Kerry's Race to Lose

UPDATE: 8/23 @ 7:50 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay Marriage Fight Heating Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Educated Guess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraqi Nuances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colorado Crisis

UPDATE: 8/18 @ 2:50 PM

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

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

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

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

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

More Misc Cards

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

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

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

A solid, balanced definition of Federalism, I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And also quoted within the opinion

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

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

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

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

I Rule!

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

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

Me:

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

Mark Safranski:

"'Superior process tops grand strategy every time.'

Just like in Vietnam ?

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

What if the problems are interdependent and interrelated ?

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

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

ME:

Mark,

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

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

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

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

"Vagaboundplus":

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

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

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

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

Next stop, the blogosphere royalty!

Good for Bush!

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

Some highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay News Day

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

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

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

Overall, a very strange day for Gay activists.

Judgment Day: Crowley v. Robbins

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

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

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

For the above reasons, I vote for Mr. Crowley

Nature of Duties

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

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

Libertarians for Kerry!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japanese Internment Blogwar

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

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

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

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

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

Blown Cover

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

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

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

Judging Associations

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

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

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

Free Press Card

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

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

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

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

The full opinion can be found here,

Indebted

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

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

Real Flip Flop

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Gay Marriage Victory

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

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

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

Jordan Blasts PA

Thanks to The National Review for the link.

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

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

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

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