The radio appearance went fine (albeit brief). I said my bit in response to Debbie Schlussel, who argued that we needed far more troops than 20,000 (she said more like 200,000) to make an impact. Basically, I pointed out that a) where are we going to find that many troops, and b) there's no political will to send those troops, and no political will to keep them there. So all we'll see is perhaps a temporary increase in security, and then everything will fall apart again.
What was rather surreal was what happened next. Who do the hosts recruit to respond to my (ever so erudite) comment? None other than Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, noted neo-conservative, PNACer, and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In other words, a big name, certainly in the neo-con circles that have driven Iraqi policy for this administration.
Kind of flattering when you think about it. To be honest, though, he made pretty weak points I thought. Basically, he thought that if the surge worked (and he wasn't even willing to commit to that), it would show Americans we were winning, restoring our faith in the war effort and thus giving us the space to undertake in more longterm reconstruction projects. The prospect that the escalation will actually restore American confidence in the war such that we would support remaining in country for another half dozen years or so struck me as delusional, but alas, they cut to news before I could say anything.
Still, a whole bunch of fun for me.
Oh, and ironically, I just got an email from the host of the political talk show I do at Carleton. Everyone else is out today, so I'm doing the normally 4-person show solo.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Kaplan on the Surge
Lawrence Kaplan has an interesting piece on TNR on the proposed Iraq "surge". There's a lot in there, but I have trouble getting beyond the conclusion:
To be fair, it's difficult to continue have patience in an administration whose policies in this arena have failed time after time. Even if I felt like the surge might be effective (and I lean towards the view that the situation is beyond hope), it's difficult to fault the American people for no longer having faith in the policies proffered by President Bush.
What the president did not mention was that, on the only battlefield that matters--the living rooms into which his speech was televised--it's probably too little and too late. An effective counterinsurgency strategy requires time and patience. Americans have run out of both.
To be fair, it's difficult to continue have patience in an administration whose policies in this arena have failed time after time. Even if I felt like the surge might be effective (and I lean towards the view that the situation is beyond hope), it's difficult to fault the American people for no longer having faith in the policies proffered by President Bush.
Video Killed The Radio Star
Good morning, Northfield! Just writing to let you know that I should be making an appearance on the radio show "World Have Your Say," which is broadcast from 18:06 - 19:00 on BBC World Service (that's around 1-2 PM eastern, and 12-1 PM central. All other time zone conversions you have to do yourselves). I gather you can listen to a live stream here, though I'm skeptical that I'm intelligent enough to make it work (but maybe you are!). The topic is on Bush's proposed Iraq "surge" ("escalation", if you prefer).
I say that I'll be on, but I've never done this before, so all I can actually guarantee you is that from 12 - 1 PM, I'll be sitting in my room staring at the phone. Kind of like waiting for a prom date to call, really.
In any event, hope you'll tune in, and wish me luck!
I say that I'll be on, but I've never done this before, so all I can actually guarantee you is that from 12 - 1 PM, I'll be sitting in my room staring at the phone. Kind of like waiting for a prom date to call, really.
In any event, hope you'll tune in, and wish me luck!
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Friendly Neighborhood Terrorism
We read excerpts from de Tocqueville's Democracy in America in my constitutional law class today (which is focusing on Church/State issues). De Tocqueville is an interesting case, and to me is a clear cut example of why making arguments based on "venerable old guy X believed it" is problematic.
To modern ears, de Tocqueville presents an interesting position. On the one hand, he extols the importance of religion in preserving America's democratic character. He thinks that religion serves several crucial and irreplaceable benefits to the state, and that it must be fostered--the private is public. Furthermore, he says that there is no major disagreement among the (Christian) religions in America on the important issues of religious outlook, and that this checks against strife, makes religion an important unifying force and prevents the ruinous religious warfare seen in Europe. On the other hand, he is equally vocal in giving credit to absolute church/state separation for causing this effect. Somewhat counter-intuitively, he holds that government involvement in religious affairs tends to have detrimental impacts on the positive aspects of religious experience.
So, liberals might use de Tocqueville to show why church/state separation is good. And conservatives might use him to point out that horrible things will happen if the general American belief in God is abandoned.
Two stock responses might immediately present themselves. First, de Tocqueville was far too sanguine about the level of religious unity in America at the time (even excluding non-Christian religious practices like Native American religions and animist religions brought over by African slaves--neither group probably was considered to be real people by de Tocqueville). Right around the time that he was happily writing about how great it was to be a Catholic in America, anti-Catholic bigotry really began to ramp up in the States (the Philadelphia Bible Riots, for example). So even if the consensus was true at the time he was writing (and I'm skeptical), it fractured very quickly. Second, one could simply note that whatever the level of religious pluralism in the 1840s, today we live in a highly diverse society. It is unclear how much his analysis applies to contemporary America, regardless of its aptness 160 years ago.
But even under his own terms, de Tocqueville is significantly more disturbing than we tend to portray him as. In class, I noted that de Tocqueville seemed to ignore the aforementioned anti-Catholic wave that was beginning to hit America at the time of his visit. My Professor responded that, to some extent, this might have been intentional--not because it was an inconvenient fact, but because it was actually encompassed in what de Tocqueville believed. De Tocqueville is quite explicit that the reason for religious consensus in America is because anyone who deviates from the orthodox position is simply afraid to speak up. And if they do assert an alternative position (e.g., atheism), American society will smite them down without blinking. Indeed, it is a bit unnerving how cheery he is at this prospect. If social (not governmental) pressure is de Tocqueville's favored method for ensuring religious unity, then a few friendly neighborhood acts of religious terrorism (to suppress potential fissures) may be exactly what is called for under his paradigm.
We tend to valorize people like de Tocqueville, so when they talk about how wonderful something is (like church/state separation, or religious unity), we think that their conclusion can simply be taken wholesale as a policy without dealing with the underlying analysis. We push under the rug the fact that the analysis might be based on false premises, or that the tactics might be of the sort modern Americans frown upon. But the problem is that his theories don't work without them. All the wonderful benefits that flow from unifying the public religious sphere only occur if we're willing to brutally suppress dissenters. If we're not willing to do that, then it's back to the drawing board.
To modern ears, de Tocqueville presents an interesting position. On the one hand, he extols the importance of religion in preserving America's democratic character. He thinks that religion serves several crucial and irreplaceable benefits to the state, and that it must be fostered--the private is public. Furthermore, he says that there is no major disagreement among the (Christian) religions in America on the important issues of religious outlook, and that this checks against strife, makes religion an important unifying force and prevents the ruinous religious warfare seen in Europe. On the other hand, he is equally vocal in giving credit to absolute church/state separation for causing this effect. Somewhat counter-intuitively, he holds that government involvement in religious affairs tends to have detrimental impacts on the positive aspects of religious experience.
So, liberals might use de Tocqueville to show why church/state separation is good. And conservatives might use him to point out that horrible things will happen if the general American belief in God is abandoned.
Two stock responses might immediately present themselves. First, de Tocqueville was far too sanguine about the level of religious unity in America at the time (even excluding non-Christian religious practices like Native American religions and animist religions brought over by African slaves--neither group probably was considered to be real people by de Tocqueville). Right around the time that he was happily writing about how great it was to be a Catholic in America, anti-Catholic bigotry really began to ramp up in the States (the Philadelphia Bible Riots, for example). So even if the consensus was true at the time he was writing (and I'm skeptical), it fractured very quickly. Second, one could simply note that whatever the level of religious pluralism in the 1840s, today we live in a highly diverse society. It is unclear how much his analysis applies to contemporary America, regardless of its aptness 160 years ago.
But even under his own terms, de Tocqueville is significantly more disturbing than we tend to portray him as. In class, I noted that de Tocqueville seemed to ignore the aforementioned anti-Catholic wave that was beginning to hit America at the time of his visit. My Professor responded that, to some extent, this might have been intentional--not because it was an inconvenient fact, but because it was actually encompassed in what de Tocqueville believed. De Tocqueville is quite explicit that the reason for religious consensus in America is because anyone who deviates from the orthodox position is simply afraid to speak up. And if they do assert an alternative position (e.g., atheism), American society will smite them down without blinking. Indeed, it is a bit unnerving how cheery he is at this prospect. If social (not governmental) pressure is de Tocqueville's favored method for ensuring religious unity, then a few friendly neighborhood acts of religious terrorism (to suppress potential fissures) may be exactly what is called for under his paradigm.
We tend to valorize people like de Tocqueville, so when they talk about how wonderful something is (like church/state separation, or religious unity), we think that their conclusion can simply be taken wholesale as a policy without dealing with the underlying analysis. We push under the rug the fact that the analysis might be based on false premises, or that the tactics might be of the sort modern Americans frown upon. But the problem is that his theories don't work without them. All the wonderful benefits that flow from unifying the public religious sphere only occur if we're willing to brutally suppress dissenters. If we're not willing to do that, then it's back to the drawing board.
Shell
I have no doubt that, sometime in the future, we will look back on Jose Padilla and ask: What have we done?
Jose Padilla may be a terrorist. Or he may not be. We really don't know. We seem far less confident that he was particularly dangerous now than back in the days we were accusing him of plotting to set off a dirty bomb. There is a non-trivial chance that he is entirely innocent. Even if he isn't, though, there is little to justify the horrors we, in the name of the red white and blue, visited upon him while in our custody. What lines were we not willing to cross? What simply would have been too much?
In any event, whatever his backstory is, there is little that we can hope to glean from him about terrorism now, several years after his capture. Often times, such detentions are justified by what's known as the "mosaic theory," that good intelligence requires finding as many small bits of information as possible, which can be arranged into a big picture--even though individual holders of information may not have anything to do with its broader significance or even be aware of it.
That's probably solid analysis, as far as it goes. But there is a problem:
The problem, of course, is that there has been no interest, no pressure, and no incentive to create these countervailing restrictions. So long as there is some plausible intelligence justification for holding Padilla (which, to be fair, there is--but scarcely more than that which could justify holding me or you), the administration has apparently concluding it can do anything for any amount of time, and it's all gravy under the President's war powers. This cannot be allowed to stand. And when history looks back on that decision, it will do so with a very critical eye. Of that, I have no doubt.
Jose Padilla may be a terrorist. Or he may not be. We really don't know. We seem far less confident that he was particularly dangerous now than back in the days we were accusing him of plotting to set off a dirty bomb. There is a non-trivial chance that he is entirely innocent. Even if he isn't, though, there is little to justify the horrors we, in the name of the red white and blue, visited upon him while in our custody. What lines were we not willing to cross? What simply would have been too much?
In any event, whatever his backstory is, there is little that we can hope to glean from him about terrorism now, several years after his capture. Often times, such detentions are justified by what's known as the "mosaic theory," that good intelligence requires finding as many small bits of information as possible, which can be arranged into a big picture--even though individual holders of information may not have anything to do with its broader significance or even be aware of it.
That's probably solid analysis, as far as it goes. But there is a problem:
[The mosaic theory] also implies that useful information can be obtained even from people who have no idea that they know anything of importance, and are not affiliated with any terrorist group: such individuals might have noticed something whose significance is apparent only "to those within the FBI or the intelligence community who have a broader context within which to consider a questioned item or isolated piece of information."
The mosaic theory makes sense to me: of course counterterrorism agents should try to discover as many little bits of knowledge as possible and try to fit them together into a broader picture. But it is also an invitation to abuse: to incarcerating people who might have done nothing wrong, and holding them indefinitely on the off chance that some tiny useful fact of whose existence they are completely unaware might emerge during the millionth round of questioning. It therefore stands in desperate need of some countervailing restrictions on how long people can be kept on the off chance that they might produce a tiny fragment piece of the mosaic, and whether they can be held at all absent any reason to suspect them of a crime.
The problem, of course, is that there has been no interest, no pressure, and no incentive to create these countervailing restrictions. So long as there is some plausible intelligence justification for holding Padilla (which, to be fair, there is--but scarcely more than that which could justify holding me or you), the administration has apparently concluding it can do anything for any amount of time, and it's all gravy under the President's war powers. This cannot be allowed to stand. And when history looks back on that decision, it will do so with a very critical eye. Of that, I have no doubt.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Pointing Fingers
I'm no expert on the matter, but doesn't this sound like blaming the troops?
That's from Michael Ledeen at The National Review.
Clearly, our problem is that our troops are living the cushy life in Baghdad. Why, they might as well be in Boston for all the danger they're facing! Get out there, and gun down some terrorists, lazy ingrates!
Via Publius.
We've got lots of soldiers sitting on megabases all over Iraq. They should be out and about, some of them embedded, others just moving around, tracking the terrorists, hunting them down. I don't know how many guys and gals are sitting in air-conditioned quarters and drinking designer coffee, but it's a substantial number. Enough of that.
That's from Michael Ledeen at The National Review.
Clearly, our problem is that our troops are living the cushy life in Baghdad. Why, they might as well be in Boston for all the danger they're facing! Get out there, and gun down some terrorists, lazy ingrates!
Via Publius.
Alive
...For you I'm awake (Godsmack).
Today was not exactly a triumph for awake-kind. I woke up for a late afternoon meeting with two of my professors, ate lunch, and promptly fell right back to sleep for the remainder of the day. Only now am I finally up for the count (I think). Dinner, a meeting, and a debate practice remain. Oh, and all my homework.
Today was not exactly a triumph for awake-kind. I woke up for a late afternoon meeting with two of my professors, ate lunch, and promptly fell right back to sleep for the remainder of the day. Only now am I finally up for the count (I think). Dinner, a meeting, and a debate practice remain. Oh, and all my homework.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Cue The GEICO Commercial
I've noticed that the folks at Powerline have--belatedly--begun to make strides towards reality with regards to Iraq. They aren't there yet, but every once in awhile you see glimmers of recognition: recognizing there is a lot of violence in-country, or that the war just isn't all that popular in America anymore and may just be an albatross for the GOP in the coming elections.
This post, for example, starts off promisingly enough. It cites the Washington Post's report that almost 23,000 Iraqi civilians and policemen (and possibly more) died in 2006, with the vast majority of the deaths occurring in the latter half of the year, according to the Iraqi government.
But they've got some good news!
We'll pause for the moment, so we can all reflect on the difference between what the Washington Post and the Washington Times feels is important regarding Iraq. There is a reason why one is a real newspaper, and one is cat fodder.
So, if you live in the majority of the population centers, including the capital, your life (if you still have it), sucks. Worse than it was under a brutal totalitarian regime, in fact. But all is forgiven, because more Shi'ites down south have imported cars!
Am I the only one who couldn't believe there wasn't an estate-tax repeal reference in that post? I mean, it really seemed like the natural direction to go in. It would "kill two birds with one stone," shall we say. I can't believe they missed it.
This post, for example, starts off promisingly enough. It cites the Washington Post's report that almost 23,000 Iraqi civilians and policemen (and possibly more) died in 2006, with the vast majority of the deaths occurring in the latter half of the year, according to the Iraqi government.
But they've got some good news!
But here's something you're unlikely to read about in the Post -- Iraq is making substantial economic strides.
James Roberts in the Washington Times points to an article in the end-of-the-year edition of Newsweek international called "Iraq's Economy is Booming" by Silvia Spring. It notes that real estate prices have gone up several hundred percent since the fall of Saddam Hussein; that Iraqi workers' salaries have increased more than 100 percent during the same period; that the number of cars in Baghdad has grown by 500 percent; that the Iraqi construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are growing substantially; that the number of registered businesses has increased four fold in three years; that taxes are lower and government revenue higher; that the Kurdish region is booming; that Iraq's GDP grew by 17 percent in 2005, with 2006 growth projected at 13 percent by the Global Insight firm (and 4 percent by the World Bank); and that foreign investment from neighboring countries is pouring in.
We'll pause for the moment, so we can all reflect on the difference between what the Washington Post and the Washington Times feels is important regarding Iraq. There is a reason why one is a real newspaper, and one is cat fodder.
So, taking into account both the level of violence and the economy, is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam? If you're a Sunni living in a mixed neighborhood in Baghdad, no. If you're a Shiite living in such a neighborhood, probably not. But if you're a Shiite living in the south or a Kurd living in the north, then you're almost certainly much better off now.
So, if you live in the majority of the population centers, including the capital, your life (if you still have it), sucks. Worse than it was under a brutal totalitarian regime, in fact. But all is forgiven, because more Shi'ites down south have imported cars!
Am I the only one who couldn't believe there wasn't an estate-tax repeal reference in that post? I mean, it really seemed like the natural direction to go in. It would "kill two birds with one stone," shall we say. I can't believe they missed it.
Get Out
According to the Washington Post, we're finally starting to hear some conservative outrage at an administration inadequacy that actual deserves protest. Specifically, the manner in which the Bush administration's hideously overbroad anti-terrorism laws are being used to prevent bona fide refugees from getting asylum in America.
Sick. Bureaucratic inefficiency is probably a governmental constant, but this administration has expressed so little interest in the innocent people caught in its anti-terrorism net that it is impossible to hold them blameless for this policy catastrophe. There's a reason that even the conservatives protesting candidly admit that any change hinges on leadership from the new Democratic Congress.
The problem reaches it's most distressing in Iraq, where it is nearly impossible for people to gain refugee status--even if they've been working for the US. Being seen working for the occupier is close to a death mark in-country. The ever-worsening situation there prompted George Packer, in a much-read TNR article, to argue that we need to "Save Whomever We Can" on our way out. To do otherwise would be to subject those who already have sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom to be brutally slaughtered as the US sits on its hands. Yet the Bush administration, afraid of making a move that would seem to acknowledge our failings in Iraq, has been highly reticent to let fleeing Iraqi into the US. The Baghdad embassy doesn't issue visas (would these be the "diversity visas" Rep. Goode was so angry about?). The number of refugees resettled here is appallingly low--in the low triple-digits. We blame the UN for dragging its feet, but refuse to take independent initiative ourselves.
I believe in preserving American as a beacon of hope for the lowest among us. When we undermine that dream for anyone, we do a disservice to all of us. The fact that our very allies, our brothers and sisters in the battle for democracy, would be abandoned on the field because this administration puts its pride over its principles is simply too much to bear. We can only hope that the new Congress will step in to show leadership where the current President has shown none.
The critics say the administration's interpretation of provisions mandating denial of asylum to individuals who give "material support" to terrorist groups is so broad that foreigners who fought alongside U.S. forces in wars such as Vietnam can be denied asylum on the grounds that they provided aid to terrorists.
Advocates for refugees add that people who were forced to aid terrorist fighters at gunpoint could be labeled as supporters and turned away; such cases include a nurse who was abducted and told to treat a guerrilla fighter in Colombia and a woman in Liberia who said her father was killed and she was raped and forced to stand by as rebels occupied her home for several days.
Sick. Bureaucratic inefficiency is probably a governmental constant, but this administration has expressed so little interest in the innocent people caught in its anti-terrorism net that it is impossible to hold them blameless for this policy catastrophe. There's a reason that even the conservatives protesting candidly admit that any change hinges on leadership from the new Democratic Congress.
The problem reaches it's most distressing in Iraq, where it is nearly impossible for people to gain refugee status--even if they've been working for the US. Being seen working for the occupier is close to a death mark in-country. The ever-worsening situation there prompted George Packer, in a much-read TNR article, to argue that we need to "Save Whomever We Can" on our way out. To do otherwise would be to subject those who already have sacrificed so much for the cause of freedom to be brutally slaughtered as the US sits on its hands. Yet the Bush administration, afraid of making a move that would seem to acknowledge our failings in Iraq, has been highly reticent to let fleeing Iraqi into the US. The Baghdad embassy doesn't issue visas (would these be the "diversity visas" Rep. Goode was so angry about?). The number of refugees resettled here is appallingly low--in the low triple-digits. We blame the UN for dragging its feet, but refuse to take independent initiative ourselves.
I believe in preserving American as a beacon of hope for the lowest among us. When we undermine that dream for anyone, we do a disservice to all of us. The fact that our very allies, our brothers and sisters in the battle for democracy, would be abandoned on the field because this administration puts its pride over its principles is simply too much to bear. We can only hope that the new Congress will step in to show leadership where the current President has shown none.
Pointless
I've (probably belatedly) noticed that I very much like ending my posts with a passage going somewhat like this:
I almost definitely overuse this structure. The goal, I imagine, is to prevent my pieces from being strawmanned, which I despise. I doesn't actually work--I still get strawmanned all the time. But including it does make me significantly more likely to blame the strawmanner for being an idiot, rather than myself for not being sufficiently lucid in my posting.
The point isn't to say [blah blah blah]. The point is to say that [blah blah blah].
I almost definitely overuse this structure. The goal, I imagine, is to prevent my pieces from being strawmanned, which I despise. I doesn't actually work--I still get strawmanned all the time. But including it does make me significantly more likely to blame the strawmanner for being an idiot, rather than myself for not being sufficiently lucid in my posting.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Nozick and God
From Anarchy, State, and Utopia by the late Robert Nozick:
He's not talking about God, and God probably did not create us with the purpose of violating our claims. Nevertheless, we still have claims as humans, and those claims can be pursued, even against our Creator.
However, once a person exists, not everything compatible with his overall existence being a net plus can be done, even by those who created him. An existing person has claims, even against those whose purpose in creating him was to violate those claims. (38)
He's not talking about God, and God probably did not create us with the purpose of violating our claims. Nevertheless, we still have claims as humans, and those claims can be pursued, even against our Creator.
Card Me
A post by Ampersand on feminist anti-transsexual arguments reminds of something I've been kind of curious about: "Cards." Not as in playing cards, or even Magic Cards (though both are very interesting), but as in "you're playing the X Card," where X is usually some identity group or ism (race card, anti-Semitism card, etc..). Sometimes it is expressed directly as such, but generally it comes in the form of a whine: "Even the mildest criticism of [targeted group] gets labeled as [prejudice against that group]. I'm being silenced!" Amp cites to a quote found here on trans-issues that exemplifies:
I've also noticed this same dynamic occurring regarding Jewish issues as well. This Matthew Yglesias post set off a flurry of commenters talking about how, despite not being anti-Semitic at all!, their perfectly rational and mild criticisms of Israel got them labeled as the next coming of the Inquisition. Stop playing the anti-Semite card, I'm trying to have a serious conversation here!
I'm mildly intrigued by such conversations, mostly because I find the race parallel fascinating. I think the original manifestation of all such "card" analysis is the "race card." I'm going to push the trans-issue to the side for now (because I don't know enough about the internal fissures in feminism here), but what's interesting about the "race card" versus the "anti-Semite card" is that it is mostly conservatives who complain about the former, and liberals who complain about the latter.
Since the race card discussion has been around longer, the conversation has gotten more sophisticated, and liberals now have a few stock answers to the "race card" complaint. But before we get into them, I want to observe that the card complaint does have a grain of truth to it. As a society, we have not yet mapped out the terrain by which one can simultaneously be in solidarity with and criticize a historically marginalized group (Jews, Blacks, gays, whomever). That isn't to say it's impossible, or every critique is immediately met with a hail of "isms." It just means that, in my estimation, most people are unclear about what will set off a landmine, and in that sense do feel quite constrained in their discussions on the matter. This is problematic, and something that needs to addressed.
That being said, I still believe that illegitimate applications of the "race card" (claiming racism to stifle legitimate criticism) pale in comparison to illegitimate cries of the "race card card" (saying someone is playing the race card to subvert real analysis of possible racist undertones or tropes in the original statement). The race card card typically trumps the race card. Liberals would argue that those who are so quick to disclaim they are not a racist ("I'm not a racist, but....") may need to look a little bit more carefully at what and how they are arguing. A bit of self-reflection goes a long way here.
Surprising nobody, I'm completely onboard with the liberal position here. We can concede that you're not secretly pining for the reinstitution of slavery, while still trying to inform you that their might be racist undertones to an argument--ones you might not even be aware of. Furthermore, we'd argue that the bare fact that most Blacks perceive a given line of attack as racist or hostile to their people is powerful (not controlling, but powerful) evidence that it is--or at least that you have to consider the prospect, rather than dismiss it out of hand.
In other words, I believe that when it comes to race, people need to be a bit more humble when someone points out that many in the targeted group would perceive a given line as racist. Great. I think many liberals are onboard with me so far. But what about anti-Semitism? Why isn't the same standard applied? Rather than retreating into a defensive shell and loudly proclaiming how not anti-Semitic you are (to be clear, I don't think most liberal voices challenging Israel are plotting the next Holocaust in a dark room), why not take a step back and ask yourselves why the critique is being made? If your answer is, "because the Zionists have taken over and dominate public discussion of Israel," perhaps its time to re-read that sentence and blink at what you're saying. The point isn't to deny that we're still somewhat feeling out how to have these discussions. The point is to demonstrate that liberals probably should be a bit leery that--to many Jewish ears--they sound precisely like Ann Coulter on Affirmative Action when the subject turns to anti-Semitism in Israel/Palestine debates.
Liberals have done stellar work in deconstructing the manner in which identity cards are played in the public discourse. I just wish that they would apply their lessons to my people as well.
Here, my experience, again, is, if someone offers a differing view of transgender issues than the one you hold...then that person gets immediately labeled "transphobic." At that point, the discussion really ends. There's nothing more to be said.
I've also noticed this same dynamic occurring regarding Jewish issues as well. This Matthew Yglesias post set off a flurry of commenters talking about how, despite not being anti-Semitic at all!, their perfectly rational and mild criticisms of Israel got them labeled as the next coming of the Inquisition. Stop playing the anti-Semite card, I'm trying to have a serious conversation here!
I'm mildly intrigued by such conversations, mostly because I find the race parallel fascinating. I think the original manifestation of all such "card" analysis is the "race card." I'm going to push the trans-issue to the side for now (because I don't know enough about the internal fissures in feminism here), but what's interesting about the "race card" versus the "anti-Semite card" is that it is mostly conservatives who complain about the former, and liberals who complain about the latter.
Since the race card discussion has been around longer, the conversation has gotten more sophisticated, and liberals now have a few stock answers to the "race card" complaint. But before we get into them, I want to observe that the card complaint does have a grain of truth to it. As a society, we have not yet mapped out the terrain by which one can simultaneously be in solidarity with and criticize a historically marginalized group (Jews, Blacks, gays, whomever). That isn't to say it's impossible, or every critique is immediately met with a hail of "isms." It just means that, in my estimation, most people are unclear about what will set off a landmine, and in that sense do feel quite constrained in their discussions on the matter. This is problematic, and something that needs to addressed.
That being said, I still believe that illegitimate applications of the "race card" (claiming racism to stifle legitimate criticism) pale in comparison to illegitimate cries of the "race card card" (saying someone is playing the race card to subvert real analysis of possible racist undertones or tropes in the original statement). The race card card typically trumps the race card. Liberals would argue that those who are so quick to disclaim they are not a racist ("I'm not a racist, but....") may need to look a little bit more carefully at what and how they are arguing. A bit of self-reflection goes a long way here.
Surprising nobody, I'm completely onboard with the liberal position here. We can concede that you're not secretly pining for the reinstitution of slavery, while still trying to inform you that their might be racist undertones to an argument--ones you might not even be aware of. Furthermore, we'd argue that the bare fact that most Blacks perceive a given line of attack as racist or hostile to their people is powerful (not controlling, but powerful) evidence that it is--or at least that you have to consider the prospect, rather than dismiss it out of hand.
In other words, I believe that when it comes to race, people need to be a bit more humble when someone points out that many in the targeted group would perceive a given line as racist. Great. I think many liberals are onboard with me so far. But what about anti-Semitism? Why isn't the same standard applied? Rather than retreating into a defensive shell and loudly proclaiming how not anti-Semitic you are (to be clear, I don't think most liberal voices challenging Israel are plotting the next Holocaust in a dark room), why not take a step back and ask yourselves why the critique is being made? If your answer is, "because the Zionists have taken over and dominate public discussion of Israel," perhaps its time to re-read that sentence and blink at what you're saying. The point isn't to deny that we're still somewhat feeling out how to have these discussions. The point is to demonstrate that liberals probably should be a bit leery that--to many Jewish ears--they sound precisely like Ann Coulter on Affirmative Action when the subject turns to anti-Semitism in Israel/Palestine debates.
Liberals have done stellar work in deconstructing the manner in which identity cards are played in the public discourse. I just wish that they would apply their lessons to my people as well.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Root Out
Hilzoy has the scoop on the early accomplishments by the new Democratic Congress. They just passed PAYGO rules (new spending or tax cuts has to be offset by spending cuts or tax hikes elsewhere), as well as forcing Congressmen to publicly identify the earmarks they insert into the record. Plus, now that the "100 hours" has drawn to a close, Democrats have made good on their pledge to allow more minority participation:
I think Hilzoy's conclusion hits it right:
Amen.
Yesterday, in addition to the rules affecting spending, the House adopted "civility" measures that grant Republican lawmakers more opportunities to offer their views and to participate in legislative debate than Democrats say they received under Republican control.
I think Hilzoy's conclusion hits it right:
Yes, I know about Rep. Mollohan, and I don't like it, as I have said before. But the Democrats have done more to combat corruption in two days than the Republicans have done in twelve years. The Congressional Democrats are not perfect, obviously, but I am proud of them so far.
Amen.
The Days Are Just Packed
It was a busy day today.
I had two classes (my Contemporary Jewish Theology course was canceled for the day). That lasted until 3:20. I met with my philosophy professor/boss after that class, until 4:00. Here's how the day progressed from there:
4:00 - 5:00: Discussion about the Conservative Jewish ruling on homosexuality at Reynolds (Jewish Interest) House.
5:00 - 6:00: Shabbat services.
6:00 - 7:30: Dinner with the Muslim students in celebration of Eid.
7:30 - 8:45: Nap.
9:00 - 12:00: Hockey game (Carleton beats Northwestern Bible College 8-5).
12:30 - 2:30: Movie (Eurotrip--by the way, Scotty Doesn't Know is an awesome song).
2:30 - 3:30: Discussion on various themes.
The irony is that there was a massive amount of path dependency there. The only things planned on doing in that set were classes, the homosexaulity ruling meeting, and the hockey game. Everything else was just following naturally what was going on before. I couldn't just walk out of Reynolds House as the service was starting, so I stayed for that. Then I felt guilty about abandoning them for dinner, so I attended (Kabob--yum). The folks who drove me home from the hockey game (because the bus was late) were friends, so I hung out on their floor to watch the movie and discuss the discussion.
Not too interesting. But there you go.
I should also note that said Philosophy Professor, when challenged on the merits of the movie Eragon (it linked to the class discussion--don't ask), responded simply: "It has a blue dragon!"
Game, set, and match.
I had two classes (my Contemporary Jewish Theology course was canceled for the day). That lasted until 3:20. I met with my philosophy professor/boss after that class, until 4:00. Here's how the day progressed from there:
4:00 - 5:00: Discussion about the Conservative Jewish ruling on homosexuality at Reynolds (Jewish Interest) House.
5:00 - 6:00: Shabbat services.
6:00 - 7:30: Dinner with the Muslim students in celebration of Eid.
7:30 - 8:45: Nap.
9:00 - 12:00: Hockey game (Carleton beats Northwestern Bible College 8-5).
12:30 - 2:30: Movie (Eurotrip--by the way, Scotty Doesn't Know is an awesome song).
2:30 - 3:30: Discussion on various themes.
The irony is that there was a massive amount of path dependency there. The only things planned on doing in that set were classes, the homosexaulity ruling meeting, and the hockey game. Everything else was just following naturally what was going on before. I couldn't just walk out of Reynolds House as the service was starting, so I stayed for that. Then I felt guilty about abandoning them for dinner, so I attended (Kabob--yum). The folks who drove me home from the hockey game (because the bus was late) were friends, so I hung out on their floor to watch the movie and discuss the discussion.
Not too interesting. But there you go.
I should also note that said Philosophy Professor, when challenged on the merits of the movie Eragon (it linked to the class discussion--don't ask), responded simply: "It has a blue dragon!"
Game, set, and match.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Paging Dennis Prager
I actually don't mean to obsess over him, and there are plenty of other people who this could apply to (e.g., Daniel Lapin, Yehuda Levin). But nevertheless, Prager is probably the highest profile example out there. And the one voted most likely to piss me the hell off.
To be authentic, Jewish theological discourse must be expressed in its own native categories, in its own distinct vocabulary, and out of its own agenda. As Samuel S. Cohen observed, "Attempts to cram Judaism into categories derived from other religions and theologies can lead only to grotesque results."
As part of a religious minority in a predominantly Islamic or Christian culture, inevitably influenced by Western philosophical tradition, both the medieval and modern Jewish thinker becomes inevitably tempted to assimilate Judiasm into alien and even inimical philosophies and theologies. Indeed, the Jewish thinker may remain oblivious to the 'cultural conditioning' absorbed from his or her geographical environment, and may be led to articulate a theology of Judaism in a manner that does not cohere with authentic Jewish thought or with the inherent vocabulary of Jewish theological discourse. In this regard, Solomon Schechter made a distinction between assimilating and being assimilated. An organism is able to assimilate and should assimilate that which strengthens and enriches it. However, an organism is always endangered by being assimilated into that which is inimical to it, into that which distorts its very nature.Byron Sherwin, "An Incessantly Gushing Fountain: The Nature of Jewish Theology," in Contemporary Jewish Theology: A Reader (Elliot N. Dorff & Louis E. Newman, eds., Oxford UP 1999).
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Khalilzad To The UN?
CNN reports that Bush will next nominate Iraqi ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to the post of American ambassador to the United Nations.
I'm conflicted. Khalilzad is a very strong diplomat. Indeed, he is one of the few people in this administration who still seemed to have a shot at ending the Iraq war in a manner that did not include a bloodbath or tyrannical anti-American regime. I've heard more than one (liberal) commentator express the view that Khalilzad is the last, best hope for American interests in Iraq (and many more who lament the fact that even Khalilzad, talented as he is, probably cannot do anything to save us from the mess we've created there). When my colleagues at the Carleton Progressive issued a (to my ears) knee-jerk hit piece against him, I made special care to defend him in my next column. In addition, as a Afghan-born Sunni Muslim, his symbolic value to America cannot be underestimated. In sum, he is an excellent public servant, a rare example of competence in the administration, and someone this government needs to utilize more effectively at the highest levels.
That being said, I can't help but think that he will not be able to be effective in the UN. As much as the American people have turned against the Iraq war, it pales in comparison to the level of disgust held by the denizens of Turtle Bay. I would not be surprised if Khalilzad is discounted simply by virtue of association. Not only does he deserve better than that, but America can ill afford someone who presents such an easy target for hostile interests at the global body. Rightly or wrongly, promoting our Iraq Ambassador will provide a field day towards those nations who wish to solidify the nascent anti-American bloc in the UN.
Some other reactions:
Michael Roston: "a heck of a lot better than 'losing ten floors.'"
Wizbang points to another interesting development: Khalilzad may be selected by the new UN secretary-general to be Undersecretary General for Political Affairs, a very important position. This would be a massive coup for the US.
AmericaBlog thinks the Religious Right will torpedo his nomination (which would make him the highest ranking Muslim in American government history). I'm very skeptical--Khalilzad has a lot of conservative street cred.
I'm conflicted. Khalilzad is a very strong diplomat. Indeed, he is one of the few people in this administration who still seemed to have a shot at ending the Iraq war in a manner that did not include a bloodbath or tyrannical anti-American regime. I've heard more than one (liberal) commentator express the view that Khalilzad is the last, best hope for American interests in Iraq (and many more who lament the fact that even Khalilzad, talented as he is, probably cannot do anything to save us from the mess we've created there). When my colleagues at the Carleton Progressive issued a (to my ears) knee-jerk hit piece against him, I made special care to defend him in my next column. In addition, as a Afghan-born Sunni Muslim, his symbolic value to America cannot be underestimated. In sum, he is an excellent public servant, a rare example of competence in the administration, and someone this government needs to utilize more effectively at the highest levels.
That being said, I can't help but think that he will not be able to be effective in the UN. As much as the American people have turned against the Iraq war, it pales in comparison to the level of disgust held by the denizens of Turtle Bay. I would not be surprised if Khalilzad is discounted simply by virtue of association. Not only does he deserve better than that, but America can ill afford someone who presents such an easy target for hostile interests at the global body. Rightly or wrongly, promoting our Iraq Ambassador will provide a field day towards those nations who wish to solidify the nascent anti-American bloc in the UN.
Some other reactions:
Michael Roston: "a heck of a lot better than 'losing ten floors.'"
Wizbang points to another interesting development: Khalilzad may be selected by the new UN secretary-general to be Undersecretary General for Political Affairs, a very important position. This would be a massive coup for the US.
AmericaBlog thinks the Religious Right will torpedo his nomination (which would make him the highest ranking Muslim in American government history). I'm very skeptical--Khalilzad has a lot of conservative street cred.
One in a Million
In a 2-1 decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has just upheld Indiana's voter ID law from challenge by, among others, the Democratic party. The case is Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. Posner wrote the majority opinion, the dissent was by Judge Evans.
The competing interests in voter ID cases are relatively clear. On the one hand, it clearly imposes a burden on poor and indigent voters (who trend Democratic) that may not have a photo ID on hand. On the other hand, voter ID laws are said to be necessary to combat fraud.
The problem with that purported justification is that--despite a concerted effort to make Americans feel that voter fraud has reached epidemic levels--there is little to no evidence that it is any problem at all. As Judge Evans writes in dissent:
Emphasis added. Judge Posner tries to argue that prosecutor attention may have been elsewhere, but it seems that if this was a endemic problem there at least would have been one attempted prosecution in Indiana, somewhere, at sometime.
In general, as a matter of statistics, attempting to reduce fraudulent votes (by tightening standards) will also reduce (via deterrance or rejection), the number of legitimate votes. The reverse is also true: trying to encourage more voting will likely increase fraud. But in our current state, too many votes has not been our problem. Nor, for that matter, has been too much voter fraud. As fraud gets scarcer and scarcer, the costs of enforcing rise, and returns diminish, so that new endeavors catch fewer offenders and block more legitimate voters. Voting rights expert Spencer Overton estimates that "a photo ID requirement would prevent over 1000 legitimate votes (perhaps over 10,000 legitimate votes) for every single improper vote prevented."
In a sense, this debate is a facade, because everyone knows that it's not about voter fraud as much as voter Democrats. Evans is quite clear on this, starting his opinion:
Still, normally there is at least some effort to link a purely partisan move to a real-life problem. In voter ID case, the alleged concern appears have to been literally drawn out of thin air.
Via Jonathan Adler.
The competing interests in voter ID cases are relatively clear. On the one hand, it clearly imposes a burden on poor and indigent voters (who trend Democratic) that may not have a photo ID on hand. On the other hand, voter ID laws are said to be necessary to combat fraud.
The problem with that purported justification is that--despite a concerted effort to make Americans feel that voter fraud has reached epidemic levels--there is little to no evidence that it is any problem at all. As Judge Evans writes in dissent:
The fig leaf of respectability providing the motive behind this law is that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud--a person showing up at the polls pretending to be someone else. But where is the evidence of that kind of voter fraud in this record? Voting fraud is a crime (punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 in Indiana) and, at oral argument, the defenders of this law candidly acknowledged that no one--in the history of Indiana--had ever been charged with violating that law. Nationwide, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud that photo ID laws seek to stop. If that's the case, where is the justification for this law? Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table? I think not.
Emphasis added. Judge Posner tries to argue that prosecutor attention may have been elsewhere, but it seems that if this was a endemic problem there at least would have been one attempted prosecution in Indiana, somewhere, at sometime.
In general, as a matter of statistics, attempting to reduce fraudulent votes (by tightening standards) will also reduce (via deterrance or rejection), the number of legitimate votes. The reverse is also true: trying to encourage more voting will likely increase fraud. But in our current state, too many votes has not been our problem. Nor, for that matter, has been too much voter fraud. As fraud gets scarcer and scarcer, the costs of enforcing rise, and returns diminish, so that new endeavors catch fewer offenders and block more legitimate voters. Voting rights expert Spencer Overton estimates that "a photo ID requirement would prevent over 1000 legitimate votes (perhaps over 10,000 legitimate votes) for every single improper vote prevented."
In a sense, this debate is a facade, because everyone knows that it's not about voter fraud as much as voter Democrats. Evans is quite clear on this, starting his opinion:
Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.
Still, normally there is at least some effort to link a purely partisan move to a real-life problem. In voter ID case, the alleged concern appears have to been literally drawn out of thin air.
Via Jonathan Adler.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Back Off
Now that Keith Ellison has won "point, set, match" by revealing that it is Thomas Jefferson's Koran he'll swear in on, the little man who started this big controversy, has finally started to back down. A little. But not much. Indeed, despite an early contrite tone ("There were sentences in that column that I regret writing and that deserved criticism. I was wrong in writing them."), it is amazing just how much bluster Mr. Prager still has left in him, as he desperately tries to maintain his completely ludicrous argument that the Christian Bible is the source of all that is good and just in the world.
I'm going to do my best to ignore "blacks and Indians historically excepted", as if mass murder and enslavement is some footnote we can just brush aside. Prager goes on to argue that slavery was abolished largely by the effort of those who had religious motivations for their actions. That may well be true, but it ignores the mirror image: slavery was established and maintained by those who quite quickly, readily, and easily offered up biblical justifications (indeed, mandates) for their actions. One can argue that the oppression of Native Americans was nearly exclusively justified via Christian principles (from here on out, I'll continue to use the term "Christian", because I remain utterly confused about what "Judeo-Christian" actually means beyond a token sop to religious pluralism).
Sure, Soviet Russia was viciously anti-Semitic (even with formal rules prohibiting it). On the other hand, so was the historical Catholic Church, and many Protestants--and they didn't even bother pretending to hide it. To act like Christianity--either around the world or in America specifically--has been a wellspring of pure happiness and light is simply delusional.
Prager says he is simply "worried" that, without everyone acknowledging that our rights stem from Christianity, we'll lose the freedoms we hold dear. History does not come close to suggesting that outcome. It does suggest that when we let religious dogma overwhelm our respect for others, and replace the politics of dignity with the politics of division, the lantern of liberty will flicker and die. If Prager is looking at threats to the American way, he can start by looking in the mirror.
My entire concern has been about the Bible and Judeo-Christian values disappearing as the primary sources of moral and civic values in America. America has been uniquely good to its citizens (blacks and Indians historically excepted of course, but see below about why America abolished slavery), and this goodness has emanated overwhelmingly from the majority's belief in the Judeo-Christian values they derive from their Bible (the Hebrew Bible and New Testament).
I'm going to do my best to ignore "blacks and Indians historically excepted", as if mass murder and enslavement is some footnote we can just brush aside. Prager goes on to argue that slavery was abolished largely by the effort of those who had religious motivations for their actions. That may well be true, but it ignores the mirror image: slavery was established and maintained by those who quite quickly, readily, and easily offered up biblical justifications (indeed, mandates) for their actions. One can argue that the oppression of Native Americans was nearly exclusively justified via Christian principles (from here on out, I'll continue to use the term "Christian", because I remain utterly confused about what "Judeo-Christian" actually means beyond a token sop to religious pluralism).
Sure, Soviet Russia was viciously anti-Semitic (even with formal rules prohibiting it). On the other hand, so was the historical Catholic Church, and many Protestants--and they didn't even bother pretending to hide it. To act like Christianity--either around the world or in America specifically--has been a wellspring of pure happiness and light is simply delusional.
Prager says he is simply "worried" that, without everyone acknowledging that our rights stem from Christianity, we'll lose the freedoms we hold dear. History does not come close to suggesting that outcome. It does suggest that when we let religious dogma overwhelm our respect for others, and replace the politics of dignity with the politics of division, the lantern of liberty will flicker and die. If Prager is looking at threats to the American way, he can start by looking in the mirror.
The Loop
Ruth Marcus argues that Obama should wait until 2012 to launch his campaign for President (call me optimistic, but I think that it'll be 2016 if not 2008). To her credit, she does not simply assert that he's "too inexperienced", correctly noting that he has roughly the same amount of seasoning as John Edwards who has not had to answer questions about his age this time around (admittedly, he was pressed on it in 2004). Instead, she argues that delaying a bit would give him time to grow as a politician:
This assumes that a) there is all that much being in the Senate can teach Mr. Obama, and b) that whatever "platform" the Senator can construct through additional years of service will be compelling enough to counteract the negative effect of those inevitable 30-second spots.
Color me skeptical. Obama's great strength as a leader is that he seems able to draw strength without resorting to the normal channels of political discourse and debate. I really don't think more time as 1 in a 100 is going to do much for him, aside from make him seem mundane. Barack Obama, for all he's done so far as "just" a Senator, strikes me as the type who would become a giant if ever was really put in the spotlight position.
Elsewhere on the Obama front, Steve Benen notes that the latest salvo in the "tar Obama" (or, more charitably, the "bring Obama down to earth") campaign is bringing up his past history of drug use. The problem is that he's never hid it--Obama was quite forthright about his history in his first book, "Dreams From My Father." It's not news when he's not hiding anything.
Admittedly, this is more legitimate terrain than the last few go-arounds, which focused on his middle name, his last name's similarity to "Osama," the size of his ears, his Muslim heritage, etc.. But it still doesn't strike me as a winner (for the GOP, anyway). Benen quotes Patrick Hynes, a right-wing blogger, saying that
Nice sentiments, and I hope he's right. I think that the fact that there is no secret here will prevent the story from metastasizing, keeping it on the fringes where it belongs.
On the other hand, Paul Butler notes that American society's propensity towards "forgiveness" tends to--if not evaporate, then clearly diminish when the target is Black. Laws that overwhelmingly target Black men get changed when a highly publicized case catches a sympathetic (White) defendant in the net. I do think that Obama--so far--seems immune to these sort of racial discrepancies. One might argue that White society has accorded him "honorary White status" (interesting to discuss how and why that came about). But still, I don't know if we can count on America's characteristic forgiveness when the issue is Black men. For more on this, see his fascinating article Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks. 40 Boston College Law Review 705-716 (1999).
But I do think that Obama would be a better candidate, and ultimately a better president, in 2012 or 2016 than in 2008. He will have learned more -- about the world, about domestic policy, about how to maneuver successfully in Washington.
Yes, more years in the Senate offer more chances for individual votes to be deployed against him in 30-second TV ads, but they also offer the opportunity that Obama hasn't yet had: to set out and achieve legislative goals. Teaming up with Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to bring transparency to government spending through a searchable database is nice, but it's no platform for a presidential campaign.
This assumes that a) there is all that much being in the Senate can teach Mr. Obama, and b) that whatever "platform" the Senator can construct through additional years of service will be compelling enough to counteract the negative effect of those inevitable 30-second spots.
Color me skeptical. Obama's great strength as a leader is that he seems able to draw strength without resorting to the normal channels of political discourse and debate. I really don't think more time as 1 in a 100 is going to do much for him, aside from make him seem mundane. Barack Obama, for all he's done so far as "just" a Senator, strikes me as the type who would become a giant if ever was really put in the spotlight position.
Elsewhere on the Obama front, Steve Benen notes that the latest salvo in the "tar Obama" (or, more charitably, the "bring Obama down to earth") campaign is bringing up his past history of drug use. The problem is that he's never hid it--Obama was quite forthright about his history in his first book, "Dreams From My Father." It's not news when he's not hiding anything.
Admittedly, this is more legitimate terrain than the last few go-arounds, which focused on his middle name, his last name's similarity to "Osama," the size of his ears, his Muslim heritage, etc.. But it still doesn't strike me as a winner (for the GOP, anyway). Benen quotes Patrick Hynes, a right-wing blogger, saying that
I am a recovering alcoholic.... [W]e are all flawed human beings. And I think any attempt to use this issue against Obama will backfire badly, whether it is done by one of his Democrat [sic]rivals or by a Republican. Frankly, it tells me something positive about the man that he had the character to overcome his problems and can speak so freely about them now.
It is my considered opinion that we Americans are an exceedingly forgiving people. It is one of the characteristics I love most about my fellow Americans - Lord knows I've had to beg for forgiveness from time to time. Besides, picking on a candidate for his youthful indiscretions - indiscretions he has clearly put behind him - is only one notch on the sleaze meter above using a candidate's troubled family member as a campaign issue.
Nice sentiments, and I hope he's right. I think that the fact that there is no secret here will prevent the story from metastasizing, keeping it on the fringes where it belongs.
On the other hand, Paul Butler notes that American society's propensity towards "forgiveness" tends to--if not evaporate, then clearly diminish when the target is Black. Laws that overwhelmingly target Black men get changed when a highly publicized case catches a sympathetic (White) defendant in the net. I do think that Obama--so far--seems immune to these sort of racial discrepancies. One might argue that White society has accorded him "honorary White status" (interesting to discuss how and why that came about). But still, I don't know if we can count on America's characteristic forgiveness when the issue is Black men. For more on this, see his fascinating article Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks. 40 Boston College Law Review 705-716 (1999).
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Attack Dog
The Senate GOPers have hired a blog watchdog by the name of Jon Henke. Henke's prior position was on the campaign of outgoing Virginia Senator George Allen. Apparently, the folks at Powerline have a history with this guy. But not to worry! Their final word is:
Well, it's good they're letting bygones be bygones.
Henke's blog is QandO, which I have little experience with. My limited impressions, however, have been that it is reasonably fair-minded and intellectually sophisticated. We'll see if that standard can hold up in the heart of the political fire.
Naturally, [Henke's] attacks on [Virginia Senator-elect Jim] Webb sat better with me than his attacks on Power Line.
Well, it's good they're letting bygones be bygones.
Henke's blog is QandO, which I have little experience with. My limited impressions, however, have been that it is reasonably fair-minded and intellectually sophisticated. We'll see if that standard can hold up in the heart of the political fire.
Classes
For those of you who are curious, here's my course schedule for the Winter term.
POSC 311: Topics in Constitutional Law (Prof. Kim Smith)
--MW 11:10 AM - 12:20 PM, F 12:00 - 1:00 PM
RELG 328: Contemporary Jewish Theology (Prof. Louis Newman)
--MW 12:30 - 1:40 PM, F 1:10 - 2:10 PM
PHIL 232: Social and Political Philosophy (Prof. Anna Moltchanova)
--MW 1:50 - 3:00 PM, F 2:20 - 3:20 PM
For those of you who don't know Carleton, that's a brutal setup. But all three professors are stellar, and all three classes are on topics I adore. So if I die, I'll die doing what I love.
POSC 311: Topics in Constitutional Law (Prof. Kim Smith)
--MW 11:10 AM - 12:20 PM, F 12:00 - 1:00 PM
RELG 328: Contemporary Jewish Theology (Prof. Louis Newman)
--MW 12:30 - 1:40 PM, F 1:10 - 2:10 PM
PHIL 232: Social and Political Philosophy (Prof. Anna Moltchanova)
--MW 1:50 - 3:00 PM, F 2:20 - 3:20 PM
For those of you who don't know Carleton, that's a brutal setup. But all three professors are stellar, and all three classes are on topics I adore. So if I die, I'll die doing what I love.
Vote or Die
The Massachusetts legislature has voted to advance an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment forward. If it leaps another legislative hurdle, it would go to the voters. The vote was 62-134 (only 50 votes are needed for this particular action).
Pam Spaulding is, justifiably, furious. And she has every right to be.
But that being the case, I have to wonder if this might be a colossal miscalculation on behalf of gay marriage opponents. They've staked a lot of their energy on the argument that democratic forces had never approved gay marriage. That got a bit of a black eye when Connecticut approved its civil unions law (not to mention the democratic mayor of San Francisco), but now they've retreated to saying that only a popular referendum is enough to prove democratic support for gay marriage. It's intellectually dishonest (and itself starting to look shaky, given Arizona's rejection of a gay marriage ban), but what of it? Any opportunity we get to cut the legs out from under these people, I have no quarrel with. And I would not be surprised if pro-equality forces could win an election fight in Massachusetts.
If they do, that would be a massive, watershed moment for the forces of equality in America. And it would be all on the heads of the radical Christian right.
I like that irony.
Pam Spaulding is, justifiably, furious. And she has every right to be.
She doesn't get it. She has no problem with the principle of voting on this. As I said in the comments at my pad, with the character of people like Tucker, would it have been fine with her to let "the people" vote on whether I must sit at the back of the bus or drink from a separate fountain?
Today's shenanigans are why the civil rights of a minority should never be up for a vote.
But that being the case, I have to wonder if this might be a colossal miscalculation on behalf of gay marriage opponents. They've staked a lot of their energy on the argument that democratic forces had never approved gay marriage. That got a bit of a black eye when Connecticut approved its civil unions law (not to mention the democratic mayor of San Francisco), but now they've retreated to saying that only a popular referendum is enough to prove democratic support for gay marriage. It's intellectually dishonest (and itself starting to look shaky, given Arizona's rejection of a gay marriage ban), but what of it? Any opportunity we get to cut the legs out from under these people, I have no quarrel with. And I would not be surprised if pro-equality forces could win an election fight in Massachusetts.
If they do, that would be a massive, watershed moment for the forces of equality in America. And it would be all on the heads of the radical Christian right.
I like that irony.
I Have Ridden The Mighty Moon Worm!
After a surprisingly difficult battle against the network, I have secured internet access to my room. I also ate lunch, bought my textbooks, got a new network cable, and got a new Doonesbury book. And it's only 2:15!
Monday, January 01, 2007
Fear The Norseman
I have a 5:20 flight back to Minnesota today, so this will likely be the last post I write until I get in. When you think about it, the concept of Minnesota is a bit amazing. After all, in the 10th and 11th centuries, Scandinavians were the most feared and brutal barbarians ever to sweep through Europe. Who would have possibly guessed that today they would all be in placid, cooperative social welfare states, or have moved to the upper-midwest to become the most stereotypically boring farmers imaginable? Today, Thor Olafson sounds less likely to put a sword through your chest than put an extra loaf of bread in your basket at the market. And he'll do it with a cute "Fargo" accent that has come to be known as "Minnesota nice."
I observe this because, all due respect to Samuel Huntington, civilizations change, and I think we make a serious mistake when we ossify them and pretend that any one group is hopelessly and incorrigbly backwards.
TDL reader Scott Needle's queried to me over email:
I understand the sentiment, and I appreciate the attempt to try and reduce anti-Islamic sentiment here in the states, but this seems strikingly close to replacing quasi-religious based classifications with quasi-race based ones, an endeavor to which we should all be leery.
First, let's be careful: Iranians aren't Arabic. They're Persian. This isn't a trivial distinction: Persians and Arabs have a long history of animosity and mistrust. Grouping them together as part of the same culture is like grouping the Spanish and the Moors together. Geography can be misleading.
But more importantly, as my above Viking Raiders allusion suggests, it's a dangerous game to try and ossify the culture of any group of people as inherent and unchangeable. I would not be surprised if every group had not had its inherent fitness questioned at one point or another. Certainly, we all recall the "scientists" that were trotted out throughout the 19th century to talk about how the inherent nature of the African was simple, primitive, alternatively savage or sambo-like, etc.. Perhaps more surprising to our readers is that this same dynamic has been applied to White people too. William J. Wilson wrote an 1860 essay entitled "What shall we do with White people," forwarding as its fundamental question: "Are they fit for self government?" The evidence, of course, was the spectacular display of imperialism, colonialism, brutality, rape, pillaging, murdering, theft, enslavement, and exploitation that characterized European behavior towards non-Whites during the era. W.E.B. Du Bois, in one of his more cynical moments, also proclaimed that the vast body of evidence suggested that such brutalism was not an aberration from the White norm, but its exemplification.
Going off Arabs specifically, we can note that--were we to take the time of the crusades as our metric point--Arab culture was considerably more "gentle" (if you will) and less prone to barbarism than its European counterparts. By and large, the defending Arab states in the crusade showed much more respect for captured prisoners and wounded enemies than did the Christian invaders. On the other side of it, one might wonder if their view of the West as a perpetually threatening, invading "crusader force" is itself premised on the mirrored viewpoint that--as history shows--it is we who cannot contain our bloodthirsty, expansionist instinct as a culture. So I might agree that the belief (on both sides) that the enemy is inherently a savage might play a role in the current conflict, but I'm highly skeptical that we have any better claim to our stereotype being true than they do. Those in glass houses and all that.
The point isn't to say that there isn't a very dangerous streak running through the Arab world right now. There is, and we need to find a way to address it. But it is falling into very old historical traps to throw up our hands and say "it's their culture! There's nothing we can do!" All groups tend to submit to this fallacy at one point, and they're always wrong.
I observe this because, all due respect to Samuel Huntington, civilizations change, and I think we make a serious mistake when we ossify them and pretend that any one group is hopelessly and incorrigbly backwards.
TDL reader Scott Needle's queried to me over email:
Does our society's current focus on Islamic extremists place too much emphasis on the religion? At the risk of being labeled hopelessly politically incorrect, doesn't the Arab culture itself play a vital role in this "clash of civilizations?" This thought came about largely after watching the movie "Children of Heaven," a beautiful but simultaneously disturbing inside look at Iranian society. Add in some admittedly limited personal experiences/interactions and a rudimentary knowledge of tribal Arabic history, and I began to think: is it just in the "Arab nature" to be violent, dogmatic, intolerant? It seems that the cultural aspect transcends religious conviction, though the religion is admittedly a useful tool for fanning flames and channeling the culture. We obviously can't dismiss the religion as having little significance--it's clearly tied up with the culture, however. I have yet to see this thought addressed in any major newspaper or such. The purpose would be towards a greater understanding of the conflict, especially through a historical eye. I doubt it would ultimately make a difference to our current NeoCon administration, but it could eventually help towards: (1) less blame on religion, less fostering of a modern "crusade" or "jihad", and (2) better understanding of what might work/not work to bring about true peace and progress across the region.
I understand the sentiment, and I appreciate the attempt to try and reduce anti-Islamic sentiment here in the states, but this seems strikingly close to replacing quasi-religious based classifications with quasi-race based ones, an endeavor to which we should all be leery.
First, let's be careful: Iranians aren't Arabic. They're Persian. This isn't a trivial distinction: Persians and Arabs have a long history of animosity and mistrust. Grouping them together as part of the same culture is like grouping the Spanish and the Moors together. Geography can be misleading.
But more importantly, as my above Viking Raiders allusion suggests, it's a dangerous game to try and ossify the culture of any group of people as inherent and unchangeable. I would not be surprised if every group had not had its inherent fitness questioned at one point or another. Certainly, we all recall the "scientists" that were trotted out throughout the 19th century to talk about how the inherent nature of the African was simple, primitive, alternatively savage or sambo-like, etc.. Perhaps more surprising to our readers is that this same dynamic has been applied to White people too. William J. Wilson wrote an 1860 essay entitled "What shall we do with White people," forwarding as its fundamental question: "Are they fit for self government?" The evidence, of course, was the spectacular display of imperialism, colonialism, brutality, rape, pillaging, murdering, theft, enslavement, and exploitation that characterized European behavior towards non-Whites during the era. W.E.B. Du Bois, in one of his more cynical moments, also proclaimed that the vast body of evidence suggested that such brutalism was not an aberration from the White norm, but its exemplification.
Going off Arabs specifically, we can note that--were we to take the time of the crusades as our metric point--Arab culture was considerably more "gentle" (if you will) and less prone to barbarism than its European counterparts. By and large, the defending Arab states in the crusade showed much more respect for captured prisoners and wounded enemies than did the Christian invaders. On the other side of it, one might wonder if their view of the West as a perpetually threatening, invading "crusader force" is itself premised on the mirrored viewpoint that--as history shows--it is we who cannot contain our bloodthirsty, expansionist instinct as a culture. So I might agree that the belief (on both sides) that the enemy is inherently a savage might play a role in the current conflict, but I'm highly skeptical that we have any better claim to our stereotype being true than they do. Those in glass houses and all that.
The point isn't to say that there isn't a very dangerous streak running through the Arab world right now. There is, and we need to find a way to address it. But it is falling into very old historical traps to throw up our hands and say "it's their culture! There's nothing we can do!" All groups tend to submit to this fallacy at one point, and they're always wrong.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
New Year's Resolutions
My resolutions for the new year (blog and non-blog related).
1) Write something that isn't published on a blog (Met).
2) Win something. Winnng must include some form of reward. Dorm poker night doesn't count (Met).
3) Take someone to the Midwinter Ball (Met).
4) Feel good about being a gangsta (Pick 'em).
5) Hate 20% less playa, 20% more game (Pick 'em).
6) Network (Met).
7) Actually do something with that BBC guy that I keep playing email tag with (hi guy!) (Met).
8) Develop as a person (Pick 'em).
9) Develop as a Halo player (Met).
10) Get a link for a top 10 blog that is not Powerline (knowing the daughters of one of the authors is an unfair advantage) (Met).
11) Ace the LSATs (Met).
12) Ace the GREs (Met).
13) Finish at least 50% of the books I start (Missed).
14) Go to a Wild game (Met -- before the end of the year but, amazingly, after I published next year's list).
15) Beat a video/computer game (Met).
16) Raise my GPA (Met).
17) Figure out a valid pronunciation for "TOETBD" (I may just say "tote") (Missed -- historical note: this stands for "Term of Endearment To Be Determined").
18) Read new blogs (Met).
19) Don't fail out of the Winter term (Met).
20) Make the new women's hockey goalie an all-star (Missed).
21) Rock the casbah (Pick 'em).
Happy new year everyone!
1) Write something that isn't published on a blog (Met).
2) Win something. Winnng must include some form of reward. Dorm poker night doesn't count (Met).
3) Take someone to the Midwinter Ball (Met).
4) Feel good about being a gangsta (Pick 'em).
5) Hate 20% less playa, 20% more game (Pick 'em).
6) Network (Met).
7) Actually do something with that BBC guy that I keep playing email tag with (hi guy!) (Met).
8) Develop as a person (Pick 'em).
9) Develop as a Halo player (Met).
10) Get a link for a top 10 blog that is not Powerline (knowing the daughters of one of the authors is an unfair advantage) (Met).
11) Ace the LSATs (Met).
12) Ace the GREs (Met).
13) Finish at least 50% of the books I start (Missed).
14) Go to a Wild game (Met -- before the end of the year but, amazingly, after I published next year's list).
15) Beat a video/computer game (Met).
16) Raise my GPA (Met).
17) Figure out a valid pronunciation for "TOETBD" (I may just say "tote") (Missed -- historical note: this stands for "Term of Endearment To Be Determined").
18) Read new blogs (Met).
19) Don't fail out of the Winter term (Met).
20) Make the new women's hockey goalie an all-star (Missed).
21) Rock the casbah (Pick 'em).
Happy new year everyone!
Saturday, December 30, 2006
No...That's Meanspirited
A man in Texas is holding pig races in reaction to the building of a Mosque next store. The event started when the Mosque asked the man to move the pigs off its newly acquired land. Apparently, the man misunderstood and thought the association wanted him off his own land. Pissed off, he organized the pig races.
Now, I understand how, with the misunderstanding, the guy would be a bit perturbed, as he has every right to his land. But the problem is that, even after thing were cleared up, he's still going through with the pig race.
"Would be"? Let's not get ahead of ourselves, now....
Now, I understand how, with the misunderstanding, the guy would be a bit perturbed, as he has every right to his land. But the problem is that, even after thing were cleared up, he's still going through with the pig race.
Earlier this month, Baker conceded that the Muslims probably aren't after his land, but he said he had to go through with the pig races because "I would be like a total idiot if I didn't. I'd be the laughingstock now because I've gone too far."
All the same, Baker plans to continue the weekly pig races until interest dwindles.
The association never meant to imply it wanted Baker to move, Allam said.
"If we somehow communicated that to him, then we apologize," he said.
Resident Susan Canavespe said the pig racing wasn't mean-spirited -- "It's just Texas-spirited."
"Would be"? Let's not get ahead of ourselves, now....
Dead
A Rabbi was eulogizing at the funeral of a prominent Hollywood producer, and was asked to say one nice thing about him. The Rabbi thought for a moment, then said: "he's dead."
I feel roughly the same way about Saddam Hussein. I have no idea whether his execution will quell the violence in Iraq (I'm skeptical). But you can add him to the list of folks I'm not sorry to see dead.
I feel roughly the same way about Saddam Hussein. I have no idea whether his execution will quell the violence in Iraq (I'm skeptical). But you can add him to the list of folks I'm not sorry to see dead.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Is Hagel Out?
I thought Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would make a run for the White House (but lose in the primary), but I would not have been too surprised if he skipped it. What would surprise is if he doesn't run to retain his senate seat. But according to some local sources, Hagel may be doing just that--neither running for President, nor Senate re-election.
If true, this puts the Nebraska Senate seat back into play (admittedly as a second-tier opportunity).
Hagel was one of my favorite Republican's in the Senate, due to his ever-scarcer (in Washington, anyway) independent streak. It'll be interesting to see what he says or does without the specter of re-election or promotion constraining him over these next few years.
Via Kos.
The comments at the Swingstate Project have some projections on who will run to replace Hagel, and points out that, depending on whether Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) decides to go for the GOP nod, we may have a renewed chance to pick up the Nebraska 2nd district in 2008.
If true, this puts the Nebraska Senate seat back into play (admittedly as a second-tier opportunity).
Hagel was one of my favorite Republican's in the Senate, due to his ever-scarcer (in Washington, anyway) independent streak. It'll be interesting to see what he says or does without the specter of re-election or promotion constraining him over these next few years.
Via Kos.
The comments at the Swingstate Project have some projections on who will run to replace Hagel, and points out that, depending on whether Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) decides to go for the GOP nod, we may have a renewed chance to pick up the Nebraska 2nd district in 2008.
Deadbroke
Solangel Maldonado has a really great post up on "deadbeat" Black fathers that I found fascinating. It really cuts against the grain of the prevailing discussion of absent Black fathers, and adds some really important depth to the discussion.
Professor Maldonado notes that many of the Black fathers who don't pay child support are less "deadbeat" than "deadbroke." A massive portion of child support arrears come from fathers making less than $10,000/year. While this doesn't obviate the harm, it does perhaps signal that many of these "absent" fathers don't pay child support because they can't, not because they're actively trying to avoid a role in their child's life.
This becomes more clear in the second part of Maldonado's post, which requires a long excerpt because it's really good:
Further, although the majority of poor, nonresident Black fathers do not make formal child support payments, many are quite involved in their children's lives and make in-kind and nonfinancial contributions to their children. For example, they buy diapers, baby formula, groceries, toys, and baby furniture. One may wonder why these fathers do not simply pay child support instead, however minimal. There are a number of reasons. The items a father brings to his children are tangible evidence of his efforts to provide for them despite his dire circumstances. As such, the items have greater significance, visibility, and durability than cash payments which often disappear almost immediately as bills are paid or, in the case of children receiving public assistance, are used to reimburse the government for benefits it has provided the children. Deadbroke Black fathers also make nonfinancial contributions--they often take care of their children in ways traditionally associated with motherhood. Because these men are often unemployed (or underemployed), they are available to take their children to school, to the doctor, and to watch them while their mothers work or run errands. Many researchers, myself included, have been surprised to learn that many "absent" Black fathers see their children not only on weekends, as divorced middle-class fathers often do, but often see them almost daily. The law does not recognize these contributions. They do not count under our current definition of child support. Maybe they should. American society is alarmed at the high percentage of absent fathers—those who have little or no contact with their children. Studies suggest that children with absent fathers are more likely than children with involved fathers to perform poorly in school, to have low self-esteem, to become pregnant at an early age, to abuse drugs, and to engage in delinquent behavior. These children also feel rejected and often blame themselves for their fathers' disappearance. Although, as Professor Dorothy Roberts has noted, policymakers have treated paternal absence "as a distinctly Black problem," recent studies have found that poor, nonresident Black fathers are more involved with their children than are nonresident white or Latino fathers. Many men with child support arrears, however, are compelled to hide from their children because they fear detection by child support enforcement officials and possible incarceration. If society wants to encourage more Black men to remain a part of their children's lives, we must address an unintended effect of aggressive child support enforcement policies—they drive poor fathers away from their children. Notably, many Black mothers seem to recognize the nonmonetary contributions that poor Black fathers make. They often do not pursue poor Black fathers for child support and focus instead on securing fathers' presence and involvement with their children. Some Black mothers fear that pursuing deadbroke fathers for payments that they cannot make will discourage them from seeing their children and from contributing at all. As one Black mother stated: "I don't care about the child support. Just see the child."The question is, how should this non-financial (or non-traditional) support be harnassed. Obviously, it's really important, and if we are to take seriously the claim that absent fathers is a real problem for young Black children, then we need to remove obstacles towards parents seeing their kids (while obviously not swinging too far in relieving them of their support obligations). This is difficult, but a good first step would be recognizing the actual dynamic between "absent" Black fathers and their children and writing policy accordingly. I suspect that, as in so many matters of race, the current plans are dictated less by the reality and more by the stereotypes.
Still Waiting
While I shed no tears over Saddam Hussein's impending execution, there still remains that other terrorist-guy (you know--the one who attacked us on 9/11) that we have neither found dead or alive. CNN correspondent Ed Henry decided to inquire on the subject, and here was the answer he got from a Bush administration flack:
As Steve Benen (subbing in at The Washington Monthly) puts it:
And the Bush administration is just an Obama administration that hasn't occurred yet.
HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.
TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.
As Steve Benen (subbing in at The Washington Monthly) puts it:
A "success that hasn't occurred yet"? By that logic, practically nothing could ever be characterized as failure. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Bush gang hasn't thought of this sooner.
"Budget deficits are just surpluses that haven't occurred yet."
"Global warming is just global cooling that hasn't occurred yet."
"Stagnant wages are just raises that haven't occurred yet."
"The civil war in Iraq is just peace that hasn't occurred yet."
And the Bush administration is just an Obama administration that hasn't occurred yet.
Back Home (Amazingly)
So I ended up making it home last night. Early, in fact. But don't let that fool you: It was absolutely wild getting back here. Let my sketch it out for you.
Originally, our travel schedule looked like this:
12/29: Aspen --> Denver --> Baltimore
By the end, our travel route actually went like this:
12/28: Vail (Eagle County) --> Denver --> Washington (Dulles)
Along the way, we were booked and/or on standby for no less than 6 flights involving 5 airports.
But, with some skill and a fair bit of luck (we made standby on both legs of our route, including one flight which we got on the list 15 minutes prior to departure), we ended up getting home several hours earlier than anyone had hoped.
Oh, and the skiing went well, thanks.
Originally, our travel schedule looked like this:
12/29: Aspen --> Denver --> Baltimore
By the end, our travel route actually went like this:
12/28: Vail (Eagle County) --> Denver --> Washington (Dulles)
Along the way, we were booked and/or on standby for no less than 6 flights involving 5 airports.
But, with some skill and a fair bit of luck (we made standby on both legs of our route, including one flight which we got on the list 15 minutes prior to departure), we ended up getting home several hours earlier than anyone had hoped.
Oh, and the skiing went well, thanks.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
I Don't Care If I Ever Get Back!
Well, no. That's a lie. I do care. But I may not have a choice. Aspen and Denver are bracing for some major storms, and I have no idea if I'll be able to make it home.
In theory, though, tomorrow is the travel day (we're leaving a day early to try to beat the storm). So I may not be posting until Friday.
In theory, though, tomorrow is the travel day (we're leaving a day early to try to beat the storm). So I may not be posting until Friday.
If You Don't Have Anything Nice To Say...
I'm going to try something here at The Debate Link. I'm a Democrat. And I will almost certainly be voting Democrat come 2008. But in this space, I am going to make a serious effort to say something nice about all the major Republican contenders for the Presidential nomination (assuming I know more than a cursory amount about them). I also challenge other bloggers--conservative and liberal--to do the same for their political opponents on the 2008 ledger. We'll say the big name conservatives are McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, and Hagel. And the big name liberals are Gore, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, and Clark (obviously, personal biases infect this list, so feel free to add or subtract based on your own knowledge). Compliments have to be serious--no backhanders ("he's not as psycho as Pat Robertson!").
***
John McCain: I do believe that, once in office, he'll be the principled character that ran in 2000 (and was floated as a Kerry running mate in 2004). He's expressed willingness to take on the base, and I believe that as President he will act because he thinks what he's doing is right, not because he thinks it will be to a political advantage.
Rudy Giuliani: Obviously, his 9/11 leadership was important. I also think he is a geniune social liberal, and will reverse the GOP's propensity towards anti-gay demonization (among other issues) as President.
Mitt Romney: The stances he's taken on gay rights while running in Massachusetts are textbook what I want to see out of Republican. Hopefully, that will translate to similar moderation once he's through the GOP primary.
Chuck Hagel: He's one of the few Republicans I still think has credible foreign policy instincts, which is important and something I respect. He was one of the earliest GOP Senators to really step out of the Bush administration line on Iraq.
Sam Brownback: No brainer. Sam's work on human rights issues and genocide has been nothing short of spectacular.
Any conservative (or fellow liberal) blogs going to take me up on this offer?
***
John McCain: I do believe that, once in office, he'll be the principled character that ran in 2000 (and was floated as a Kerry running mate in 2004). He's expressed willingness to take on the base, and I believe that as President he will act because he thinks what he's doing is right, not because he thinks it will be to a political advantage.
Rudy Giuliani: Obviously, his 9/11 leadership was important. I also think he is a geniune social liberal, and will reverse the GOP's propensity towards anti-gay demonization (among other issues) as President.
Mitt Romney: The stances he's taken on gay rights while running in Massachusetts are textbook what I want to see out of Republican. Hopefully, that will translate to similar moderation once he's through the GOP primary.
Chuck Hagel: He's one of the few Republicans I still think has credible foreign policy instincts, which is important and something I respect. He was one of the earliest GOP Senators to really step out of the Bush administration line on Iraq.
Sam Brownback: No brainer. Sam's work on human rights issues and genocide has been nothing short of spectacular.
Any conservative (or fellow liberal) blogs going to take me up on this offer?
Settlement Issue
The New York Times reports that Israel plans to build a new settlement in the West Bank, the first new one approved in a decade. To be fair, Israel claims that the settlement was approved decades ago, but had been used as an army training base previously and was only now being converted. The settlement would contain about 30 houses, but possibly would expand somewhat via "natural growth."
Two thoughts:
First, buried deep in the story is the news that two Israeli teenagers were seriously wounded in a Palestinian rocket strike on Sderot, a town in Israel proper near the Gaza border. This highlights one of the reasons pro-Israel writers get really frustrated by coverage of the conflict. There are very few ethical frameworks in which the deliberate--and successful--attempt to harm two innocent teenagers via rocket attack is of less moral concern than is the building of a few dozen houses in the desert. This doesn't require us to discount the manner in which settlements pose an obstacle to peace. Even if we take the expressed Palestinian position that these settlements constitute "theft," robbery is less serious a crime than attempted murder. The rocket strike was not only a deliberate attempt to kill or maim innocent civilians, but it was done with the express motivation of sabotaging the peace process. It deserves more than three paragraphs of coverage. And when it is buried like it is here, and makes Jews around the world--myself included--feel like anti-Semitic violence (I completely and utterly reject that deliberate violence targeted at Israeli civilians is anything but anti-Semitic) is something the world simply does not care about.
Second, on the decision itself. On face, it is a spectacularly stupid and wrongheaded move. However, there may be some method to the madness.
I'm not sure what to do with this data point. If this is true, and if it plays out exactly as planned, then it might be worthwhile. But those are two big "ifs" (and the "might" is fuzzy too). I'm not convinced that such a trade will be made. And if it isn't, then the decision loses any and all justification and becomes something that everyone--pro-Israel commentators included--ought to condemn.
Update: Marty Peretz claims that the Jordan Valley (where this settlement is being built) has few to no Arab residents outside Jericho. I have no idea if that's true--I have heard it is sparsely populated. He also argues (plausibly, to my ear) that Jordan privately demands that Israel remain in control of its border with the West Bank, lest the new Palestine destablize the kingdom (which is ruled by a minority family but is majority Palestinian).
Two thoughts:
First, buried deep in the story is the news that two Israeli teenagers were seriously wounded in a Palestinian rocket strike on Sderot, a town in Israel proper near the Gaza border. This highlights one of the reasons pro-Israel writers get really frustrated by coverage of the conflict. There are very few ethical frameworks in which the deliberate--and successful--attempt to harm two innocent teenagers via rocket attack is of less moral concern than is the building of a few dozen houses in the desert. This doesn't require us to discount the manner in which settlements pose an obstacle to peace. Even if we take the expressed Palestinian position that these settlements constitute "theft," robbery is less serious a crime than attempted murder. The rocket strike was not only a deliberate attempt to kill or maim innocent civilians, but it was done with the express motivation of sabotaging the peace process. It deserves more than three paragraphs of coverage. And when it is buried like it is here, and makes Jews around the world--myself included--feel like anti-Semitic violence (I completely and utterly reject that deliberate violence targeted at Israeli civilians is anything but anti-Semitic) is something the world simply does not care about.
Second, on the decision itself. On face, it is a spectacularly stupid and wrongheaded move. However, there may be some method to the madness.
One Israeli official hinted that the new settlement might be part of a deal with Jewish settlers to get their tacit acceptance of the removal of illegal settlement outposts from the West Bank.
I'm not sure what to do with this data point. If this is true, and if it plays out exactly as planned, then it might be worthwhile. But those are two big "ifs" (and the "might" is fuzzy too). I'm not convinced that such a trade will be made. And if it isn't, then the decision loses any and all justification and becomes something that everyone--pro-Israel commentators included--ought to condemn.
Update: Marty Peretz claims that the Jordan Valley (where this settlement is being built) has few to no Arab residents outside Jericho. I have no idea if that's true--I have heard it is sparsely populated. He also argues (plausibly, to my ear) that Jordan privately demands that Israel remain in control of its border with the West Bank, lest the new Palestine destablize the kingdom (which is ruled by a minority family but is majority Palestinian).
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Somalia Status
The UN is calling for a halt to combat in Somalia.
That's the UN's job, and I don't begrudge them for it.
But I have to wonder (and I feel like a jerk for asking): Is this a case where we might want to Just Give War a Chance?
Stemming from Edward Luttwak's 1999 Foreign Affairs article, the "give war a chance" argument is one of those claims you feel like a really terrible person making, but probably has some substance behind it. Fundamentally, the piece argues that prematurely stopping conflicts (through cease-fires and the like) artificially "freezes" combatants at a point where both sides feel like there is something left "on the table." So both sides use the time out to re-arm and re-group, and then start fighting afresh, creating an endless cycle of violence-ceasefire-violence. Luttwak argues that we should instead let conflicts burn themselves out naturally. This, he argues, creates stability by removing the incentive for further conflict, because both sides will have come to the conclusion that they have gotten all the can via armed fighting.
Somalia hasn't had a unified government since 1991 and has been locked in a low-grade anarchic civil war ever since. Stopping the conflict now likely will prevent any side from gaining a clear victory (Ethiopia's support for the provisional government has been crucial, but given enough time Eritrea will probably jump in to support the Islamist fighters). This is a rare opportunity for one side to score a major victory, possibly paving the way for permanent stabilization.
The problem, of course, is that this is highly speculative, and the collateral we'd place on that bet is a rather nasty war in a country that has endured far too much of it already.
So I don't know. But I thought it was worth throwing out there.
UPDATE: More on the situation from FPWatch and Security Dilemmas.
That's the UN's job, and I don't begrudge them for it.
But I have to wonder (and I feel like a jerk for asking): Is this a case where we might want to Just Give War a Chance?
Stemming from Edward Luttwak's 1999 Foreign Affairs article, the "give war a chance" argument is one of those claims you feel like a really terrible person making, but probably has some substance behind it. Fundamentally, the piece argues that prematurely stopping conflicts (through cease-fires and the like) artificially "freezes" combatants at a point where both sides feel like there is something left "on the table." So both sides use the time out to re-arm and re-group, and then start fighting afresh, creating an endless cycle of violence-ceasefire-violence. Luttwak argues that we should instead let conflicts burn themselves out naturally. This, he argues, creates stability by removing the incentive for further conflict, because both sides will have come to the conclusion that they have gotten all the can via armed fighting.
Somalia hasn't had a unified government since 1991 and has been locked in a low-grade anarchic civil war ever since. Stopping the conflict now likely will prevent any side from gaining a clear victory (Ethiopia's support for the provisional government has been crucial, but given enough time Eritrea will probably jump in to support the Islamist fighters). This is a rare opportunity for one side to score a major victory, possibly paving the way for permanent stabilization.
The problem, of course, is that this is highly speculative, and the collateral we'd place on that bet is a rather nasty war in a country that has endured far too much of it already.
So I don't know. But I thought it was worth throwing out there.
UPDATE: More on the situation from FPWatch and Security Dilemmas.
Pro Flip
I am not a John Kerry booster. Sure, I voted for him in 2004--and I won't say it was only because the alternative was so unappealing (though he was). But I don't think he is anything more than an average politician, and I would be quite happy if he stayed pat and put in his Senate position and let his higher ambitions wither away.
That being said: this is a great editorial. I believe it was Bill Maher who asked when changing one's mind in response to new evidence became a bad thing, and Kerry does a stellar job ramming home the point.
Actually, as it progresses, the editorial gets less compelling and more preachy (classic Kerry). But even still, it makes a really important point. "Consistency," as a wise man said "is the hobgoblin of small minds." President Bush is so afraid of being wrong that he refuses to be right: he persistently refused to put us on the right course on Iraq, and now I fear there is no right course. By itself, this is merely an example of poor leadership. But the real sin is how this vice was, through clever ads and cheap soundbites, turned into a virtue--a model to which all politicians were supposed to aspire. John Kerry lost because he was effectively "tarred" as a leader who would not stay the course. Today, of course, that translates to being tarred for being a leader who may have still given us a chance at victory.
Ezra Klein with the link.
That being said: this is a great editorial. I believe it was Bill Maher who asked when changing one's mind in response to new evidence became a bad thing, and Kerry does a stellar job ramming home the point.
There's something much worse than being accused of "flip-flopping": refusing to flip when it's obvious that your course of action is a flop.
I say this to President Bush as someone who learned the hard way how embracing the world's complexity can be twisted into a crude political shorthand. Barbed words can make for great politics. But with U.S. troops in Iraq in the middle of an escalating civil war, this is no time for politics. Refusing to change course for fear of the political fallout is not only dangerous -- it is immoral.
I'd rather explain a change of position any day than look a parent in the eye and tell them that their son or daughter had to die so that a broken policy could live.
Actually, as it progresses, the editorial gets less compelling and more preachy (classic Kerry). But even still, it makes a really important point. "Consistency," as a wise man said "is the hobgoblin of small minds." President Bush is so afraid of being wrong that he refuses to be right: he persistently refused to put us on the right course on Iraq, and now I fear there is no right course. By itself, this is merely an example of poor leadership. But the real sin is how this vice was, through clever ads and cheap soundbites, turned into a virtue--a model to which all politicians were supposed to aspire. John Kerry lost because he was effectively "tarred" as a leader who would not stay the course. Today, of course, that translates to being tarred for being a leader who may have still given us a chance at victory.
Ezra Klein with the link.
You Go gURL!
Every once in awhile (okay, compulsively), I check my sitemeter hit stats. It tells me how many people are visiting my site, but also where they are coming from. Most of the time it's Google or The Moderate Voice, but checking the list is usually the fastest way I find out if I've picked up a link from another blog.
Every once in a while, though, the link comes from a message board or forum. Curiousity gets the best of me, and I follow the link. The kink comes when the board requires registration. Most of the time, I'll do it, which means I am member of some very weird forums.
Which is to explain why, as of tonight, I am a brand new member of gURL, "a leading online community and content site for teenage girls." Kind of awkward. But that's what it takes to see what the populace is writing about me.
Every once in a while, though, the link comes from a message board or forum. Curiousity gets the best of me, and I follow the link. The kink comes when the board requires registration. Most of the time, I'll do it, which means I am member of some very weird forums.
Which is to explain why, as of tonight, I am a brand new member of gURL, "a leading online community and content site for teenage girls." Kind of awkward. But that's what it takes to see what the populace is writing about me.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Cooperation Makes It Happen!
I'm finishing off "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod while I'm in Aspen. It's somewhat of a miracle that I'm even reading the book. My friend (and former guest-blogger) Greg Ihrie lent it to me a few weeks ago, but I never got around to reading more than a few pages. I was planning on giving it back, with apologies, before I left for Aspen, but I got back from dinner late the night before and we just agreed I'd give it to him when I returned from skiing. So, on a lark I brought it with me. And wouldn't you know it, but it's quite good!
Axelrod discusses how cooperation can develop via the lens of game theory--specifically, the prisoner's dilemma. For those of you who don't know, I'll try to explain the dilemma briefly. For the rest of you who know about game theory, skip to the stars.
The prisoner's dilemma modeled off the following scenario:
Put in simpler terms, the prisoner's dilemma occurs when the T > C > D > S, where T = temptation (you defect when your partner cooperates), C = cooperation (both parties cooperate), D = defection (both parties defect), and S = sucker (you cooperate and your partner defects). Often times, it is expressed in terms of points. In a "T" scenario, you (the defecter) get 5 points while your partner (the sucker) gets 0 (5,0), while in an "S" scenario it is inverted (0,5). If both parties cooperate, both get 3 points (3,3), while if both defect, they each get one point (1,1).
The prisoner's dilemma is used in many fields (prominently in International Relations) to demonstrate why sub-optimal outcomes can occur even among rational actors. Specifically, if the prisoner's dilemma "game" is played only once, rational actors will always choose to defect (thus getting one point each), even though an optimal outcome of mutual cooperation would give them both three. Some people say it is for fear of becoming the sucker (getting zero points, or the harsh prison term), but that's only part of the story. In reality, the reason both parties will defect is because it is always the better option. If you think your partner will defect, then you also should defect because it gives you one point instead of zero. If you think your partner will cooperate, you should still defect because it gives you five points instead of three. This shows why cooperation--even when it is mutually beneficial--can be very difficult to bring into being.
However, this logic only occurs if the game is played one time. If the game is played repeatedly (is iterated) over an indefinite period, then it is possible for cooperation to develop, because one can build trust and thus convince partners to go for the mutually beneficial arrangement (which yields more benefits over the long run), then be stuck in a mutually suboptimal cycle of defections.
***
A prisoner's dilemma "tournament" was devised by which different players would submit strategies and compete against another "player" using their own strategy, the goal being to get the most points possible. So, for example, a player could submit "defect every time", where they would always choose defect. Each strategy faced all the others (plus "random") in a round-robin format.
The winner was called "tit-for-tat." It would always cooperate first, and then thereafter would do whatever move its partner did in the previous cycle. So if the partner defected, it would defect the next term, and if the partner cooperated, it would cooperate the next term. This is an example of what Axelrod called a "nice" strategy, in that it would never be the first to defect--it would only defect in response to the partner defecting previously.
It turns out that "nice" strategies have some interesting qualities (finally, the meat of the post). The first is that the benefits of being nice were pervasively under-estimated--it turned out that the vast majority of top-performing strategies were "nice," far over the proportion of "nice" submitted strategies. Similarly, the bottom of the pack was almost entirely made up of "mean" strategies. This is very counter-intuitive--in a world with a strong assortment of "meanies", not only can "nice" guys survive, but they can thrive.
Axelrod posits that cooperation can occur when players meet each other frequently and the benefit of preserving a future relationship outweigh the benefits of the short-term gain from defecting. So, for example, I'm far more likely to cheat a businessperson I know I'll never see again, than one who I have to work with day in and day out. Axelrod also establishes that such cooperation can develop without conscious thought (as in non-human symbiotic relations where one party could prey on the other), and even between supposed enemies.
This has interesting political implications. First, it implies that the world does not have to be dog-eat-dog. If people see each other and interact frequently, then cooperation becomes the optimal strategy. Specifically, it is an excellent argument for diversity (economic, racial, and otherwise). The short-term benefits of "selling out" another person are only worthwhile if one has no interest in maintaining a positive relationship with them. So, for example, a person who knows no homosexuals pays very little price in supporting their demonization. But if that person is their neighbor or grocer or banker or brother, the costs of defection become significantly higher. Hence, if we want to increase social cooperation between erstwhile feuding groups, it is quite possible--if we are willing to put resources into integrating the communities. The reverse, of course, is also true: if we want to maintain a conflict scenario, it is vitally important that we segregate the parties so they do not often encounter each other and are unlikely to "play the game" with the same person on multiple occasions.
What it also tells us is to not despair at the prospect for cooperation even among long-feuding foes. Given the right conditions (conditions which are very possible), cooperation becomes the most stable and most rational course of action for all parties. Of course, there are responses to this analysis (in IR, for example, realists would argue that short-term gains always outweigh long-term ones because a country that is exploited [played for the sucker] in the short-term might not survive to see the long term). But by and large, it is important to remember both that cooperation is quite feasible, and that humans tend to be empirically far too pessimistic about its possibilities for success.
Axelrod discusses how cooperation can develop via the lens of game theory--specifically, the prisoner's dilemma. For those of you who don't know, I'll try to explain the dilemma briefly. For the rest of you who know about game theory, skip to the stars.
The prisoner's dilemma modeled off the following scenario:
Two criminals are arrested for a crime they committed together and put in separate rooms, where they cannot communicate. Both prisoners are told that if neither squeals (i.e., they both cooperate with each other), then they'll only be able to be convicted of a minor crime and each will get a small sentence. If, however, one prisoner rats out the other (i.e., one defects), and the other stays silent (cooperates), then the rat will be released immediately, while the sucker gets hit with a harsh jail time. If both rat each other out (both defect), then both will be sentenced to moderately long (longer then the minor charge, but shorter than the sucker's sentence) terms in jail.
Put in simpler terms, the prisoner's dilemma occurs when the T > C > D > S, where T = temptation (you defect when your partner cooperates), C = cooperation (both parties cooperate), D = defection (both parties defect), and S = sucker (you cooperate and your partner defects). Often times, it is expressed in terms of points. In a "T" scenario, you (the defecter) get 5 points while your partner (the sucker) gets 0 (5,0), while in an "S" scenario it is inverted (0,5). If both parties cooperate, both get 3 points (3,3), while if both defect, they each get one point (1,1).
The prisoner's dilemma is used in many fields (prominently in International Relations) to demonstrate why sub-optimal outcomes can occur even among rational actors. Specifically, if the prisoner's dilemma "game" is played only once, rational actors will always choose to defect (thus getting one point each), even though an optimal outcome of mutual cooperation would give them both three. Some people say it is for fear of becoming the sucker (getting zero points, or the harsh prison term), but that's only part of the story. In reality, the reason both parties will defect is because it is always the better option. If you think your partner will defect, then you also should defect because it gives you one point instead of zero. If you think your partner will cooperate, you should still defect because it gives you five points instead of three. This shows why cooperation--even when it is mutually beneficial--can be very difficult to bring into being.
However, this logic only occurs if the game is played one time. If the game is played repeatedly (is iterated) over an indefinite period, then it is possible for cooperation to develop, because one can build trust and thus convince partners to go for the mutually beneficial arrangement (which yields more benefits over the long run), then be stuck in a mutually suboptimal cycle of defections.
***
A prisoner's dilemma "tournament" was devised by which different players would submit strategies and compete against another "player" using their own strategy, the goal being to get the most points possible. So, for example, a player could submit "defect every time", where they would always choose defect. Each strategy faced all the others (plus "random") in a round-robin format.
The winner was called "tit-for-tat." It would always cooperate first, and then thereafter would do whatever move its partner did in the previous cycle. So if the partner defected, it would defect the next term, and if the partner cooperated, it would cooperate the next term. This is an example of what Axelrod called a "nice" strategy, in that it would never be the first to defect--it would only defect in response to the partner defecting previously.
It turns out that "nice" strategies have some interesting qualities (finally, the meat of the post). The first is that the benefits of being nice were pervasively under-estimated--it turned out that the vast majority of top-performing strategies were "nice," far over the proportion of "nice" submitted strategies. Similarly, the bottom of the pack was almost entirely made up of "mean" strategies. This is very counter-intuitive--in a world with a strong assortment of "meanies", not only can "nice" guys survive, but they can thrive.
Axelrod posits that cooperation can occur when players meet each other frequently and the benefit of preserving a future relationship outweigh the benefits of the short-term gain from defecting. So, for example, I'm far more likely to cheat a businessperson I know I'll never see again, than one who I have to work with day in and day out. Axelrod also establishes that such cooperation can develop without conscious thought (as in non-human symbiotic relations where one party could prey on the other), and even between supposed enemies.
This has interesting political implications. First, it implies that the world does not have to be dog-eat-dog. If people see each other and interact frequently, then cooperation becomes the optimal strategy. Specifically, it is an excellent argument for diversity (economic, racial, and otherwise). The short-term benefits of "selling out" another person are only worthwhile if one has no interest in maintaining a positive relationship with them. So, for example, a person who knows no homosexuals pays very little price in supporting their demonization. But if that person is their neighbor or grocer or banker or brother, the costs of defection become significantly higher. Hence, if we want to increase social cooperation between erstwhile feuding groups, it is quite possible--if we are willing to put resources into integrating the communities. The reverse, of course, is also true: if we want to maintain a conflict scenario, it is vitally important that we segregate the parties so they do not often encounter each other and are unlikely to "play the game" with the same person on multiple occasions.
What it also tells us is to not despair at the prospect for cooperation even among long-feuding foes. Given the right conditions (conditions which are very possible), cooperation becomes the most stable and most rational course of action for all parties. Of course, there are responses to this analysis (in IR, for example, realists would argue that short-term gains always outweigh long-term ones because a country that is exploited [played for the sucker] in the short-term might not survive to see the long term). But by and large, it is important to remember both that cooperation is quite feasible, and that humans tend to be empirically far too pessimistic about its possibilities for success.
Aspen Report
So today was my first ski day in Aspen (Snowmass, specifically) this year. Unfortunately, my leg was far worse than I thought, and I had to go in early. It's quite frustrating, because while I still can ski, I'm skiing significantly worse than I have at any point in the past four years or so (because I'm loathe to put pressure on my left knee), so runs I loved before now are chores.
Nevertheless, Aspen is a pretty neat place. I'm fortunate enough to have cousins with a ski-in/ski-out condo on Snowmass Mountain, which is wonderful. We also know a fair amount of people who ski here, so there's usually someone to bum around with (although many are significantly better than I am). And of course, the conditions are spectacular. In most years, I can handle about half the double blacks on the mountain (Hanging Valley Glades is my favorite). I went on one double-black (Powderhorn) today. I got down it fine, but much slower than normal for me and with a lot more effort.
The other issue with Aspen is that it feels like (and is) a playground for the hyper-rich. Now, we're reasonably well off ourselves, but a) I really prefer mixed-income arenas (like college) and b) the folks who go to Aspen are, by and large, a few steps above us as well. With people casually talking about private jets and how James Brown sung at their birthday (not to mention some of the houses!), I definitely sometimes feel a little bit out of my league.
On the other hand, I won $40 in poker tonight. So all is well.
Nevertheless, Aspen is a pretty neat place. I'm fortunate enough to have cousins with a ski-in/ski-out condo on Snowmass Mountain, which is wonderful. We also know a fair amount of people who ski here, so there's usually someone to bum around with (although many are significantly better than I am). And of course, the conditions are spectacular. In most years, I can handle about half the double blacks on the mountain (Hanging Valley Glades is my favorite). I went on one double-black (Powderhorn) today. I got down it fine, but much slower than normal for me and with a lot more effort.
The other issue with Aspen is that it feels like (and is) a playground for the hyper-rich. Now, we're reasonably well off ourselves, but a) I really prefer mixed-income arenas (like college) and b) the folks who go to Aspen are, by and large, a few steps above us as well. With people casually talking about private jets and how James Brown sung at their birthday (not to mention some of the houses!), I definitely sometimes feel a little bit out of my league.
On the other hand, I won $40 in poker tonight. So all is well.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
The Kos and I
Often times, after writing a post describing some instance of right-wing lunacy, I get a comment offering up Daily Kos as a counterexample. I figure now is as good a time as any to tell where I stand on that titan of the left-wing blogosphere.
I resisted putting Kos on my blogroll for quite some time. I didn't want to be associated with "that wing" of the blogosphere--partisan, shrill, and utterly predictable. But even when it wasn't on my blogroll, I still read it fairly frequently--just to keep my finger on the pulse, I said. However, I only read the front pages (never the diarists), so whatever lurks in that morass is pretty much a mystery to me.
In my mind, there are three different types of Kos posts. The first are posts on issues of policy. In terms of equivalent craziness, this is the analogue to the "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" column I just blogged about. But I don't think they write those very often (Iraq, mostly), and I rarely read them when they do. I don't recall any policy post ever reaching the lunacy of women not voting, though.
Indeed, the kind of "go to post" for Kos extremism was his "screw 'em" post after some American mercenaries were lit on fire in Iraq. That, of course, was a hideous sentiment, and I condemn it utterly. That being said, it isn't a policy position (which doesn't make it better, or worse, but different). Also, not to excuse what he said, but Markos was a refugee from El Salvador--a country literal torn apart by a merc-fueled civil war. If I recall correctly, Kos apologized for his post and explained that something in the story had triggered his reflexive animosity towards mercenaries--an animosity I can entirely understand.
But I digress. The next category is posts on political strategy. These, I think, are hit or miss--and I read them as hits or misses. I don't think Kos stands out as either particular savvy or poor in providing strategic political advice for the Democratic Party. It probably wouldn't be enough to read the blog by itself though.
The third category, however, is where Kos really shines. This is on political coverage. It most certainly is not non-partisan. However, in terms of always having the latest polls and data on the horse races, as well as alerting me to races that are not getting media attention but deserve to have an eye kept on them (many of those this year), Kos does a truly magnificent job. It is that service that kept me returning to the site, and that service that eventually compelled to put it on the blogroll.
So, to conclude. There is plenty about Kos I don't like. They are certainly too partisan for my tastes, and they have a tendancy to hold grudges and cheer the literary deaths of even people who could be their friends (i.e., TNR), which I find very distasteful. But they are an unmatched resource for keeping up with the latest polls and inside campaign information. And I've yet to read anything that would be the left-wing equivalent of saying that women shouldn't vote, or that soy makes you gay.
I resisted putting Kos on my blogroll for quite some time. I didn't want to be associated with "that wing" of the blogosphere--partisan, shrill, and utterly predictable. But even when it wasn't on my blogroll, I still read it fairly frequently--just to keep my finger on the pulse, I said. However, I only read the front pages (never the diarists), so whatever lurks in that morass is pretty much a mystery to me.
In my mind, there are three different types of Kos posts. The first are posts on issues of policy. In terms of equivalent craziness, this is the analogue to the "women shouldn't be allowed to vote" column I just blogged about. But I don't think they write those very often (Iraq, mostly), and I rarely read them when they do. I don't recall any policy post ever reaching the lunacy of women not voting, though.
Indeed, the kind of "go to post" for Kos extremism was his "screw 'em" post after some American mercenaries were lit on fire in Iraq. That, of course, was a hideous sentiment, and I condemn it utterly. That being said, it isn't a policy position (which doesn't make it better, or worse, but different). Also, not to excuse what he said, but Markos was a refugee from El Salvador--a country literal torn apart by a merc-fueled civil war. If I recall correctly, Kos apologized for his post and explained that something in the story had triggered his reflexive animosity towards mercenaries--an animosity I can entirely understand.
But I digress. The next category is posts on political strategy. These, I think, are hit or miss--and I read them as hits or misses. I don't think Kos stands out as either particular savvy or poor in providing strategic political advice for the Democratic Party. It probably wouldn't be enough to read the blog by itself though.
The third category, however, is where Kos really shines. This is on political coverage. It most certainly is not non-partisan. However, in terms of always having the latest polls and data on the horse races, as well as alerting me to races that are not getting media attention but deserve to have an eye kept on them (many of those this year), Kos does a truly magnificent job. It is that service that kept me returning to the site, and that service that eventually compelled to put it on the blogroll.
So, to conclude. There is plenty about Kos I don't like. They are certainly too partisan for my tastes, and they have a tendancy to hold grudges and cheer the literary deaths of even people who could be their friends (i.e., TNR), which I find very distasteful. But they are an unmatched resource for keeping up with the latest polls and inside campaign information. And I've yet to read anything that would be the left-wing equivalent of saying that women shouldn't vote, or that soy makes you gay.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
To Aspen
I'm leaving for Aspen tomorrow. I may or may not blog while I'm there. I get back on the 29th, then leave for Carleton on the 1st of January. Blogging probably won't resume a full schedule until then. All predictions assume I don't get maimed on the slopes. Wish me luck!
And to all my readers, I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.
And to all my readers, I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.
Self-Loathing
There's a great Boondocks strip (I know, that applies to like 80% of them. Bear with me) where Huey and Caesar are trying to figure out whether a Black radio commentator (I forget who) was conservative enough to be a potential date for Condi Rice (don't ask). The punchline comes when said radio commentator ends his show with: "So, should we bring back slavery to give Black youth some discipline? Ultimately, I say...maybe."
I thought of that when, at Feministe, I saw this statement by conservative woman Mary Graber:
I'm really not sure when the last time a women's right to vote was seriously questioned. I suppose it had to be a women who did it--not that this makes it better, just that people all too willing to cannibalize their own exist on gender issues as well as racial ones. Meanwhile, the column was published on Townhall, which looks to join World Net "Soy Makes You Gay" Daily as completely off the deep end of rational discourse.
There are plenty of smart conservative voices out there. But why is it that the aggregators, their "alternative media" (because the real media is so liberal), are so comfortable with being so off-base?
I thought of that when, at Feministe, I saw this statement by conservative woman Mary Graber:
After watching The View and following the inane statements made on the program, I've come to the conclusion that it really is true what Aristotle, Saint Paul, and John Milton said: Women, without male guidance, are illogical, frivolous, and incapable of making any decisions beyond what to make for dinner. . .
But it's a sign of our crumbling civilization that a bunch of girls of varying ages and ethnic backgrounds, sitting around all dressed up for a coffee klatch, some of them with cleavage spilling out of Victoria's Secret Infinity Edge Push-Up bras, spout off opinions borrowed from disturbed teenagers and Michael Moore, and call it a talk show.
This was the danger of giving women the vote. The danger to conservatives (and the survival of this country) is the voting bloc of single women, i.e., those who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor.
I'm really not sure when the last time a women's right to vote was seriously questioned. I suppose it had to be a women who did it--not that this makes it better, just that people all too willing to cannibalize their own exist on gender issues as well as racial ones. Meanwhile, the column was published on Townhall, which looks to join World Net "Soy Makes You Gay" Daily as completely off the deep end of rational discourse.
There are plenty of smart conservative voices out there. But why is it that the aggregators, their "alternative media" (because the real media is so liberal), are so comfortable with being so off-base?
Happy Fan
Me: I got to go to the Devils game last night.
Friend: That's great. How was it?
Me: Good. They won. And my parents say that the Christmas Party was just crab dip and sliced ham anyway.
Friend: So you didn't miss anything.
Me: Well, I missed celebrating the birth of Our Lord and Savior to root for a team called the Devils.
It's good to be Jewish.
So, the Devils won decisively last night, 4-1. My seats were good, the game was exciting for the most part, before the Devils pulled away at the end (fine by me). And Brodeur stoned Alexander Ovechkin (check the video highlights at the link) in one of the finest saves I've ever seen live. Excellent.
After the game, I got to try the Nintendo Wii for the first time. It was loads of fun, even though I was atrocious at it (except at Monkeyball Bowling, which I dominated). I have to wonder, though, how much of the appeal is in the novelty of it--swinging the little Wii stick like a bat or jabbing out a punch or whatever. I mean, I can see it going both ways--I can see it really having staying power, or I can see it getting tiresome quick. It's definitely a paradigm shift, and gaming hasn't had a real revolution in controllers (adding those little mini-joysticks is the closest thing) since I've started playing consoles (i.e., since the days of NES). I give Nintendo full credit for thinking outside the box, and wish them luck.
Finally, on a sadder note, conservative blog Southern Appeal is closing down. I haven't agreed with the SAers on, well, pretty much anything (except Darfur, for which lead blogger Feddie was a strong and consistent voice), but they were always fun and respectful debate partners. I wish all the members of the site all the luck in the world.
Friend: That's great. How was it?
Me: Good. They won. And my parents say that the Christmas Party was just crab dip and sliced ham anyway.
Friend: So you didn't miss anything.
Me: Well, I missed celebrating the birth of Our Lord and Savior to root for a team called the Devils.
It's good to be Jewish.
So, the Devils won decisively last night, 4-1. My seats were good, the game was exciting for the most part, before the Devils pulled away at the end (fine by me). And Brodeur stoned Alexander Ovechkin (check the video highlights at the link) in one of the finest saves I've ever seen live. Excellent.
After the game, I got to try the Nintendo Wii for the first time. It was loads of fun, even though I was atrocious at it (except at Monkeyball Bowling, which I dominated). I have to wonder, though, how much of the appeal is in the novelty of it--swinging the little Wii stick like a bat or jabbing out a punch or whatever. I mean, I can see it going both ways--I can see it really having staying power, or I can see it getting tiresome quick. It's definitely a paradigm shift, and gaming hasn't had a real revolution in controllers (adding those little mini-joysticks is the closest thing) since I've started playing consoles (i.e., since the days of NES). I give Nintendo full credit for thinking outside the box, and wish them luck.
Finally, on a sadder note, conservative blog Southern Appeal is closing down. I haven't agreed with the SAers on, well, pretty much anything (except Darfur, for which lead blogger Feddie was a strong and consistent voice), but they were always fun and respectful debate partners. I wish all the members of the site all the luck in the world.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Genocide Division
Here's an intriguing idea. Michael O'Hanlon, a leading liberal foreign policy thinker and Brookings Institute scholar, calls for the creation of a dedicated anti-genocide division of the US Army, numbering around 20,000 troops. The argument is that we should never be restrained from fighting genocide simply because our troops are otherwise occupied (in, say, Iraq):
I think O'Hanlon is a little over-optimistic about how the division would play out in real life, but I think there is some merit to the idea. Matt Yglesias, by contrast, is not as enthusiastic:
I disagree that "genocide prevention" (or perhaps, intervention), is not necessarily a discrete task from other military activities. I seem to recall, in the wake of the Iraq fiasco, several calls for the US to develop dedicated "peacekeeping forces", under the theory that the training required to "shock and awe" a defending army is not the same as is required for counter-insurgency, peacekeeping, and reconstruction. I believe that stopping a genocide--which is less about crushing an opposing army than it is about securing civilians--probably requires a different skill set and mentality (building trust with the locals, negotiation to end the conflict, strengthening long term institutions) than the regular army has. This isn't to say that a genocide division would never need to be supplimented by regular forces (such as air support), but I do think it would serve a unique role. And of course, just having a division with anti-genocide work as its specific role makes it more likely we will actually engage in such interventions.
As to Yglesias' worry that such a division would never be able to be completely separated from regular army work, he's probably right that this is a risk, but I'm not sure I see it as controlling. If we're going to send 20,000 troops as a "surge" in Iraq anyway, it doesn't really matter where in the army we get them from. Compared to the increase (however marginal) in likelihood that we will effectively intervene to stop genocide, I think that it's worth the chance.
A genocide-prevention division within the U.S. Army would circumvent this problem. Since its only mission would be to stop genocides, deploying the force would never require us to ask more of soldiers who already have their hands full with other conflicts. Moreover, those volunteering for the new force would know exactly what they were getting into and enlist specifically because they embraced the mission. These soldiers could be recruited from the ranks of idealistic college and high school students across the nation who have done so much to keep Darfur in the public eye.
I think O'Hanlon is a little over-optimistic about how the division would play out in real life, but I think there is some merit to the idea. Matt Yglesias, by contrast, is not as enthusiastic:
Color me skeptical. Different kinds of soldiers get different kinds of training, but they're all at least semi-fungible. If we had a spare genocide-prevention division lying around, it would be getting sent to Iraq as part of the "surge" not to Africa. The President would simply argue that escalation of the Iraq War is a genocide-prevention mission because of the sectarian violence. Then on the flipside, I'm not sure there's a discrete military task called "genocide prevention." You might, in an effort to halt a genocide, bomb some buildings or troop formations somewhere. Alternatively, as part of a war to overthrow the Taliban you might wind up policing the streets of Kabul and taking responsibility for the safety of the city's residents. So you want some military forces who specialize in bombing, and others who specialize in policing, but you don't have some troops who specialize in genocide prevention and others who specialize in attacking hostile governments.
I disagree that "genocide prevention" (or perhaps, intervention), is not necessarily a discrete task from other military activities. I seem to recall, in the wake of the Iraq fiasco, several calls for the US to develop dedicated "peacekeeping forces", under the theory that the training required to "shock and awe" a defending army is not the same as is required for counter-insurgency, peacekeeping, and reconstruction. I believe that stopping a genocide--which is less about crushing an opposing army than it is about securing civilians--probably requires a different skill set and mentality (building trust with the locals, negotiation to end the conflict, strengthening long term institutions) than the regular army has. This isn't to say that a genocide division would never need to be supplimented by regular forces (such as air support), but I do think it would serve a unique role. And of course, just having a division with anti-genocide work as its specific role makes it more likely we will actually engage in such interventions.
As to Yglesias' worry that such a division would never be able to be completely separated from regular army work, he's probably right that this is a risk, but I'm not sure I see it as controlling. If we're going to send 20,000 troops as a "surge" in Iraq anyway, it doesn't really matter where in the army we get them from. Compared to the increase (however marginal) in likelihood that we will effectively intervene to stop genocide, I think that it's worth the chance.
Iowa Numbers
Real Clear Politics has the latest numbers coming out of Iowa. Things look good for the Democrats. But not for Hillary, who comes in fourth place among Democrats. Obama and Edwards are tied for the lead (22% each), and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack (who has the same chance of winning any state outside of Iowa as I do) comes in third. Hillary also loses head to head match-ups with every major Republican but Mitt Romney.
Obama and Edwards, by contrast, win every single head to head--surprisingly, to my eyes, besting both Giuliani and McCain by comfortable (albeit narrow) margins. Both candidates must be pleased by these numbers, but they are especially good for Obama, who still isn't known by a third of the country and probably has more "upside" potential than Edwards, Giuliani, and McCain (Giuliani, especially, has nowhere to go but down).
Meanwhile, Giuliani and McCain are dueling for the top spot among Republicans (27% and 26%, respectively), with Romney and Gingrich trailing.
Via The Plank.
Obama and Edwards, by contrast, win every single head to head--surprisingly, to my eyes, besting both Giuliani and McCain by comfortable (albeit narrow) margins. Both candidates must be pleased by these numbers, but they are especially good for Obama, who still isn't known by a third of the country and probably has more "upside" potential than Edwards, Giuliani, and McCain (Giuliani, especially, has nowhere to go but down).
Meanwhile, Giuliani and McCain are dueling for the top spot among Republicans (27% and 26%, respectively), with Romney and Gingrich trailing.
Via The Plank.
Good Riddance
The Jerusalem Post reports that Jewish terrorist Asher Weisgan, convicted of killing four Palestinians in cold blood to try and stop the Gaza pullout, has committed suicide in prison.
Weisgan was an insult to the Jewish community and a despicable human being. I'd rather that he be alive right now, so that he could continue to rot in jail during the four life terms he was sentenced to. But I can't say I'm cut up that he's dead.
Weisgan was an insult to the Jewish community and a despicable human being. I'd rather that he be alive right now, so that he could continue to rot in jail during the four life terms he was sentenced to. But I can't say I'm cut up that he's dead.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Devil of a Time
I'm going to the Caps/Devils game tomorrow (Friday) night. I've been a Devils fan since I was 8 (specifically, the 1994 Conference Finals between the Devils and the Rangers--or to put it another way, for virtually all of Martin Brodeur's career), but I've only seen them play once or twice before. The perils of rooting for a non-hometown team. So I'm excited.
The Devils enter the game second in the Atlantic Division (one point behind the Rangers) and 5th overall in the Eastern Conference. The Caps are in a three way tie for 7th in the Conference and 3rd in the Southeast Division. However, they've been on a tear lately, going 7-2-1 in their last ten.
I'll be rooting for the Devils, of course, but I will also be keeping a fan's eye on the Cap's Alexander Ovechkin. Ovechkin is a once-in-a-generation type of player--truly magical on the ice. Check out this goal: It's nicknamed "the impossible goal," and if you see it you'll know why. Hockey is desparately in need of a new superstar, and Ovechkin is just the type to fit the bill (perhaps even more that Sid "the Kid" Crosby).
The Devils enter the game second in the Atlantic Division (one point behind the Rangers) and 5th overall in the Eastern Conference. The Caps are in a three way tie for 7th in the Conference and 3rd in the Southeast Division. However, they've been on a tear lately, going 7-2-1 in their last ten.
I'll be rooting for the Devils, of course, but I will also be keeping a fan's eye on the Cap's Alexander Ovechkin. Ovechkin is a once-in-a-generation type of player--truly magical on the ice. Check out this goal: It's nicknamed "the impossible goal," and if you see it you'll know why. Hockey is desparately in need of a new superstar, and Ovechkin is just the type to fit the bill (perhaps even more that Sid "the Kid" Crosby).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
