the war; most believe it has lied about its prosecution of the war. Based upon the facts, Kerry is now critical of a war he supported at the start.

This is not flip-flopping. It is evidence of a functioning brain. When you learn that the premise of your action was false, you should rethink your action. When you learn that the premise of a war was false, you should rethink the justification for the war. Being stubborn in the face of reality doesn't make you principled. It makes you Chairman Mao.

Another good indicator of a functioning brain is that you recognize the fallacy of the "Kerry flipflopped on Iraq" argument. But then, we knew that the far right had sacrificed its brainpower to the altar of dittoheadedness long ago.

Democracy/Rights Link

Democracy and Human Rights are inextricably linked
UN Human Development Report 2000: "Inclusive Democracy Secures Rights."

Democracy is the only form of political regime
compatible with respecting all five categories of
rights—economic, social, political, civil and
cultural....
Four defining features of a democracy are
based on human rights:
• Holding free and fair elections contributes to
fulfilment of the right to political participation.
• Allowing free and independent media contributes
to fulfilment of the right to freedom of
expression, thought and conscience.
• Separating powers among branches of government
helps protect citizens from abuses of
their civil and political rights.
• Encouraging an open civil society contributes
to fulfilment of the right to peaceful
assembly and association. An open civil society
adds an important participatory dimension,
along with the separation of powers, for the
promotion of rights.

Justice DeLay-ed

Of course, no one with half a brain is really surprised to learn that some of Tom DeLay's minions have been indicted on counts of illegal fundraising and money laundering. But it still feels good to know that someone, somewhere still cares about democracy.

Tragically, that place isn't US Congress, where an ethics complaint filed against DeLay is likely to get ignored and/or buried. Why? Because if you out one corrupt congressman, then you have to start outing them all, and pretty soon...there are no congressmen left.

Rivkin/Casey v. Martinez Debate

I've made a decision on the Rivkin/Casey and Martinez debate over the question: "How should the U.S. try suspected terrorists?" In a very close decision, I give it to Martinez, though if this was a debate tournament it would be on a low-point win.

Rivkin and Casey cream Martinez on the legal aspect, doing a great job proving that these tribunals are legal under international law (news to me). At first glance, this was going to be enough for me to vote for them. But on closer reflection, the resolution is a question of morals, how SHOULD be try them, not how CAN we. The question then became whether or not Martinez focused enough on the "should" part in her first post to make that the framework (as it is closer to the original text of the question). Though she did get dragged into the legal debate more than was strategically wise, I concluded she focused enough on the "should" to make that a voter. Unfortunately, her best arguments were made only in the last post, but this quote from the first post is money.

The first week of proceedings before the military commissions was a travesty. The commission members (all but one of whom have no formal legal training) seemed perplexed when asked about basic legal concepts like "due process of law" and "reasonable doubt." One member confessed that he did not really know what the Geneva Conventions were—which is quite troubling given that the Conventions are the cornerstone of the modern laws of war. Even if he was not familiar with the Geneva Conventions before being appointed to the commission (though the Conventions are a mandatory topic in basic training) you would have thought this high-profile assignment might have caused him to study up. The presiding officer of the commission—the only lawyer in the bunch—was little better prepared. He reacted like a deer caught in the headlights when one defendant asked to represent himself or have a lawyer from his home country assigned to work with him. This type of request is hardly unusual, and both the civilian courts and courts martial have established legal standards for evaluating them. Because the military commissions are starting from scratch, however, every new issue of procedure or evidence will cause this kind of paralysis. And then there were the problems with the translators—apparently, they were so inadequate that the defendants and Arab-language journalists had to struggle to figure out what was going on. It's a good thing the government is not allowing audio or video recordings of the trials—it would be far too embarrassing.

It rather unfortunately seems that Martinez was flailing and just happened to catch a lucky break. But sometimes that's the way it works in debate. And I want to say that I was very impressed by Rivkin and Casey's ability to argue, persuasively, a position that I thought was both morally and legally untenable.

Of Politics and Principle

Matthew Yglesias shows yet another example of how President Bush cares more about his political prospects than he does about the safety of the American people.

Bush has adopted policies designed to keep the death count low, primarily by avoiding ground combat in the Sunni triangle. Good campaign tactics, needless to say, but, as ever, the Bush team seems better at winning elections than winning wars. By delaying any assault on the wily Salafi terrorists...lurking in Fallujah, Samarra, Ramadi, and Baquba until after November, we give them more time to dig in, prepare defenses, and strengthen their forces before the attack.

An important point comes next, so it gets a paragraph of its own: This plan will get people killed. If an assault is to be mounted, it should be done as soon as possible, before the adversary has been given months to prepare for it. The Marines and soldiers serving in Iraq volunteered for the military, but they've been conscripted into the Bush campaign. Decisions, as Lieutenant General James Conway recently stated, are being made on the basis of narrow political considerations rather than military ones. It's appropriate for generals to be subordinate to civilian politicians, but not to civilian campaign strategists. We're waging war as an extension of an electoral campaign, exposing our soldiers to harassing attacks right now and to a more difficult fight later on in order to help secure the president's re-election.

This is merely another link in the Bush train of letting his political concerns get in the way of unimportant things like safety. From Homeland Security to hunting terrorists to protecting our agents to Iraq today, President Bush has consistently opted to score political points at the expense of the American people. And now it appears that he's going to withdraw from Iraq as soon as he gets the electoral all-clear sign. The stakes are simply too high to let that continue.

Past Problems, Future Results

John Kerry just gave a major Iraq Speech at New York University.

TNR's "etc" says that Kerry hit a Triple. I think that its more along the lines of a Double. On the one hand, I really like Kerry's proposal on what he'd be doing in Iraq right now:

First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
...
The President should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this President may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can’t stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority … 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical … 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price.

Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects… and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the President agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad… and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission… the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The President should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won’t be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

I think its very clear that this proposal is vastly superior to Bush's head-in-the-sand approach. Indeed, if you asked me, I couldn't tell you what Bush's strategy for Iraq is at the moment, beyond empty phrases like "winning the war" and "creating a healthy democracy." With all due respect, that's rhetorical crap, and Bush has not done one thing that would suggest he is serious about these or any other goal he's set for Iraq.

Also, this line particularly struck me:

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?

That loss of trust is both true and deeply tragic. I think Sen. Kerry is right to emphasize it.

The negatives in the speech come in two areas. First, Kerry continues to muddle his position on whether or not we were right, originally, to go into Iraq. Ideally, this should be tangential to the main point, which is 'what do we do now that we're there?' But the Bush campaign has seized upon this as the trump example of an indecisive Kerry, and I'm not happy that Kerry seemed to make Bush's job easier.

The other problem comes with regards to troop deployment. Kerry appears to simultaneously argue that Bush didn't commit enough troops to Iraq to stabilize it (which is true), and that Iraq drew our attention and manpower away from Al-Qaeda, enabling Osama Bin Laden to escape (which is also true). Both of these are accurate criticisms, but they are mutually exclusive in terms of remedy. In terms of political realities, we could only deploy enough troops to do one of these jobs, not both. This isn't to absolve Bush of his incompetence on the matter, since he allocated too few troops to BOTH projects. But I'm confused as to Kerry's proposed solution here, though ultimately it doesn't take away from the positives of his plan as a whole.

What I like most about this speech is that it attacks Bush on his home territory. The Accountability President? Then why were the only people fired over Iraq those who made accurate predictions? The need to be tough against terrorists? Then why is Bush flailing blindly at the "main front" for the war on terror? The need for solid, argumentative coherency (as opposed to "flipflopping")? Bush gave 23 reasons for the war in Iraq, the majority of which are discredited.

The more I think about it, the more I'm voting for Kerry because of all the reasons Bush strategists say I should vote for Bush. I want a President who stand solidly against terror, will aggressively move to target them, knows the importance and utter paramounce of homeland security, and above all, does not subordinate the safety of American people to score quick political points. On all of these fronts, President Bush has objectively been a disaster, and Sen. Kerry appears to have a remedy. That's enough for me.

Troop Movements

I want more troops in Iraq, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

Bipartisan Critique

CNN reports on Republican criticism of Bush's Iraq policy. These aren't backbenchers either, but the heavy hitters: McCain (AZ), Lugar (IL), and Hagel (NE). All have the reputation of a maverick streak, but rarely have they been this blunt criticizing the President. Sen. Lugar even went so far to label Bush "incompetent" when spending reconstruction money. Senators Kyl (AZ) and Graham (SC) also had more mild criticism for the Bush administration, but this is perhaps more telling as they are both considered GOP loyalists.

And while it wasn't from a Republican, this quote was on the money.

"The president's going to the United Nations [Tuesday]," [Delaware Senator Joe Biden] said. "You know what we list as our priorities for the United Nations General Assembly? Dealing with sex trade, which is important. Dealing with cloning. Dealing with spread of democracy.

"Not one word of Korea. Not one word with regard to Iraq. Not one word with regard to Iran. It's like Wonderland," said Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Maybe President Bush has also been paying a bit too much attention to Rathergate compared to foreign and domestic policy.

In any event, its good to see that some Republicans are breaking away from the "support Bush at any cost" mentality.

Blogger Code of Ethics

This is something I've toying around for a long time. As I've been reading the blogosphere, I've noticed that ALOT of the blogs out there are not behaving like they want an objective search for truth, or a reasoned political discourse. Instead, they are partisan bombthrowers who only wish to score a quick 2 points for their preferred political allies. This, I think, is a negative trend, and one I think we should counteract before the internet turns into Cass Sunstein's "Republic.com". That being said, I give you my (very personal) take on the "blogger code of ethics" (keep in mind this really only applies to political blogs).

1) I will not be a partisan hack, nor will I engage in hatchet jobs on my political opponents that are grounded weakly or not at all in facts.
2) I will focus predominantly on issues, not personal lives or other tangents. While instances such as Rathergate deserve some attention, they don't deserve ALL of our attention and certainly don't outweigh the pressing issues that face our country.
3) I will do my best to present issues with as much factual grounding as possible.
4) If evidence turns up that proves I'm wrong, or casts my point in substantial doubt, I will either address the criticism or admit error.
5) If a political opponent says something that I think is smart, wise, well-advised, or I otherwise agree with, I will point it out.
6) I will at all times conduct myself in a manner that seeks to further, not hinder, intellectual debate on the issues.
7) Recognizing that full compliance with the above is often a case of judgment, I will make a good faith effort to comply with this code.

Do I expect this to have much effect? Probably not. But this, at least, is the code that I'm going to write this blog on.

Wow...Comments

I guess the Powerline plug has actually gotten me my first "real" (as in, from people I don't know) comments of this blogs existance. How cool! And considering that most of them seemed to center around me being foolish and wrong, I guess I need to tighten up my arguments.

Now, I won't normally do this (or if I do, it will be via e-mail), but I'm going to take this time to answer some of the comments personally, on the front page of the blog! That's YOUR prize for being an early reader!

Starting with the comments in my "Thank You" post. This centered around my boredom with Rathergate and other topics of that nature.
Skb argues that 1) its presumptous to claim what is and is not relevant in this election and 2) that he wouldn't vote for Kerry if he lied about his wounds or Bush if he lied to get into the Guard. In a way he is correct, but I do think that these issues should be of secondary importance in the election. What our politicians did or didn't do 30 years ago is not particularly relevant to how they'll govern our country today. While I can perhaps see these issues as being relevant to the electoral decision as a whole, what I'm seeing (and condemning) is that these issues are seemingly pre-empting a rational discussion on the issues that face our nation, and I think that is deeply unfortunate.
Rmcleod argues more directly about the importance of Rathergate. I agree that it is an important issue. But the question is, should it be covered to the virtual exclusion of all others? As Orin Kerr puts it, it should have gotten a few blog posts, but it shouldn't have dominated the discussion. Even the debater in me, who, as Rmcleod points out, appreciates the need for legitimate, honest argumentation, also recognizes that between a case of bad factchecking and arguments over Iraq, Tax Cuts, Terrorism, and a myriad of other pressing issues, the precedence clearly should go to the latter.

Now to the Pledge Comments. These seem to fall into two broad categories, so I'll address each in turn.
First, saying the pledge in general. This is a complex issue. I'll admit I'm a bit torn, because I can see the validity of the points being made. At the same time, the general point about freedom vs compulsion still holds true. Call me anti-essentialist, but I'm going to honor my country on my terms, not the ones dictated to me by the government. However, that point I have to admit is far less important to me than the religious nature of the pledge.
My critique of the "under God" clause in the pledge seemed to be misunderstood. Terry actually gets my position backwards: I don't like "under God" BECAUSE I find it religiously demeaning. It implies that my faith can be reduced to a one-size-fits-all statement like "one nation under God," which is degrading. And the implication that my religion will somehow suffer if "under God" is taken out suggests that my faith can't survive without government training wheels, which is incredibly offensive. And I think that statements of many of the religious leaders who have fought against UG's removal have indeed characterized their position in terms of the need to protect America and organized religion against the ensuing wave of Godlessness. In any event, the fact that people like me can find fault in the pledge on pro-religion grounds is yet more proof that when government wades into religious messages, the result is invariably negative.
Matt points out specifically that the Pledge is merely an affirmation of certain values or ideals. That's great and laudable, but it only strengthens my argument as to the religious aspect. As Judge Reinhardt wrote in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in US v. Newdow (328 F.3d 466, 2002)

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation "under God" is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and--since 1954--monotheism. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. The school district's practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, including the religious values it incorporates.

That innoculation of religious values, along with the obvious coercive attribute of a schoolhouse setting (that Mr. Mirengoff aptly describes) should make for a clear establishment clause violation, though there are many, many other reasons on which the UG clause falters constitutionally. The 9th circuit opinion gives an excellent analysis of these reasons (as the Supreme Court ruling focused on standing, it had a far less in-depth analysis of the constitutional issues at hand).

Finally, the statement that "I must be doing something right" in my writings on the pledge (considering all the wonderful benefits it got me) was intended to be humorous. I would HOPE that Carleton didn't let me in simply because it liked my politics (if they did, they'll be sorely mistaken, as I'm probably one of the most conservative students on campus, not that that says much).

Anyway, cheers to y'all!

Kerry on Iraq

Anthony Cordesman echoes a claim that I've been hearing alot recently: That while President Bush has unquestionably screwed up Iraq, Sen. Kerry has not articulated anyway to solve the problems Bush has created. This is a fair point, and for the most part, its an accurate criticism. However, there is at least one key point of differentiation between Kerry and Bush on Iraq policy. I blogged earlier on Spencer Ackerman's articulation of this difference, namely, that Sen. Kerry can secure international cooperation and support--even if its not of the military variety--that the reviled Bush cannot. That's an important plus for Kerry, and Bush is not helping matters by burying his head in the sand and pretending nothing is wrong.

I'd like to think this is the first step in answering Powerline's challenge for me to find Conservative reasons to vote for Kerry (as opposed to just voting against Bush). In fact, since I think a clear articulation of POSITIVE reasons to vote for Kerry is severely lacking, I'm going to start compiling positive reasons to vote for Kerry.

Starting off with...his education plan!

The folks at Powerline are very nice...and wrong

The folks at the Powerline Blog have been nice enough to mention my blog on their site. This marks the first time a major blog has linked to my own site. So thank you Powerline!

And what better way to repay them than to take issue with one of their posts?

Mr. Mirengoff remarks that no one at his daughter's school, Walt Whitman High School stands for the pledge. As a former student, I can vouch for the accuracy of this claim, but I would hardly ascribe the nefarious motives Mr. Mirengoff does.

Mr. Mirengoff says there are three reasons given by the students for this:

Three main reasons are cited. First, school starts early, and kids don't feel like standing up. Second, Bush is evil and the U.S. is pretty bad too. Third, with hardly anyone else standing, some feel uncomfortable doing so.

First of all, I would bet money that the first issue is far and away the most prevalent. We're teenagers. Ergo, we are lazy. That's just the way it is. And I'd bet a sizable portion of the people in groups two and three are really "ones" but think that laziness is a pretty poor reason and are embarrassed to say so.

For the second, I can't speak for most Whitman students. However, I do know that I have not stood for the pledge for a LONG time, dating well back into the Clinton admin. It has nothing to do with my (very real) dislike of Bush, because I think it is very important to distinguish between a nation and its government. I'll admit that at the start I didn't stand for the pledge because, yes, I was too tired. Now I don't recite the pledge on principle (more on that in a moment). I think that, to the extent that people are really not standing as protest against the administration, that's an unfortunate expression. However, if you believe that this administration has made a mockery of "liberty...for all" (Federal Marriage Amendment) and "justice for all" (Guantanomo Bay, Patriot Act, Hamdi/Padilla/Moussaoui), then I can see where they're coming from. I don't agree with their methodology (hell, I don't even agree with all they're protesting against), but not everyone has the type of time or energy to craft sophisticated and eloquent protests against authority. Sometimes, simplicity works.

The third I think is very interesting. I am very much inclined to believe that there is a sizable portion of the student body at Whitman who would stand but does not want to ostracize themselves by being "different" from the vast majority of the student population. Mr. Mirengoff is ABSOLUTELY right to point this phenomena out. Unfortunately, I doubt that he would be so quick to embrace the flipside of his argument, that in regions where the vast majority of students stand for the pledge, those who would prefer not to (let's assume out of true political or religious conviction) would feel pressured into standing. In the words of Lee v. Weisman they (the students who would stand but feel pressured not to, and those who wouldn't stand but feel pressured to) are being "psychologically coerced." The same people who are ready to jump down the throats of the liberal pinkos who are making young patriots uncomfortable about honoring their country are utterly dismissive of claims that people who object (religiously or otherwise) to the content of the pledge are "coerced" into participating in it by the patriotic majority. Mr. Mirengoff aptly though inadvertently illustrates the power of the "participate or protest" dilemma faced by so many children and teenagers every day. It just so happens that at Whitman, the "protesters" are in the majority. And the power of this psychological force, now recognized by Mr. Mirengoff, forms the linchpin of my opposition to the pledge in general. This type of coercion can be a force for good or for evil, and we'd all do well to remember that.

Now moving to my personal reasons for not saying the pledge. Even before the Newdow case, I was deeply troubled by the mention of "under God" in the pledge (indeed, I wrote my college essay and my national merit scholarship essay on it. Since I got into college and got the scholarship, I must be doing something right!). This is not because I'm an atheist. Indeed, I believe in God and consider myself a fairly religious person. Rather, its the implications of including "under God" that I find troubling.

First of all, I have always been confused as to the outcry of religious persons in America when it seemed that "Under God" would be taken out. They honestly seemed to view it as a threat to their faith. But what kind of faith requires government training wheels to be expressed? Maybe its because I'm Jewish and my people have had a lot of practice doing this, but it always seemed to me that the true test of faith was ones ability to hold it even when it wasn't part of the status quo. If your faith is so tenuous as to require governmental mandates to keep it afloat, then I think the problem is with our religious institutions, not with the government.

Second, people express religion in different ways. Religion is a deeply personal matter, and there is tremendous variance amongst Americans, even those who do believe in one God, on how to articulate their faith. Even within the same religious tradition there can be cleavages (for example, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Southern Baptists fall on the extreme opposite ends of the Pledge Case spectrum). So when the government proclaims one methodology of expressing faith to be paramount or proper, it has the effect of commoditizing religion, of turning it into a "one size fits all" proposition. I think that is tremendously patronizing of the deep personal and spiritual bound that religion represents, and I think that's what Justice Hugo Black meant when he said that "a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country...showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' by a civil magistrate." (Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421, 431)

At root, I'm going to believe in God because I believe in God, not because my government tells me to. And I'm certainly not going to express my faith in terms of federally codified norms. That's not a celebration of religion, that's a mockery of it.

Thank You!

As usual, Daniel Drezner says aloud what I've been thinking privately, that is, that all the SBVT and typewriter font and Bush National Guard service reports and all that crap are not the slightest bit relevant in this election. Can the media (and blogosphere) at least PRETEND there are issues being debated here?

Presumably, this sort of media fatigue is helping contribute to Mr. Drezner's 60% probability of voting for Sen. Kerry for President and Barack Obama for Senator (Of course, Alan Keyes opposition to to direct elections of senators might also have something to do with it).

Zacarias Moussaoui Decision

The United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a decision in United States v. Moussaoui. I read the (90 page) opinion, and it appears that the court agreed with District Court Judge Robert Doumar that the government's proposed subsitutions for having certain suspected Al-Qaeda witnesses actually appear on the stand were not enough to survive constitutional scrutiny. However, it disagreed with Mr. Doumar in that any form of substitution was a violation of Mr. Moussaoui's rights, and gave guidelines for an alternative form of substitution to be used at trial. It also reinstated the possibility of the death penalty, which Judge Doumar threw out. The panal of Chief Judge Wilkins and Judges Williams and Gregory was unanimous on the unconstitutionality of the government's original proposal, however, Justice Gregory dissented as to the propreity of the alternative substitution method and the reinstatement of the death penalty.

Debate Club

Legal Affairs has just started a debate club featuring prominent legal academics and commentators arguing over important and pertinent legal issues of our time. Currently, Jenny Martinez is debating David Rifkin and Lee Casey on "How Should the US try suspected terrorists?"

In keeping with this sites debate tradition, I will judge the debate at its conclusion.

Anti-Privacy Cards?

I don't know how useful these will be, but they seem reasonably likely to help neg cases on the sept/oct topic (some people might recognize these from Matt Scarola's "rights talk kritik" of CFL Nationals Fame. But I don't know if he used these specific cards, or merely this author).

Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University, writes in "RIGHTS TALK: THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE"

[The Plantiff in Roe v. Wade] won the right that had been understood from its earliest appearance in the American legal system as "the right to be let alone." And let alone she was. No one . . . had been willing to help her either to have the abortion she desired, or to keep and raise the child who was eventually born.
...
Buried deep in our rights dialect is an unexpressed premise that we roam at large in a land of strangers, where we presumptively have no obligations toward others except to avoid the active infliction of harm. This legalistic assumption is one that fits poorly with the American tradition of generosity toward the stranger, as well as with the trend in our history to expand the concept of the community for which we accept common responsibility.

Also this quote set (which is a good block against gay rights aff cases):

Neglect of the social dimension of personhood has made it extremely difficult for us to develop an adequate conceptual apparatus for taking into account the sorts of groups within which human character, competence, and capacity for citizenship are formed. In a society where the seedbeds of civic virtue-families, neighborhoods, religious associations, and other communities-can no longer be taken for granted, this is no trifling matter.
...
Because individuals are partly constituted in and through relationships with others, a liberal politics dedicated to full and free human development cannot afford to ignore the settings that are most conducive to the fulfillment of that ideal.

Push Polling

Both literally and metaphorically.

First, the literal. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentiniel reports that the Moore Information Polling Group has been engaged in Push Polling for Bush. For those of you who don't know what that is, Push Polling is when the pollster asks a question that "pushes" the listener to support one side. For example, "Would you support John Kerry even though he kills puppies?" is a push question. A more subtle push question would be "Do you support Liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry for President?" This seeks to capitalize on many independent voters reflexive mistrust of the "liberal" label (and especially of the massachusetts sort!). Another push question (the one that allegedly was used by Moore) is "Whose position do you think is closer to the truth - those 'veterans who served with John Kerry' and say that he does not deserve the medals that he received, or John Kerry who disagrees with the veterans that he served with and who appear in the ad?"

Second, the metaphorical. Despite all the hysteria about Bush's rising national polling, on the state-by-state level Kerry is still hanging tough. The latest polls have him ahead in Colorado and Pennsylvania, states he was losing previously. He's also made up ground in Ohio, and Florida and Nevada are virtually tied. So maybe the media should hold off on claiming that Kerry is on the edge of death.

Pledge Update

The pledge might get back into the news with this article running in the Wisconsin State-Journal. While I'm inclined to believe that the administration did not have hostile motives towards the student in question, it still shows how the pledge can be divisive and has very real harms to students even when its recitation is not mandatory.

Since the Supreme Court dodged the main issue in Newdow, this could set the stage for another pledge challenge (obviously a ridiculously premature statement). It certainly seems to fail Justice Kennedy's "psychological coercion" test articulated in Lee v. Weisman (505 US 577, 1992)

[P]ressure, though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion. Of course, in our culture, standing or remaining silent can signify adherence to a view or simple respect for the views of others. And no doubt some persons who have no desire to join a prayer have little objection to standing as a sign of respect for those who do. But for the dissenter of high school age, who has a reasonable perception that she is being forced by the State to pray in a manner her conscience will not allow, the injury is no less real. There can be no doubt that for many, if not most, of the students at the graduation, the act of standing or remaining silent was an expression of participation in the rabbi's prayer. That was the very point of the religious exercise. It is of little comfort to a dissenter, then, to be told that, for her, the act of standing or remaining in silence signifies mere respect, rather than participation. What matters is that, given our social conventions, a reasonable dissenter in this milieu could believe that the group exercise signified her own participation or approval of it.

Finding no violation under these circumstances would place objectors in the dilemma of participating, with all that implies, or protesting. We do not address whether that choice is acceptable if the affected citizens are mature adults, but we think the State may not, consistent with the Establishment Clause, place primary and secondary school children in this position. Research in psychology supports the common assumption that adolescents are often susceptible to pressure from their peers towards conformity, and that the influence is strongest in matters of social convention...To recognize that the choice imposed by the State constitutes an unacceptable constraint only acknowledges that the government may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use more direct means.

GOP Grumblings, Part 2

Just a few days ago, I blogged on the grumblings of some conservatives and their reticence to vote for President Bush.

Now, libertarian columnist Andrew Sullivan has announced he is supporting John Kerry in the 2004 election, joining other prominent libertarian academics who have decided Bush doesn't hold their values anymore.

And that's not all. Clay Risen writes in The New Republic (subscription only) that the normally stalwart CATO institute also may turn to Kerry.

[V]arious strands of criticism--on spending, civil liberties, the war--have come together to convince many Cato staffers that the best vote this fall might be for Kerry. For one thing, there is a growing belief at the Institute that the Republicans--not just Bush, but the congressional leadership as well--have sold out traditional small-government conservatives, spending lavishly to woo cultural conservatives and big business; Cato op-eds note that, during Bush's first three years, nondefense discretionary spending has increased 20.8 percent. Since last summer, scholars have chafed against the administration's fiscal profligacy in op-eds with titles like "overspending is not fiscal responsibility," "the bush betrayal," and "what fiscal discipline?" In contrast, New Democrats may not always talk the small-government talk, but Cato staffers note that, under Clinton, the Democrats reined in government spending and deregulated a broad swath of industries. "Perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton," wrote Cato fellow Veronique de Rugy for National Review Online in 2003, pointing out that Clinton reduced nondefense discretionary spending. At the same time, there is a more philosophical, and more cynical, pro-Kerry argument that has gained credence within the Institute--namely that the best way to limit government spending is to divide the parties' control between the executive and the legislative branches. And, given the GOP's advantage in Congress, the best way to affect such a division is to pull the lever for Kerry. In April, Bandow outlined this view in a widely syndicated column (originally published in Fortune), arguing that "the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity." Therefore, he urged his conservative readers, "Vote Democratic."

The official fracturing of the GOP coalitions has begun. Are the Rockefeller's next?

Washington Gay Marriage, Part 2

Another Washington state court has struck down the state's prohibition of gay marriage. The court in Castle v. State echoed a previous ruling by a seperate state court in Anderson v. Sims.

While overall, I preferred the rhetoric of the Anderson opinion, there was some good stuff to be found here too.

Strange as it seems, today the biological father and biological mother need never meet. One may need a government license to get married but no license is required to father or birth children. The traditional stable heterosexual union for the purpose of having a child does not need government approval and never has. But if the government is going to require that the government approve a civil contract, and approve several benefits that flow from such approval, then it must take care to treat all its citizens in an equal way. Even more important, just as the government is a real, but not named, party to the contract, any children that result are real,
but not named, parties to the contract. Same-sex couples can have children through artificial insemination and same-sex couples can adopt children all with the government’s approval. Where is the protection for these children?

Do we really need a study to understand that children thrive better in a stable family? When children lose family stability we go to great lengths through the use of foster families and adoption to bring them back into a stable family situation. When married parents divorce we take great care to do what we can to provide for the children’s loss of stability in the ‘broken’ family that results. On another level, even without children, surely stable couples as well as families are the foundation for a democratic stable society. If these observations of family are correct, and if the defendants are correct that stable families are the foundation of a stable state, then the question becomes, not what counts as “marriage,” but rather what counts as “family.” If the reason to protect marriage is the need for stable families then we need be clear as to what counts as a family upon which this stability rests. It seems to this court that stable families are a legitimate and compelling state interest for the benefit of the entire community. We, the community, need to come to know ourselves. We need to have the fortitude to see who we are and accept ourselves as we are. If we look at ourselves, and at our neighbors, what do we see that counts as a “family?”

For at least two generations we have understood “family” as something more than a man mating with a woman to have a child. A single parent is a family. Grandparents raising grandchildren without the help of the parents is a family. Adults giving foster children a home are a family. Same sex couples who adopt children are a family. Opposite sex couples who adopt children are a family. Single parents with children who marry each other bring into being a new family. A childless couple, same sex or opposite sex, can be a family. An older child raising his or her siblings is a family. There are other examples. Clearly, it seems to this court, a same sex couple, especially a same sex couple with adopted children, is a family. Is
this the kind of family that the government has an interest in making more stable? If an opposite sex couple without children is a family then on what basis is a same sex couple without children not a family? The community support that provides additional stability to the private vows of commitment of any couple comes into being because the community understands that this is in the best interest of the entire community. The community support for the private vow is to allow the creation of a civil contract. That is what marriage is. It is a civil contract approved by the community that carries with it many obligations, many benefits, and many burdens.

Both cases will almost certainly be consildated for hearing by the state Supreme Court. However, the ball is rolling folks.

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.