Plum Crazy

So Much For That "Maverick" Chuck Hagel

Given some of his recent statements on the war in Iraq, one might have been tempted to think that Chuck Hagel was a man willing to go against the Bush administration. But he's one of the two Senators who voted against the bill to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys. The other was Christopher "Kit" Bonds (R-MO).

Four Senators didn't vote. One is South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, who didn't vote for obvious reasons. The other three are Biden, McCain, and Mikulski.

Summary of the Gonzales Press Conference

A one-man play in three sentences.

Hey, there's the bus. Is that Kyle Sampson under it? Why yes, it is!

Oh My!

I'm sure I can't imagine how anyone could have gotten the impression that Michael Battle was threatening them from this little old e-mail:

Cummins recounted in an e-mail made public yesterday that the official cautioned that administration officials would "pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully."

I'm sure that Mr. Battle only meant that the weather had warmed up enough that members of the administration didn't feel the need to wear gloves outside. Oh sure, perhaps a bit of over-sharing, but a threat? Come now.

Rudy Giuliani: Twice Nominated by the Liberal Party

I was wondering when this was going to enter the campaign:

McCain operatives are putting out material that depicts Giuliani riding into City Hall on the shoulders of the New York Liberal Party as a throwback to the old Tammany Hall Democratic machine.

I'm surprised McCain hasn't added "Endorsed Democratic incumbent Mario Cuomo for Governor!" Maybe he's saving that for later.

This does give a somewhat misleading cast to what the article was actually about - that the far right wing are not necessarily enamored of "maverick" McCain, socially liberal Giuliani, and "Multiple Choice" Mitt Romney once they learn details of their political backgrounds. I'm just more familiar with Giuliani* because of my place of birth and city of residence. Knowing all that I do about him, I still find it hard to believe he'll survive all the things about him that will become more publicly spread as campaigns heat up. Twice running on the Liberal ticket, as well as the Republican ticket, and having endorsed a Democrat for governor are two of the things that I think will be real setbacks for Giuliani. We'll see.

*Full disclosure. I voted for Giuliani twice. I would not, however, vote for him for President, as I think he is too authoritarian and temperamentally unsuited for the position.

The Only Post I'll Make on the Edwards' Blogger Issue

Anyone who is wringing their hands and furrowing their brow over the private postings of a couple of low-level campaign staffers with no policy-making influence working on John Edwards' campaign, but who is also touting Rudy Giuliani as a serious candidate for President is not to be taken seriously. Rudy is one of the most uncivil politicians around. If you're really concerned about the death of civil discourse, you should be out there campaigning against Giuliani, not a couple of women who aren't running for any office, let alone the highest office in the nation. Whether or not you agree with their politics or phrasing, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan didn't deserve the kind of outrage that was stirred up over their being hired to staff a campaign blog. That outrage is better directed at those who run our country or want to run our country.

Not At All Surprising

Wow, this is a surprising number: Hillary Clinton is not just beating Rudy Giuliani in his home state — and her adopted state — of New York, but is trouncing the former Mayor by over 20 points in a new poll. The survey, released today by Crain's New York Business, finds that Hillary is beating Rudy 53%-32%.

I have to disagree with Eric Kleefeld. It's not a surprising number at all. As a New Yorker, I find this eminently unsurprising. New Yorkers are very familiar with Rudy Giuliani and his flaws. Before 9/11, Rudy's popularity had decreased significantly. He wasn't a particularly liked mayor.

Many New Yorkers who are fans of Rudy as Mayor think he'd make a horrible President. People outside New York don't realize how obnoxious he really is. While a lot of New Yorkers may think this is a fine quality in the Mayor of New York City, those same people don't think it's a fine quality in the President of the United States. We really don't think it's a swell idea to have a man who is more likely than not to refer to the French Ambassador as a "mewling baby" or the like. Rudy has a long history of running off at the mouth, insulting people, and generally not knowing when to shut the hell up. Not good Presidential qualities.

Not to mention that he has no taste for dissent. He wasn't regularly called Benito Giuliani for nothing. I think a lot of New Yorkers would prefer a President who is willing to consider opposing viewpoints. Giuliani is not that man. His general style of leadership consists of: "Do it." "I told you to do it." "You're fired."

As for Mike Bloomberg's single digit results, no shock there. Bloomberg is easily one of the most uninspiring politicians New York has seen in my lifetime. He may be an excellent businessman, but his public speaking abilities make Al Gore seem like Mr. Excitement.

Via Eschaton.

Fat People Got No Reason. . .

Unless it were an historical drama of the black-face era, it would not be acceptable to make a movie today with whites dressed in black face, not even in jest. A movie like The Bird Cage would probably get slammed today. A movie of women in subservient positions, unless it were trying to make a political point, would be unacceptable as well. Yet for some reason, it's still acceptable to make fun of obese people. Why?

Party On

Rightfully, there is a chorus of criticism of white college students who are holding parties mocking the worst stereotypes of African-Americans. I guess it's not cool enough to dress up as important African-American leaders such as Martin Luther King or Jesse Jackson (though, as someone who's Jewish, I have my own issues with Jackson). Instead, it's deemed cool to toss around the "n" word, dress up as gangstas, drink malt liquor, and don black face.

"Where's the harm," these students are asking, noting that they're only mirroring the behavior of African-Americans and that they're only appropriating what they see as cool behavior. "We only want to be like you." Actually, I have my own opinion of the gangsta culture and don't believe African-Americans should behave this way. This type of behavior can be dangerous, marginalizes women, and only reinforces negative stereotypes. Still, it is one thing for African-Americans to act this way and quite another for whites to act this way.

For African-Americans, it diffuses the power of stereotypes by taking a racial epithet and making it part of their lexicon; for whites, as the class in power, it only serves to perpetuate an image, continue to disenfranchise African-Americans, and to deny African-Americans the equal treatment they deserve.

It is also a mockery of African-Americans only to want to mirror their worst behavior, as though it's the only way they behave. Nope, no African-Americans serve in important positions or are doctors or lawyers, no African-Americans are positive role models and leaders. Again, whites may say, "It's only harmless fun, African-Americans behave this way, why can't we?" The reasons why they can't are numerous. As one critic noted, it was once seen as fun to hold lynching parties and no harm was really done, none at all. It is making fun of African-Americans, again perpetuating stereotypes, intimating that all African-Americans behave this way, and continuing the tradition of demeaning them and not taking them seriously by dressing up in black face and making mockery of them by turning them into cartoonish figures in movies who walk around bug-eyed, only capable of saying, "Yes, massa, you sure is right massa."

Where African-Americans have created power systems by using the "n" word or using gangsta themes to skyrocket to success in the rap industry, whites can only keep African-Americans down by appropriating their behavior and saying this is the only way African-Americans behave. A subtle form of racism to be sure, but racism as much as segregation or lynching parties were.

Stick to Plagiarism, Joe

It's much better than racism. Here's what Biden had to say about Obama (emphasis mine):

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

But - and the "but" was clearly inevitable - he doubts whether American voters are going to elect "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate," and added: "I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

He expresses nothing about how Hillary Clinton, as the first mainstream female candidate is "articulate and bright and clean" or how that's "a storybook." Because there's no underlying prejudice about white women not being articulate, bright, or clean.

Via Paul the Spud at Shakespeare's Sister.

The Duke Case

No one knows what the ultimate disposition of the Duke Lacrosse case will be, but the developments in the last few weeks only reinforce my opinion that there was an immediate rush to judgment and that the entire team and especially the three indicted players have been treated unjustly. In this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty; in this instance, the opposite happened. The players were presumed guilty from the start, and for that, I blame reverse discrimination. Because they were white and privileged and accused of a crime against a poor African-American woman in a predominantly African-American and poor community, the players were treated as pariahs from the start, branded criminals, and sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

Rather than wait for the case to play out, Duke University immediately suspended the entire team and ultimately canceled the season. True, there are other instances where players accused of a crime have been suspended before the legal process has run its course - the most recent example being Tank Johnson of the Chicago Bears, arrested on gun charges and suspended for two games - yet the defining legal principle in this country is that a person is presumed innocent.

I believe the University reacted to the outcry against the team and an assumption that the charges were true rather than give the players the benefit of the doubt as they should have been under our legal system. Some of it may have stemmed from the party itself, that the players held a Bacchanalian affair with underage drinking, but without the rape charges, I am not sure that the University would have responded as it did. The University gave into the public pressure and to the reverse stereotype at play and deprived the team of due process.

The public condemnation of the players was equally as swift. There was no question that the players were guilty, a call was issued for their heads on a platter, and numerous protests and rallies were held at the home of the party. Unfortunately, this happens all the time in America. Al Sharpton organized a protest against the shooting of Sean Bell and his friends outside a Queens night club late last year, despite the fact that no charges have been brought against the police officers and that the shooting appears to be no more than a tragic misunderstanding. Bell and his friends likely thought they were under attack, and the police in turn likely felt they were under attack. Overall, in the Queens case, there hasn't been an outcry against the officers in the same way there was against the Duke players, and the case has largely faded from public memory, but why is there is quickness to assume guilt in such cases? It's as though we need to assuage our guilt for centuries of mistreatment of African-Americans by saying that these incidents only occur because it is white privileged men acting against a disenfranchised populace. One of the officers in the Bell case is African-American, yet that seems swept under the rug and the finger pointed at racism here and in the Duke case. It seems like there's a reverse stereotype at work.

Most egregious of all is the behavior of D.A. Mike Nifong. I will not get into the question of his motivation here because I do not know the man, but his words and deeds only inflamed an already hot situation. Rather than wait for the results of an investigation, he immediately said he was sure a crime had been committed and made several prejudicial statements. From all appearances, he conducted a faulty investigation, proceeding only on the word of someone whose story has been wildly inconsistent, ignoring and suppressing exculpatory evidence, organizing a rigged line-up that was no more than a game of eeny, meeny, miny, mo, never interviewing the accused and ignoring what seems to be strong evidence of their innocence, and only belatedly interviewing the accuser herself. It's a clear example of how not to conduct a criminal investigation, one that has landed him in hot water.

It is only good news in my opinion that the North Carolina Attorney General has agreed to take the case. The office will conduct an investigation from scratch, hopefully proceeding in a far more professional manner than Nifong. I cannot predict the outcome of the investigation. Maybe it will find cause to move forward anyway, though I will be surprised if it does, and maybe the players will wind up on trial after all is said and done, though again, I doubt this will happen. I believe the case will, as it likely should, go away at this point. Even if it does, however, there has been plenty of damage done to the team as a whole and three players in specific.

Their names and reputation have been muddied, and the case will follow them for the rest of their lives. Whenever applying for a job or meeting someone for the first time, they will be immediately thought of as the Duke players accused of rape. Whether that prejudices people against them or earns sympathy is hard to say. Either way, they have been through months of turmoil on what appears to be a weak and doubtful case. If there were more compelling evidence against them and less questions about the merits of the case, I would still have a problem - as stated before, the presumption should be innocent until proven guilty - but not as much of a problem.

I cannot help but wonder had this not been rich against poor, privileged against underprivileged, white against African-American, whether the case would have gained as much traction as it did. Based on all the evidence so far, I believe a fundamental injustice has been done to the team and accused players.

Not

The correct answer to Words of Wisdom is then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Had he only heeded his own advice before counseling the current Bush to depose Sadam Hussein.

Answer to Words of Wisdom

George Herbert Walker Bush.

Hugs and kisses.

Lesley

Boxer v. Rice

Or Why I still have a problem with what Barbara Boxer said to Condi Rice.

I've read a lot of commentary on what Barbara Boxer was saying to Condi Rice. Some of it ludicrously hysterical about how Boxer told Rice that Rice was unqualified for her job because she was single and childless. And, yes, I agree, that's ridiculous. Boxer never intimated any such thing.

On the other side, it's more of the Boxer was just saying that there are sacrifices that will have to be made to carry on the war and the surge, and we should be cognizant of the prices people will have to pay. I agree that's what Boxer intended. However, her framing of the issue unconsciously plays right into patriarchal assumptions about women. As a single, childless woman myself, I got that very quickly.

In her example, Boxer used herself and Rice as two people who don't have a personal price to pay. Both women. The price they could pay was cast in terms of their children or lack thereof. Not in terms of themselves. Women are in the military. Women die in wars, even if they aren't in combat. It's not just that Boxer's children are too old. It's that she's too old. It's not just that Rice doesn't have an immediate family to sacrifice. It's that she's too old herself.

If the only price women are seen as being able to pay for their country in wartime is their children (and husbands), what does that mean for single, childless women? Given the culture we live in, it's really not hard to read that as "you're selfish." It's not as if single and/or childless women don't get fed that message constantly anyway. "Selfish." "Unwomanly." "Failure." That's the environment in which Boxer made her remarks. The environment in which she excluded the possibility of herself or Rice sacrificing themselves (if she hadn't, there wouldn't have been a framing/subtext issue). While I don't believe she consciously meant that Rice was selfish, none of us escape our socialization. There's an unintended subtext to her remarks; one that I believe feminists and progressives should be aware of.

Words Of Wisdom

In 1992, the following was said about why the U.S. had not pressed onto Baghdad after the Gulf War:

"If we'd gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein - assuming we could have found him - we'd have to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground someplace. He would not have been easy to capture. Then you've got to put a new government in his place and then you're faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq. Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Shiite government or a Sunni government? How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of the operation?"

Who said it? Answer tomorrow.

Riehl Time

I guess in the world of Dan Riehl a 40-hour work week means you work from 9 am on Monday until 1 am on Wednesday.

Right?

That Old Time Statistical Spin

Well, you know, as someone (perhaps Benjamin Disraeli) once said, "There's lies. There's damned lies. And then there's statistics." Back in December, Gallup took a poll regarding American views on the media coverage of Iraq. Here's how the numbers broke down: 56% believe the media portrayal of Iraq is inaccurate. 41% believe it is accurate, and the remaining 3% have no opinion. Now, in fairness, that's not great news for the media, and this poll is meant to be a barometer of how Americans view media coverage of Iraq.

Compare and contrast what I'm going to write to what Don Surber wrote. Read both and ask yourselves what messages you get from both phrasings.

Me:

56% of Americans believe the media generally portray Iraq inaccurately.

However, only 35% of Americans believe the media portray Iraq as worse than it really is.

Don Surber:

The Gallup Poll found 56% of Americans "believe that the news media's coverage of the situation in Iraq is generally inaccurate."

Of that 56%, most (61%) think the media portray Iraq worse than it really is.

Looks like Bush is not the only one with a low approval rate.

The trick is that both phrasings state the exact truth, but in ways that will send different messages to most people.

Detailed breakdown of the poll results below the jump.

41% believe the media portray Iraq accurately
35% believe the media portray Iraq as worse than it really is
20% believe the media portray Iraq as better than it really is
3% have no opinion on the accuracy or inaccuracy of media coverage of Iraq
2% believe the media portray Iraq inaccurately, but have no opinion as to whether they portray it as better or worse than it really is

Why Does George Bush Hate America?

Sigh. Our own President, turning aside from tradition and appointing Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muslim, to be UN Ambassador. Whatever shall we do? If we don't do something about illegal immigrants soon, we'll just have more and more Muslim ambassadors! </snark>

Via Pam's House Blend. Pam also provides us with the Freeper reaction, which in large part should surprise no one. This gem is indicative: "Holy crap! Please forward all evidence you have that this man is a member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban to the President immediately! A grateful nation breathes a sigh of relief." (OK, it's possible that one is actual sarcasm directed at the racist Freepers. But how sad is it when you honestly can't be sure?)

I Don't Suppose He'll Take My Junk Mail

Not content with warrantless wiretapping, President Bush has decided he can "construe" an exception to existing law and open our mail without a court order too.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Cue the cries from Bush supporters about how you've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide. Because governments never abuse their power or extend a law meant for one thing to entirely different things. Not to mention a little word like "principles." How many more civil rights does Bush expect us to sacrifice in the name of "security?" The only thing that keeps me hopeful is he doesn't realistically have the time to get a constitutional amendment passed to kill the 22nd amendment.

You Keep Using That Word...

The word in question is "oppressed," and I do not think it means what Dr. Helen* thinks it means.

It seems like those with views other than liberal must wear the Scarlet R. Well, I will not hide any longer. If people want to call me a Republican, I will wear the label with pride with the R proudly displayed on my forehead whether it really fits or not, just to show my solidarity with those who are oppressed by such labels. Maybe you should too.

I'm not really sure how holding the executive branch and close to 50% of the legislative branch qualifies Republicans as being oppressed by the label Republican. Especially if they are, in fact, Republican. How are you oppressed by being called what you are? If you've registered for the Republican party, you're a Republican by your own volition.

As for those individuals who Dr. Helen assures us feel the need to apologize for having right-leaning views, well, actually, who are these people? I live in the bastion of "latte-swilling liberalism" known as Manhattan (why is everyone always hating on the latte anyway), and I have actually never heard anyone say "Oh, no, I am not really a Republican, I have other views etc." except when they're not, you know, Republicans and wish to clarify the matter. Much like Dr. Helen herself says that she isn't a Republican, but a right-leaning libertarian. She clearly wasn't apologizing by saying that. She was, I assume, stating her party affiliation or lack thereof. When people mistakenly refer to me as a Democrat, I will often clarify with a "Oh, no, I'm not a Democrat." This would not be me apologizing for being possibly one of the most socially liberal people I know, so much as my stating the verifiable fact that I am not registered as a Democrat. I have very purposely refused to register a party affiliation as a personal (admittedly minor) form of protest. [The day the Democrats want to pay more than lip service to women and POC is the day I might actually register as a Democrat.]

As for the concept that you're being oppressed by having to explain that you are not what someone has mistaken you for, really. Ludicrous. As a Jew in this country, I am not being oppressed. No, not even when someone mistakes me for Christian (a common occurrence). Is it annoying that many people just assume I'm Christian? Yes. Am I being oppressed? No. If being Jewish were limiting my access to education, housing, or jobs, then I would be oppressed. That is not happening, however. It sure as hell is not happening to actual or imagined Republicans either. Republicans and those with right-leaning views are not being oppressed.

Words have meaning. We're not in Looking Glass World.

*I see a fair number of progressive blogs refer to her as Dr. Mrs. Instapundit or Dr. Instawife or Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser or something like that. I really wish they'd stop. Agree with her politics or not, she is a separate individual from her husband. Nobody calls him Professor Dr. Helen. I'm sure it's possible to insult her by not diminishing her status as an actual, full-fledged human being in her own right.

What's That Part of the Constitution About No Religious Tests, Roy?

Shorter Roy Moore: "The best way to uphold the Constitution is to do something unconstitutional."

I think we need to question Roy Moore's willingness to uphold the Constitution. It appears far more suspect.

Via Shakespeare's Sister.

Does the Phrase "Apparent Conflict of Interest" Mean Nothing to the GOP?

If you work in the world of finance, as I do, there's a phrase that gets drummed into your brain. "You must avoid anything that is a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest." What would constitute a conflict of interest is, I think, fairly obvious. Don't accept gifts that will sway your decision on a contract. An apparent conflict of interest is one where, even if it doesn't sway your decision, it could appear to a reasonable person like it might. So you don't accept gifts over some nominal limit from potential vendors at all.

None of what we're talking about is actually illegal. Just unethical. If you accept tickets to the World Series for you and your family from a potential vendor, you won't go to jail. You won't be charged with any crime at all. You may well be fired, but that isn't a legal punishment.

So when I read about the number of judicial candidates who donated money to Republicans in decision-making capacities while they were judicial candidates, the first phrase that pops into my mind is "apparent conflict of interest." It might even be an outright conflict of interest, but at a minimum, it is an apparent one. Judgeships shouldn't be up for sale, or even look like they're up for sale. I hear that too often they are rewards for patronage of different sorts, which is despicable. The judiciary is meant to be a check on the executive and legislative branches. If they're doled out as repayment, then what kind of check do we have? It's exactly this kind of behavior that enables the executive branch (read "George W. Bush") to think they can simply take whatever powers they want, the other branches of government be damned. If you're willing to simply ignore the legislature and have the judiciary in your pocket, why worry about anyone putting a stop to your power grab?

As citizens, we need to send a clear message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. If you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or New York, here are the politicians you should be wary of: Senator George Voinovich, Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Rick Santorum, and Governor George Pataki. I left Senator Mike DeWine off the list, even though he is discussed in the Salon article, because it seems he returned all the money. You can't stop someone from making a contribution. You can return it. DeWine did the right thing, at least on this issue. Santorum is up for re-election this year. I hope his opponent makes this an issue. It looks like Santorum is going to lose regardless, but this should still be made an issue.

Specter isn't up for another four years, but don't buy his BS that "it's just not possible to know everybody" who donates to his campaigns. Of course it's not, but there aren't that many judicial candidates he's nominated. It's not that hard to scan through the database of contributors on a regular basis for their names and return any contributions. Specter also trots out the "but it doesn't actually sway my decisions" tripe (that's my paraphrase, not an exact quote). Even if that's true, it's still an apparent conflict of interest. It's called "ethics", Arlen. Look it up.

Oh, there's one more Republican politician who accepted contributions from judicial candidates - George W. Bush himself. It starts at the top.

A Vote for Racism

Over at The Corner, a friend of K-Lo e-mails her the following about Jim Webb's book:

Race is over. Finished. Done. Webb is toast.

Yes, it's only fiction, but that bit about the father and his naked son is so despicable that the sensible people in red Virginia will certainly "go home" and support Governor Allen.

I think Webb even loses some of the independents in Northern Virginia with these revelations.

Maybe you guys in Manhattan are desensitized to this filth, but the people of Roanoke, Lynchburg, Blacksburg, Fredericksburg, etc., aren't. And no way will these voters EVER accept the argument that it's only fiction.

So, let's do a check. Jim Webb writes a piece in a novel about an apparently common cultural practice in Vietnam that he observed while he was a Marine. Not something he made up. Something he witnessed that he felt was important to the context of the book he was writing. (Incidentally, John Cole notes that one of Webb's novels is recommended reading of the Marine Corps).

George Allen insults a man of color using the racist term "macaca". He professes a great fondness for the Confederate flag, even though he's not from the South originally. He has connections to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist group. Apparently there's something that K-Lo's friend the conservative activist thinks the people of "Roanoke, Lynchburg, Blacksburg, Fredericksburg, etc." are desensitized to.

Oh, but there's no Southern strategy. No, nothing to see here. Move right along.

Non-John Cole links via Radley Balko (although Radley Balko links via John Cole, so it's some kind of big circle).

Plan? What Plan?

Stumping for Republican candidates in the days leading up to the election, W. insists that the Democrats can't be trusted to control Congress because they have no cohesive plan for winning in Iraq. All you hear from Democrats is a mix of ideas and paraphrasing him that they'll cut and run before the job is over. An interesting position from a man who clearly has no plan himself. What exactly is his strategy for success in Iraq? If he has one, I'd like to hear it. Up until recently, it was stay the course, even though staying the course was getting us nowhere except deeper into the morass. Now he advocates flexibility and a series of benchmarks for gauging when it's safe to turn things over to the Iraqi government. Yet the Iraqi government publicly disagreed with W. this week over his policy and timetable for removing U.S. troops. They claim to be on the same page now, but that's just a public dog and pony show. I'm sure there are deep divisions, and how can W. have a plan if the Iraqi government doesn't support it? Even if he has a plan, it's been a miserable failure up until now. Can he truly be trusted as the person to lead us to victory? Wasn't he, after all, the one who claimed mission over when it was and is nowhere close to being over? Isn't he the one who's insisted on the same policy all these years even though it clearly was the wrong course?

I don't know what the right course of action is. Maybe the Democrats have competing visions for winning over there. Still, I'd like to see an alternate plan of action to the plan we've had up until now. Since the Republicans have flopped thus far, I'd like to see how a different party would handle the situation. The Democrats deserve the opportunity to come up with a cohesive strategy of their own, not that it would do much good anyway. Whatever approach they advocate won't have the support of the President, whatever legislation they pass will be vetoed with no possibility of override. We're stuck until a new President with a new vision comes into office. Will he or she have the answer? I don't know, but whatever happens, it would nice to see something new.

Your GOP

Unable to tell the difference between fictional characters and real teenagers.

Allah and Patterico actually get it almost right.

Patterico:

The latest big bombshell in the Webb-Allen race is that Webb wrote a novel containing a scene that depicts a man performing oral sex on a young boy.

Let's stipulate that such practices are illegal and disgusting. However, this is a novel. All sorts of odd things happen in novels. Creative people need freedom to let their imaginations run wild without having people assuming that every fictional scene is an expression of their internal desires.

Allah:

It's an odd little vignette, to be sure, but the other characters seem as mystified by it as the reader is. The story's about Vietnam; maybe he's describing some obscure cultural practice that he encountered there. Or, just maybe, he made it up. Have we actually reached the point where Senate seats now turn on the sex scandals of fictional characters?

But then Allah drags up something totally irrelevant and Patterico agrees:

If George Allen had written this book, not only would the left be going berserk, they'd be circulating lists of characters in his other books whom they suspect of being gay.

However, a commenter at Patterico and another blogger Allah links to seemingly can't tell the difference between a character in a novel and real Congressional pages.

Blogger Allah links to:

Its not a major scandal, by any stretch, since it doesn't appear as though he acted on any of the impulses that he wrote about in his novel, but if a few vulgar IMs can send the media into a major fit for nearly two weeks, and a stint at the Playboy party can become a running gag on The Daily Show, this deserves at least a lookover in a campaign commerical and a few "rescue" interviews, or at least some sort of new adjective attached to Jim Webb's name when he's mentioned on nighttime political stew shows, something right in the middle of a Foley and Ford, Jr.

Commenter at Patterico:

At such a critical point in our history for the campaign to be centered on such trash as a Congressman's salacious instant messages and another's even more lurid fiction (the boy was the son of the man BTW), boggles the mind. As a brilliant rocket scientist friend of mine keeps reminding me, half the voters have IQ's under 100.

They both seem to have missed the point. Totally. The issue over Foley's e-mail wasn't that they were vulgar or salacious. It's that they were sent to minors and were a form of sexual harassment. If Foley had sent them to an adult over whom he didn't have any power, NO SCANDAL! Get it. None.

Webb? Wrote a novel. That's why there's no scandal. There is no comparison between real teenagers and fictional characters, except in some fantasyland.

Via Lawyers, Guns and Money.

OK, it's not the entire GOP. But I needed a title.

"I'm Not Jesus, But I Play Him on TV"

Although I think a stopped clock is right more often than Jonah Goldberg, even he has to admit one of his readers has a point. Goldberg posts this e-mail he received:

So let me get this straight: It's an outrage when Michael J. Fox, an actual Parkinson's sufferer, films a political ad supporting a measure allowing stem cell research, but the fact that stem cell research opponents used a fake Jesus speaking in Jesus' language, gets no comment? Which side is being basely manipulative?

I can't remember which blog I saw this at, so I apologize to that blogger for the lack of credit and linkage ((although it's not as if a link from me would bring much in the way of traffic).

Shorter John Spencer

"Your looks are all that count, bitches."

"You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew," said John Spencer of Clinton's younger days.

"I don't know why Bill married her," he said of the Clintons, who celebrated their 31st anniversary this month.

Jackass. Speculation on the length of time until the non-apology apology of "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" comes?

UPDATE: No non-apology apology. No apology at all. A flat-out denial. Although Spencer's words are interesting. He denies using the word "ugly", although the Daily News reporter never put that word in any of the direct quotes he attributed to Spencer. He denies saying she had "millions of dollars" of plastic surgery. The Daily News reporter did put that in quotes, indicating it was something Spencer actually said. Spencer does say he talked about a lot of things back in the 60s [on the plane] and did say that Hillary Clinton looks good. He doesn't appear to deny saying "You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew. I don't know why Bill married her." So, is Spencer lying or is the Daily News reporter? Tune in later.

Why Matt Drudge and Tony Snow Are Full of BS

I suppose the easy answer is "because they breathe." How much lower could Drudge sink? He's blaming the Congressional pages for egging Mark Foley on.

You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him.

Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't...they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend...all these things and these "innocent children." And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know?

Can you believe anyone is seriously trying to pass that off? A 53-year-old Congressman, who is in a position of political authority, is being set up by high school students. How can anyone seriously put that forth as a defense? Foley had authority over these students. He also was instrumental in passing a law making his own behavior criminal. Yet, we're supposed to believe that he was being set up. He couldn't control himself in the face of those "wily" high school students. This is classic victim-blaming. It's also the classic excuse used by sexual predators. Even Foley isn't making himself out to be the victim here.

A former page sums up why sexual harassment laws are needed:

Loraditch says that some of the pages who "interacted" with Foley were hesitant to report his behavior because "members of Congress, they've got the power." Many of the pages were hoping for careers in politics and feared Foley might seek retribution.

That's exactly why Foley's behavior was coercive. That's exactly why it's ludicrous that he was the victim, rather than the minors he was soliciting. Had they been adults, his behavior would still have been wrong. The fact that they were minors makes it even worse.

As for Tony Snow's nonsense about the only thing House leadership having to go on being some "overly friendly e-mails", please. Hi, Tony? When a 53-year-old asks a 16-year-old non-relative for pictures of himself, total red flag. That's enough to call for an investigation. No one's saying you take action against the man on the basis of that evidence alone. You do, however, investigate. You talk to the pages to see if anything else has happened. You look at the man's computer records. You don't just brush it aside and say "Well, we didn't know anything else." You should have asked. Not you specifically, but Denny Hastert. He doesn't remember anyone telling him? Too bad, so sad. That's his job. His job is not to ignore a classic sign of sexual predatorship, thus putting other minors at risk. Besides, if Loraditch above is to be believed, and I see no reason why he's not, there were members of the House who knew of this behavior 5 years ago. 5 years. Surely long enough to have done a proper investigation and protected the minors working for Congress.

UPDATE: Add Bob Beckel to this list. According to Ace of Spades HQ, a Democratic strategist named Bob Beckel suggested on Hannity & Colmes that Foley's sexual orientation should have "raised questions" about the e-mails. I don't watch Hannity & Colmes and couldn't find a video or transcript to link to, but I'm going to assume it's true. In which case, Beckel is full of BS too. The fact that Foley is gay should not have raised any questions about the e-mails. The fact that he was an adult asking a non-related minor for pictures should have. If he had asked the same question of a female page, the same red flags should have been raised. Mr. Beckel, if you believe otherwise, you're a homophobe.

Note to John Aravosis

Not everything revolves around American politics. Especially since the people suffering the worst of this are the Brits. I have no clue what putting lots of Brits through massive amounts of trouble as they're about to go on their summer holidays has to do with Joe Lieberman. Wouldn't the conspiracy theory make more sense if Americans were the ones being most affected? Only, they're not. Honestly? I don't think Tony Blair, from his holidays, would majorly disrupt British air travel just for George Bush and Joe Lieberman. Especially when Bush could have accomplished everything Aravosis is accusing him of (and more) by claiming the plot was going to take place from an American airport. Whether or not it has anything to do with al Qaeda remains to be seen. And if he wants to question the red alert, fine. But It's the Brits who arrested the plotters, and the track record Aravosis mentions doesn't belong to the Brits. Mentioning Jean Charles de Menezes would have made much more sense. But that was just one extremely unfortunate mistake, and people really did bomb the London Underground two weeks prior to that, and unexploded bombs had been discovered one day prior.

Let me just say that as someone who had to fly out of London yesterday and who rearranged my flight home on Sunday to go direct from Dublin rather than through Heathrow, I was able to escape the vast majority of travel restrictions by doing that. Flying from Heathrow to Dublin yesterday, I could only carry my passport and wallet on the airplane in a clear plastic bag. When I fly back to the US from Dublin tomorrow, I'll be able to carry on everything I normally would except liquids and gels. Major difference. So if someone needs a conspiracy theory, concoct one about Tony Blair (as some Brits already have). At least it would fit what happened better.

A Glimpse of Mumbai

Long-time blogger and regular reader Rick DeMent sends a link to this incredible account of a friend's experiences in Mumbai. To sound way bloggerish, read the whole thing.

The All-American Value

I haven't yet waded into the deep waters of the New York Times Travel section posting photos of the vacation homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld because, pretty much, I found all the outrage idiotic. I mean, really. From Michelle Malkin (Google it if you want to read the original) after she admits that Rumsfeld cleared the publication of the photos.

"What news value and journalistic end was served by publishing the Cheney/Rumsfeld vacation home piece and the accompanying photo? 'Because Rumsfeld gave permission' may cut it with the moonbats and fairweather privocrats. Not with me."

Let me attempt to answer her question. No news value and journalistic end was served by publishing this crap. There is only one value that was - it is the same value that is served by publishing pictures of the child of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. The one I like to call "making money".

Let's face it. A lot of people are fascinated by "how the other half lives". They love to read about the rich and famous. This explains the amazing popularity of dreck like "People" and "Us". I realize this may come as a shock to many, but Cheney and Rumsfeld are both - wait for it - rich and famous. This is not the first time puff pieces about their vacation homes have been published. With any luck, if anything good can come out of this entire stupid episode, it will be the last. I would personally be thrilled if magazines and travel sections of newspapers would stop printing "Look at the lovely home of XYZ famous person!" articles.

But they won't. So brace yourself to continue to be bombarded by this while you're waiting at the checkout line of your local supermarket. You may wind up knowing much more about the lives of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes than you ever wanted to, but too bad, so sad. Many people like it, and it makes publishers money. We'll all manage to live through it.

After all. That which does not kill you, does not kill you.

It's My Space

Sometimes it feels like we live in a police state. In New York and probably other U.S. cities, police routinely search bags as people enter the mass transit system. Phone companies are turning over records of telephone calls made by their customers. The NSA wiretaps phone calls without warrants. There's a move to make sex toys illegal in South Carolina. Wherever you go, government is encroaching upon our space and liberties.

Now word comes from the NY Times that companies are going on the internet, to places like Google and My Space, to research prospective employees. If they don't like what they find, they eliminate a candidate from further consideration. Granted, the internet is a public space and perhaps anything you post there is food for consumption. However, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Constitution. Provided that I am not threatening anyone or advocating lawless behavior, should I not have the right to say what I want to, even in a public forum, without fear of reprisal? Plenty of employees go to rallies and advocate positions or adopt personas that conflict with employers' core values. Should they be fired? I'm allowed to campaign in an election provided that I don't electioneer on company property. Why shouldn't people be free to be who they are without it hurting their career opportunities? Technology has created a world in which it is too easy to look over people's shoulders and invade their space. At some point, we need to let people be and allow them to express themselves without reservation.

Congress to Citizens

"We'll let Bush violate your rights, but if something he does might harm us, all bets are off."

Resentment boiled among senior Republicans for a second day on Tuesday after a team of warrant-bearing agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned up at a closed House office building on Saturday evening, demanded entry to the office of a lawmaker and spent the night going through his files.

I'm not an expert in constitutional law by any means. However, I find it difficult to believe that the Constitution was ever meant to basically allow Congressmen to escape investigation for federal crimes they may have committed simply by keeping the evidence in their offices.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader, predicted that the separation-of-powers conflict would go to the Supreme Court. "I have to believe at the end of the day it is going to end up across the street," Mr. Boehner told reporters gathered in his conference room, which looks out on the Capitol plaza and the court building.

Oh sure, but where's the crying about separation of powers when Bush feels free to ignore any law he believes is unconstitutional?

On the other hand, I suppose it's nice to see Congress reacting in a truly bipartisan manner. /sarcasm

Who Needs Checks and Balances?

While I think it's quite nice that Jane Harman and John Conyers want Congress to pass a bill to make it clear "that any attempt to listen in on Americans or collect telephone or e-mail records must be conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978", I'm not sure what good they think this will do, at least not under the current Administration. The President has already stated that he believes he has the authority to "set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution."

I believe that this Administration has done more than any other, in my lifetime, to expand the powers of the Presidency in ways not only never contemplated by the Constitution but not allowable under it. We were given a tripartite government for a reason, and that reason was to make sure that no branch of government should be so powerful that it could, effectively, do whatever it wanted without concern for the other two branches.

The powers of the branches of government were clearly laid out by the founding fathers.

Article I, Section I, which clearly states that Congress is the branch of government which gets to pass the laws.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article II, Section III, which clearly states that the President has the power to execute the laws.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Article I, Section VII, which clearly states that the President has the right to object to any laws Congress has passed by refusing to sign them, after which Congress can override his objection by a 2/3 majority.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

Article III, Section II, which clearly states the Supreme Court gets to judge the constitutionality of cases.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...

It seems to me, and has been accepted practice in this country for a couple of hundred years, that the flow of government works like this: Congress passes a law. If the President disagrees with that law, he can veto it. If Congress overrides his veto, and he still disagrees with it as being unconstitutional in his view, he can take a case to the Supreme Court arguing that it is unconstitutional.* The Supreme Court then rules on the constitutionality of the law. If they find it constitutional, then the President is bound to faithfully execute it. If the President or Congress disagree with a Supreme Court ruling, the President can recommend to Congress or Congress on its own can attempt to amend the Constitution. The President can also select nominees to serve on the Supreme Court. No branch of government escapes a check from another.

Unless, of course, one branch simply decides it can ignore this entire flow and act on its own. This seems precisely to me what President Bush is doing in arguing that he has the power to ignore "any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." We've managed to keep our Republic this long. Ben Franklin's jocular warning, however, may prove eerily omniscient. I applaud the calls of certain members of Congress for hearings, especially those members who are Republican. I hope they aren't swayed by the fact that an apparent 63% of Americans support the latest disclosure on warrantless data collection. We were given a Republic, if we can keep it, for a reason.

*Any citizen has the same right to challenge the constitutionality of a law, but this isn't relevant to the particular point I'm making.

I Really Hope This Isn't a Trial Balloon

Because, quite frankly, the idea of having a father and two sons as Presidents in a 20 year span is creepy.

Interesting

Apparently even some Republicans are questioning Bush's new pick to head the CIA. One of the points raised against him is that he's too closely tied to domestic intelligence (being deputy director for national intelligence). However, one of the issues we have with our intelligence is the lack of cooperation between the national and international intelligence agencies. So I'm not quite sure this is the most valid objection to him. Of greater concern to me is the role Hayden played in devising the warrantless domestic spying program the NSA carried out.

Article II, Section 3

Compare and contrast. Emphasis mine.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States

Seems fairly cut and dried, no? Sadly, no.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

I don't know. I don't see the part where it says the president shall take care that the Laws with which he agrees be faithfully executed. As I recall, his remedy for those laws with which he disagrees is known as a veto. He's never used it. He might like to try it sometime.

Frightening.

Via Heretical Ideas.

The Personal Is Political

The mantra of the second-wave feminists. A recent comment someone made has gotten me thinking about that. I can't speak for men, but for women I believe this is firmly true. Women's bodies are the subject of politics in ways that men's bodies are not. To some degree, everyone's bodies are the subject of politics. Drug laws, in large part, are about what people can do with their bodies. The same with seatbelt laws. However, these laws affect both sexes to the same degree. I'm having a hard time thinking of political issues and laws that are specific to men's bodies the way that there are issues and laws that are specific to women's bodies. Maybe the law requiring that insurance companies cover Viagra, although that is a law that is beneficial to men and non-controlling of men generally. Maybe I'm missing something, so if anyone can think of any, please post them in the comments.

I can think, however, of several political issues and laws that are specific to women's bodies.

Laws restricting abortion are about women's bodies. I know that many who are against legalized abortion will disagree with this, insisting that those laws are about saving feti. However, I must disagree. We do not require anyone to be subject to medical procedures against their will to save the life of another in any other circumstance. If we had laws that required, for example, biological fathers to provide bone marrow to save the life of the child they never wanted, then this argument might have some bearing. We simply do not. I am unaware of anyone who seriously supports passing such laws. Therefore, insisting that women be forced to go through pregnancies to save the life of the fetus on the grounds that it's solely about the fetus is specious.

Women's access to birth control. First, birth control is not covered by insurance, but Viagra is. Second, there are many people who would outlaw birth control pills and the morning-after pill. Third, there is definite support for allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and the morning-after pill on moral grounds. Is there anyone who seriously supports outlawing condom sales or allowing cashiers to refuse to ring up condom sales on moral grounds? What if the cashier is Catholic? Why does the man's right to have easily available birth control outweigh the rights of a Catholic cashier to refuse to ring up the sale against his/her religion? It's not even a point of discussion.

The entire argument about what constitutes rape and the general tendency for people to disbelieve women who say they were raped.

Bill Napoli: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child would very well threaten her life.

Joel Dykstra: “I think ‘rape and incest’ is a buzzword,� said Rep. Joel Dykstra about not including those conditions in the abortion bill. “It’s a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?

Prostitution. Sweden has a good policy. Rather than arrest prostitutes, they arrest the men who frequent them and the pimps. In this country, however, it's the prostitutes who suffer most of the legal punishment.

I could continue with multiple other examples. So since women's bodies, the most personal thing we have, are politicized, the only way I can think of to fight for the sides of these issues I favor is for women to tell their stories. Their personal stories. When I write about my own personal stories regarding ill treatment, such as the one in the post below, it is to make a point about politics. Not simply to tell a personal story. The day that our bodies cease being politicized is the day women can discuss politics more objectively. I look forward to that day.

UPDATE: Please restrict comments to the general point of the post. If you disagree with any of the illustrative points I raised and wish to comment on it here, it should only be in the context of trying to prove that women's bodies are not politicized after all. Alternately, illustrating to me that men's bodies are also specifically politicized is fine. If, however, you simply wish to disagree with me on a specific issue I raised as a point, feel free to do so on your own blog. If you don't have one, there are plenty of free blog spaces available out there, and I will even be happy to help you set it up. Well, maybe not happy exactly, but you get the gist.

Hegemony

I had a flash of inspiration while sleeping tonight. Such a bolt of illumination that I need to put it down lest it torment me the rest of the night. We all know that Iran is causing the world agita with its nuclear weapons program, its support of terrorism, and its regime of fundamentalism. There are talks of U.N. sanctions to get them to give up the nuclear weapons program, but we all saw how effective sanctions were against Iraq, which went ahead with its WMD program anyway. (Proof exists that they trucked the stuff to Syria before the invasion and that the people conducting the search couldn't find WMD if they came up to them, tapped them on the shoulder, and said, "Howdy.") The solution to Iran is simple: invade them, take the country over.

But why stop there? We could take over the entire Middle East or at least those countries we don't like. Invade Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, heck even go into northern Africa and take over Sudan. The whole operation could be over in a matter of months. These regimes are paltry little things that would pose insignificant resistance.

Then imagine the possibilities. We get rid of all these nasty regimes that sponsor terrorism, that want to see Israel go the way of the Edsel, that control most of the world's oil. We could build our own little empire, lay a foundation for Democracy to spread like wildfire, grab the oil for ourselves.

Expensive you say? We don't have the military to do it? Pish. With the oil that we'd control, we'd have all the money we need to fund the operation and the occupation. We could ramp up the military by boosting the pay and luring more people to sign up for Uncle Sam. We could go into the ghettos of the U.S. and offer the poor folk there economic salvation if they join up. Field an army large enough to get the job done. Contract with the warlords in Afghanistan or mercenaries throughout the world if necessary.

I know that it would be striking a bargain with the devil and would draw worldwide condemnation. But it'd be worth it, and the rest of the world doesn't like us anyway. Let's take advantage of that and Bush's low approval ratings. The country hates him? Let them hate him a little more. He's out of office in a few more years anyway. He can chance it. Besides, with this whole domestic spying program, he's acting like a dictator anyway. Why not take it one step further?

All in all, seems like a win-win situation to me. The sooner we start the sooner we succeed.

I Spy

I've done some reading here and there on the whole warrantless domestic spying thing. I think it's pretty clearly illegal. But let's assume for a second (and no more) that it's not - It should be. Really, how hard is it to get a warrant for this? From what I read, not very. In fact, if there's a time-sensitive issue, the statute in question provides the ability to install the wiretap and then get the warrant within 72 hours. Why should we even be asked to sacrifice our civil liberties for something like this? I'm sorry, but I just do not trust the government enough to believe them when they effectively say "We swear we had our very best people making sure that this was only being used against bad people." Even if it starts out that way, what does the future bring? Power corrupts, yadda yadda yadda.

As for the claim that the NY Times article breached national security, please someone explain to me how. I can't figure it out. Do the terrorists not think that the government is already eavesdropping on their communications? Isn't that specifically why they use code? So what, now they know the government might be doing it without a warrant, a warrant that was never difficult to get in the first place? Sorry, again, just not seeing it.

When Self-Defense Gets You the Death Penalty

Prentiss, Mississippi around midnight. During a drug raid, police officers mistakenly enter the residence of Cory Maye. They are not authorized by warrant to enter his home. He is not named in the warrant as confirmed by a circuit court clerk to blogger Radley Balko.

Mr. Maye is asleep with his 14-month-old daughter. He is awakened when an unknown man enters his bedroom. Mr. Maye picks up his gun and shoots the "intruder", killing him. Unfortunately, the "intruder" turns out to be a police officer named Ron Jones. Mr. Jones is also the son of the town's police chief. Mr. Maye, a black man, is then convicted of capital murder by an all-white jury and sentenced to death. For what it's worth, Mr. Jones was white. I wish we didn't live in a world where you have to wonder if race played a factor in the conviction and sentence. But we don't.

A few more items. Mr. Maye lived in the second half of a duplex apartment. The warrant was for the man, a drug dealer, who lived in the other half. It appears that the police did not know that the residence was a duplex. The police claim they announced they were police before entering the residence. Mr. Maye says they did not. There are a few possibilities there. It's possible that either the police or Mr. Maye are lying. It's possible they're both telling the truth. The police may have announced it when they entered the first half of the residence but, not knowing it was a duplex, not within hearing of Mr. Maye. It's also possible that the police did announce it, but Mr. Maye being soundly asleep may not have heard them.

The police initially said they found no drugs in Mr. Maye's residence. Mr. Maye had no criminal record. They later claimed to have found "traces" of cocaine and marijuana. Hmm.

It is an absolute travesty when a man with valid reason to believe he was acting in self defense is convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. It's a tragedy that Officer Jones was killed. It will be doubly a tragedy if Mr. Maye is executed. The police expect the public to understand that sometimes they mistakenly kill innocent people in the line of duty. Okay. I don't really see how this scenario is much different.

It also raises even more questions about this idiotic "war on drugs". I can see having a midnight raid if someone is in imminent danger. But busting into people's homes because there may be drugs present? I'm sorry, but why? Why is finding drugs that important?

Via Balloon Juice.

How Much Longer Before We Have Secret Police?

Secret laws. It never occurred to me before that we could be subject to secret laws. How did we come to this? Why isn't this big news? The piece I link to is over a year old. Why is this not a matter of big public debate?

How can secret laws possibly be constitutional? How can we be held to comply with laws we're not even allowed to know about? Obviously, we all feel the effects of at least one part of this regulation. Anyone who flies will be asked for their ID. But since we all know about that, why is the statute requiring it such "sensitive security information"? It rather makes you wonder what else is in that statute.

Is War Peace? Have we always been at war with Eurasia?

You've Come a Long Way, Baby! Not.

A municipal judge found a 19-year-old woman guilty Friday of filing a false police report after she said she was raped by three young men.

Even though the woman never said she lied or recanted her story, city prosecutors say they took the unusual step of filing charges against her because of the seriousness of her accusations.

On what basis did the city prosecutors determine she had filed a false charge? And on what basis did the judge convict?

After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman's friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.

Oh well, there were "many inconsistencies in the stories of the four..." Which clearly was sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the case of the three men who were accused of rape. Okay, fine. But somehow not enough to create reasonable doubt in the case of the girl? WTF?

Oh wait. "...he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman's friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident." Well, there you go. If a woman doesn't behave in some predetermined manner after saying she was raped, that can be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she hasn't been raped. Of course, to the person capable of understanding that people don't all behave in similar manners after having had a crime committed against them, that is no such evidence. Sadly though, to far too many people, women must react in a certain way to rape in order to be believed. Reading about things like this just makes me spitting mad.

BTW, here's some information you don't get from the news story. Kevin Hayden of The American Street was at the trial and has known the girl since she was a baby. Here's what the papers don't bother to tell you about the evidence the judge relied on in determining the victim didn't act in the proper manner.

The young woman’s friends were a classmate at high school and her mother. The mother a) has always been seen with an alcoholic beverage or high on prescription pills by all who know her, b) provided the 17-year old with the alcohol she’d had that evening, which she stole from the store she cashiers at and c) was awaiting her boyfriend’s return to her home within two months of the rape. That boyfriend was in prison for molesting his own daughter. That’s hardly a credible witness with any sympathy for victims of sexual assault. But none of this could be introduced into evidence. Only the 17 year old’s sexual history could be exposed.

Additionally, the two ‘friends’ were the ones who convinced the 17 year old that she should report it to the police. So if the young woman is guilty, the instigating accessories to her ‘crime’ are considered credible experts about how a rape victim should act.

So, the two people who testified that she didn't act traumatized were the two people who convinced her to report this to the police. Yet the judge considered their assessment of how traumatized she was to be sufficient evidence to convict the girl of lying to the police? Huh?

And what of the prosecutor? Well, you'll be heartened to know that he believes that "This case should not deter legitimate victims from reporting crimes." Riiiggghhht. Because a "legitimate" victim who read about this case wouldn't think "Gee, maybe I didn't act sufficiently traumatized afterwards, so not only won't I be believed, but I might even be charged with filing a false police report." Yeah, that's not a deterrent. Bastard. I really hope that both he and the judge are voted out of office (assuming these are elected positions, not appointed ones). If anyone lives in Oregon and can tell me when the next election will be held and who their opponents will be, I will personally donate money to their opponents' campaigns. In fact, I might just take up a collection on the blog. If they are appointed positions, and the person who appointed them does not remove them from office, I will instead donate money to the campaign of that individual's next opponent.

Via Feministe.

A Sad Milestone

The 1,000th person since the U.S. brought back the death penalty has been executed. To me, that's a sad milestone. Ask anyone in the family. I don't believe in the death penalty. I'm not convinced it's an effective deterrent - hell, you had some nut case shoot up an NYPD car earlier this week, killing an officer, because he was afraid of going to jail on another cop shooting he committed - but more to the point, what gives us the right to decide who lives and who dies? We're killing people because they make the decision who lives and who dies. Give me (not literally) life in jail without parole for murder.

Saving David Gunn

Copied straight from the Regional Plan Association's weekly newsletter I present an excellent piece on the case for Amtrak and the shortsightedness of Amtrak's board in firing President David Gunn last week.

Saving David Gunn
The controversial defenestration last week of Amtrak President David Gunn, a possible illegitimate action by its incomplete board, has significance for the entire country but even more so for the Tri-State Region.

In a region with so many transportation options, it's easy to forget that Amtrak service between Boston, New York and Washington is still the first choice for many travelers, particularly business travelers. Although Amtrak trains are expensive and often late, reading and working on one is still a better use of time than jumping hurdles to and from an airplane seat, or driving clogged highways. Improving inter-city train travel within the Northeast and Atlantic seaboard would be a significant economic boost to this region.

But with Gunn's forced departure, that challenge looks ever more difficult. The Amtrak board essentially fired Gunn last week without warning. Congress has challenged the deed, questioning whether the board had the authority to make such a decision. The reasons are complex, but they include the possibility that the board, which had three of seven seats vacant and two seats filled without the usual congressional approval, lacked a quorum. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey said the board was retaliating for the Senate recently passing a long-term funding package that ignored President Bush's wishes to break up and privatize the nation's passenger railroad service.

Bravo to Sen. Lautenberg for speaking out, and for his work in shepherding a funding package through the Senate. Amtrak needs this kind of attention and more from our region's leaders, and not just those in Congress, if it is going to survive and thrive. While it may not be the first thing that comes to mind for his next term, Mayor Bloomberg should put Amtrak on his list of priorities worth spending some political capital on.

The problem with Amtrak is not its existence, but that it has been whipsawed back and forth by utopian visions of what it can achieve. Both the pro- and anti-train factions are partially to blame. What was good about Gunn, and so tragic about his forced departure, is that he had a coherent, reasonable vision of how to improve the nation's train service.

It says something about Gunn that the terms he threw around most with me in a lengthy interview in 2004 were "ties," "tracks," "ballast-deck bridges," and "catenary lines." Gunn, the former head of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, had an imminently practical vision for restoring and improving the nation's intercity rail service that was very similar to how he restored and improved subway and commuter rail systems in this region in the 1980s. He eschewed dreams of fancy European high-speed rail, or libertarian management schemes built on the virtues of privatization. Instead, Gunn focused on unglamorous tasks like repairing or replacing wrecked cars, crumbling tracks and ancient catenary lines.

Using tried and true technology, Gunn maintained that Amtrak could soon have trains whipping between cities within major regions at more than 110 mph. True, that's not the 200 mph of France, Germany and Japan, but it was a practical and affordable vision, Gunn said.

All that was needed for this was a healthy level of government funding. But here things stopped. For some reason, many rail opponents believe that building and maintaining a road, port or airport at government expense is fine, but to do so for a railroad is wasteful socialism. This obtuse and easily refuted argument has nevertheless repeatedly stalled Amtrak.

The irony is that more support exists across ideological lines for swift, dependable train service than ever before. People and politicians who actually live in the Northeast, mid Atlantic, Florida, Northwest, California Coast, and Gulf Coast deal with overburdened highways and beleaguered airports and are willing and even eager to spend taxpayer dollars for swift, dependable train service. It's no fluke that Sen. Trent Lott, a Southern conservative, and Lautenberg, a Northeastern liberal, have attempted to save Amtrak from the Bush administration's privatization schemes.

Sept. 11, 2001 showed more than anything the need for train service as both an alternative and a backup to air and highway travel. Since then, Amtrak's ridership has boomed even as, paradoxically, it has run into tougher political opposition. Right now, the federal government spends a bit over a billion dollars a year on Amtrak, or about what it costs to build a few cloverleafs. It's a tiny fraction of what the federal government spends on highways and air travel.

Gunn often said in speeches and interviews that he welcomed an honest discussion about the nation's transportation system and its funding priorities, because he thought rail service would hold its own in that debate. It's a great tragedy for Amtrak and its passengers, present and future, that that honest debate has not yet taken place. A good start would be placing Gunn back in his job as president of the nation's passenger railroad service.

Try This Out

Do a Google search on the word "failure" and see the results. Something rather curious happens.

Look in the Mirror First

Here’s a tidbit from George Bush’s speech to the UN today:

"[T]he whole world has a vital interest in the success of a free Iraq. And no civilized nation has an interest in seeing a new terrorist state emerge in that country."

Of course, he is right. The world has an interest in seeing a stable and free country, one that is not home to terrorists, emerge from the current chaos. Reality is a different matter.

While the U.S. interest in Iraq makes it highly unlikely that Iraq will be anything but a democratic state, the current situation there suggests that it won’t be free of the taint of terrorism and that the country will remain an unstable, chaotic mess. Just today there was another terrible terrorist act, a series of twelve bombings that has left over one hundred dead and over five hundred wounded.

This is the situation that Bush created by going into Iraq unnecessarily in the first place. Concerned that Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism and linked to al Qaeda, despite no proof of either, he has now insured that Iraq is a home to terrorists.

Last January, the National Intelligence Council, as we all remember, released a report in which it said that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the top breeding ground for "professionalized" terrorists. David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats, said that Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," adding that terrorists could disperse around the globe and export terrorism to other countries.

Maybe the next time Bush presses the case for a free and stable Iraq he should look in the mirror to see the role that he has played in creating a threat where one didn’t exist originally.

Hilarious

The following joke was forwarded me to this morning. It’s yet another example of why we should stay away from politics in the workplace.

Are you a Democrat, Republican or a Southern Republican? Here is a little test that will help you decide

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes on you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40,and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 9-1-1?

Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! ! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

click.....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

click

Daughter:

"Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

Now maybe some people will find this funny, but I don’t. As a Democrat, I find the joke to be in poor taste and insulting. Southern Republicans may feel the same way, since the joke makes them out to be trigger-happy rednecks, but I won’t presume to speak for them. I am tired of the perception of Democrats as weak and lily-livered. It’s as though there is something wrong with being compassionate and open-minded, with wanting to look at an issue from all sides before forming a position or making a decision. When someone commits a crime, I do want to assess the situation that led to the person committing the act. Not because I want to excuse or condone the behavior. Far from it. If someone is guilty of wrong-doing, they should be punished, unless it’s extraordinary circumstances like the flooding in New Orleans that prompted some people to loot for supplies they desperately needed to survive. However, anyone who looted for the sake of looting, anyone who stole TV sets or computers deserves to be punished.

I recognize the need for law and order as much as the next person. What I want to know is whether there’s something that society can do to address the circumstances that lead people into a life of crime. Can we do something more for the people in inner-city neighborhoods so they don’t become criminals, so that we don’t lose a whole generation of kids to the streets and to prisons, so that people can feel safe even though they are poor.

That doesn’t make me weak on crime. That doesn’t mean I will sit there cowering in indecision as some knife-wielding maniac attacks me and my family. I would do exactly what the Republic would do. I would shoot without hesitation. What it does make me is an open-minded person with enough sense to see how we can improve society, make it safer for everyone, and make conditions better for the impoverished.

Yeah, I can see how that’s wrong of me, just like it was wrong of me to complain to the person who forwarded the joke to me and dismissed my complaint simply as the result of my being in a bad mood this person. Sure, I am in a bad mood now, but to put my reaction down to a bad mood is even more insulting than the joke itself. In poor taste all around.

On This Date in 1920

Women earn the right to vote.

All Ideas Are Equal!

Or maybe not...

One of the arguments I most love (in that kind of not at all way) from proponents of teaching ID alongside evolution is the "What is so bad about exposing our children to different schools of thought?" Of course, the underlying assumption to that question is that all ideas are created equal. Only I don't think that's in the Declaration of Independence or anything.

In practice, nobody believes all ideas are created equal and worthy of equal consideration. There's a reason schools don't teach holocaust denial as having potential validity, even though, technically, it is a competing theory. And if you ask the holocaust deniers, they'll be glad to show you all kinds of "evidence" why it's true. However, the majority of us don't even bother giving it equal consideration. So asking the question about different schools of thought is just a smokescreen. Nobody really means that. What they really mean is "My idea is equally as valid as the other idea, so we should teach it to people." OK, just say that and defend it on its merits.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I'm not comparing ID to holocaust denial qua holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is really, really bad. ID as a religious belief is fine. It's just that the whole "competing theories" thing can be nonsense, and sometimes using a very extreme example shows that. If ID were a scientific theory, then teaching it in science class would be okey-dokey. But it isn't. Therefore, teaching it alongside an actual scientific theory as something to be given equal weight as a scientific theory is wrong. Teach ID in comparative religions instead.*

The only way ID should be taught in science class alongside evolution is as an example of what a scientific theory isn't compared to an example of what a scientific theory is. Somehow, though, I don't think that would make the ID in science class proponents very happy.

*If most public schools don't offer comparative religions as a class, perhaps people would be better served lobbying for that instead. I took it in high school. It was a very interesting class. And if it is a true comparative religions class, then even the staunchest separation advocate shouldn't have a beef.

IDiots

I have no problem with Intelligent Design (ID) being taught in the public schools. In a class on religion or philosophy. I do not, however, think it should be taught in science classes as an alternate theory to evolution.

Let's be clear. ID is not a scientific theory. It is not science of any sort. So please let's stop pretending it is. Let's also stop pretending evolution is something it is not. Namely, an explanation for the creation of life.

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss ''intelligent design'' alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

I really don't know if Bush actually said that ID should be taught alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life, because that isn't a direct quote. But even if he did not, others have. Get this straight - the theory of evolution takes no stance on the origins of life at all. It is simply a method of explaining how lifeforms, once they already exist, change over time. So, if anyone is teaching evolution as an explanation for the origin of life, he/she is an idiot as well.

I weep.

BTW, I'm not referring to religious people qua religious people as idiots. There are plenty of religious people who don't think ID should be taught in science classes.

Why, Oh Why?

Couldn't Shrub have found someone moderate to appoint to the Supreme Court in order to spare the country a polarizing confirmation battle? Not to mention he's taken a step back in terms of diversity. Once a minority seat, it should remain a minority seat. There are plenty of qualified minority candidates out there, equally as qualified as Roberts.

Some Syrup with that Waffle

Once upon a time, the President said that he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked the identify of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Now he’s narrowed the standard but lowered the ethical bar. The person must have committed a crime to merit getting the ax. That’s probably enough of a loophole for Karl Rove to skate through. Funny, though, since wasn’t it Bush who made the centerpiece of his reelection campaign John Kerry’s “waffling” on various issues?

A Dire Situation

In a news briefing earlier this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan gave the usual Bush doublespeak when it comes to the the rationale for being in Iraq:

That's why, as the President said earlier today, we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here at home.

The problem with that thought is that we have created the very terrorists we're fighting. As reported by the NY Times in an article on a CIA assessment of the situation, Iraq has become a fertile breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

They said the assessment had argued that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of Al Qaeda during the 1980's and 1990's, as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

snip

[T]he officials said Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries would soon have to contend with militants who leave Iraq equipped with considerable experience and training.

We have traded one bad situation with Hussein in power for another more dangerous and destabilizing situation. Unlike Vice President Cheney and his overly optimistic assertions, I don't believe the insurgency is in its "last throes." The situation seems bleaker by the day as the drumbeat of attacks keeps coming in over the news wires. Thirty-eight dead yesterday from a series of car bombings. Two U.S. Marines killed and others wounded in attacks yesterday.

So far it's all limited to Iraq, but when do the death and mayhem spread to other countries in the Middle East or to our shores? Even if we pull out, I don't see an end to the insurgency. The strife will continue. Far from being accomplished, the mission is in dire straits.

Which Just Goes To Show That Some People Will Never Be Satisfied, No Matter What

I'm sure most of us remember that during the hideously polarizing debate over the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, there were a lot of accusations made against the husband. How he was the cause of her condition. How he didn't want an autopsy because it would prove how he had abused her. How if we just had an autopsy, the truth would be known. Etc., etc., and so forth.

The autopsy results were released.

The autopsy, for instance, showed that physical abuse or poison did not play a role in her collapse, he said. Ms. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had accused their daughter's husband, Michael Schiavo, of abusing her, which he has steadfastly denied. Dr. Thogmartin also said there was no evidence she had had an eating disorder before she collapsed, although a disorder was widely suspected because she had diminished levels of potassium in her blood.

Well, there you have it. The autopsy results show that her condition was not caused by abuse or poison. We have the truth, right?

Sadly, not according to some people. You can find the links yourself, as I have no desire to link to the hysteria. They are posted on numerous other blogs, and I'm fairly certain that a good Google tomorrow will bring them up too.

There are several things the autopsy does not do. It does not solve the underlying moral debate regarding when medical assistance can be refused or when family members can make such decisions in the absence of a living will. It does not indicate why she collapsed in the first place. It only indicates what did not cause her collapse - abuse, poison, or bulimia. Isn't that at least sufficient to stop vilifying Michael Schiavo as an abuser, if nothing else?

The Fog of War

This past week, I watched the Errol Morris film on Robert McNamara, "The Fog of War." In fact, I watched it twice, so rich it is with fascinating and thought-provoking comments by McNamara, historical nuggets of his life and the U.S. during his time, and compelling imagery and footage. The movie is, as Rogert Ebert notes, "a masterpiece."

McNamara, of course, steals the show as the film's subject and the primary source of material. The movie is largely based on interviews with him, complimented by historical photos, newsreel footage, and tapes of conversations with John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

McNamara led an incomparably accomplished life. He was a Harvard professor, a key architect of U.S. bombing strategy against Japan in World II, the brains that helped Ford regain its place in the marketplace and eventual president of the company, U.S. Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson, and finally president of the World Bank for thirteen years. At the time of the film, he was still vigorous in his eighties and active in world issues of poverty and health. If only we all could have such a resume. He is also a strikingly brilliant man.

As much admiration as I have for him after seeing the movie, I have doubts about him as well. He was also a key architect behind our disastrous intervention in Vietnam and a lightening-rod for opposition to the war.

However, in fairness, he always felt the war was a bad idea. He had actually persuaded Kennedy to begin to withdraw U.S. advisors in 1963 before a coup toppled the then Vietnamese premier. He tried to dissuade Johnson privately to disentangle the U.S. from the war.

In the most telling line of the movie, at least for me, he issues a strong repudiation of the war that rings as true today in Iraq as it would have then:

What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe we should ever apply that political, economic, or military power unilaterally. If we had applied that rule in Vietnam, we never would have been there. None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain, nor France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning."

Nonetheless, he has several telling lines in the movie that make it clear he is a moral relativist. When speaking of the morality of using Agent Orange, he falls back on the legalese of a career politician:

Were those who issued the approval to use Agent Orange criminals? Were they committing a crime against humanity? Let's look at the law. Now what kind of law do we have that says these kinds of chemicals are acceptable for use in war and these chemicals are not? We don't have a clear definition of that kind. I never in the world would have authorized an illegal action.

That line is one of many discomfiting comments in the movie in which McNamara shirks responsibility for his actions through double-speak. It's not just a question of what is legal or illegal. It is a question of what is right or wrong.

Maybe you can make the case for fire bombing Japan to expedite the war against them. They attacked us, declared war on us. We didn't start it, but as McNamara notes correctly, we had a moral responsibility to finish it quickly with minimal loss of U.S. life.

By contrast, Vietnam didn't attack us. We were in danger only because we put ourselves there, mired ourselves down. We were in there only because of some thin political philosophy about dominoes falling. A point that becomes startlingly clear when you hear Johnson talking about what happens if one little nation falls. Another little nation falls. There has got to be a stronger rationale for fighting a war than that.

Who was in imminent danger besides the South Vietnamese? It was, as a Vietnamese leader said to McNamara in a conference in 1995, a civil war. In a war of our own making, are we right to use a deadly chemical that not only makes the "enemy" sick but makes our own soldiers sick? To try to end the war at all cost, when we can simply get out with no harm to us other than to our national pride? Japan would have kept coming at us, Vietnam never came at us until we came at them.

When asked at the end of the movie, "Do you feel in anyway responsible for the war, do you feel guilty?" he responds, "I don't want to go any further discussions. It just opens up more controversy."

Aside from yes, I'm not sure what I would expect McNamara to say to that question. But how about yes? Despite his misgivings about the war, his efforts to dissuade Johnson, he is in large part responsible for the war.

To his credit, though, you can hear the regret in his voice when asked such questions about his legacy. He understands his place in history and does have a lot to shoulder. Perhaps working at the World Bank, staying active after he retired at 65, is his way of doing penance. A tacit way of accepting the responsibility that he eschews in words. At least I'd like to hope so.

Unfairly Exclusionary

Who cares if this woman isn't an American citizen? Her son died while fighting for the U.S. in Afghanistan. Her loss is no less than that of those mothers who are citizens and lost sons or daughters. She deserves to be a Gold Star Mother as much as anyone else. After all, isn't it Democracy that we're fighting for, the belief that people should be included, not excluded?

Dear People Blaming Newsweek for the Terrorist Attacks

When did you start carrying the multiculturalist banner? I'm all in favor of respecting other people's cultures, for the most part, but, hi, hello? Killing 17 people in response to a book (maybe) being flushed down a toilet? Not an acceptable response. Had this occurred in response to the brouhaha over the Piss Christ, would you all be sitting here blaming the artist? Actually, maybe you would. Which would be frightening. Because, see above - Not an acceptable response.

Thanks.

P.S. Not an acceptable response.

Dear Pat

Yes.*

Love and kisses.

*For a serious and much better written response than I could ever muster, read this from Vodkapundit.

Just A Bit Outside

Georgie boy chucked out the first pitch at the inaugural game of the Washington Nationals, formerly the Montreal Expos. The pitch was high and outside, about as on target as a lot of what he's done and said as president. I love it. Mixing two of my favorite topics: Baseball and politics.

Tom DeLay The Bully

Tom DeLay may have just shot ahead of President Bush as my least-liked politician. He is talking about holding Congressional hearings on how courts handled the Terri Schiavo case, even raising the specter of impeaching the judges involved. The message here seems clear: Either judges toe the line, as drawn by Tom DeLay, or they will be subject to intimidation tactics to bring them in line.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I wouldn't be surpised if some of you did, but aren't judges supposed to be free of prevailing political winds so that they can issue impartial rulings? When hysterical politicans like DeLay start calling them on the carpet, it undermines the independence and authority of the judiciary.

There's a remedy for legislatures if they don't like rulings by courts. It's called laws. You want to pass a law to prevent future cases like the Schiavo case, that's fine, just don't start bullying judges because you disagree with their actions. Don't think DeLay is a bully, then try this quote on for size:

We will look at an arrogant, out of control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at the Congress and president when given jurisdiction to hear this case anew. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.

My response: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

An Eye for An Eye?

Dietz writes today about a Colorado Supreme Court decision overturning the death penalty in a rape case because the jury used the Bible to inform its deliberations. Via the New York Times (reg. required):

The jurors in Harlan’s 1995 trial sentenced him to die, but defense lawyers discovered five of them had looked up Bible verses, copied them down and talked about them while deliberating a sentence behind closed doors.

The Supreme Court said that "at least one juror in this case could have been influenced by these authoritative passages to vote for the death penalty when he or she may otherwise have voted for a life sentence."

Relying only upon what's in the New York Times, I agree with the court's decision as well as Dietz when he asks, "[H]ow then can we argue for a modern legal code in the Middle-East if we are going to accept a reliance upon biblical law in our own courts?"

However, I will draw a distinction. The issue I have with the jury's decision is not that some members relied upon the Bible to help them reach a decision, but that apparently certain passages from the Bible were debated for the entire jury to consider.

We all have our reasons why we do or don't support the death penalty. I, for one, would probably never get on a death penalty case because I could not sentence someone to death. I don't believe we have the right to decide who lives or dies. That's my own moral code, informed by beliefs acquired throughout my life.

For other people, their moral code is informed by the Bible, and if they believe in an "eye for an eye," then I don't think there's anything wrong with that informing their decision in a death penalty case. It's when they argue the Bible to persuade other people, when they enter the Bible into the larger overall discussion for all to consider that they've gone too far. That's when we start basing policy decisions on religion in a society that is ostensibly religion blind.

The Dog Question

In answer to the omnipresent question from those opposed to pulling feeding tubes in any circumstance, "Would you let a dog starve to death", let me give my answer the only way it should be answered given the reason it's being asked. If the dog was terminally ill and only capable of sustaining life through the use of a feeding tube in its stomach, lethal injection was not a legal option, and the dog's owner did not want a feeding tube inserted, yes. I would not let a perfectly healthy dog starve to death. Neither would I support letting a perfectly healthy human being starve to death.

To the people asking this question, let me ask another one. If giving dogs lethal injections were illegal, would you require by law a pet owner to insert a feeding tube into the stomach of a terminally ill dog in order to keep that dog from dying by starvation?

Quick Question

Does anyone out there actually think Rudy Giuliani would make a good President? If so, why?*

*And would you mind letting me have some of what you're smoking, because it must be some pretty powerful stuff.

You Say Tomato

Lesley and I are having disagreement about the most salient issue in last year's Presidential election. In a post yesterday, I bemoan the fact that the Repbulican administration, including Congress, is putting big business ahead of average people, making budget and legislative decisions that help corporations at the expense of people who really need help. Mom questions how these same people who are "being shafted" voted for Bush. My response was that moral values swayed the election more than any other issue, to which Lesley responds that her quickie election analysis showed security and the economy to be the hinge issues.

In reality, I'm not sure that Lesley and I are truly in disagreement here. Her point is that more people cared about security and the economy than cared about moral values. Without doing a weighted average analysis, I will cede that point. Still, my point is not which issues people cared more about, but which issue or issues swung the election.

Going back to Ohio as a proxy, since it was truly the swing state, an an analysis of the exit polls shows that moral values swung the election. I have a handy crosstab that demonstrates this if anyone is interested or if Lesley is willing to post it.

In short, though, here are the key results:

1. Of the people who voted for Bush, 15% voted for him because they felt he would do better on taxes and the economy than Kerry. However, because people much more heavily trusted Kerry on the economy, 45% of the people who voted for him did so based on taxes and the economy.

2. Of the people who voted for Bush, 32% 37% voted for him based on security issues (Iraq and terroism), compared to 28% 23% of the people who voted for Kerry because they trusted him more on this issues. Bush scores a victory here, but not enough to swing the election in his favor when you combine security with economic issues. Kerry would have won the election if you stopped here, with 626,000 347,000 more votes in Ohio than Bush. (Updated percentages and vote tally reflect an error I had made in the crosstab.)

3. Of the people who voted for Bush, 38% voted for him based on moral values, accounting for 1.1 million votes. Only 7% of the people who voted for Kerry did so based on moral values. There is a 919,000 vote gap between the two candidates on these issues, swinging the election back in Bush's favor and putting him over the top more than any other issue.

Thus, to Lesley, I repeat, "Rabbit season!"

The Problem with an All Republic Administration

The little folk get shafted to protect the interests of the privileged few. First there's the bankruptcy bill, which Rick analyzes nicely. Now, senior Republicans in Congress are moving to save farm subsidies at the expense of food programs for the poor. Feed fat cats, but let people who really need help go hungry. How do these people look at the themselves in the mirror?

Literacy Test for Schwarzenegger

Construct a sentence containing the words pot, kettle, and black. Compare and contrast.

1. "I don't need any money; I have plenty," Mr. Schwarzenegger, the millionaire governor of California, said in a recent interview when asked about his approach to fund-raising. "This is why it is easier for me to take this money. I don't even know who is giving me the money in the first place, and I don't even care. No one can buy me."

2. Now as Mr. Schwarzenegger pursues his most aggressive program yet to overhaul California government - which he says needs to be rid of moneyed "special interests" that act as "ghostwriters" for lawmakers...

Via Body and Soul.

Politics or Not?

I have a question for my readership. First a bit of background - There is a very good chance that a women's studies teacher at a local school is going to ask me to speak to her class about being a female executive in corporate America. If this happens, I'm considering speaking about how to overcome some of the challenges that women face in the workforce as a result of socialization (e.g., being assertive about managing your own career).

Now the question - Is this a political issue or not?

UPDATE: What's wrong, can't you all read my mind? Steps will have to be taken through the proper channels...

Let me rephrase the question. If I were to write a blog post about how socialization negatively impacts women in corporate America, citing examples such as being less assertive than the average man about managing one's own career, would you consider that to be blogging about politics?

Estrogen Week: Putting A Bow On It 2: Redux

I was going to make this a comment to the post, but it's much too long.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And that, my friends, is the organizing principle of liberalism. The “general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty” are meant to be the goal of the United States of America - it says so in the very first sentence of the Constitution. It is the obligation of the government to “secure” these things for us."

Weelll, not exactly.

When Madison & Jefferson were writing the Constitution -- they wrote 90% of it -- they corresponded frequently. We still have those letters. In one, Madison wrote: "In a democracy power flows from the people to the government, not from the government to the people." Madison wrote most of the Constitution himself, and that idea is why he started the preamble with "We The People."

The preamble doesn't even mention the word government. It says the People ordain the Constitution which establishes the government. The People put the responsibility for getting Liberty and the general Welfare directly on -- yes, US the people. The government is a tool to be used by us for securing all the good things we reasonably can.

The Founding Parents were way too smart to write the Constitution for either Liberals or Conservatives. It's for all of us.

The Specter of Reason

Poor Arlen Specter. Nobody really likes him. He's too liberal for conservatives and too conservative for liberals. But, like him or not, he has a point about a possible Republican move to change the Senate rules to block procedural hurdles against judicial nominees.

Specter said if fellow Republicans invoke the "nuclear option" by changing the Senate's rules to ban procedural hurdles against the nominees, Democrats could as promised retaliate with other moves of their own to "screw things up."

I don't think that Democrats could do that. I think they would do that. Just like the Republicans would if the tables were turned. But putting all that aside, it's a bad, short-sighted idea for a majority party to change rules to suit themselves. No party will be the majority party forever, and those things will always come back to haunt you.

Mending Fences

Each day brings more good news about hopes for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In an historic vote, the Israeli cabinet agreed today to begin dismantling settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as to redraw the route of the West Bank wall.

While these are critical steps towards an eventual truce, I wonder why Israel doesn’t take another important step to signify its good intentions: cease further construction of the wall and dismantle what it has built so far. That step, perhaps more than any other, would be an unequivocal statement of good faith and trust by the Israelis and serve as a true olive branch.

Building the wall, in my opinion, can serve no long-term good and will do harm. In the here and now it may abate the rash of suicide bombings, but by marginalizing the Palestinians, it only fuels mistrust and hatred of Israel. It is perfect fodder for those seeking to grow future generations of suicide bombers.

Israel would do well to pay heed to Robert Frost’s advice in his poem “Mending Wall”. “Before I built a wall I’d ask to know what I was walling in or walling out. And to whom I was like to give offense. Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, that wants it down.”

Today's Episode Of...

Where Are The Women Interested in Politics is brought to you by our sponsors Matthew Yglesias and Libertarian Man of Mystery.

I can't speak for where all the women doing politics on op-ed pages are. I'm not in journalism. I know there are plenty of women interested in politics, so I don't think it's a "lack of interest" thing. I know this because there are plenty of women political bloggers. Most of them just don't get noticed. I point out a few of them in the comments of Libertarian Man of Mystery's post, and provide a link to What She Said, run by Morgaine of The Goddess, which has an entire blogroll devoted to women bloggers who blog about politics. Some of the women on the blogroll blog primarily about the political, while others blog about both the political and the personal. I'm willing to bet good money that the fact that there are a lot of women who blog about politics and don't get noticed is correlated with the male skew of political punditry. It's not that the women interested in politics aren't out there. It's that the women interested in politics aren't getting noticed. I'll leave you all to draw your own conclusions as to why that might be.

I will say I find it rather amusing that one of the men asking this question rose to semi-fame in the blogosphere because he initially pretended to be a woman by posting a fake picture of "herself" as an attractive blonde...

Which leads me to wonder - Do you, my faithful 10 readers, think I'd get more notice in the blogosphere if I posted my picture on the front page of the blog? Maybe cropping it above the Blackberry in my hands?

Do I Hear the Drumbeats of War?

Is the Bush administration laying the groundwork for another war in the Middle East? This time against Iran? Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran today to stop stalling in negotiations over its nuclear program. Granted, the warning was that Iran could face UN action, yet being the cynic about the Bush administration that I am, I can't help but wonder if there's a more dire agenda here.

Here We Go Again

The latest in a long line of patent BS regarding the alleged "Silence of the Feminists" about the abuse of women in Muslim countries.

The great silence by left-leaning Western feminists, and other large parts of the left, to human rights abuses carried out in the name of Islam is, to see it as its kindest, caused by an overdeveloped sense of tolerance or cultural relativism. But it is also part of the new anti-Americanism. Look at American Christian fundamentalism, they say

Well, no, that isn't all that they say. "Left-leaning Western feminists" also talk about abuses in Muslim countries. There isn't tolerance or cultural relativism when it comes to women's rights issues in Muslim countries for most feminists, left-leaning, Western, or otherwise. So, since the author of this article couldn't be bothered to present the full story, some links as evidence that "left-leaning Western feminists" aren't so damn silent. To paraphrase, "there are none so deaf as those who will not hear." In other words, the fact that you don't hear it, doesn't mean they're not saying it.

A recent Action Alert from The Feminist Majority Foundation urging Kofi Annan to revoke Saudi Arabia's membership in the U.N. Feminist Majority Foundation - Left-leaning? Check. Western? Check. Saudi Arabia - Muslim country? Check.

An entire section of the Feminist Majority Foundation website devoted to ending female global mutilation. Also, from Equality Now, a call to make FGM illegal in Mali and an article about how the law in Kenya outlawing FGM isn't being enforced. What is Equality Now? A New York-based organization that "works to end violence and discrimination against women through the mobilization of public pressure".

Here is an entire website devoted to FGM: The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project. Since it's based in Tampa, FL, it's certainly Western. While I can't swear that it's founder, Marianne Sarkis, is a left-leaning feminist, she has published in Ms. Magazine.

Speaking of Ms. Magazine, here's an entire page of links to Ms. Magazine articles discussing women's issues in Muslim countries, including one that criticizes Islamic law.

On subjects other than FGM, the Feminist Majority Foundation has regularly published articles. Here's one regarding the death sentence given to two Iranian women for "so-called 'crimes against morality'". A money quote from Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal: "When will these barbaric acts against women stop? How can we sit by and watch innocent women brutally killed by extremist regimes around the world." Either Iran has become a non-Muslim country and our ally, or this is an example of a "left-leaning Western feminist" speaking out against a Muslim country that we're not exactly on good terms with.

Did you know that in December 2004, 200 activists from around the world met in Sweden to discuss ways to combat honor killings? Among the attendees were representatives from Canada, Sweden, and the EU. All Western.

Here's a link to The Feminist Sexual Ethics Project's special focus on Islam. Just in case you were wondering, the Feminist Sexual Ethics Project is headquartered at Brandeis University.

Feminist.com has a Spotlight on Honor Killings. Here's a hint. It's not supportive, and it doesn't make excuses.

Unfortunately, Glenn Reynolds links to this article with a rather twisted "defense" of Western feminists.

This isn't quite fair. Western feminists were happy to condemn the Taliban until it looked as if someone was going to do something about them. And they'll happily condemn the Saudis whenever they look like our allies.

He mistakes a belief that protecting women can be achieved through means other than war with tacit support for the abuse of women in Muslim countries. I'll grant him that most "left-leaning Western feminists" were against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. That doesn't mean they stopped condemning the abuse of women in those, and other Muslim, countries. They just so obviously did not.

A Non-Starter?

The central feature of George Bush's plan to revamp social security - allowing younger workers to divert up to two-thirds of their contributions - may already be dead in the water. Several Republicans, including such notables as Pete Domenici, are expressing doubt that it can win Congressional approval, citing the complete lack of Democratic support.

From what I've read about it so far, however, it doesn't sound like such a horrible idea for workers, under two conditions. That workers have the choice to opt out completely and have their full benefit guaranteed, and that the only portion of the benefit that's not guaranteed is whatever amount is invested in private accounts. It's not clear just how much of the guaranteed benefit Bush would cut.

Yet, the central flaw in Bush's proposal is that private accounts alone would not save social security. More far-reaching changes are necessary. Also, in the short-run, taking money from the system would require huge amounts of borrowing in order to guarantee benefits for older workers.

Is This Really News?

I don't find the news that Americans are split on George Bush especially revealing. We saw that in the general election when he and Kerry ran neck and neck. Why would it be any different only two months later?

What Did Jan Really Say?

I've seen comments around the blogosphere which indicate that people think Jan Egeland said that Americans are stingy. That isn't actually what he said. He was talking (a) about governments, not citizens, and (b) about many countries, not just the U.S.

If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous.

You can certainly criticize what he did say. In 2003, the U.S. gave $15 billion in foreign aid, which is almost twice as much in absolute terms as Japan, the next largest contributor of foreign aid. The top 22 countries combined gave $68.5 billion in foreign aid.

However, please don't criticize him for something he didn't say. He never said that American citizens were stingy. He didn't address private charitable contributions in any way. In other words, unless you're a member of the government who has policy-making responsibility for foreign aid commitments, he wasn't talking about you.

Isn't It Ironic?

Via Joe Gandelman, who is guest-blogging at Dean's World, comes the fact that James Taranto is touting Rudy Giuliani for the newly opened position of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Presumably, should the Bush Administration take Taranto's suggestion (not likely, IMO), Giuliani would continue to pay any NYC parking tickets he might get. Because those of us who lived in NYC during Giuliani's years as mayor remember the big tiff he had with the U.N. over diplomats not paying their parking tickets (diplomatic immunity and all). It got to the point where Giuliani was suggesting to the U.N. that it might leave NYC, because think of what the prime East Side real estate was worth! How funny would it be if the man who suggested the U.N. get out of NYC wound up being the U.S. ambassador to it?*

*Again, not saying it's going to happen, because I don't think it will. So should anybody who hates New York happen to stop by, spare me the insults about New Yorkers thinking the world revolves around them.

He's A Rock Star!

Edwards to End Term With Farewell Tour.

Hat tip to Jim.

Somebody Else Said It Better

I was considering writing a post about how both sides tend to misrepresent each other, but I don't need to. Steven Waldman said it better than I ever could.

I must confess that I find something rather disheartening. I first saw this article on a politics forum I used to participate in but now only occasionally lurk in. It was posted there by regular blog reader Margot (aka lanya). I stopped participating in the forum because it was proving deleterious to my mental health. I wound up getting very frustrated by the lack of actual dialogue, by the talking past each other, by the constant "gotchas". I don't feel any particular need to spend my leisure time on activities that frustrate me more than they reward me.

Margot posted this article, and no one in the forum picked up on it. It's a very nice, balanced article. I'm sure this is why no one commented on it. What's the fun of commenting on an article that doesn't give you fodder to bash the opposing side? Two hours later, Margot posted something from another blog which was quite condescending towards conservatives. The guy who wrote it had an actual point in the midst of the condescension, but it was lost because of his tone. This entry caused a lot of disapproving comments. No one took into account that she had posted a quite balanced article earlier with an approving post title. That was lost in the atmosphere of "gotcha". I fear this is typical of most online political debate these days. It all seems to be just one giant bash and gotcha fest. Regardless of side. There are exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions.

Oh well.

Minute Rice

Took W. scant more than an instant to appoint Condoleezza Rice as Colin Powell's replacement. Beyond my clever play on words, I have no more to say on the matter.

Three Predictions

1. Bush will use his election and the seats his party gained in Congress to try to push through his agenda, much as any Democrat would do in the same situation.

2. The Democrats will try to prevent this from happening to the degree they are able, much as the Republicans would do in the same situation.

3. Both sides will squeal in horror and outrage as these inevitabilities play themselves out.

May the best party whine.

Quickie Election Analysis

From a tour around the blogosphere, there appear to be three main theories as to why Bush won the election.

1. More Americans trusted him on matters of security.

2. Republicans are just ignorant Jesus freaks.

3. Democrats are just big meanies who think they're smarter than most people.

The analysis of the exit polls, when you factor out things like separating terrorism (19%) from Iraq (15%) and economy/jobs (20%) from taxes (5%) indicate that more people cared about foreign policy (34%) and economic policy (25%) than moral values (22%). Furthermore, evangelicals turned out in the same numbers as they did in 2000 (20%). Being pissed off about intellectual snobbishness didn't even make the list.

I'm A Latte-Swilling, Hot Dog-Loving Freak

My name is Lesley, and I have some confessions to make.

I love latte. Not just any latte, but Starbucks non-fat vanilla latte. Even more, I love Seattle's Best non-fat Irish Cream latte, but I can't get those in New York.

Today for lunch, I had a brie and apple omelette. It was a tasty omelette. I know, can you imagine that? I ate brie. And liked it!

Oh and pate and caviar. Okay, I did not eat those for lunch today, but I love them. Especially foie gras and Beluga. On those rare occasions I eat caviar, though, I usually wind up with Osetra. Beluga and even Sevruga cost more than I'm usually willing to shell out. But I actually know that the 3 best caviars are considered to be, in order, Beluga, Sevruga, and Osetra.

Red wine. I like to drink red wine. And not just the omnipresent merlot or cabernet, although they'll do in a pinch. I especially like shiraz or syrah.

I also have gone to the opera. What's worse, I've enjoyed it. I am especially fond of Don Giovanni. All those bass voices. Don Giovanni, Leporello, and Il Commendatore. Yummy.

I realize that today, in the eyes of some, those are pejoratives. I am one of those brie-eating, latte-swilling New Yorkers you read so much about. If I didn't live in the New York metro area, I'd be practically ashamed to show my face in public.

But you know what else? I love cheeseburgers, french fries, and chocolate milkshakes. I love eating hot dogs at the ballpark. A good, greasy slice of pizza sometimes tastes better than anything else. I love reading Stephen King and seeing movies about superheroes. Soap operas. I'm a veritable fount of soap opera trivia. That's not very New York elitist, is it? Rather more like what the New York elitists look down on (and, yes, I have sometimes run into people who do look down on those things).

I'm so confused. I don't know which negative stereotype I belong to. Ah the hell with it. I am not a stereotype! I am a human being!

Just like everyone else.

UPDATE: Funny thing how people seem to get the same ideas around the same time. I was thinking about this very post as I was eating my brie and apple omelette, write it, and then read this post over at Heretical Ideas.

Journeys

Michele ruminates on how the more extreme factions of our two major parties are tearing at the center, which causes me to ponder about my own political journey.

Once upon a time, in my wayward youth, I was a Republican. This is because, when I first registered to vote, I thought Republicans were all like the Republicans I had grown up with. The Northeastern Republicans, formerly known as Rockefeller Republicans. Socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. Like me. I knew that the Democrats weren't like me. They were socially liberal, but also fiscally liberal. I didn't like that last part, so I didn't join the party.

One day I discovered that a lot of Republicans throughout the country, the ones that were leading the national party, were not like me. They were socially conservative and fiscally conservative. Well, I didn't like that first part, so I left the party. Actually, I think it was the term "Moral Majority" that convinced me to leave the party. On issues of abortion, school prayer, and a host of myriad issues (add gay marriage to that now), I was on the opposite side. By that definition, I had to be part of an "immoral minority." While it is certainly anyone's right to label me as they see fit, I am not required to embrace those who label me negatively. In fact, I won't embrace those who label me negatively. If I am of no use to them, neither are they of any use to me.

Since that time I have not been a member of any party. I have most often voted for Republicans on the state and local level, because those are the Northeastern Republicans. On the national level, up until 1992, I voted Democrat for President. I figured that if I had to choose between a government that would legislate my life or my wallet, I'd opt against my wallet.

Then one day it occurred to me that was a false choice. Granted, one or the other would wind up in power, but I didn't have to choose either one of them. I could vote for something different (no, I did not vote for that nutjob Ross Perot). So I voted Libertarian for President (although not this year, as I do not like Badnarik). In fairness, seeds of my third party votes were in evidence at the age of 16. I wasn't old enough to vote in 1980, but I really wanted to vote for John Anderson (a former Republican, might I add). Had I been two years older, I would have voted for John Anderson. I lost sight of that for awhile, though, coming back to it 12 years later.

Since that time, I have never regretted my decision to not join a political party. Over the years, my views have altered slightly, but are, basically, still the same. During that time period, though, the more extreme edges of both parties have become more influential. More vocal. Many of those who fall towards the extremes have embraced a notion of associative guilt for the other side I find both hypocritical and disturbing. Many of those are also more intolerant of dissent whether inside or outside their own ranks. Things are more stark. The other side is collectively identified as evil. I prefer to be independent of all that. So I can't vote in the primaries. For me, a small price to pay.

Hobbes* once wrote that a nation with an assembly as its sovereign was a nation doomed to be at war with itself. Well, I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it. I think he had a point and that we are seeing it manifest today. We are not literally at war with ourselves, but we are figuratively so. Neither side has a significant enough advantage to squash the opposition and declare total victory. Our only hope, therefore, is that enough of us will eventually tire of the war that we will sue for peace amongst ourselves. I hope that day comes before the day that our factionalism has grown so strong that we cease to function effectively as a country.

*Please don't take the fact that I think Hobbes has a point regarding factionalism that I agree with everything he wrote. I am NOT advocating a monarchy or any kind of authoritarian regime. I do not think that a country divided is the worst possible thing that could happen. I consider the negatives of authoritarian regimes to be much worse, unlike Hobbes.

My Pledge

Pledges regarding the Presidency seem to be a fad right now, so I'm going to make one of my own:

I pledge to treat President Bush precisely as I would treat any other President. I will support him on the issues I agree with him on (and there are some). I will criticize him, respectfully, on the issues I disagree with him on.

I think that's about as much as any reasonable person can ask of any other reasonable person*.

*Yes, I consider myself a reasonable person. Your mileage may vary. Or not.

New Form of Government

From the amount of times I've seen the picture located at this link regarding the Bush/Kerry split of counties posted across the Internet, I've come to the conclusion that some of our citizens believe we have instituted a new form of government. Instead of being a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we've become a government of the acreage, by the acreage, and for the acreage.

The colors on the map are pretty, though.

Math Mythbusters

I have this thing wherein errors in statistics and/or math just drive me nuts. So when I read that based on the exit polls, more people voted against Bush than voted for Kerry, I'm driven nuts. Let's examine the exit polls (scroll down to the "Your Vote for President Was Mostly") :

YOUR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT WAS MOSTLY...

	BUSH	KERRY	NADER
For Your Candidate (69%)	59%	40%	0%
Against His Opponent (25%)	30%	70%	0%

What does this tell us? It tells us that 40% of the 69% of all voters who voted for candidate voted for Kerry. In other words, 27.6% of voters voted for Kerry (do the math). Furthermore, 70% of the 25% of all voters who voted against opponent voted against Bush. This equals 17.5% of voters who voted against Bush. Presumably the remaining 6% either refused to answer, had a different answer, or some combination of the two. Let's even assume that, worst-case scenario, those 6% really belong in the vote against opponent category, 70% of whom voted against Bush. This would mean that 21.7% of voters voted against Bush.

In other words, more voters voted for Kerry than voted against Bush. Not by a lot, but nonetheless.

Don't mess with my mad math skillz.

Wholesale Rejection?

I've read a few comments round and about that suggest that last night's election was some kind of wholesale rejection of liberalism. Let me point a couple of things out:

1. Bush won 51% of the popular vote

2. Kerry and Nader combined won 49% of the popular vote

I think it's fair to say that Kerry and Nader voters represent the liberal contingent. So while 51% is a majority, it's a slim one. I realize that moral issues were a determining factor in this election, but 51% is still a slim majority. That's just reality.

I've also read a few people quote the positively meaningless feel-good fact that Bush won more votes than any other candidate in American history. Yeah, the population is bigger now than it has been at any other time in American history. 51% of a larger population will, in fact, equal more votes than, say, the 54.8% of the smaller population that voted for FDR in 1940. Maybe it's just that I work in finance*, so these things jump right out at me, but I'm really not sure what this fact is supposed to prove. If people were saying that Bush got relatively and absolutely more votes than Clinton, I could understand what that fact is supposed to prove. This one, though, is just lost on me. I know it sounds nice. Maybe that's it's only purpose.

*It actually reminds me a bit of budget games people sometimes try to play. Like "Look, my budget is flat year over year!" Then I point out something like "Yes, but your headcount has decreased, so you're actually spending more per capita." As if I wouldn't pick up on something like that. Bwahahahaha!

Assessing the Election Outcome

CNN has excellent data on exit polls that provide an interesting insight into factors that influenced last night's outcome. One of the most critical factors seems to be the issue of gay marriage. Bans on gay marriage were on the ballots in 11 states and not only won in each state but were apparently a key impetus in Bush winning nine of the eleven states. Nowhere was this more crucial to Bush's victory than in Ohio, which was the difference in the election.

Exit polls in Ohio reveal that moral values were the second most important issue to voters, garnering 23% of responses to 24% for the economy. Of this 23%, which amounts to about 1.25 million of the approximate 5.5 million votes tallied so far, 85% voted for Bush. That adds up to over 1 million Bush voters whose most important issue was moral values, which can be seen as a surrogate for gay marriage. Essentially, 20% of the voters in Ohio cast their vote for Bush because they prefer him on moral issues to Kerry. Viewed in this light, gay marriage might be the singular issue that won the election for Bush.

If the Democratic party wishes to regain control of the federal government, it likely will need to move closer to the center on key moral issues. Not a brilliant or groundbreaking insight on my part, but a harsh truth that Democrats remain reluctant to learn. Bill Clinton learned it and earned two terms in the White House.

Going forward, Democrats need to embrace more moderate leaders, rather than someone such as Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco. Ultimately, it might have been his outspoken push on gay marriage that turned it into an election issue that doomed his party to defeat. Like it or not, the country has experienced a conservative revolution started by President Reagan and continued by the current President Bush.

Congratulations President Bush

I realize that it's not "technically" over, but for all intents and purposes, it's over and George W. Bush was reelected as President of the United States. With 100% of precincts reporting, Bush has a lead of 136,221 votes over Kerry. Although the Ohio Secretary of State has said that there might be as many as 175,000 provisional ballots to be counted, it's highly unlikely that all of them will (a) prove to be valid and (b) go for Kerry in large enough numbers to overcome his vote deficit. There's also the issue of overseas military ballots, which are not included in the 175,000 provisional ballots and will almost certainly go for Bush. Bush also leads by 3 points or 3.5 million votes in the popular vote. It's not a landslide, but it's decisive enough.

I hope that once the final numbers of provisional ballots are known, Kerry will realize that he has virtually no chance of beating Bush and do the best thing for the country (IMO) - concede. The last thing this country needs is to go through another 2000. We don't need weeks of recounts and lawsuits. We need to move on with the business of being a country.

The GOP also picked up seats in both the House and the Senate. I won't pretend that this last event makes me particularly happy. I am a fan of divided government. Both parties have tendencies that I dislike. Give them enough power, and they will take those tendencies to extremes that I consider bad for the country. It is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will now push harder for their agenda. Delay said it himself:

"With a bigger majority, we can do even more exciting things," DeLay told a local TV station in Texas

I'm curious to see how the country will feel about all those "exciting things" in 2008. I believe this will largely depend on how safe we feel in 2008. With 10% of Democrats switching over to vote for Bush, I am speculating this had more to do with the threat of terrorism than it did with domestic issues. The 7% of Republicans who switched over to vote for Kerry, however, I would speculate did so based on domestic issues, not terrorism. If the 7% of Republicans who switched vote for the Democratic candidate in 2008 and most of the Democrats who switched vote Democrat again in 2008, all else equal, the Democrats will regain the Presidency at that time. If, on the other hand, terrorism remains a major concern, the Republicans will probably keep the Presidency. I'm not sure what will happen to Congress in either scenario.

Well, four years isn't that long. As I said on Sunday*, I really believe the country will survive. In the meantime, Bush is the President. Of course, that won't stop me from criticizing him (and Congress) as I see fit, any more than a Kerry win would have stopped me from criticizing him. It's my right as an American, damn it!

*Oh yeah, I also claim psychic victory on the Bush prediction.

Indeed All Ohio

I was right the first time. It has all come down to Ohio. Right now Bush is ahead by 136,000 votes based on my math, 145,000 votes according to news reports. Either way, Kerry needs to win a huge majority of the provisional ballots out there to carry the state and the White House. He probably shouldn't concede until all the votes are counted because you never know what will happen, but it does look Bush has won reelection.

Coming Down To Ohio & New Mexico

Maybe I'm seeing this through rose-colored glasses, but I can't agree with all the pundits who say Kerry must carry Ohio to win the election. There are still enough other states out there in which Kerry has a lead that he could win without Ohio. It would come down to New Mexico in that case. Bush needs Ohio and New Mexico. If he loses one of those two states - he's leading in both - he loses the election. If he wins both, he wins. Simple as that? Don't know. We'll find out.

Update: It is as simple as Bush winning Ohio and New Mexico because that will give him 271 electoral votes. I did forget about New Hampshire, which is in Kerry's favor right now. Make that three states on which the election hinges.

Ohio, It's All On You

Whoever wins Ohio will win the White House. Simple as that.

Update: Well, maybe not that simple. Kerry could lose Ohio but snag all the other outstanding states and still win. Unfortunately, he's behind in New Mexico.

Oops

I found it quite surprising that New Jersey was supposed to be a swing state. Maybe not.

Why I Am Not Voting for Kerry

Check out the photo accompanying this article.

With apologies to Lesley for copycatting her idea.

Update: I caved and voted for Kerry. George Steinbrenner has already called to tell me I am blacklisted from Yankee Stadium for the next four years and to confiscate all my Yankees merchandise.

For or Against

I've read a lot of people lately bemoan the fact that many Kerry voters seem to be voting against Bush, not for Kerry. I've also seen a lot of "endorsements" of Bush, incidentally, that read a lot more like a vote against Kerry than a vote for Bush, but few people bemoaning that fact. Mostly, I suspect, because Kerry isn't the incumbent. Were the situations reversed, I'm sure these stats would be reversed as well.

Nonetheless. Just what the hell is wrong with voting against one of the two major candidates? Why is this pumped up like it's some horrid ethical lapse? It's not. Pretend that you're a businessman for a moment. You have this employee whom you think is doing a really lousy job. Do you wait to fire the guy just because you haven't found someone you think would do a great job? Some of you might say "Yes. I'd wait until I found the right guy for the job." In some circumstances, you might. In others, you wouldn't. It would, in large part, depend on how lousy a job you thought the guy was doing.

But now let's add a constraint to the problem. You only get one shot to fire the guy on one specific day. You can't just fire him any time you like. You have to wait until the first Tuesday of every fourth November. If you don't fire him then, you're required to keep him around for another four years. Given that set of circumstances, do you not fire him because you don't have another candidate you think is great? Of course not. That would be inefficient. You fire him.

Let's add another two constraints to the problem. Not only can you fire the guy on just one specific day, but you have a limited number of replacement candidates to choose from, none of whom you had any great say in selecting. You decide that one of the replacement candidates wouldn't do a great job but would still be better than the current guy. You also need to fill this position. You can't just leave it empty. Do you not fire the current guy and replace him with the better, albeit not great, candidate? Come on. Of course you do. So you don't love the replacement candidate. Your major concern is not how much you should love the replacement, but how bad a job you think the incumbent is doing. At the moment, this is what affects your business most. Sure, you might be wrong about the replacement doing a better job. You won't know for sure until you hire him. But you might be right. If you think the incumbent is doing a bad enough job, you're going to take that risk, rather than suffer the known consequences to your business.

Would it be better to hire a replacement you think would do a great job? Of course. But like it or not, these are the basic constraints we face on Election Day. You don't have to like them (I don't), but they are real. So please stop whining about people voting against one of the candidates*. It's not like we can fire the President whenever we want.

*I find this whining quite ironic when it comes from the same people who consider those of us who like to vote third party to have "wasted" our votes. Really, if voting against one of the two major candidates is a sad statement on anything, it's a sad statement on the crap our two major parties serve up to us. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Those who criticize voting against a major candidate and voting for a third party are people to whom there is only one right answer - their answer. Thanks, but not interested.

The Amazing Lesley

I'm going to try out my psychic powers* and make a couple of political predictions.

1. Bush will win the election. I'm not basing this on anything scientific, just my hunch. Besides, if I based it on something scientific, how could I be trying out my psychic powers?

2. The country will manage to survive just fine regardless of who wins the election. Yes, rabid ABBers, if Bush wins, the country will survive. Yes, rabid Kerry haters, if Kerry wins, the country will survive. To paraphrase the prayer for the Czar from "Fiddler on the Roof" - Let the doom and gloomers live long, happy lives. Far away from me." Take your lack of faith in this country and its citizens and begone from my sight. Personally, I find the Chicken Little hysteria to be much more harmful to this country than I do either candidate. And given my dislike of pretty much any politician, that's saying something.

*I don't really believe in psychic powers, let alone that I have any. So feel free not to comment on how irrational and/or insane I am on that basis.

Also please note that I am referring to the rabid ABBers and Kerry haters. If you don't think horrible things will happen if the candidate not of your choice wins, I'm not talking about you.

Election Update

New York State now going for Bush.

Is That Why People Call Them Battleground States?

Because they're key to winning the battle? Might well be. Of course, I could be wrong.

Line of the Night

When rebutting Bush's argument that his economic policy helps small businesses, John Kerry cited this example: "The President got $84 from a timber company that he owns that he's counted as a small business.'' Bush's response is probably going to go down as the line of the night: "I own a timber company? News to me! Need some wood?"

One can only surmise - or I can only surmise - that Bush has some shares of a timber company in a blind trust. But depending on the story here this could be a major gaffe by Kerry that undermines an otherwise excellent performance and comes back to haunt him.

More Distortion

Is there a less honest and scrupulous politician in the country than our current President? Yeah, it’s Bush bashing day for me, and I wonder if the FBI will have me on their radar, if they don’t already for my other writings about Bush.

Since the debate, which has cost Bush in the public eye and in the polls, the President has come out swinging to try to blunt Kerry’s momentum. Of course, in his speeches, he continues completely to distort and misrepresent what Kerry said in an effort to prey on people’s fears and scare them away from Kerry. It is the basest form of attack, the resort of the desperate who have nothing else to offer.

To wit, Bush said Saturday: "When he laid out the Kerry doctrine, he said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. When our country is in danger, it is not the president's job to take an international poll, the president's job is to defend America.”

Scary stuff that makes it sound like that no matter how dire the situation or how imminent the threat Kerry will sit on his hands drumming up international support before taking action.

Set aside that it’s been proven Iraq posed no imminent threat. Let’s examine what Kerry really said when asked about taking pre-emptive action: “No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”

Hmm. It seems pretty clear that Kerry was reserving the right to defend America as necessary and that he wasn't at all suggesting we line up support or take a poll before we take action. Or that he’d wait to take action. He’s simply saying that he would demonstrate that the action is credible and justifiable.

It seems like a common-sense to garnering support for U.S. actions in case we need someone to stand with us. Nor is it a new doctrine as Bush mockingly calls it. If anyone has established a dangerous doctrine, it’s Bush who has turned his back on decades of U.S. foreign policy with his go-it-alone approach that says the U.S. can take action wherever and whenever it wants without building international support.

Sadly, though, there will be people who didn't watch the debate or read about it and who will buy everything Bush is selling even though it is far, far from the truth.

The Last Straw?

In the weeks following both conventions, it has amazed me how President Bush has managed to establish a fairly solid lead in the polls despite the worsening situation in and the public’s growing concern about Iraq. There is no question that people believe the situation is a mess and that they’re not sure about Bush’s ability to get us out of the mess. Yet in polls most people believe that Bush is the best one to get us out of the situation, even though he pushed for this unnecessary war on dubious grounds.

Now today, there’s an article in the New York Times that questions whether the Bush administration knowingly misrepresented intelligence on Iraq’s nuclear intent. Could this be the straw that broke the camel’s back, the straw that gets the American public finally to wake up and realize that the Bush administration was less than honest about Iraq's arms program to justify their desire to go to war? That we wouldn’t be in this mess if Bush had been more forthcoming and not so hot-to-trot for getting Hussein?

A Good Debate

Without taking sides, I think it's safe to agree with this referenced article that last night's debate between Bush and Kerry was lively and provocative. It's more than people expected given the strait-jacket rules that governed the proceedings. Give moderator Jim Lehrer credit for taking a back seat to the candidates and ceding to their desire to extend the 2-minute answer and 90-second rebuttal format on most questions. It really allowed for an illuminating give-and-take that gave the candidates the time they needed to state their cases and respond to each other.

Kerry French After All?

Maybe there's something to this whole Kerry looks French thing.

Fear Fest

Whatever happened to the days when politicians tried to inspire us rather than prey on our fears? Were there ever any such days?

Get Out

Building the case for why one really should never state the obvious, it appears, according to the AP, that Bush and Kerry differ on the situation on Iraq. Who would have thought it?

In the meantime, the latest polls show a tightening in the race.

Point. Counterpoint.

A Hollywood Republican (yes, Virginia, there is such a thing) is working on an answer to “Fahrenheit 9/11”. The documentary is titled “Celsius 41.11”, which refers to the temperature at which the brain begins to die from exposure to heat. As unabashedly liberal as I am, I’ve avoided “Fahrenheit 9/11” because Moore is too extreme for even me. However, this might make for an interesting double feature via Netflix.

The Wild Wild West

With the intent of writing an entry expressing my dismay over the sunset of the assault weapons ban, I was doing some reading on the internet to bone up on the issue. In my search, I came across this scary letter to the New York Times:

< From Colorado Springs:

I am an internationally certified and recognized security expert. Regarding the sunset of the so-called assault weapons law, you folks in New York City and California can wring your hands. We in the West, South and Rocky Mountains look forward to the increased supply of high-capacity magazines and rifles.

Here, we can legally own machine guns, and carry concealed weapons with a permit. California, New York City and other places that restrict weapons ownership are at greater risk; your citizens cannot defend themselves.

This is important, as we've seen how well governments around the world protect their citizens. They cannot do it. It is up to all citizens to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. >

Regardless of your stance on the assault weapons ban, these sentiments are frighteningly dangerous. What the author seems to be advocating is a return to the Wild West, a vigilante society in which we police ourselves. How can we be trusted to use good judgment in policing society when police officers, who are extensively trained in handling crisis situations, make deadly mistakes far too often?

How Has This Happened?

Ok, Bush fans get on board and bash me, but explain the following to me please:

"Seven weeks before Election Day, the Republican is considered significantly more decisive, strong and likable than Kerry, and he has strengthened his position on virtually every issue important to voters, from the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and creating jobs — two sources of criticism — to matters of national security and values. "

From an AP story.

How has he accomplished all of the above? He has done little worthwhile as president. At least in my not-so-humble opinion.

Dumbest.Headline.Ever

Clinton Absence Spells Either Boost or Bust for Kerry.

This reminds me of something a doctor once told my father about some medication he was prescribing. "This medication will do one of three things - Make it better; make it worse, or do nothing." I know I enjoy paying doctors hefty fees for telling me something I could have figured out on my own. Fortunately, I don't pay journalists hefty fees. Especially not for news I get on the Internet.

I Am Shocked

Are you as blindsided by this headline as me? Never in a million years did I think that a Republican VP and the keynote speaker at the RNC would be making the case for, of all people, a Republican President. I could have sworn they’d be pitching Kerry’s candidacy.

Do Tell George

George Bush has backtracked from his comments yesterday that the war on terrorism probably cannot be won. In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, Bush said, "I probably needed to be more articulate." Probably?

Foolish But True

In a huge gaffe, George Bush said in an interview yesterday that he doesn't think we will ever completely win the war on terror. An utterly foolish comment on the day the Republican National Convention opened and one that could really undermine his credibility as a leader and chances to win re-election. Yet, when you think about it, he's right. Terrorism will never be defeated. There will always be people bent on committing terrorist acts. The best we can hope for, as Bush says, is containment. Still, I don’t think it’s what the American public wants to hear from the President.

The Cruel Protest Is Raging

Despite the cries I've heard about how NYC is going to turn into Chicago 1968 or Seattle WTO during the RNC, I've never believed it. This is NYC. I won't say we never have riots in NYC, but they are few and far between. Crown Heights only happened because Dinkins told the NYPD to stay out. However, as I was meeting a friend for brunch around Union Square today, the site of a mass demonstration and, rumor has it, the largest one, I decided to bring my digital camera and see if I could catch this violence I've been hearing would happen in action. I warn you. Some of what you see might shock you.

Protestors committing violence against the grass in Union Square Park. Will the killing never end?



The wig the woman protestor is wearing is pretty violently blue. And it does violently clash with her red dress.



"What, behind the squirrel?"
"Well, that's no ordinary squirrel! That's the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on... Look, that squirrel's got a vicious streak a mile wide. It's a killer!"



Those marchers look ready to commit acts of mayhem! Either that or head to the nearest Starbucks for a frappuccino.


Well, I hope these pictures of violence didn't offend anyone's sensibilities. When will they ever learn?

Drop In Not Out

After reading the latest attack lobbed against John Kerry yesterday, my initial reaction was that they could all go to Hell (except for Cave 76 - apologies to Mel Brooks). I was on the verge of becoming another voter dropping out of the system because of frustration with the ugliness of it all.

But I had a change of heart and another idea. Not a huge fan of Kerry, I nonetheless have decided to cast myself fully in his camp. I donated money to his campaign today, signed an on-line petition telling Bush to. . . (you can complete the rest), and registered to volunteer for the campaign. Makes me feel somewhat better about the whole thing.

Too Far

If the rampant and unfounded criticism of John Kerry's service in Vietnam wasn't enough, now Bob Dole has the audacity to question Kerry over the seriousness of the wounds he suffered in combat. "Gee, John, I'm sorry that you were shot, but you know, it was just a flesh wound after all, you sniveling cry baby." I suppose that means the only person qualified to be President in Dole's warped logic is Max Cleeland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam.

After the 2000 campaign, I knew that George Bush and his cronies were dirty campaigners capable of sinking to shamefully low levels. I had no idea, however, that they would sink as low as they have in the last few weeks. It's absolutely disgusting. But what do you expect from someone who has no track record or accomplishments to run on?

I suppose the question posed to Senator Joseph McCarthy all those years ago still resonates: "Have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame?"

Moore-on

Okay, I'm sorry, but this is just stupid.

Michael Moore released an excerpt from an interview with top pick for CIA Director, Porter Goss, in which Goss is quoted as saying the following:

"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," the Florida Republican told documentary-maker Michael Moore's production company during the filming of the anti-Bush movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

...snip...

"I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably," Goss is quoted in an interview transcript.

Goss did work with CIA clandestine services in the 1960s. Obviously what he's saying is that he couldn't get a job as a field operative in the CIA today. Well, duh. He's not being nominated to serve clandestinely. If he becomes the next CIA Director, it will be broadly public knowledge. There won't be a damn clandestine thing about it. I would think it would be fairly obvious that the qualifications for being a clandestine operative and CIA Director are pretty different. Personally, I don't know whether Goss is qualified or not. What I do know is that none of what he said is relevant to that question.

Look, I know Moore was only trying to make a joke by throwing the guy's words back at him and that he has other reasons for criticizing Goss. But it's a stupid and annoying joke. So I'm annoyed now. Phooey.

To Warn Or Not To Warn...

That is the question.

I believe the answer to that question is "Yes." The government was right to warn us about the information it discovered on the laptop, even though the information was three years old. Major terrorist plots aren't planned and developed overnight or even over a few months. I have no doubt that the massive ones are years in the planning.

Besides, they're damned either way. If they do warn us, people get upset about "false alarms". The problem is, I don't think they're sure it's a false alarm. One of these days there's a reasonable chance it won't be. And what happens then if they haven't warned us? They get blasted for withholding information. It's a lose/lose situation. I'd rather they err on the side of caution. I know it gets wearing. I get tired of it too. But at least on this occasion, there was some actual specificity as to targets, if not as to times.

Having said that, the government should have been more forthcoming about the nature of the data. It wouldn't have killed them to have said "We've discovered that al Qaeda is planning to target major financial institutions in New York and New Jersey. The information we found is three years old, however we also know that major plots can take years to plan and that the information was refreshed several months ago. On those bases, we believe the information is still relevant and are taking the following actions..." I think they handled the message very poorly, and as I do not believe the people in charge of getting the message out are stupid, I do wonder why they chose to handle it the way they did. I don't wonder about why they got the message out, just how they got the message out.

Nor do I think it's unreasonable to have those thoughts. If Tom Ridge is going to get up and give a press conference (which was aired even here in London), why not disclose those facts? The people in charge of taking the security precautions won't take the threat any less seriously once the alert level is raised to orange. Besides, they also understand that major attacks take a long time to plan and execute. The population, however, might feel somewhat comforted by being in possession of the facts. And al Qaeda was in possession of them before we were. So just what is the downside to disclosure?

In other news, prisoners are, once again, more color-coordinated than you.

Positively Negative

I'm not a fan, to say the least, of the current President and will be voting for John Kerry in November. Nonetheless, I was surprised by Kerry's seeming shift in tactics yesterday when he blasted Bush for acting too slowly on terrorism. Wasn't it just last week that Kerry and VP candidate John Edwards promised to run a positive campaign? The comments yesterday were anything but positive, and I have to agree with a Bush spokesman who said, "Facing no bounce in the polls, John Kerry threw away any pretense of a positive campaign today with a prolonged dawn-to-dusk personal attack on the president."

It is, however, an interesting tact by Kerry, one that shows he's far different from the last Massachusetts politician to take on a Bush for President. In 1988, Michael Dukakis didn't respond to the constant negative attacks by Bush Senior and wound up losing an election that he seemed to have a solid grip on.

This time around Kerry is taking every attack and charge made against him and turning them back on Bush Junior. Yesterday's comments took it one step further. I don't like the negative tone, but it's a bold strategy. Rather than ceding Bush the security issue, which is the centerpiece of Bush's campaign and the one true foundation Bush can run on, Kerry is challenging him on it head on.

I have no clue who will win the election given the tightness of the polls. One thing I can say for sure is that it will be a lively - and messy - few months.

Goodbye FMA

I was remiss in not linking this earlier. Jay, now of Mr. Blonde's Garage, writes a piece in which he praises the defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment, despite the fact that he does not condone gay marriage in terms of his personal religious beliefs. Jay separates his personal beliefs from matters of public policy.

I completely agree with the logic by which Jay arrives at his position - gay marriage does not infringe on anyone's rights and, with regards to the FMA, the Constitution was designed to protect individuals from the government, not vice versa. There was only one other amendment that sought to restrict individual rights, and that one was repealed shortly thereafter. It also has the "honor" of being the only amendment ever repealed.

There are only two matters on which I disagree with Jay. The first is that my personal beliefs do condone gay marriage. Gay people want to get married and raise families? Good for them. It just seems to me that more people getting married encourages marriage, not discourages it. It provides for more stability, not less stability. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant to the logic of my position. There's just no compelling state interest to treat gay people differently from straight people.

The other thing I disagree with is that the only reason the GOP brought this up was to force John² to vote on it. While I agree that the GOP knew this amendment didn't have a prayer of being ratified, I think it was proposed as a sop to GOP supporters who are opposed to gay marriage. It will be used to differentiate between Bush and Kerry, yes, but I think it was more used to demonstrate that Bush opposes gay marriage than that Kerry supports it.* It's a fine point of difference, but I do think that was the primary motivation.

Especially since Kerry doesn't support it. He supports the "separate but equal" notion of "civil unions".

...Deriving Their Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed

At the risk of repeating myself (although I do it to make a broader point)...

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

As I ponder the founding of our country on this our Independence Day, I must confess I find it odd that any American can, regardless of topic, resort to arguments such as "that is the way it has been for centuries" or "such rights have never previously been recognized to exist." They fly in the face of the principles upon which our very nation was founded.

That is the way it has been for centuries

To you I say "...that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

For century upon century, people did not believe that governments derived their powers from the consent of the governed. People believed that governments derived their power from divine right, in some cases going so far as to believe that the monarch was a deity himself. It was in England that this notion was first challenged, at least in more modern times. But it was through the American Revolution that it found its most fruitful home, its success sparking a trend that would resound throughout Europe for the next 100 years.

Such rights have never been previously recognized to exist within the scope of the institution

To you I say "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

No nation recognized all men as being created equal. No government recognized any rights as being unalienable. The government granted you any rights you might have, and the government could taketh away. In practice, that is still true, but natural rights theory, the idea that we are born with rights which the government cannot justly take away, was novel, nonetheless. That theory has shaped how we, as Americans, view individual freedoms; why we place individual freedom above social welfare. European countries were influenced more by the counter theory of the time, the theory of utilitarianism. According to this theory, the rightness of an act is determined by the overall long run net happiness it will produce. The greater the amount of long run net happiness an act produces, the better it is. It is not surprising, therefore, that modern-day European countries tend to consider social welfare a higher good than individual freedom. From their standpoint, it is just for the government to take away individual rights if it will make a larger number of people "better off".

So as you celebrate this July 4th, consider that those rights we all hold so dear as Americans would not be ours if things remained as they had been for centuries and rights that did not previously exist within the scope of an institution were not later recognized to exist. Just think about it because this is the day we codified the principles of this country we love.

We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

What Is in a Name?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I'm immensely frustrated now. I'm engaged in a debate over legalizing gay marriage in the Three Dead Horses Saloon. Opponents of legalizing gay marriage have been throwing examples such as the following at me for the last two days:

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage can't be the union of two men any more than an apple can be an orange, even if you call it an orange.

See, okay, here's the thing. An apple can never be an orange because there are laws of science involved. You know. DNA and shit like that. You can call an apple an orange, but the apple's DNA structure isn't going to ever mutate into that of an orange as a result. So, right, an apple can never be an orange.

Marriage is a concept. It has no DNA. It is not bound by any laws of science. It's an idea. It is not immutable. Okay, tangible objects aren't immutable either, but their mutations occur as a result of something other than human thought. Ideas mutate as human thought changes. Human thought can sometimes be stubborn, so it may appear immutable in the short-term, but it is not. Besides, that kind of immutability is self-imposed, not externally imposed. If humans decide that marriage can be between two men or two women, as well as between a man and a woman, the concept does change as a result.

Furthermore, word usage is not immutable either. Word meanings have changed over time. If they didn't, there would be no debate over legalizing gay marriage. After all, no one would be such a curmudgeon as to legislate against happy marriages, would they?

Is this really that hard to grasp? Am I not explaining it clearly? I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall. I've said it several times now, and still the apple/orange, blue/red, chihuahua/tyrannosaurus rex analogies abound.

If someone wants to argue that gays should not be allowed to legally marry because there may be damage to society as a result which would outweigh any damage that may be caused by not allowing them to marry, they should have at it. That's a debate worth having. Just please, don't tell me that concepts and words can't change over time the same way apples cannot become oranges. Because that's just bullshit.

Of Divorce Records and Publicity

The court in Illinois may have been right to rule to unseal Jack Ryan's divorce records. Typically speaking, court records are public documents, and why should the wealthy and famous get different treatment under the law than the rest of us. Look, I know it happens, but why should it happen?

But that's not important, at least not to me. What's important is that the Chicago Tribune shouldn't have cared. It shouldn't have published anything in those divorce records. Jack Ryan did not commit a crime. So he likes going to sex clubs. With his wife (now ex-wife). That's not a crime. That's his business. Was he sleazy and incredibly disrespectful by getting his wife to the club on false pretenses after she told him the first time that she didn't ever want to go again? Absolutely. But, again, no crime was committed. That's between the two of them, and she made it perfectly clear that she didn't want the incidents publicized either.

Where is the public's "right to know", that ever convenient excuse the press uses when it wants to publish someone's salacious, personal details? Do your neighbors have the "right to know" about what you do in your bedroom, providing you aren't committing a crime? Do they have the "right to know" about that time you lied to your wife or manipulated your husband into doing something he didn't want to? Lots of Americans think that the government should stay out of what consenting adults do in their bedrooms (I'm one of them). Excuse me, but why shouldn't the media stay out as well? And, since the media is only publishing those details because they think we want to know, why shouldn't we stay the hell out? You want the government to stay out of your business, stay out of other people's business.

So the court in Massachusetts may be right if it rules to unseal Kerry's divorce records. He doesn't deserve any greater protection than the rest of us. However, if the records are unsealed, we shouldn't care. The media shouldn't publish the details. We don't have a "right to know".

Censorship vs. Freedom of Association

Of late I have seen several arguments about how banning people from different websites and/or groups for expressing opinions with which the owner of the website and/or founder of the group disagrees is censorship.

It's not.

It is, in fact, an exercise of one of our most cherished rights - freedom of association. We all get to choose those with whom we wish to associate. The flip side of that is that we also get to choose those with whom we do not wish to associate. If someone were to barge into my living room and start talking about how Israel was really behind the 9/11 attacks, no one would blame me for asking that person to leave and, if the person refused, calling the cops to make him/her leave. No one would suggest that I had somehow censored that person. Nothing is stopping that person from expressing his/her opinion. I am merely stopping that person from expressing it in front of me. That is my right.

It is a right each and every one of us exercises every day. We meet people or know people whom we do not like for any variety of subjective reasons. Maybe we don't like the way someone speaks to a colleague. Maybe the sound of someone's voice grates on our last nerve. So we decide to avoid those people. We don't socialize with them. We don't invite them over for dinner. We don't ask them into our homes should they drop by. We don't communicate with them, and if they try to communicate with us we ask them to stop.

We also make tacit (and sometimes explicit) deals with our friends. There is no one to whom you can say anything. We know there are limits as to what things can be discussed. Everyone has said, at one time or another, "I don't want to discuss that." That is not censorship.

I think some people view the Internet differently because the word is written rather than spoken. But the written word is still a form of communication. It's still an exchange of ideas. If we are within our rights to put an end to a verbal exchange of ideas, why would we not be within our rights to put an end to a written exchange of ideas? Doing so does not prevent the other party from expressing his/her ideas. He/she can get his/her own domain. His/her own blog. His/her own forum.

Freedom of speech entitles us to express ourselves without fear of government reprisal. It does not entitle us to express ourselves in any private venue we desire. It does not entitle us to express ourselves without risk of a societal (non-violent) reprisal.

Banning a person or topic from a website or forum does not prevent that person from discussing that topic. It is a simple exercise of our right to associate with whom we choose. Each of us has a different level of tolerance for exercising that right. We may consider people with lower tolerance levels to be overly sensitive. We may even be right. Nonetheless, over-sensitivity is not censorship.

Who Gives a Fuck?

Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism. Reportedly, Vice President Cheney told Senator Leahy to "Go fuck yourself." This is news?

I Swear, If I Read One More Headline...

...about what would happen if the election were to be held tomorrow, I'm going to scream! Get back to me with that headline on Monday, November 1st.

CIA Director Rudy?

Via Kathy K, whose take I agree with 100%, comes this tidbit regarding possible replacements for George Tenet:

But there is also a groundswell of support for Giuliani, a tough manager who won widespread praise for his leadership in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Sorry, as much as I love Rudy, he's not the man for this job. He's a lawyer. A prosecutor. A mayor. He's not an intelligence operative. Is he a tough manager? You bet. The CIA Director, though, needs to be more than just a tough manager. He/she needs to have actual experience in intelligence work. Rudy ain't got none. I want to see Rudy back in government in some capacity, but not this one.

Blame the Joooos!

From elsewhere about E.L. Doctorow being booed while giving the commencement speech at Hofstra:

Hofstra is a predominantly Jewish University, so it's not that surprising there was an uproar when opposition to a war which removed Israel's chief antagonist in the middle east was expressed.

Well, assuming Hofstra even is predominantly Jewish (which may or may not be true, although I do know it is diverse and has a good-sized Jewish population), it might not be surprising, except for the fact that polls have clearly indicated that American Jews are no more likely to be in favor of this war than any other group in this country. But somehow, in his twisted little mind, this happened because of the Joooos and for Israel, not because the guy made a speech in which he bashed the current President and support for America or even because Doctorow politicized the fairly non-political event of college graduation.

Let's examine further. Let's look at some of the quotes from people actually attending the graduation:

If this would have happened in Florida, we would have taken him out" of the stadium, said Frank Mallafre, who traveled from Miami for his granddaughter's graduation.

Bill Schmidt, 51, of North Bellmore, shared the outrage. "To ruin my daughter's graduation with politics is pathetic," the retired New York Police Department captain said. "I think the president is doing the best he can" in the war against terrorism.

Many students also called Doctorow's speech inappropriate. Peter Hulse, 24, of Manchester, England, said, "He's a bit like Michael Moore."

Booing that came mainly from the crowd in the stands became so intense that Doctorow stopped speaking at one point, showing no emotion as he stood silently and listened to the jeers. Hofstra President Stuart Rabinowitz intervened, and called on the audience to allow him to finish. He did, although some booing persisted.

Mallafre, Schmidt, and Hulse? Not a Jew among them. And nary a word about Israel. But we do get a Jew in there - Stuart Rabinowitz. Oh, but he's the guy trying to get the audience to stop booing and let Doctorow finish. Oops.

And is this the only place that a guy giving an antiwar speech at a college was booed? Why, no!

Last year, New York Times reporter Chris Hedges was booed off the stage when he tried to deliver an antiwar speech at Rockford College in Illinois.

Rockford College in Illinois? Somehow I doubt that is predominantly a Jewish university. And yet students and parents there objected similarly to an antiwar speech. Could it be that they just reacted badly to having their president criticized during a commencement speech? Why sure. Had he heard this story, undoubtedly that's the only conclusion he would have reached, because of the likely demographics of the college. Because this happened in Long Island, though, at a (potentially) predominantly Jewish university, it was because of Israel. And therein lies the antisemitism - American Jews could only be reacting badly because they're putting the needs of Israel ahead of those of their own country.

Article with nifty quotes found via Michele.

Blame Feminism!

Let me try to understand. When some male soldiers torture Iraqi prisoners, that's just a few isolated incidents, not at all an indictment of the overall military. But when a couple of female soldiers do the same thing, that isn't just a couple of isolated incidents, but an indictment of feminism. Fascinating double standard.

Since most violent crimes are committed by men, I understand why violence committed by women gets more attention. It's rarer, and that which is rare stands out more. Sometimes it get so much more attention that it, in effect, minimizes violence committed by men. But still. Ultimately it's like being a brunette in Sweden. You get noticed.

What I don't understand is how the male soldiers get to be just isolated incidents, but the female soldiers are indicative of a general societal problem caused by those "evil" feminists. Why don't the female soldiers get the benefit of being considered isolated cases as well? Why must their behavior be generalized? It's not as if brutality committed by women is unheard of or is some new phenomenon. Consider the following: Elizabeth Báthory aka Countess Dracula, Mary I of England aka Bloody Mary, Catherine the Great of Russia, Lizzie Borden of the famed axe (who may not have actually committed the murders; she wasn't even convicted of them, but it is a widely held belief that she did evidenced by the childhood rhyme most Americans are familiar with*), and Boudicca the Warrior Queen (or Boadicea), to name but a few.

None of those examples are recent, so no one can blame feminism for the actions of these women. Sometimes women are brutal or do brutal things. Especially women in positions of power, like these soldiers. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Women are not immune to the seductive nature of power, any more than men are. Those blaming feminism for the actions of these two soldiers are biased in the first place. They already dislike feminism, so they will seek anything with which to tarnish it further. Who cares about double standards when you have feminists to bash, eh? Oh, but be sure to decry the double standards of others.

Some links via upyernoz via Trish Wilson.

*For those unfamiliar, the rhyme goes "Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her mother 40 whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father 41."

Does the Fed Reserve the Right to Affect Presidential Elections

George Herbert Walker Bush blames Alan Greenspan for his loss in the 1992 Presidential election.

"I think that if the interest rates had been lowered more dramatically that I would have been re-elected president because the [economic] recovery that we were in would have been more visible," Mr. Bush told interviewer David Frost. "I reappointed [Greenspan], and he disappointed me."

Other people believe that Alan Greenspan may have unintentionally been a factor in the 2000 election.

Democrats will be howling soon, as they grasp the implications for Al Gore, but accusations of partisan bias at the Fed are unfair and mostly wrong. The central bank is so aloof from democracy that its power has crumpled presidential candidates from both parties over the years (Richard Nixon in 1960, Jimmy Carter in 1980). The major exception is 1972, when Chairman Arthur Burns pumped up the economy vigorously to boost his old friend Nixon's re-election. This year, Greenspan intends, at a minimum, to take the glow off Gore's best feel-good issue--the economy, the stock market.

Is Alan set to do it again?

U.S. Federal Reserve policy-makers meet on Tuesday to plot the beginning of the end for the lowest U.S. official interest rates in 46 years.

{snip}

The Fed has indicated it would not hesitate to raise rates even though there is a presidential election this November.

In fact, the markets have already priced in a rate increase in June. So if you're thinking of buying a house or refinancing your existing mortgage, do it now, before rates go up even more.

There's lots of talk around about how Bush's and Kerry's words and actions will impact the outcome of the election. For obvious reason. But I wonder how much impact Alan Greenspan will have? If he has misjudged the inflationary pressures (not impossible or without precedent) and tarnishes the (primarily jobless) recovery, might the economy ultimately cost Bush the election? It's happened before.

So does the Fed reserve the right to affect presidential elections? Yes and no. They tend to act regardless of the impact of their actions on a given presidential candidate. Which is how it should be (note that Greenspan has been appointed and reappointed by both Republicans and Democrats). Nonetheless, their actions can still influence electoral outcomes. I think this election year the Fed will have an effect on the results of the election.

Musings About Anti-War

Sometimes events conspire to make me seriously tempted to reconsider my anti-war position and say I was wrong just to distance myself as much as possible from some others who are anti-war. The last couple of days have brought two such events.

The first was the revelation by artist Micah Wright that he was never an Army Ranger. Wright had been peddling this claim to his advantage for a while. At first it started out as a way to make his anti-war views appear more palatable to pro-war folks, but he didn't stop there. His publishers later asked him to write a book about his Army Ranger experience in Panama. Did he, at that point, confess to his publishers that he was thoroughly unqualified to write such a book, having never been an Army Ranger in Panama or anywhere else? No, he did not. Rather he researched the topic, taking stories from other people (both American and Panamanian) and presenting them as his own. He committed fraud.

He has now apologized for lying, but to me, true repentance would require restitution for his fraud. It is well within his ability to make such restitution. He could simply take the money he "earned" from the sales of this book (and any other works of art sold based upon this lie) and either give it to those whose stories he "borrowed" or donate it to charities benefitting servicemen and/or Panamanians. I have yet to see an offer on his part to do precisely that, so I question his alleged attack of conscience. Words are nice, but actions have a lot more meaning. If he truly feels remorse for what he's done, rather than attempting to 'fess up before his imminent outing in the Washington Post, then he should put his money where his mouth is. Until he does that, I have no particular reason, given his other lies, to believe that he really did confess because he could no longer live with the lies. He self-aggrandizingly lied on multiple occasions. Why should I trust that this is any different? Because he says so? If he truly expects that, he should get a grip. He's completely ruined his credibility, and he has no one but himself to blame.

The second event was the publication of this Ted Rall cartoon regarding Pat Tillman. Note the first panel, which essentially accuses Tillman of being a racist fuckwit who enlisted primarily so he could kill Arabs. Yes, that's right, according to Rall, Pat Tillman forewent a $3.6 million NFL contract so he could go legally kill himself some of those damn Ay-rabs! Now, I can understand being against the war (although I, myself, was not and am not against the war in Afghanistan). But to accuse somebody of such vile motives simply because he disagrees with you? Sorry, that's just disgusting. That's just pissing on that person, a person who isn't even alive any longer to defend his motives. Hey, Ted, fuck you.

Sure, Rall goes on to "explain" his intentions:

Rall, who risked his life in Afghanistan himself as a visiting cartoonist/writer after 9/11, told E&P: "The word 'hero' has been bandied about a lot to refer to anyone killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. But anyone who voluntarily goes to Afghanistan or Iraq [as a soldier] is fighting for an evil cause under an evil commander in chief."

"Tillman gave up millions of dollars," Rall added. "To that extent I think he's admirable, but the cause is not. ... He would have been a better person and a better husband if he took the $3.6 million and played football and left the poor and beleaguered people of Afghanistan and Iraq alone."

But given that first panel, I don't believe him. I could buy it based on the last 3 panels, which are primarily about GWB and Tillman being used. But that first panel speaks directly to Tillman's motives in enlisting, not the overall justness of the war. So, sorry Ted, but if you really meant to portray what you claim, you failed miserably. If you didn't know you were failing miserably at that by portraying the man as a racist just out to kill him some Arabs dead, then you're criminally stupid. And, you know what, I just don't believe you're criminally stupid.

Now, some may ask, "Don't you get mad when pro-war people make vile claims about anti-war people?" Yeah, sure I do. I could just spit nails every time I read another jackass claim that anti-war people just want to see more Americans die because it would benefit the cause. But it's different. It's different because I'm already distanced from those people.

In the end, I take a deep breath and remind myself that I was not anti-war* (specifically, anti-the war in Iraq) because of the other people who are anti-war. I was anti-war because I don't believe Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, nor were the terrorists responsible for 9/11 operating directly from Iraq and being hidden by the Iraqi government. No matter how disgustingly some others who are also anti-war might act, it doesn't change my underlying beliefs.

So I will not reconsider my anti-war position. I will not say I was wrong. But sometimes, it is really tempting.

*I say that I was anti-war, because I do think we need to stay in Iraq now and make sure there is an orderly turnover of power to the Iraqis. I think an immediate pullout would be a disaster. But I did not and do not believe that attacking Iraq in the first place was the right thing to do.

What's So Controversial?

I have to be honest. I don't see what is so damn controversial about the charges being made by Richard Clarke that the Bush administration pretty much ignored al Qaeda until after 9/11. I thought most Americans knew that already. In the intelligence post mortems conducted after 9/11, there were reports, published in the media, that the Bush administration had told the FBI to back off bin Ladin. The whole line of the Bush administration about preventing 9/11 had been "How could we have known? How could anyone have known that terrorists would fly planes into buildings?"* So now someone else is saying what has already been said.

Even the Bush campaign isn't running on Bush's actions regarding terrorism prior to 9/11. That would be really stupid. They're running on what he did after 9/11. So I have to ask, "What's so controversial?"

UPDATE: Okay, apparently I'm a moron. The real controversial issue doesn't seem to be the part about Bush ignoring al Qaeda prior to 9/11, it's the claim that Bush wanted to invade Iraq from day one and pressed intelligence agencies to find a link between Iraq and 9/11 even after being told there probably wasn't one. Well, call me cynical, but I don't find that particularly hard to believe. There have been other things which point to that as well. But I'll grant you that they aren't as non-controversial as the whole ignoring al Qaeda prior to 9/11 thing.

*This despite the fact that Tom Clancy had written an entire book hypothesizing just such an attack some years earlier.

More About the 9/11 Ad

I've been thinking about Bush's "Safer and Stronger" ad a bit and even more about the reactions to it around the blogosphere. I had planned on writing this earlier in the week, when it was a little fresher, but I was feeling under the weather for most of the week, and never got around to it. I had thought it might be better left unsaid, at this juncture, but then I saw this poll linked at skippy's, and felt that maybe it wasn't too late.

It seems to me that the entire debate centers around two basic premises, both of which are true:

Statement 1: 9/11 was, to date, the seminal event of the Bush Administration. It has defined his presidency in a way no other event has. His handling of it speaks to his competence as a president.

Statement 2: 9/11 was an event that transcended politics. It affected all Americans, regardless of political affiliation. It is a tragedy that should be free from the dirt of politics.

I really do think that both those statements are true and, further, that each and every one of us knows that on some level. I think that is why some of the reaction (on both sides) reached the level of shrillness that it did. Because when we know that the other side has a point which, deep down, we kind of have a niggling suspicion is true and that we might even sort of agree with, we have to put aside that niggling suspicion in order to make ourselves feel more comfortable with the side we come down more strongly on. Yes, it boils down to feeling a little guilty about our own position.

Some of us deal well with the guilt that comes from that type of contradiction. Some of us do not. Those of us who do feel no need to demonize the opposition as a means of securing ourselves in our chosen position. Those of us who do not sometimes need to distinguish ourselves sufficiently from our opponents in our own conscience, and one of the best ways of doing that is to cast our opponents in a bad light. Since we know that we aren't bad people, we feel, having drawn such a stark line, more able to live with our choice. We also don't like being reminded of the truth we have put in a secondary place; yet another reason for us to demonize those who put that truth in a primary place and put our truth in a secondary one. We have, each and every one of us, been guilty of doing something like this at some time, whether we did so in this situation or not.

What was it about the poll results that made me think it might not be too late to address this after all? Specifically, this part of the results:

Two-thirds of Republicans said it was OK, while three-fourths of Democrats felt the opposite.

Didn't it strike you that most of the opposition to the use of the footage came from Democrats and/or those unlikely to vote for Bush, whereas most of the support came from Republicans and/or those likely to vote for Bush? Struck me that way. It didn't surprise me. When you are faced with two opposing truths, you need something to decide between them. In this particular instance, I think that one's feelings about the man behind the ads would be pretty significant in making that decision. It wouldn't be the only factor. But it could be a pretty major one.

I hope that as time passes, both sides can realize that the other actually does have a valid point and that this is the kind of issue people can reasonably disagree on. It doesn't have to be an "us vs. them" issue. But if not, at the very least, as time passes, the ads will be gone and, thus, not an issue of controversy. Kind of like what Keynes said - "In the long run we are all dead."

World of Morons

The absolute worst post I have read on the entire controversy of the 9/11 ads. It was so bad, I just had to share it with more people than will ever read it in the politics forum it appeared in.

9/11 was against every American not just New Yorkers and my life has been changed forever as a result. I don't have the freedoms that I once enjoyed; it cost me money, time and other inconveniences. I've seen some of these victims try to control everything from Ground Zero use to gaining financially and I'm a little tired of it. Now some of these partisan victims have been given talking points by the Democrat Party. When you see several people on different networks saying the same thing I know the Democrats are coaching them.

Let us fisketh.

9/11 was against every American not just New Yorkers and my life has been changed forever as a result.

So far, no disagreement. This is absolutely true.

I don't have the freedoms that I once enjoyed; it cost me money, time and other inconveniences.

Money, time, and other inconveniences? Someone get me a hanky, I'm not sure if I can stop the tears! Moron. I'll gladly take the money, time, and inconveniences it cost you if it'll bring back my friends and colleagues. I bet all those "whining" relatives you disparage would happily trade places with you in a heartbeat too. Boo fucking hoo. You don't even deserve a tiny violin for that.

I've seen some of these victims try to control everything from Ground Zero use to gaining financially and I'm a little tired of it.

Well, whoopedy-doo. Gaining financially? You think that they're gaining financially? You're fucking nuts, buddy. They're not gaining financially. The loss of the primary bread-winner is not so easily replaced, and the money that they are getting won't be a net gain.

Now some of these partisan victims have been given talking points by the Democrat Party.

Really? Well, first of all, a large percentage of the ones upset aren't liberals, so while they may, in fact, be partisan, it isn't partisan against Bush. Second of all, how do you know they've been given talking points by the Democrat Party? Well, let's see...

When you see several people on different networks saying the same thing I know the Democrats are coaching them.

Oh so, that's your "proof". You've got some pretty low standards there, buddy. I hope if you're ever accused of something, you get convicted on the same level of "evidence". You know nothing. You assume. And I highly doubt they were "saying the same thing". They may have been expressing similar concerns, but, you know, that's just understandable. It's not at all odd that people with similar experiences might have similar concerns. Only in the dark recesses you call your mind is that proof of anything shady.

I think I can sum up my reaction to that post in one word, though: Disphit.

I won't turn off comments to this post, in case you want to respond to what I said. But if you want to respond to the original post, I encourage you not to do so in my comments, but to go to the original post in the forum and do so there.

Pictures of 9/11

The blogosphere is currently abuzz with the controversy over Bush using pictures of 9/11 in one of his political campaign commercials. I have two things to say about this. The first is about my feelings regarding the controversy prime. The second is about my feelings regarding the first derivative of the controversy, or, in other words, (some of) the reaction to the reaction. Which I guess makes it the second derivative of the controversy, as it would be my reaction to (some of) the reaction to the reaction.

So, do I think that it is inappropriate for Bush to use pictures of 9/11 in his campaign commercials? Not precisely. I would have no problem with pictures of Bush at Ground Zero appearing in his campaign commercials. He was there three days later, and I see nothing wrong with him using footage of that visit. That was something he did. He has every right to use his achievements in his campaign commercials.

Where I have a problem is that he's not using that footage, but is, instead, using footage of firefighters pulling a flag-draped coffin out of the wreckage. This bothers me tremendously. Bush was very clear that he supported the policy to not show pictures of flag-draped coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq. He feels, as do I, that it would be insensitive to the family members of those soldiers. Why don't the family members of 9/11 victims deserve the same level of respect and sensitivity? This makes me question whether he truly does feel that showing pictures of coffins of soldiers killed in Iraq would be insensitive to the families, or whether he feels that showing them would be detrimental to his chances of being re-elected.

To sum up my feelings on controversy prime:

This picture:

Fine.

This picture:

Not fine.

Now on to my reaction to (some of) the reaction to the reaction to the photos. There are people who are casting those upset by the use of the photos as, in essence, villains. They are accused of expressing "mock outrage". They are "politicizing" the issue. I find this even worse than the use of the flag-draped coffin picture.

First, I just find the idea that family members who are upset are expressing mock outrage to be thoroughly distasteful. Is it so impossible that they are genuinely upset? Are they such vile people that they are incapable of expressing genuine upset over the tragic death of a loved one? I will concede that it is possible that a few of them have more than one motivation, and perhaps the impure one is the primary motivation for these few, but all of them? On what basis is such a conclusion to be drawn, other than they disagree with the bloggers in question?

Which leads me to my second point - Such a characterization assumes that anyone who disagrees with the blogger is acting from bad motives. It brooks no reasonable disagreement. The only possible grounds are falsely restricted to dislike of Bush. This is, at best, overly simplistic. The subject is not black and white. This isn't like "1+1=2". The appropriateness of using the photographs in campaign commercials is surely something that is subjective. Why are the grounds for disagreement so falsely limited?

Furthermore, the attack is supported using a logical fallacy - biased sample. Two family members who are upset are chosen, both of whom have never liked Bush. Since two of the family members don't like Bush, the blogger draws the conclusion that everyone expressing upset doesn't like Bush. There is no evidence to support that. In fact, one of the family members quoted in an article I have read is a Republican. I knew her husband, who was killed on 9/11, and it is highly unlikely they voted for Al Gore in 2000.

I now anxiously await the fourth derivative of the controversy.

UPDATE: Let me clarify precisely who I mean in terms of the second point. Specifically, I am referring to Citizen Smash and Instapundit. No one else. I linked to a bunch of posts of people writing about the issue, some of whom agreed with me. Any trackbacks that were sent were sent because trackback auto-discovery is turned on.

Millicent Fenwick

Over the last day, I have had occasion to discuss the late Millicent Fenwick with several people. I was surprised to discover that many people don't have any idea who she was. Millicent Fenwick was incredible. She was elected to Congress in 1974, at the age of 64. She was outspoken, had a lot of integrity, and had a deep commitment to protecting human rights globally. In fact, she was instrumental in the founding of the Helsinki Commission. Walter Cronkite referred to her as the "conscience of Congress." She was a Republican, but she never felt obligated to toe the party line. I think Millicent was her own party line. She also smoked a pipe before certain annoying female celebrities made it "fashionable."

A great Millicent Fenwick quote:

She is often quoted for her reported retort during a debate about the Equal Rights Amendment in which a male colleague said he thought of women as "kissable, cuddly, and smelling good." Millicent responded in her aristocratic voice, "That's the way I feel about men. I only hope for your sake that you haven't been as disappointed as often as I have."

Besides, Millicent Fenwick was the inspiration for a Doonesbury character. And a good one at that - Congresswoman Lacey Davenport. This character was actually my first introduction to Millicent Fenwick. I wish I could give you an old Doonesbury strip featuring Lacey Davenport, but you have to pay to sign up for the archives. So for those of you who never got to read any strips with Lacey Davenport, you missed out on something.

She was truly a great woman. Millicent, I salute you.

Waste Not, Want Not

I, for one, am tired of the constant labeling of third party votes as "wasted" votes. The only time someone wastes his/her vote is when he/she doesn't vote at all for non-principle-related reasons. Voting for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican is not a waste. If you don't want to vote for a third party, by all means don't. But don't presume to tell me that I'm wasting my vote. Because I'm not.

I believe that I would be wasting MY vote if I voted for a candidate I don't support for no other reason than I perceive that candidate as being less horrible than another candidate. I've been there. I've done that. I'm tired of doing that. If you consider that a good use of your vote, that's fine. In that case, you aren't wasting YOUR vote. But I don't consider that a good use of my vote. A good use of my vote is voting for a candidate I actually support, regardless of whether or not that candidate is a Democrat, a Republican, or affiliated with some other party. Sometimes I do vote for major party candidates. When I actually support them. Other times I do not.

You might point out that the Democrats and Republicans consider most third-party voters cranks not to be taken seriously. In many cases, that's probably true. It's only when they perceive the third party to be a threat to their own potential to win that it isn't true (e.g., Democrats and Greens in 2000). However, I consider many Democratic and Republican candidates to be cranks not to be taken seriously. So I really don't care what they think about me.

I know I'm not the only person who thinks that the candidates being served up to us today by our two major parties are pretty poor quality. If more people who felt that way would vote third party, then the two major parties would start hearing the message. Right now I think they feel entitled to our votes. Well, they're not entitled to any votes. And I'm going to continue to send that message, regardless of whether or not they hear it. If their sense of entitlement doesn't bother you, continue to vote for them. Just stop telling me I'm wasting my vote.

Repeat After Me

The government of this country isn't in the religion business.
The government of this country isn't in the religion business.
The government of this country isn't in the religion business.
The government of this country isn't in the religion business.
The government of this country isn't in the religion business.

Therefore, if you believe something is wrong based on your religious beliefs, that doesn't mean that thing should be illegal. Nor is that an argument for something being illegal. Not if that thing doesn't infringe on someone else's civil rights. The government of this country is here to protect your right to freely exercise your religion, but that doesn't extend to legislating your religious beliefs.

Thank you.

A Presidential Affair

Jay posted a piece by Joe Conason in which Conason suggested Matt Drudge lacked journalistic standards for running with the gossip story about Kerry's alleged affair (a story which now seems to be losing steam fast). Jay then points out that Conason himself lacked such standards in 1992 when he wrote about rumors of George Bush the elder's alleged affair.

Did John Kerry have an affair? Did George Bush the elder have an affair? Here's the question I ask:

Suppose you were hiring for a job. You interviewed two candidates. You believed one was more qualified than the other. The more qualified one had cheated on his wife. The less qualified one had not. Who do you hire?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm hiring the more qualified one. If we're talking sexual harrassment, different story. I wouldn't hire someone who had committed sexual harrassment. But someone who cheated on his/her spouse? I'm not settling for a less qualified candidate just on that basis. I might not strike up a friendship with the more qualified candidate, but I don't hire people to be friends with them anyway.

I doubt many hiring managers would do otherwise. This is why I wish the media would shut up about it all, regardless of the party of the politician.

The only exception I would make to that is if one candidate makes him/herself out to be more of a "family values" kind of candidate than the other. In that case, have at it. Because that's just rank hypocrisy, and that is an issue over which I might actually not hire someone. BTW, I believe that is what Bush the elder did in the election with Clinton. Set himself up as being more of a "family values" guy by raking up Clinton's affairs. What's that adage about people in glass houses?

Getting All Dr. Evil on the Election

John Kerry protested the Vietnam War - It was over 30 frickin' years ago.

George Bush's National Guard service - It was over 30 frickin' years ago.

I will never run for public office. I had a "flat top" and "yellow hair" 20 frickin' years ago. I also left school in my senior year, 20 frickin' years ago, only finishing up later by going part-time while working full-time. Sure, I now hold a management position in a "Fortune 200" firm and have an "M.B.A." from NYU. But still, my life wasn't ideal electoral fodder 20 frickin' years ago. This appears to be more important, so I will never run for public office.

Taking the "L"esley Out of Libertarian

It's official. I no longer consider myself a libertarian, small "l" or other. The more libertarians I find myself in contact with over the Internet, the more I realize that I really don't have much in common with them.

One thing I have believed since I was in college is that people should pay for the things from which they benefit. We all benefit from having an educated populace. We all benefit from not having significant portions of the population living in extreme poverty. Those two things are conducive to a large middle class, which, in turn, is conducive to political stability and continuing prosperity. If anyone doubts that, they should simply look at countries where there is a vast gulf between the wealthy and the poor. Look at the crime rates. Look at the political instability, frequently addressed through the imposition of a dictatorship. I'm sure that the vast majority of people in this country would agree that lower crime rates are more optimal than higher ones, and that democratic forms of government (in which I include federal and parliamentary republics) are more optimal than totalitarian ones.

Since we all benefit from having an educated populace that doesn't have significant numbers of people living in extreme poverty, and I believe that we should pay for the things from which we benefit, it only follows that I would believe that we should pay for educating children and having a social safety net. In a country as large and geographically disperse as this one, I must confess that I believe the most effective way to pay for those things is through taxation. Yes, I believe we should have publicly-funded education. Yes, I believe we should have a government-provided social safety net. There was a time when I didn't believe the latter. But no more. I'm just not a libertarian any longer. At least not one like the majority I come in contact with.

I haven't changed my views on everything. I still believe in a flat tax. I still believe that the government shouldn't be intruding in the choices of consenting adults. I still believe that drugs should be legalized, use-taxed, legal-aged, and restricted to times when one isn't operating a vehicle or performing some other task when being high could harm another (like surgery). I still believe that parents are primarily responsible for making sure their kids are raised properly.* But since so many libertarians I run across these days are taking the line that they shouldn't have to pay to educate your kids, because they aren't getting any benefit from that, I disassociate myself with them. I'll gladly pay taxes to educate your kids and to make sure that people aren't living in extreme poverty. I like the benefits too much to give them up.

This only leaves the question of which third party candidate I'm voting for in November. Well, I didn't say I was becoming a Democrat, you know.

*Actually, I've never met anyone who explicitly believes otherwise. However, I do think that people who want to censor entertainment for everyone because it might not be good for children are effectively believing otherwise.

A Country Of Our Own

This seems to be Jewish issues week for me. I read a statement about Jews today in a forum I participate in. This statement drove home for me precisely why Israel needs to remain a Jewish state. Emphasis mine.

[Hitler] put a crushed and impoverished and embittered nation to work, By 1939 there were no unemployed Germans. He did it all by printing money. (And stealing money from the Jews, who were by and large more wealthy than the Germans in their own country.)

Mind you, this was not a defense of Hitler, this guy isn't an antisemite, and that isn't what I'm on about. But note the parenthetical. Note the underlying assumption - that German Jews weren't in their own country. The German Jews thought they were in their own country. They had been born there. Their families had lived there for hundreds of years. The thought process expressed in the parenthetical is exactly the same thought process many Europeans had. Jews were interlopers. Aliens in the countries of their birth. Apparently this mindset is still alive and well. And deeply ingrained. The only other person in that forum who picked up on the underlying assumption was another Jew. The only other Jew in the forum.

So if Germany (or the country of their birth) wasn't their country, what country was theirs? No country. Until the creation of the state of Israel. As long as this mindset continues, and I see no signs that it's disappearing, Israel must remain a Jewish state. I think of the United States as my country. But it appears that there are some Americans who would subconsciously disagree. At least there's now somewhere to go. Would that the German Jews had had such an option.

UPDATE: Well, the guy who made the statement responded to the other guy who picked up on the underlying assumption to state that sure the German Jews were Germans, but not in Hitler's mind. Yes, it's quite obvious that they weren't to Hitler. However, it wasn't just in Hitler's mind. It was also in the minds of most Germans (and other European countries who turned over the Jews to the camps), because otherwise Hitler's tactics wouldn't have worked. If the Germans had viewed the German Jews as being Germans instead of Jews, they wouldn't have turned against the German Jews.

Notes From the Underground

Sorry, late work dinner, but I had to post my "Notes From the Underground." At any rate, this is what a post of mine was referred to as today. Apparently believing that the wealthy and powerful will, by and large, act to protect their wealth and power, and that such actions will frequently tend to be to the detriment of those who are not wealthy or powerful is Underground these days. So in honor of my being an Underground member of senior management in the Technology department of a Fortune 200 company (an oxymoron, I would have thought), I am listening to the song Coup d'Etat by the Circle Jerks.

So what do you think? Is it time to go back to the flat top and yellow hair look I sported in college?

Pessimism

Elayne points out several bloggers who agree with Atrios' contention that the new Republican "out-to-get-Howard-Dean" meme is to make him out to be pessimistic. Count me in. Over the last couple of months, I have noticed several Bush supporters, who are members of a politics forum I participate in, consistently decry Dean as pessimistic. They talk about how his campaign is negative. That all he can do is attack Bush. That he never offers any positive solutions. And yet, ironically, so many articles posted by these same Bush supporters are attack articles about Howard Dean. I propose they take a literacy test in which they have to construct a sentence using the words "pot", "kettle", and "black".

Incidentally, anyone actually interested in Dean's proposed solutions is invited to visit his website and read his stance on the issues. He, in fact, does have actual proposals, despite claims to the contrary.

Right of First Refusal

Kevin Patrick of Blogs for Bush e-mailed me a link to a piece he wrote entitled: Madonna's Choice for President Wants to Give Up US Sovereignty

Andrew Sullivan unearths this absolutely ridiculous quote regarding United States self-determination from Wesley Clark:

And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in.

I have no problem bringing in a coalition of forces when we act internationally (just like the 60 countries we worked with when invading Iraq), but putting the interests of the UN ahead of the interests of the United States is untenable.

In his comments section, I replied as follows:

A right of first refusal does not mean a right of all refusal. For example, if I give someone a right of first refusal to buy my apartment, all that means is that when I go to sell my apartment, I have to offer it to them first. If they turn down the offer, I then am absolutely free to sell it to someone else. It does not mean that if they turn me down, I then cannot sell my apartment at all.

It seems to me that what Clark was saying was that prior to acting unilaterally or even approaching the U.N., we would first approach NATO on our security concerns. If NATO refused assistance, then we would be free to assess our options. This doesn't strike me as being philosophically different than Bush having first approached the U.N. prior to declaring war on Iraq. As things stand, I actually think approaching NATO prior to approaching the useless U.N. is a good idea, and I think that attempting to bring in an international coalition prior to making a decision to act unilaterally is also good (something that Bush himself did). In short, I have no problem with that Clark quote.

Also, he emphatically said nothing about putting the interests of the UN first, unless the UN has suddenly become NATO. What you probably meant to say is that putting the interests of NATO ahead of the interests of the US is untenable. Philosophically the same, granted. I still don't believe that what he said is putting the interests of NATO first. It serves US interests to attempt to work with our allies first.

Where you could have gotten Clark, but did not, is that Bush did give the UN right of first refusal. They refused. He then assessed our options and decided to act without them. France and Germany would only have been happy had we decided not to act at all. Clark's proposal suffers from precisely the same danger. It's very nice to give NATO right of first refusal, but if they refuse and we still choose to act, we might find ourselves in precisely the same position anyway. And that is the problem with Clark's critique. Not that he is giving away our right of self-determination.

Judge for yourselves.

Gay Marriage Poll

I received this via an e-mail list I subscribe to from my old college.

Hey, a "pro-family" group is collecting petitions to show that, by
gosh, everyone who visits their webpage (how scientific and unbiased) is against homosexual marriage and/or civil unions. They're presenting the results to Congress. Wouldn't it be neat if a bunch of other people went to their webpage and gave them a bit of a wider sample of the population? I mean, if
the AFA tells Congress that by their own study most people are in
FAVOR of homosexual unions, wouldn't that be kind of neat?

http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp

The poll bugs me. Okay, not the poll, but that the AFA would present its results to Congress as representative of anything. I would think that most Congress critters understand that such a poll would be incredibly unscientific and representative only of people who would visit the AFA website in the first place. However, now the cat's out of the bag, and people who wouldn't normally visit the website are going and voting in the poll. The results are still incredibly unscientific, but I rather think it serves the AFA right. If they wish to poll their membership or prospective membership for their own knowledge, more power to them. But to present the results of said poll as anything other than skewed is ridiculous.

Given that the results are now running about 50/50, I wonder if the AFA will still present its results to Congress? I'm sure they must have figured out that the poll is being gamed. Well, gamed by the other side. It was gamed to begin with.

Incidentally, an actual poll conducted with a nationwide random sample indicates that 55% of Americans oppose gay marriage. The AFA could just use scientifically valid results to prove their case. But no.

Lack of Critical Thinking Rears Its Ugly Head

Over the last 24 hours, I have had two separate discussions that highlight a lack of critical thinking skills. In the first one, the man in question had received an e-mail about boycotting Target because it was against corporate policy to support Vietnam veterans' causes and they were French-owned.

Vietnam Veterans Association By Dick Forrey

We asked our local Target store to be a sponsor of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event.

We received back a reply from Target management that "veterans do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the areas of the arts, social actions, gay and lesbian causes, and education."

My thought: If the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in general, do not meet their donation criteria, something is wrong at Target. We were not asking for thousands of dollars, not even hundreds, but simply sponsorship of an endorsement for a memorial remembrance.

As follow-up, I E-mailed the corporate headquarters and their response was the same. Personally, I will NOT be purchasing anything at Target Stores again. If the Vietnam Veteran or Veterans in general do not meet their area of giving, then why should I, as a Vietnam veteran, spend my hard earned money in their stores?

(TARGET IS FRENCH OWNED - WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT?)

Please pass this on to as many people as you know.
Sincerely, "Veterans Helping Veterans"
PS: Target will also not allow the Marines to collect for "Toys For Tots" during the holidays.
Are you surprised?

Now I would think that knowing how many e-mail hoaxes there are out there, one might be somewhat suspect of the claims made in this e-mail. Maybe do a little research. I wonder if the man thinks that it really is Mariam Abacha asking him for his assistance with the little matter of helping her get her millions out of Nigeria. I was suspect of the claims, so I did research. Lo and behold, I turned up the following.

According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Target was a corporate sponsor for the 2003 tour of the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial Fund’s “The Wall That Heals.” Apparently their corporate policy does not prohibit them from donating to Vietnam Veterans' causes.

The original e-mail from Dick Forrey did not include the words "gay and lesbian causes". Someone else added those words later, probably to play on people's prejudices. That link also provides a bit more in-depth information regarding the actual chain of events between Forrey and Target, which is slightly more involved than the e-mail suggests. Although it is quite true that Target might not have given Forrey funds for his particular charity had he gone through the process of formally applying for a grant, we'll never know. We also know from the link in point 1 that Target has donated to other Vietnam Veterans' causes.

Target is not French-owned. It is a Minneapolis-based company whose primary shareholders are U.S. institutional investors. Yes, AXA Financial, which is owned by the French AXA Group, does own a 1.61% stake in them. Deutsche Bank owns a 1.66% stake in them too.

So now if you happen to get that e-mail or know anyone who does, you will know that it is distorted, at best.

The second instance was when someone made the claim that "I would about bet my life more aid goes to Israel via the federal treasury than does all but a few states." Government budgets are matters of public record. The government has been putting the data out on the Internet for several years now. So why not go check rather than making some wild-assed guess? I did, and it turns out that it's a good thing he would only "about" bet his life, because otherwise his ass would be grass.

The FY 2002 appropriation of U.S. foreign aid to Israel was $2.76 million billion (yes, I occasionally do make typos).

Number of states getting more than $2.76 million billion in federal aid in FY 2002 was 37 (38 if you include the District of Colombia). Go to page 14 of the attached document.

Total amount of federal foreign aid - $15.4 billion

Total amount of federal aid to the states - $362.4 billion

It is precisely these types of instances that highlight the problem with critical-thinking skills in this country. These are not underprivileged people. Both have access to their own personal computers. Both have gone through the U.S. primary and secondary school systems. One of them does not have a college degree, true, and I'm not sure about the other one. Nevertheless. Both exhibit sufficient interest in politics to spend their time in political debate clubs.

Yet most of the claims don't pass anything like a reasonability test if you stop and think about them. That doesn't necessarily make them untrue - unreasonable things do occur - but it makes them suspect. When you read things that sound unreasonable, what you should do is go verify them for yourself.

But I suppose the problem goes beyond just a lack of willingness to do the work to verify things that sound unreasonable. Scarier than that is that the claims probably didn't sound unreasonable to either one of them in the first place.

Hell Freezes Over

Cats and dogs live together. I agree with Newt Gingrich about a non-fiscal issue. From today's appearance on "Meet the Press".

MR. GINGRICH: No, what I said was that after the brilliant military campaign of 23 days, that we went off a cliff after that in the sense that the small military worked and was right if you were going to rapidly convert Iraqis into policing their own country and if you were going to be the reinforcer of an Iraqi system, not the enforcer of an American system. And the mistake we made—if you look at Afghanistan, it took us three weeks from the fall of Kandahar to recognize Karzai, and five weeks after that, he was at the State of the Union sitting next to Mrs. Bush. And from that point on, it was clear that the Americans were helping the Afghans; they weren’t trying to police Afghanistan, which is an impossible challenge.

I think the cliff we have gone off that we need to get back on is to put the Iraqis at the center of this equation, not foreign governments, not the U.N., not more American troops. Put the Iraqis at the center of this equation and recognize that most Iraqis do not want to go back to a brutal, murdering, raping dictatorship. Most Iraqis want to have an organized way of governing themselves, but they want to be in charge of their own country.

What next? Pat Buchanan and I agree on something?

Putting Things in Proportion

I'm excerpting a bit I wrote in response to a discussion going on in another forum. My involvement in the discussion started when someone made the ludicrous and thoroughly insupportable claim that the Democrats were blocking the nominations of Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada out of racist motives. The theory was that the Democrats can't bear to allow a Republican president to appoint minority judges because it will sap away the Democratic minority voting base. Democrats can be the only ones to appoint minority judges.

Well, at least, that was the claim until I pointed out the following statistics.

The breakdown of Bush's judicial nominees that were confirmed is as follows:

Blacks - 10 men, 2 women
Hispanics - 10 men, 4 women
Arabs - 2 men
Asians - 1 man

The remainder were all white men and women.

It is clear that the Democrats are not stopping the Republican Bush from appointing minority judges. So then the claim became that Democrats are racists because those numbers are not proportionately representative of minorities in this country. Now the last part of that statement is actually true. However he lays the full blame for this at the feet of the Democrats, ignoring completely the obvious fact that Democrats can't vote to confirm people who haven't been nominated, and Bush hasn't nominated a lot more minorities than that. The only two minority candidates the Democrats have threatened to block are Rogers Brown and Estrada, and those two fall in with four white candidates. The similarity all six share? Ideology.

He also completely ignored the fact that those numbers represent only the minority candidates nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate. A more thorough look at the demographic breakdown of the currently serving Federal judiciary follows.

88 Blacks, or 9.58%
52 Hispanics, or 5.66%
8 Asians, or 0.87%
0 Native Americans
3 Arabs, or 0.3%

Of those numbers the following were the numbers nominated by President.

Blacks - Carter 6, Reagan 3, Bush I 7, Clinton 60, Bush II 12
Hispanics - Johnson 1, Carter 2, Reagan 5, Bush I 7, Clinton 23, Bush II 14
Arabs - Clinton 1, Bush II 2
Asians - Reagan 1, Bush I 1, Clinton 5, Bush II 1

Still not proportionately representative. I was, however, quite amused to see a Republican, and a staunch conservative one at that, advocating proportional representation. Will wonders never cease? So finally we get to the actual point of all of this. My excerpt about proportional representation.

In a truly non-racist society, one would expect to see proportional representation as a matter of course. There is nothing objectively cultural that causes members of one ethnic group to seek careers in law more than others. Certainly if you look at origin countries, they have lawyers and judges, which means that members of that culture seek careers in those venues. And it's not like Israel has only lawyers, doctors, financiers, and entertainment moguls. There are specific historical reasons why Western Jews tended to primarily work in the first three sectors which are unrelated to some objective cultural attraction towards those pursuits, but are in fact highly correlated to discrimination. Similar factors also relate to reasons members of other cultures haven't sought careers in those sectors outside of their origin countries. Differences like that might take generations to work themselves out, but given enough time in a non-discriminatory society, eventually they would. The problem is people tend to draw their conclusions about different groups based on the result of hundreds of years of discrimination, never giving thought to how that is skewed by why the result came about in the first place.

But you can't really judge the impact of discrimination on a society solely by looking at the upper levels anyway. Promotions to the top level are distorted by what goes on at the levels beneath. For example, even with the best intentions in the world, it would be virtually impossible to have 50% of all corporate CEOs be female next year. Simply because 50% of the pool from which you would pick CEOs is not female. Neither is 50% of the level right beneath that. As you go further down the chain, however, you will see that as you near the bottom, it is, in fact, proportionately representative of gender, but that a thinning out goes on as you move up. The higher up you move, the more pronounced the thinning out becomes. It is at those lower levels that you need to begin your understanding of what factors are at work and address them. The same analysis does need to occur at all levels, including the top ones, but the first place you need to look is where the thinning out begins and understand that. Then you work your way up.

What does all that mean? Proportional representation should not be an end unto itself. Proportional representation should be the by-product of our real end goal - a non-discriminatory society. If we work on that, proportional representation will naturally follow.

A Victory for Party Politics

But a loss for those of us who feel our two-party system needs an overhaul. The quote that best sums up why I think our current system needs some major changes.

Democrat Norma Hart, a 73-year-old retired schools psychiatrist, said, "Some people think the party system is evil, but I don't. If there are no primaries, how would we know who was good?"

Yes, that's right, in what signals a death knell for critical thinking all over New York City, apparently we need to be told who's good. Heaven forfend we should have to actually research candidates' stances on issues and their backgrounds and, gasp, come to a decision for ourselves. It's so much easier when someone else can tell you who's good.

The trust in the parties to tell us who is good is naive, at best. Most primaries are reflections of who the power brokers in the parties want to see in office for their own reasons, not who is the best candidate.

It's seldom that I agree with Mikey on anything, but I'm right behind him on this one. The stranglehold that the two major parties have on this country is detrimental to it. They have become voices for special interest groups, bought by whomever can offer them the best deal. They'll sell out their base if they believe that another group can get them elected. These are not people out to represent our best interests, but to represent their own best interests. Doing away with party affiliations would be one way to at least make politics accessible to people who otherwise don't have a hope of getting on the ballot, because no party will support them.

Media Fatigue

It's one year before the next Presidential election, and I'm already tired of it. How astonishing that a war and the economy are big issues with the American public. I'm sure most of us thought that whether or not Britney Spears will be cast as John McCane's daughter, Lucy, in the upcoming Die Hard IV was the hot-button issue.

"It's still a 50-50 nation politically, and it's clear that Bush's sagging ratings on the war are just as big a problem for him as the economy," said Andrew Kohut, director of the independent Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

Thanks, Andrew. It's also clear that the election is ONE YEAR AWAY, and a lot can happen in a year. Isn't a little early to be worrying about this? With a war, a weak economy showing some signs of recovery, North Korea making noises of compromise, and all sorts of other things going on, doesn't the media have enough to report on? News just ain't that slow these days.

The NR-A List

I must confess that I don't see the big deal about this alleged NRA "black list". It's just a list of organizations and famous people who support gun-control legislation. I don't think it's a black list per se. It's not much of a secret that many of those celebs are pro-gun-control, so if anyone who was predisposed to boycott celebrity activities due to their gun-control stance wanted to do so, the information is fairly readily available in other formats. I do find it amusing that people seem to be clamoring to get on it, though.

BTW, if you like, you can sign up to be on the NRA "white list".

I was also amused at how the NRA characterized a pro-drug-legalization stance as one of the "extreme causes with which many Americans don't agree". (Roughly 62% of Americans oppose legalizing drugs). Since polls indicate that the majority of Americans in fact favor some form of gun control (approx. 57%), couldn't one accuse the NRA of supporting an extreme cause with which many Americans don't agree?

Just for the record, I am pro-drug-legalization and anti-gun control, so I'm batting 1.000 on supporting extreme causes that many Americans don't agree with. Go me.

To Ban or Not to Ban

I was writing a response to a comment by Don Myers on this post over at the Rant, when I realized my comment was achieving tome-like length. So rather than inflict that upon the comments section of Rick, Dietz, and now Tom Sawyer, I will post my response here.

Jesus...this screed [ed. Tom Sawyer's post regarding government encroachment on things like smoking and eating fatty foods] is worse than the gun control one. It's poorly-reasoned, sloppily written, and too damn long.

My dad used to say "your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose." If a smoker chooses to give themselves cancer in their own home, that's their (very poor) choice. But when you smoke in public, you're giving cancer to others.

Really, now...how self-centered do you have to be to argue that an entire roomful of strangers should accept being exposed to toxic fumes because it would INCONVIENIENCE you too much to drag your loathsome, spotty behind outside?

First in response to Tom's mentioning potential Twinkie taxation, let me say that I think taxing Twinkies is redundant. Eating a piece of plastic filled with foam is already a form of taxation. I hate Twinkies. Now Devil Dogs...

Now onto Don's comment. The point Tom was making about the smoking is regarding private establishments. Should I choose to allow someone to smoke in my living room, that is my right, even if other people visiting my house would prefer I did not. The other people can always leave the room, refuse to visit me, or deal with the second-hand smoke.

On the other hand, if I wish to tell someone lighting up in my living room to drag his/her loathsome, spotty behind outside, that is also my right, regardless if he/she objects. The smoker can decide to shun me from thenceforth or put up with my decision.

If I own a restaurant, whose decision is it whether or not smokers are allowed? Mine, as the proprietor, or the government's? The same rights are given to the objecting parties in either case (the choice to lump it or to leave). If I decide to lump it, didn't I make a choice which says that the convenience of eating at that restaurant is greater to me than the inconvienence of inhaling second-hand smoke? Aren't I accepting exposure to toxic fumes voluntarily?

If enough non-smokers were to make the opposite choice, you'd get restaurants banning smoking voluntarily. The thing is that most people don't care enough to refuse to frequent a restaurant because there are smokers. There are enough of us (non-smokers) to actually effect such a change, but rather than do it, we seem to prefer making the government do it for us. That strikes me as being either defeatist or lazy.

I don't know what was wrong with having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. That seemed to me to be a completely reasonable compromise. Those who don't wish to be exposed to second-hand smoke could avoid it while still dining at that restaurant. Those who wish to smoke could do so while still dining at that restaurant. The ban in New York City on smoking in restaurants, bars, and clubs has had the effect of driving people out into New Jersey. More specifically, Hoboken. Gee, thanks, Mayor Bloomberg. On the one hand, commerce has increased here. On the other, it was already too freaking crowded in restaurants after work and on weekends and parking was a big enough nightmare.

Having said all that, there was a time when it was simply considered amazingly uncouth to smoke in public. Smokers censored themselves, refusing to inflict their dirty little habit on non-smokers. There were special clubs where smokers would go and light up. But in polite company, tobacco was a no-no. That is, IMO, the way it should be. Smokers should stop insisting that they have the right to impose their choice on those who made no such choice, since those who made no such choice are in no way negatively impacting smokers. There is no right to do whatever you want wherever and whenever you want.

There should be a recognition of the impact of one's behavior on others. I just don't think it's up to the government to enforce it. Although I don't find it particularly surprising that people want them to. In general, people want a certain level of civility in society, and when it is not voluntarily forthcoming, they will seek other means to bring it about. The easiest is to have the government legislate it. A little less self-absorption would have gone a long way towards avoiding things like political correctness, zero tolerance, and smoking bans. Ultimately we broadly have no one to blame but ourselves.

Men

Dean Esmay is asking women and gay men what about men annoys us/them. My answer?

I can't say that men particularly piss me off. People in general piss me off, although some specific men and women piss me off on a more personal level. The world would be a much better place if everyone would just act the way I want them to.

Believe it or not, this is true. Although there are times I get frustrated and hyperbolically claim that I hate men, this is always in reaction to a specific man pissing me off and my being completely irrational in applying my frustration broadly. Which I recognize when I'm doing it, and the statement is always tongue-in-cheek.

It is also true that people, in general, piss me off. I have taken the Myers-Briggs test several times over the years, always to come up with the same result - INTP (Introverted Intuitive Thinker Perceiver). But recently a group of people, myself included, took the test as part of a team-building exercise. For the first time I had a scale describing where along the spectrum of each of those characteristics I fell. I was most strongly an introvert, scoring at 51 out of a possible 60 on that end of the spectrum. So, yes, people pretty much bug me.

And it would be a better world if everyone acted the way I want them to, so hop to it! If in doubt, ask.

Where's the Dead Kennedys When You Need 'Em?

I think it's time for a third version of their classic "California Uber Alles". The sleazy Gray Davis has been replaced by the sleazy Arnold Schwarzenegger in the recall election. I paid up on my $10 bet with Jim that the recall wouldn't go through (one I made weeks ago, prior to the allegations about Schwarzenegger resurfacing).

In other news, the damn Marlins beat the Cubs in game 1 of the NLCS. Come on, Cubbies! Throw back the Marlins.

I Wish That For Just One Time You Could Stand Inside My Shoes

You'd know what a drag it is to see you.

In reading a lot of the reactions from men about the whole Schwarzenegger thing, I've been surprised. Some have outright condemned him. Others, ones I wouldn't expect it of, have more or less glossed over the thing as "no big deal." I just read a description of the reports by Jay of The Daily Rant as "...the tracking down of the alleged "victims" of his manliness weren't bad enough". Which really just floored me, because I would never have thought before that Jay would brush reports like these off in that way.

I wish that men magically became women for one week and had to put up with the shit that we put up with on a regular basis. Then maybe some wouldn't so offhandedly dismiss the reports. Maybe they'd realize that it is demeaning and humiliating to have some guy grope you without your consent, and that it's not a sign of manliness. Maybe they'd realize that women actually can tell the difference between a man who is just saying he finds her attractive and one who is trying to intimidate her. One big clue, guys - Men who are just saying they find you attractive don't call you a "whore" or "bitch" when you don't respond.

Case in point - One day I was walking down the street when a guy gives me two thumbs up and yells out "Hey, baby, love the outfit!" And I gave him a big smile. Why? Because I knew he wasn't trying to intimidate me, but was, in fact, just saying he found me attractive. That was nice.

Let's compare and contrast that situation to another time I was walking down the street and a guy came up to me. This guy, however, said to me "How much?" WTF? I dress pretty conservatively. I don't wear low-cut tops. I don't wear micro-minis. I don't even wear skirts without wearing pantyhose or tights. So what would prepossess anyone to think I was a hooker? Sorry, I don't put that one in the category of "just saying he finds me attractive."

Or the time that a guy yelled out to me as I was passing "Hey, baby, what do you like for breakfast?" I just ignored him and kept walking, as pretty much any woman would have, and he followed it up with the completely cognitively dissonant "Whore!" And where does that come from? I mean, really, if I were a whore I'd have gone up to him and given him my price, not ignored him. The "logic" astounds.

By the way "what do you like for breakfast" is a completely unoriginal line and not one likely to get a woman to fall into your waiting arms. I've lost count of the number of times that one's been yelled out at me on the street. I'm unaware of any time it's been successful with any woman. Another reason I doubt it's actually meant as a pick-up line. Eventually people switch pick-up lines when they aren't successful.

Then there are the times I've been "jostled"* on crowded trains. The first time I was only 17, and I felt so humiliated. I couldn't move away from the guy, because the train was so packed. Finally we got off the train. I was on an exchange trip to France when it happened and never told any of the students or the teacher who were with me. I was so embarrassed and thought they might think less of me. As if I had done something wrong.

The second time I was in my 20s. I simply moved away. The third time was just a few years back. I tried moving away at first, but the bastard followed me and continued. At that point, I hauled off and rammed my elbow really hard into his abdomen. He stopped. Believe me, if it ever happens again, I'm not waiting. The bastard's going down. If I'm wearing heels, I'll ram one into his instep. If I can't do that, I'll use the elbow in the abdomen trick again. Whatever. But next time, I'm not moving away.

Sadly, none of these are uncommon or infrequent experiences for women. Shit like this happens all the time. I understand that sometimes men do things that they mean well, like putting their arms around an upset woman, and the woman misinterprets it to be harassing. That is unfortunate. But there is a real qualitative difference between putting your arms around an upset woman and reaching under her shirt and bra to grab her breast without her consent. Just because the first incident has been misinterpreted by some women doesn't mean the second one has. It's kind of hard to mean well when you're doing the second. And if you recognize the second as being harassing and abusive, that doesn't mean that somehow you become harassers or abusers for having done the first. It also doesn't mean that if you grab a woman's breasts with her consent, that you are a harasser or abuser.

I also understand that men go through things that women don't understand. But this post isn't about that. If one of you guys wants to write about those things, go right ahead. Needless to say, I'm not in a position to do that. So spare me that as an excuse, please.

*For those who don't know what "jostling" is (and that is one hell of a benign term for it), it is when a woman is standing with her back to a man. He has his pelvis (and his erection) pushed into her buttocks and is pumping it back and forth. It is not an infrequent occurrence on crowded trains.

One Toke Over the Line

I think it's time for me to stop having discussions with idiot conservative men who think that multiple reports of sexual harrassment by Arnold Schwarzeneggar represent "grasping at straws" or a guy simply "going over his bounds." I'm not sure my mental health, or at any rate my generally good mood, can handle it.

For those in doubt, allow me to define "going over his bounds" - something like putting his hands on a woman's knee. Reaching up under her shirt and bra and grabbing her breast just doesn't qualify for such a light dismissal. That's way worse. In most states that would actually be a misdemeanor.

Having these discussions is almost enough to make me finally give up my independent status and become a Democrat. But then I remember all the idiot liberal men who said that Clinton wouldn't have sexually harrassed Paula Jones because she was ugly. As if only women who look like models get sexually harrassed. Never mind. I'll stay an independent.

World Tilts Off Axis, Cats and Dogs Live Together

First I agree with Mikey. Now I agree with Al Sharpton. All within a 24-hour period.

"We must not be in a relationship with a Democratic Party that takes us for granted. We must no longer be the political mistresses of the Democratic Party," Sharpton told the audience attending the first awards banquet for the Central Virginia Business and Construction Association.

I've often wondered about that. The Democrats talk a good game, but in terms of representation, blacks are still underrepresented in leadership positions. If this dissatisfaction spreads far enough, could there be a viable third party?

He might just be talking big now because of his Presidential campaign. I suspect that if there is no chance of a viable third party, the Democrats will maintain their high percentage of black votes. Although I'd really like to see a credible threat to the two-party system we currently have. It is possible that there might be a swing to the Greens. That would be interesting.

He took particular aim at rap artists whose violent lyrics refer to women in derogatory terms.

"To think that we have come down dangerous alleys, that we have traveled through the backwoods of terror, that we have survived beatings, been shot down in cold blood doesn't give you the right to call your mama a whore," Sharpton said.

Well, hallelujah!

It Fills Me Up Like a Hollow Tree

Equality of the sexes. Equal rights. What does it mean? Lately there have been a bunch of discussions about feminism over at Dean's World. Rather than take up any more of Dean's space, I'll use my own.

Equality of the sexes does not mean that both sexes are exactly the same. Obviously men and women are different. Only a fool would dispute that. Are there fools in this world? Certainly. Anyone who believes that men and women are the same, be they a few feminists or medical researchers who would test medicines on men and assume they could apply the test results to women without further research.

When most people talk about equality of the sexes or equal rights, they are really talking about equal opportunity. It is true that men, on average, outperform women in feats of strength and speed, although there is evidence that women's speed has improved at a greater pace than men's over the last century, indicating that the speed differential may eventually be overcome through training. This is not true for the strength differential. Women, on the other hand, tend to outperform men in feats of physical endurance.

We are talking only in terms of the average man and woman, though. There are women who, for whatever reason, are stronger than the average man (although they will never be stronger than the strongest men), and men who are able to endure more than the average woman. It is self-evident that most of our job requirements are tailored towards what the average person can do. If they were tailored only towards the upper limits, you would have an unworkably small pool of labor. I am not going to argue that the strength requirements for jobs that require physical strength should be set below what is really needed to perform the job adequately just to allow women to participate. Neither, though, should they be set higher than what is really needed just to exclude women. If they are set at the proper level, why shouldn't women have the same opportunity to get the job as men? Opportunity meaning only that they can fairly take the test, if they so choose, and have an equal shot at getting the job if they pass it. And vice versa for jobs requiring physical endurance.

It is also possible to look at how we structure such jobs to take advantage of men's greater strength and women's greater endurance. There is nothing that objectively holds us to doing something the way we have always done it just for the sake of having always done it that way. Is it possible to make up teams where once the men's strength has burned out, the women's endurance kicks in? Might this actually be beneficial to all of us? I don't know, but it is worth looking at. We shouldn't simply pooh pooh it because men are stronger on an absolute basis. Getting locked into that kind of hidebound thinking prevents us from considering innovations that could help us all. Although if new innovations do not provide at least as much utility as the current solution, we should stick with the current solution.

But we just might find that's the power of equality.

Why I Am A Feminist 3

I'm sitting here waiting for my furniture to be delivered and feeling a little guilty. A few weeks ago, I promised a woman that I would blog about her daughter's situation. It was just such a horrible situation that I have been finding it difficult to think of what to say. But now I will keep my promise and just say whatever comes to mind.

Her daughter, who she refers to as Plum, is currently in the custody of her father, an admitted child molestor. Her father didn't admit to molesting Plum, although Plum says he did and personally I don't believe that children are likely to lie about things like that, but he admitted to molesting other children. Under oath. In what world do our courts grant full child custody to admitted child molestors? It is truly sickening.

Not only that, but Sonja hasn't been allowed contact with Plum in two years. For two years, an admitted child molestor has had full custody of his daughter and prevented her from having any contact with her mother. And the courts are allowing this.

You may find a story like this hard to believe. Sadly, I do not.

Why I Am A Feminist

1. Because the original goals of the feminist movement in this country have not been met. As I recall them, and my mother was one of those original feminists, the idea was that (a) women should be able to choose to work or choose to stay at home without any stigma on either choice, (b) women should receive equal pay for equal work, and © that which was traditionally considered "women's work" was undervalued by society. Society still undervalues "women's work". Furthermore, studies have shown that working mothers and stay-at-home mothers are each critical of the other's choice. This indicates to me that in general women are still not comfortable with making the work/stay-at-home choice.

2. Because women in developing countries are still mistreated.

3. Because there is still such a thing as female genital mutilation.

4. Because I went to a really hippie-ish liberal arts college with 300 students and still met 3 guys who said women shouldn't work. They made an exception in my case, because I'm "smarter than most women." I replied that I was also smarter than most men, but no one seemed to think that those men shouldn't work.

5. Not because I hate men, hate cosmetics (ha! I just ordered $200 worth of Bobbi Brown cosmetics yesterday), don't want to get married and have children, think there is anything wrong with women who stay home to raise their children, think there is anything wrong with working mothers, or any of the other negative stereotypes about feminists.

This list brought to you by my reaction to Kay Hymowitz's piece "The End of Herstory". In this piece, Hymowitz argues that the reason only about 25% of women call themselves feminists these days is that they have a negative view of feminism. Unfortunately, there are two aspects to the story, only one of which Hymowitz covers. It is true that only about 25% of women call themselves feminists these days, and younger women are less likely to label themselves that way than older women. But by the same token, younger women are more likely to have a favorable view of the women's movement than older women. This puts the lie to Hymowitz's thesis.

Throughout her piece, Hymowitz discusses "Feminists" and uses only the worst examples of feminism to label the entire movement.

Take the Feminist attitude toward marriage. When college women sit at the knee of their female elders, they may well read from the widely used textbook Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices. There they will learn that “the institution of marriage and the role of ‘wife’ are intimately connected with the subordination of women in society in general.” For the teachers, this attitude isn’t just theoretical. Daphne Patai, co-author of Professing Feminism and author of Heterophobia, books critical of the women’s studies industry, recounts a lunch with other female academics, at which one announces she is getting married. The response: shocked, dead, embarrassed silence.

I have considered myself a feminist since I was a teenager. My mother, as I already stated, was one of the original feminists. It is news to me that THE FEMINIST view of marriage is that it is "intimately connected with the subordination of women in society in general." Are there SOME FEMINISTS who believe that? Well, obviously there are. But THE FEMINISTS? I doubt you'd find anything like 25% of women who believe that. I doubt you'd find even 5% who believe that. Maybe 2.5%. So maybe 10% of feminists believe it, but that is hardly representative of THE FEMINISTS.

And here we come to the primary reason for Feminism’s descent into irrelevance. Whereas most young women will at some point want babies like they want food, for Feminists, motherhood is the ten-ton boulder in the path of genuine liberation. It mucks up ambition, turning fabulous heroines of the workplace—killer lawyers, 24/7 businesswomen, and ruthless senator wannabes—into bourgeois wifies and mommies. It hinders absolute equality, since women with children don’t usually crash through glass ceilings. They resist traveling three days a week to meet with hotshot clients; they look at their watches frequently and make a lot of personal phone calls.

Huh? No, really, just Huh? I don't even get where that comes from. At least Hymowitz had a book to quote from for her previous claim. Here there's just no back up whatsoever. How many women really believe that about having children? The Barnard Center for Research on Women co-hosted a conference last year on maternal feminism. Kim Gandy was one of the speakers. How anti-motherhood could THE FEMINISTS be if they are favorably addressing maternal feminism?

Feminists deal with the unsettling fact that, even after the revolution, women persist in wanting to be mothers in two ways. The first tack is simple denial. Amazingly, given young women’s preoccupation with how to balance work and motherhood, neither NOW nor the Feminist Majority, the movement’s two most influential organizations, includes maternity leave, flex time, or even day care on its list of vital issues.

Well, a quick trip to the NOW website indicates that one of NOW's key issues is Family. Clicking on the Family link takes you to a page discussing Family Leave/Work-Family Balance and Child Care. I think that covers maternity leave, flex time, and day care, no?

Little wonder that few women in their twenties and thirties seek to complete this so-called unfinished revolution. They don’t yearn for the radical transformation of biological restraints and bourgeois aspirations devoutly wished by stalwarts. Even those few who want more androgynous sex roles for themselves don’t wish to impose them on others. Yes, they took women’s studies courses—often only to satisfy their college’s diversity requirement—but they came away unimpressed. To many of them, Feminism today represents not liberation but its opposite: a life that must be lived according to a strict, severe ideology. The younger generation, on the other hand, wants a liberation “that isn’t just freedom to choose [but] . . . freedom from having to justify one’s choices,” as Jennifer Foote Sweeney has put it in Salon. In short, they’re ready to de-politicize the personal.

That might make sense, except that 84% of them view the women's movement favorably. That just doesn't jibe with "Feminism" representing "not liberation but its opposite: a life that must be lived according to a strict, severe ideology." Perhaps they recognize that the view of feminism presented by Hymowitz applies only to a small minority of feminists. I don't know why they don't consider themselves feminists. I also don't really care. It doesn't bother me that they don't. And I don't find Hymowitz's piece to be a study of that question as much as another attempt by her to bash "Feminism."

Help! Help! I'm Being Repressed!

Religious repression = not being allowed to practice your religion on your own property or in your own religious institutions.

Religious repression = being told that if you do practice your religion, you can be arrested or perhaps even killed.

Religious repression <> not being allowed to place a two-ton granite monument on public property.

Nor does not being allowed to place a two-ton granite monument on public property equal not allowing a civil servant to express his religious convictions. In fact, I was unaware that expressing one's religious convictions mandated the placement of a two-ton granite monument on public property. I guess all those Jehovah's Witnesses that go about proselytizing all the time are not expressing their religious convictions since, to the best of my knowledge, not one of them has ever placed a two-ton granite monument on public property.

I simply do not understand all the fuss about Roy Moore being told to remove that monument from the courthouse grounds. You'd think this was some evil campaign to force Christians to convert to secular humanism or face a hideous punishment. If the worst thing that ever happens to a religious person is that he/she is told to remove a two-ton granite monument from property he/she does not own, well, I guess that ranks right up there with the Inquisition. Or with the Christians in Pakistan who are assaulted for daring to be Christian. At least in some bizarre parallel universe where Larry Flynt is a fine, stand-up kind of guy.

But hey, guess what, it is true that Judge Moore is not allowed to base his decisions on his religious convictions. Judges are supposed to base decisions on the law. Now to the degree that the law and his religious convictions don't conflict, that's fabby. Yay for him. But when they do? Well, tough luck. None of that stops him from expressing his religious convictions, though. He can still go to church every day and twice on Sundays.

And, yes, it's all for the best. Do we want Muslim judges basing their decisions on Shar'ia? I can just see Roy Moore jumping up and down begging for that to be allowed. In that same parallel universe discussed above, that is.

So step right up, folks, and come and see the violence inherent in the system.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale.
The tale of a fateful race.
Which started in this tropic state.
Couldn't happen any other place.

The governor was a hated man.
A recall getting near.
Republicans were hoping that he wouldn't serve four years.
He wouldn't serve four years.

The politics started getting tough.
The governor was tossed.
If the Republicans have their way.
The Democrats will have lost.
The Democrats will have lost.

The race got hot on the back of this
Unheard of campaign slate.
With Gray Davis, a one-time chld star too.
The porn king, and the former Senator's wife.
The movie star and the rest.
There in California.

Hell Freezes Over

I agree with Mikey about something.

More on the Cartoon Uproar

I was particularly interested to see what other bloggers were saying about the Michael Ramirez cartoon discussed below. Happily most bloggers appear to understand the cartoon's actual message, with only a couple of knees jerking so fast that their chins must have been pretty banged up. DirecMe To Your Leader refers to Ramirez as a left-wingnut, indicating a complete lack of knowledge about Ramirez or his politics. Kevin at Lakeshore Laments says that if Ramirez were conservative, his cartoon would be hate-speech. Well, Kevin, Ramirez IS conservative. But it's not hate speech.

Ramirez himself has cleared up what he intended by the cartoon:

I intentionally chose to use a disturbing image to convey a very salient point. President Bush is the target, metaphorically speaking, of a political assassination because of sixteen words that he uttered in the State of the Union that were, in my view, accurate. The cartoon was obviously not meant to encourage violence but was a reference to a famous photograph from the Vietnam era.

Clarification via Ben at Infinite Monkeys.