Centerfield

A victory for same-sex marriage

Tomorrow, as some of you may know, is Canada Day (our July 4), the day we celebrate our independence which we negotiated from Britain in 1867. I'm a Canadian living in Toronto, but my posts here -- as well as most of the posts at my blog, The Reaction -- are focused almost exclusively on American politics and culture. If you'll allow me some leeway today, however, I must report on news that makes me incredibly proud to be a Canadian: the legalization of same-sex marriage.

On this matter, I'm quite liberal: I support equal rights for gays and lesbians. Although what I write here is about Canada, I'd be interested to know how all of you thoughtful centrists feel about gay rights, same-sex marriage, and other matters related to sexual orientation. I'm not gay myself, but it's an issue that's close to my heart, and, in the end, I just think that equality under the law for gays and lesbians is the right thing, the just thing. I follow what's going on down in the U.S. quite closely, and I hope that what's just happened here in Canada inspires reform down there.

In addition, I should add that a couple of my recent posts at The Reaction have prompted impassioned responses from a number of my readers, and I invite you to check them out and to add your comments (see links below) -- or, indeed, to start up a discussion here. Again, I'm curious to know where centrists are on this controversial topic.

For my post on Toronto Pride, see here.
For my post on the anti-pride policies of Hillsborough County, Florida, see here.

The second one you all might find quite interesting, given that that Florida county (centered in Tampa) has outlawed all public support (in all forms, not just financial) for gay pride activities within its jurisdiction.

Read on...

As I mentioned back on June 2, Canada was set to become only the third country, after Belgium and the Netherlands, to legalize same-sex marriage. And that's precisely what's happened.

After the near-demise of Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal government last month -- the government only survived because the (Liberal) Speaker of the House, according to precedent, broke a tie on a confidence vote by voting with the government -- Tuesday's vote marks an extraordinary milestone in Canadian history, and Martin deserves much of the credit for ensuring its success. Opposition (and Conservative) Leader Stephen Harper has vowed to continue to fight the legislation (and same-sex marriage in general, now that it's become his wedge issue to secure the support of social conservatives), but there is no doubt that the long battle has finally been won. The Globe and Mail reports here:

"Canada is on its way to becoming the third country in the world to legalize marriages between couples of the same sex after the House of Commons gave its final approval last night in a 158-133 vote.

"The vote capped an intense and divisive two-year Commons battle that maintained its political drama to the end, as Liberal minister Joe Comuzzi resigned from cabinet yesterday because he could not support his government's move...

"In the end, 32 Liberals voted against the government and five were absent. On the other side of the House, three Conservatives voted for the same-sex marriage bill.

"When the final vote was taken, one side of the visitors' gallery erupted into applause...

"The passage of the same-sex legislation also brought the curtain down on one of the most tumultuous sessions of Parliament in recent history.

"Using obscure procedural manoeuvres and even a direct appeal to the public, Prime Minister Paul Martin managed to keep his government afloat in spite of a persistent attempt by the Conservatives and Bloc to force an election over allegations of corruption exposed by the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

"All that remains for the same-sex bill to become law is debate in the Senate, where Liberals vastly outnumber the
opposition Conservatives and are expected to pass the bill early next month.

"Belgium and the Netherlands are the only two countries to have legalized same-sex marriage, but Spain is on the verge of passing a similar law that will soon be put to the King for final approval.

Well done, Prime Minister. This does indeed make me incredibly proud to be a Canadian.

Summer Reading Thread

With July 4 bearing down on us and vacations pending, why not give us your recommendations for light summer reading? My vacation preference is for fiction, but YMMV.

Center-Left Blogs

At TPMCafe, there is a thread where people list their blogs. A number are centrists that will be familiar to you. I came across a few others that looked interesting, mostly center-left rather than pure centrist. Let me know what you think of them

http://bloggingsbyboz.blogspot.com/
http://reasonablyascertainablereality.blogspot.com/
http://leftcenterleft.typepad.com/
http://washyourbowl.blogspot.com/
http://www.sebudai.blogspot.com/

Justice Graham?

Ron at Politics 1 reports:

US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has some suggestions for President Bush if he wants easy confirmation of his future nominee for an expected US Supreme Court vacancy. Reid said the key to winning an easy confirmation fight is select a conservative Republican US Senator who would draw broad consensus support. Specifically, Reid said that US Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) were all "bright" and "would be outstanding Supreme Court members." All four come from states with GOP Governors, meaning that anyone selected to replace them in the Senate would also be Republican.

I love the idea of appointing Lindsey Graham to the Supreme Court. He's young, intelligent, conservative enough for Bush, but independent minded enough to be a fair judge. Conservatives may grumble about Graham's membership in the "gang of 14", but will remember his roll in the Clinton impeachment trial. By golly, Reid may be on to something.

I have also long suggested that Senator Orrin Hatch and/or former Senator John Danforth would be excellent choices; however, their age may disqualify them from consideration.

Fusion that Doesn't Suck?

Hopefully the sort of fusion being trumpeted below is much better than 70's jazz rock fusion. If not we are in big trouble:

Is fusion the best way forward?

In other alternative energy news, CATO announced planned to begin development of a car that uses greenpeace and PETA activists as fuel. The Centrist Coalition is forging ahead with its BETA version of a power plant fueled by blog hot air. Virtual windmills will be constructed to harness energy from Instapundit's daily traffic.

Where Is The Accountability?

Joe Gandelman has two posts on Bush's speech last night, an analytical post, and a satirical one. I had a comic take on Bush's speech too. What kept running through my mind was Hardy telling Laurel, Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Us Into.

Setting aside history, there is much to agree with in Bush's speech. If we withdraw prematurely, and allow Iraq to turn into a haven for terrorists like the Taliban's Afghanistan, we will pay a price later. That it a lesson of 9/11, and in that context, the President is not wrong to connect the present state of Iraq with 9/11.

But am I being picky in wanting the President to discuss how we got into this situation in Iraq? It's not like he hasn't been in charge for the last four years. If I had a contractor who I hired to redo my kitchen, and he sawed through structural beams, and now the roof was threatening to come down, would I be satisfied with his explanation of how he was going to do more work to save the roof, without some discussion of why the roof was sagging in the first place?

Am I wrong to expect accountability in a political environment?

Keeping Politics out of Baseball

Major League Baseball is in the process of finding a buyer for the Washington Nationals baseball team. One of the bidders is George Soros, obviously not a friend of George W. Bush. According to the Washington Post article, this apparently makes him verboten as an owner to some Republicans. These clowns are talking about how baseball doesn't need such a "polarizing" political figure and John Sweeney, from New York, threatening to take away baseball's antitrust exemption if Soros buys the team.

"It's not necessarily smart business sense to have anybody who is so polarizing in the political world," Rep. John E. Sweeney (R-N.Y.) said. "That goes for anybody, but especially as it relates to Major League Baseball because it's one of the few businesses that get incredibly special treatment from Congress and the federal government."

Rep. Tom M. Davis III (R-Va.), who was a strong supporter of bringing a baseball team to Virginia, told Roll Call yesterday that "Major League Baseball understands the stakes" if Soros buys the team. "I don't think they want to get involved in a political fight."

Personally, I think Congress should strip baseball of its antitrust exemption. I don't see why any business should be exempt. But not because it doesn't like who they are doing business with. Ostensibly, this has something to do with the fact that Soros has advocated some decriminalization of drugs. But so did William F. Buckey. My God, don't these congressmen recognize that they are abusing their power? Have the Republicans become so intoxicated that it seems appropriate to interfere in private business dealings because they don't like the politics of one of the players? What happened to "keeping government off our backs?" For that matter, what happened to freedom of association?

I doubt anything will come of this. I suspect Soros was a long-shot at best to get the team. But this probably clinches it. I'm no big fan of Soros, but this smacks of the same type of mentality that fostered the K Street memo, in which the GOP ostensibly was to pressure lobbying firms to only hire Republicans. But this is worse in some ways because this has absolutely nothing to do with government.

Shame on Davis and Sweeney. Don't they have anything better to do than worry about who buys a baseball team? I suspect even a lot of Republicans are going to be embarrassed by such blatant extortion--at least I hope they are.

The Hitler Index, Part Two

Yesterday, our posters C3 and Michael Stickings jokingly proposed a new point system for judging partisan rhetoric--the Hitler Index.

Maybe we should keep a running tally of "Hitler" references by party. We could give two points for directly using the name "Hitler" and 1 point for other Nazi related allusions (i.e. "Gestapo"). We could also consider giving a point by citing other historical Hitler-like hot buttons (i.e. Stalin, Gulag, Rwanda, Pol Pot)

You know, c3, that's not a bad idea. We could come up with a scoring system:
Hitler (5 pts.)
Nazi reference (3 pts.)
Other tyrant reference (2 pts.)

Enter Paul Krassner. He's gone the extra mile.

The Natives Are Getting Restless

There are signs of stress in the infrastructure over at Red State... One must wonder if the conservative movement is on the verge of coming apart at the seems.

An official opinion on the Flag Burning Amendment:

This year, Congress has been debating a ridiculous highway spending bill, which the President has threatened to veto. Congress is also considering such legislation as the "Online Freedom of Speech Act," new copyright laws to address modern, digital issues, judicial nominations, John Bolton's nomination, and a host of other more important matters. It is all well and good for Congress to pause and show its respect for the flag, but its time would be better spent showing its respect for the American people by passing meaningful reforms to cut taxes, reform social security, and curb wasteful government spending.

The flag amendment provides no substance and arguably curbs the First Amendment, which Congress has already curtailed enough through campaign finance reform. The fixation with trivial amendments to our founding document and the inability of the Republican majority to move through substantive reforms calls into question the time we spent working to keep that majority. RedState calls on Congress to stop wasting its time with the flag burning amendment and get on with expanding individual freedoms by decreasing the government's lust for taxpayer money.

I often find the stuff at Red State to be typical, unimaginative, right-wing rhetoric; however, they bowled a strike on the flag amendment.

This is one area where moderate and conservative Republicans can agree, even if we don't on the specifics. It is frustrating to defend, campaign, and vote for candidates only to have them completely and utterly fail to do what they set out to do. President Bush and the Republican Congress have been unable to make signficant policy changes, even while controlling all branches of the government. I remember another party who was in power during the early nineties that faced the same dillema... We all know what happened next.

Six Activists

The Wall Street Journal has a story on how 6 liberal activists with a web site pushed the Downing Street Memo onto the mainstream media agenda.

Mr. Fesmire, the group's spokesman, said he is often asked who is really behind Downingstreetmemo.com and what kind of support it is receiving from national liberal groups. The truth, he said, is hard for some people to swallow. "It really is just six people, and I don't even know the name[s] of two of them," he said. "People find it hard to believe it when I tell them that for a $20 Web-hosting fee, you too can get something like this going."

We have more than six people and a web site. What we don't seem to have is a big audience out there waiting for us to press their buttons. How could a half-dozen centrists change politics?

John Edwards Above the Fray

Last night, I was going through my "now playing list" on Tivo and realized that I had recorded last week's episode of CSPAN's Road to the White House 2008. The featured possible candidates were Senator George Allen of Virginia and former Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee John Edwards. Not wanting to go to sleep, just yet, I listened to Allen for about thirty seconds and skipped ahead to Edwards. I have to say, although I stand firm on my argument that he was a horrible veep pick who could have very well meant the difference for Kerry, I was thoroughly impressed with the former Senator from North Carolina.

Who isn't, right? We all know he is a young, energetic, and articulate politician who finished second in Iowa and New Hampshire in large part due to raw talent, but what impressed me about Edwards had nothing to do with presentation and everything to do with substance.

He spoke from his "two America's" theme and emphasized the plight of the disadvantaged and poor to a fundraiser in support of the New Hampshire State Senate Democratic Caucus. All I could keep thinking was, here is a guy that clearly has a lot of opportunity to stick it to the President by talking about public dissatisfaction with Iraq, low poll numbers, Social Security privatization, or other typical hot button issues used to rile up the liberal base of the Democratic Party. Instead, Edwards was choosing to talk about homelessness, poverty, and the moral obligation of government to help those in need. Furthermore, he was encouraging local Democrats to talk about these issues because it was the right thing to do, which wouldn’t exactly be at the top of the recommendation list from your average political consultant.

I came to the conclusion that Edwards actually believes in this stuff and that he just may be one of the few who run for office for all the right reasons. I also thought that this was the kind of leadership that I personally want to see in, well… the next President of the United States.

This is NOT an endorsement of Edwards. I still have a major beef with a guy who, IMO, changed his point of view on trade issues at the last minute in order to gain points in the primary. However, if Edwards is going to win over independent minded voters like myself and become a valid candidate in 2008, he is off to a great start.

How the Right Views the Supreme Court

Here is a somewhat frightening piece in the New York Times of how the right has begun to demonize Justice Kennedy because he doesn't follow the party line. Kennedy, who was appointed by President Reagan, has apparently shown a disturbing tendency to independent thought.

Robert Bork, who seems to still be bitter about his nomination experience, says

Justice Kennedy's opin-ions typified a court "no longer sticking to the Constitution" but "enacting a political agenda." Then he returned to the sore and now timely subject of his own defeat. "It's hard to pick the right people in the sense of those who won't change, because there aren't that many of them," Mr. Bork said. "And if you do identify somebody who believes in the original principles of the Constitution, then the other side can see it too and will put up a bitter fight. So you tend to get people who are wishy-washy, or who are unknown, and those people tend to drift to the left in response to elite opinion."

But Bork's comments are at least within reasonable bounds of professional criticism. Others on the right appear to have gone stark, raving mad.

The confrontation is coming with a vengeance," wrote Dr. James C. Dobson, in a Focus on the Family Action letter to about two million supporters. As he often does, Dr. Dobson labeled Justice Kennedy "the most dangerous man in America."

And

One critic at a forum on the "Judicial War on Faith" accused Justice Kennedy of upholding "Marxist-Leninist, satanic principles."

Granted, the author may have taken the most nut-job comments and used them to discredit conservatives in general. And there are legitimate criticisms of Kennedy's jurisprudence. In one case, on school prayer, he drafted the majority opinion, upholder prayer, then ended up writing a dissent. And, even some liberals are disturbed by how broad his opinions are.

Nevertheless, no one really disputes that Kennedy is essentially a conservative or that he has mostly upheld the conservative wing. Or that he is very much a decent, genial man. It's disturbing to me that the right would trash Kennedy to this extent.

The article makes it clear that the right is girding for a fight on SCOTUS nominations.

Among the combatants is Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and a prominent social conservative. "The basic line I've heard again and again is 'No more unknown packages,' " Mr. Farris said. "We want to know what we're getting. Kennedy was an unknown package."

If Anthony Kennedy is too liberal, you can just imagine what the next fight is going to be like. The right sees this as a way to reverse its losses in the culture wars. No compromise. The question is, will Bush give the right what it wants or try to nominate someone that can get confirmed fairly easily. My belief is that, at this point, Bush has no choice but to placate the right because they are his only real supporters. If he loses the right, he really has no one. So, I suspect, we will see nominees that the Democrats are almost duty-bound to fight. It looks like it's going to be bloody.

Centrist Propaganda

I came across a pretty interesting book: The WMD Mirage: Iraq's Decade of Deception and America's False Premise for War by Craig R. Whitney. It's mostly a compilation of official government reports, including the pre-Iraq War National Intelligence Estimate and the post-mortem Duelfer Report, which a bit of context by NY Times reporter Whitney. He takes the view that it was a huge mistake, but there is no evidence that the intelligence was deliberately fabricated within the intelligence community(as opposed to the Iraqi exile sources).

I checked on Amazon, and one of the reviewers dismisses this volume as "centrist propaganda." Another reviewer writes

This book has been dismissed as centrist propaganda by one reviewer. I don't know what that is, left wing I know, right wing I know. Centrist to me says that the writer is trying to be unbiased - and that's what I really want to read. It seems to me that the book is pretty fairly balanced.

I suppose there could be centrist propaganda--overbearing calls for non-partisanship? What other forms of centrist propaganda could we create?

America's Religious Right (and center and...)

The Economist this week have a wonderful overview of the Religious Right and politics. Leave it to someone outside of the US to leave the rhetoric behind and take a dispassionate look at the interface between the Religious Right and US Politics. Key Points:

Above all, the Schiavo and filibuster battles were mere skirmishes before the all-out war, which will erupt when Mr Bush nominates a new Supreme Court justice (or two). That could happen as early as June 27th, when the court's current session ends and the ailing chief justice, William Rehnquist, may announce his retirement.

And

Why is the religious right as powerful as it is? ...Their country, as a whole, is not getting more religious.

And

Born-again Christians are no longer rural hicks; they are richer and better educated than the average American. ..Nor, to lose another stereotype, are all the righteous white...The religious right also represents more than just evangelicals.

And

Religious America's switch to the right is rooted in two things: liberal over-reach and conservative organisation.

And

On abortion, social conservatives have had much more success now they have stopped screaming for the practice to be made illegal (which few Americans want) and tried to limit it (which most want).

And finally, a political key

The religious right's organisational prowess is impressive. But it still leaves a movement that represents a minority point of view on many issues and is just as capable of over-reaching as liberal judges are. “Some leaders of the religious right think they are far more powerful than they actually are,” argues one Republican veteran. “As religious as this country and this president are, neither wants a theocracy.”...Yet the right's opposition to embryonic stem-cell research is not popular. And when it comes to the question of overturning Roe v Wade, the ruling that legalised abortion, American public opinion is still against social conservatives; so Mr Bush, when asked about abortion, always waffles about appointing judges who respect the constitution. Having pushed American a little closer towards a Republican majority, Karl Rove, the president's chief strategist, does not want to throw it away on one issue.

This is such an insightful article and it points to what I see as the present dynamic in America between religious political activism and politics as we know: There is a strong undercurrent in America for "values" issues. It generally remains silent but it can occasionally rise up. Right or wrong, gay marriage was such an issue. While the majority of Americans felt "ok" with a laisse faire approach ("after all, Mr Jones at work is such a nice man and I don't really care what he does in his own house"), a certain discomfort and, maybe comfort in "traditional values", came forward when the question was pointed confronted by the push for gay marriage.

The Religious Right IS a minority in American Politics (and probably America's religious communities). However, the Republican party has done a much better job of bridging that gap between the Religious Right (and its strong grass-roots organization and it's comfort with "public morality as politics") and the larger majority of "religious Americans" (or "traditionalist" to use the Economist's jargon)

So far the Democractic Party has been awkward in using the language, let along accepting the issues, of these "traditionalists." If I were a Democratic strategist, I would see a distinct opening. The bridge the Republican Party has built between the Religious Right and the the larger community of "religionists" in America is fragile. By speaking their language, appealing to their innate distaste for the "judgers" (and sense of "fairness") and subtly building off their quiet acceptance of "alternative life-styles" (see above reference to gay Mr Jones), the Democratic Party could IMHO increase its votes (already substantial) from this bloc.

A final aside. Today's seemingly mixed decisions on the Ten Commandments in public places shows us an example of "the way in". Justice Breyer in his swing opinions spoke of America's "civic religion". That resonates with "traditionalists" and (hopefully) doesn't offend those non-church goers. Follow that path and don't sound to "wishy-washy" and the Democratic Party could see a loosening of the ties between the two "R's": Republicans and Religion.

Christians in NYC? The heck you say...

Crossposted on John Brodigan for a Better America

Jon Meacham had a great article on Rev. Billy Graham in this week's Newsweek. He (Meacham) was on Imus in the Morning last week and referred to Graham as one of four true "giants" of the past twenty-five years - along with President Regan, President Mandela and Pope John Paul II. Rabbi Marc Gellman also had an interesting piece why Billy Graham is a giant among preachers. I had never paid much attention to Rev. Graham up until recently. My feelings were just, "Meh, another Jesus freak."

But there were parts of the article that were fascinating...

In a world where religion vs. politics is being debated on an almost daily basis, where preachers hand pick who they want to run our country, here's a "Man of God" who never spoke out on the political issue du joir, yet stood side by side with every President (regardless of party) since Harry Truman. He's been there to provide advice and guidance through every major world event of the last fifty years, and was even the man who helped our current President find sobriety. Former President Clinton was even an invited guest to his recent revival in Queens. So sayeth Mr. Meacham:

It is a sign of our polarized age that no other minister of national stature seems as moderate a figure as the aged Graham, who long ago transcended the passions and divisions of any given issue or era. Though his message is unabashedly sectarian, he is not. As a spirited Christian in an ecumenical age of diversity, Graham represents American Christianity at its best: faithful to the Gospel but tolerant of others, dedicated to Jesus but committed to openness and freedom of conscience. Graham's genius-and the reason the nation will miss him when he goes-lies in his capacity to preach the Gospel with an air of tolerance, offering hope, not fear.

The church vs. state argument is one that I'd like to further "get my learn on." Our country was founded by people who came here to be free to practice religion, and there is more religion practiced in this country than in any other. How did we go from that to 10% of the population complaining if you so much as say "God bless you" because it violates their right to a separation of church and state? Why is the only Yin to that Yang another 10% who wants to have the bill of rights replaced with the Ten Commandments and have all the jews and gays banished to Canada? Why is this yet another debate where the extreme of each side are the ones screaming the loudest and getting the media attention, while the other 80% of us are in the middle saying, "Meh, what's new with Tom and Katie?"

And yes, "meh" is my new favourite word.

Filesharing Case

Via email from Simon

Although attention is naturally focusing on the ten commandments cases, the Supreme Court also handed down a ruling in MGM v. Grokster, as to whether the programming houses responsible for peer-to-peer software are liable for the copyright infringements of the users of that software. Per Justice Souter - for a unanimous court - they are indeed.(pdf)

Here is a brief summary:

The question considered by the Court was:

The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product.

The court's answer is as follows:

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear _expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

The Court accepted that there were valid uses for P2P technology (Slip Op. at 2) (Cf. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, at 746), but was satisfied with MGM's evidence that:

[T]he vast majority of users’ downloads are acts of infringement, and because well over 100 million copies of the software in question are known to have been downloaded, and billions of files are shared across the FastTrack and Gnutella networks each month, the probable scope of copyright infringement is staggering. (Slip Op., at 5).

The Court further dispensed with the fiction that Grokster viewed their software's legitimate uses as its primary use:

The record is replete with evidence that from the moment Grokster and StreamCast began to distribute their free software, each one clearly voiced the objective that recipients use it to download copyrighted works, and each took active steps to encourage infringement. (Id. at 6).

StreamCast’s executives monitored the number of songs by certain commercial artists available on their networks, and an internal communication indicates they aimed to have a larger number of copyrighted songs available on their networks than other file-sharing networks. See A&M Records v. Napster, 114 F. Supp. 2d 896. ...Similarly, Grokster sent users a newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular, popular copyrighted materials. Id. at 8; citation clarified).

Fundamentally, the Court's view is:

The argument for imposing indirect liability in this case is, however, a powerful one, given the number of infringing downloads that occur every day using StreamCast'’s and Grokster’'s software. When a widely shared service or product is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability on a theory of contributory or vicarious infringement. [Id., at 12]

[today we hold that] one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear _expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.[Id. at 19]

I have no objection to this. I do object to unreasonably long copyright extensions which go on for nearly a century, but the creators of new stuff certainly deserve to be compensated for their labor.

The High Cost of Only Counting Some of the Costs

According to Obesity in U.S. carries hefty price tag, we can cut healthcare costs by tackling the problem of obesity.

Obesity is a major risk factor for many chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease. With about 30 percent of U.S. adults now obese, treating these conditions is a leading driver of double-digit health care insurance premium hikes.

“These are very expensive patients,” said Ken Thorpe, professor at Emory University’s public health school and author of the study. “If insurers and employers are serious about reining in health care spending, then obesity prevention should be at the top of their agenda.”

I can accept people thinking we should tackle this problem for moral reasons, even if I don't agree with that. And I can accept a fiscal cost argument, but only if it counts everything. Don't obese people die younger? When was the last time you saw an 82 year old obese person? If we want to do the calculations to determine whether obesity is a net cost on society, don't we also need to count the following two numbers:

--the number of healthcare dollars saved by not treating obese people after they die prematurely

--the number of social security dollars not paid out to obese after they die prematurely

Unless we count these numbers in making an economic cost argument for fighting obesity and find that, indeed, yes, obese people are more costly even factoring in premature death, then the only rational arguments are moral ones. My sense is that the economic argument may well be a trojan horse for lifestyle prohibitionists. If someone destroys their health and shortens their lifespan, that's troublesome. Troublesome enough to dictate behavior? Will we really save money by ridding the world of obesity? I have my doubts.

Hemmed in by the rhetorical extremes; or, Herr Hitler goes to Washington

A response to Rick's recent short post on "centrist-friendly" (I agree) TPM Cafe's efforts to define centrism, from The Reaction.

Hitler's name and party have been trotted out and invoked with glaring stupidity recently -- not least by one of my least favourite politicians, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. The Post's Dana Milbank reviews the "bull market in over-the-top rhetoric" here. I still think that Senator Durbin was grossly misrepresented -- such is the cost of rhetorical nuance, I suppose -- but there's really no excuse for all the childish name-calling, let alone the references to Hitler, on Capitol Hill.

When it comes to trust and confidence in elected officials, politicians tend to be their own worst enemies. These days, when scoring political points trumps working together for the common good, and when bickering and squabbling get in the way of legislating properly for the American people, many are letting tendentious partisanship get the better of them, and all this insult-laden rhetoric has brought American political discourse (or what passes for it) to yet another low.

It's too bad none of it comes as much of a surprise, given our already low expectations of Congressional behaviour.

But isn't this the perfect example of what so frustrates centrists across the middle of the spectrum? The complete and utter avoidance of complexity? The complete and utter rejection of nuance? No, this doesn't define centrist, but I wonder if centrism is even readily definable. Is not centrism more a state of mind, more an approach to the issues of the day, than a hardened outlook, let alone anything resembling ideology?

I like to put it this way: The adversarial nature of our political arena -- certainly an American phenomenon, with its Crossfire-style shout-fests, but increasingly also a Canadian one, as I know all too well. -- means that the sober middle is left largely voiceless, if not outright abandoned. Being in the sober middle means listening to all sides and thinking about compromise, acknowledging that there are simply no easy answers to many of our most pressing concerns. Being at the drunk extremes, if I may put it that way, whether of the left or the right, often means ceasing to think and merely repeating catch-phrases and partisan slogans and talking points. Oh, of course, there are many intelligent voices on both the left and the right, but, again, the adversarial nature of our political arena means that winning is often more important than either detached intellectual probity or a pursuit of a common good that transcends the endless, self-perpetuating partisan bickering that, let's face it, gets us nowhere.

Centrism, to me, means moving around a political spectrum that just isn't as neat and tidy as the drunk extremes -- firing their slings and arrows at each other often in complete disregard for the truth -- seem to think. To be sure, there is some healthy, internecine debate among both self-styled liberals and self-styled conservatives, but why not approach our most pressing concerns from a perspective that hasn't been drained of intellectual rigour by the win-at-all-costs mentality of hardened partisanship or that, more simply, hasn't been tagged with a label that by definition constrains serious thought and virtually renounces the prospect of conciliation for the sake of some higher good? Is that not truly the only way to move forward, to find common ground -- and, ultimately, any semblance of a common good?

The sober middle may not be where much of the action is, as we in the polarized blogosphere know by first-hand experience, but it's the right place to be.

More Supreme Court action

Supreme Court bars Ten Commandments at courthouses

The conservatives are on a losing streak. This time it was O'Connor who defected. For the record, I agree with the decision and, in fact, didn't think that it even should have been a close question.

UPDATE: In another decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, O'Connor joined the conservative block. So, we have a split decision. (Link.)

Good news from Iraq

Chrenkoff's latest update on all the Iraq news you're not getting at 6 o'clock.

Good news from Iraq, Part 30

Chickenhawks and Chickendoves

David Sirota message to those who support the war: enlist or shut up.

Is this a rational form of argumentation? If it is, I believe it should also apply to those who oppose the war, for there will obviously be a great asymmetry is chickenhawks are silenced, but chickendoves may cluck. The only fair was to do this is for everyone who is not a veteran, or a member of a military family, to shut up.

If military policy were left to military families, what would be the result? My impression is that, despite some exceptions, veterans, and military families are probably more supportive of the war than the average American. I don't think anti-war sentiment is driven by the fear of military families for their loved ones.

We are now engaged in a fight with a body of opponents, some of which are terrorists aligned with a group that brought mass murder to the East Coast of the United States. If they are victorious in Iraq, the malignancy may spread from there. While we have grown complacent at home, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and I believe the prospects for another round of mass death within the United States are still significant. All our lives are at stakes, and thus we all retain the right to speak on our national security.

It seems like we've gone from a moment of euphoria after the Iraq elections to a new period of panic at the prospects of defeat. Both are overreactions. There is a legitimate grievance that some families are bearing the burden, while others are living a self-centered consumer lifestyle as if there was no ongoing war. Perhaps what the President ought to do is to ask us all to sacrifice as much as we are in a position to, knowing the sacrifices that we make cannot equal those of the dead and injured in Iraq.

For those of us who are not in a position to enlist, what sacrifices could we make for our country?

Rockefeller Republican

John Avlon has a column about Michael Bloomberg in the NY Sun(subscription required)

First, the good news: Even after a bruising month in which Mr. Bloomberg saw
his West Side stadium dreams suddenly collapse, the new Quinnipiac poll
shows good news for the mayor. He now decisively leads all his Democratic
opponents, and his overall job approval rating has finally passed the 50%
mark. In March he was losing to the front-running Democratic candidate,
Fernando Ferrer, by 47% to 39%. He now leads Mr. Ferrer, 50% to 37%.

The NY Mayor's race is on eo fthe major races of this off-year, along with the NJ and Virginia governor's races. How is he doing? Any current or former New Yorkers have an opinion?

Torture and Iraqi WMD Intelligence?

There's an aspect of the torture debate that I'm surprised I don't see more of, and wanted to bring forward: that torture doesn't pay because you get bad information. And, hmm, we've been having problems with bad information recently, haven't we? Could there be a link?

Specifically, I'm suggesting that the Bush Administration thought Iraq had current WMD because tortured prisoners said so. When they explained to me in grade school why torture was a bad idea, they pointed out that tortured prisoners will often make up whatever lie the torturer wants to hear. And I've heard similar echos later, concerning prisoners tortured in the 3rd World. Well, between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, every prisoner knew what the Americans wanted to hear: about those Iraqi WMD. Did they supply the lack?

Lame Duck Blues

Hearing GW poll numbers, reading about the "Downing Street Memo's" and the need for a full-scale investigation, and repeatedly hearing and reading overheated rhethoric has given me a growing sense of dread. Haven't we been through this before with second term presidents?

So I checked out the chronologies:
Bill Clinton and Whitewater/Ken Starr/Lewinsky
Ronald Reagan and Iran/Contra At least that didn't pick up steam till later in the second term
Nixon and Watergate
Eisenhower? Well I was born late in his second term so that's a bygone era.

Continuing on my search I found this web article What's Wrong with the Presidency (And What Can Be Done to Fix It) by Lewis Gould on the modern Presidency

Presidencies have become the political equivalent of situation comedies--there is an initial burst of energy and excitement during the first three years, a suspenseful show in the fourth as the main character faces cancellation, and once renewed by re-election there are three more years of declining audiences before the show ends after eight seasons.

The result of these interacting forces is a presidency that, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat, places a greater reliance on the mechanisms of celebrity than on the business of running the nation.

Boy did that nail it for me. I'd add to the analogy by saying its not just that the "sit-com has declining ratings", it seems now everyone has to put in their two cents worth on why it has bad rating, on what incompetent actors/directors are in the series, on how the series has lead to the decline in television as we know.... Sorry, I could go on.
Does anyone else share my sense of dread?

Define Centrist

At TPMCafe, there's a question: define centrist

Against Withdrawal

I found this at the National Council of Churches(NCC):

Urge Congress to Call for Iraq pull-out

"The administration's policy in Iraq is failing," said former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-Maine). "There is no light at the end of the tunnel, only the lights from oncoming trains in the form of daily suicide bombings and ambushes. It is time to start bringing our men and women in uniform home."

The NCC is part of a national coalition urging an end to the war. The coalition, which includes MoveOn.org, True Majority, Sojourners, Working Assets and the National Organization of Women, is planning a national grassroots outreach campaign encouraging Members of Congress to sign onto the bi-partisan resolution.

As far as I'm concerned, this is an appeal to surrender to terrorists. I have been hard on President Bush, and in hindsight I feel that going to war in Iraq was a mistake. But I want us to stay the course, with reasonable corrections that would improve the situation. My impression is that the President has gotten locked into some positions, and for political reasons, is unwilling to do what ought to be done. In fact, we may need more troops in Iraq. I understand the military has not asked for more troops, but I believe that is because they have been told not to ask. To increase troop levels would mean that the previous levels were too low, and would validate Democratic criticism of the administration (where to get the troops is a separate issue from whether they would be useful).

It would greatly compound our mistake to allow terrorists to drive us out of Iraq. This would only embolden them to spread jihad further--with Saudi Arabia their likely next target. With a plurality of the world's oil supply in the hands of terrorists, more war and a global depression might follow.

To say nothing of increased slaughter in Iraq. If the terrorists gained power, they would certain execute the thousands of Iraqis who have collaborated with the United States. To prevent this, Kurds and Shiites, who have in the past been victims of genocide at the hands of Saddam, might pre-emptively start slaughtering Sunnis.

We should withdraw when the Iraqi government requests it, not in a premature manner would would cause its collapse, and betray those in Iraq who want peace and freedom.

If you want to know why the religious right is so powerful, part of the explanation is that the religious left, led by the National Council of Churches, is even more extreme in its peculiar way.

A factoid that means?

This from Christianity Today. They run a regular page "Go Figure". I don't know what this means or says about Americans or America but it just fascinates me.

41%

Americans who have a favorable impression of the "Christian conservative movement."

45%

Americans who have a favorable impression of Muslims

Friday Open Thread

'sall good.

Rove's Remarks

After controversial remarks by Democrats Howard Dean and Dick Durbin, now there's controversy over remarks by Republican strategist Karl Rove

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble."

These are vicious remarks, and they are worse than Howard Dean's about Republicans. Dean's remarks were merely insulting, but they were not insidious, because no one would believe that most Republicans have never done an honest days work in their lives. What Rove is doing, by contrast, is a more calculated smear, conflating the sins of the far left, and applying them to mainstream Democrats.

Lest we forget the pre-Iraq War era, every Democratic member of Congress, save one, supported military action in Afghanistan. Both centrist and liberal Democrats supported military action. The sole exception, Berkeley's Congresswoman Barbara Lee, is a leftist. That's like taking the attitudes of someone like Ron Paul and making it seem like he represents mainstream conservatives.

Now, it's true that in the above remarks, Karl Rove does not mention Democrats by name. He says "liberals." In talking points released by the RNC, Ken Mehlman shifts the critique to the "hard left," which is in fact accurate, and would have been acceptable had Rove used those words in the first place.

No, I don't think that Rove need resign. But he should come in for the same tongue-lashing meted out to Howard Dean, for hyperbole and false generalizations which make it harder for our political leaders to come together and address critical problems we face.

Is it time to give Condi her due?

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

Well, maybe. Hear me out.

I was one of those who were not impressed with Rice's performance as national security advisor. She may have had the ear of the president, but she was clearly outgunned by Cheney and Rumsfeld, and one wonders just how much influence she had in terms of both the war on terror and the Iraq war. And I worried that her appointment to Foggy Bottom would only solidify the unanimity that seemed to plague Bush's foreign policy team. At least Powell had independent stature, after all, and at least he could provide some sort of counterweight to the rest of that team. Or so I thought. In the end, was Powell all that effective? Did he balance out his opponents in the administration? Or was he not himself outgunned?

As it turns out, Rice seems thus far to be an admirable successor to Powell. But where Powell was the outsider, Rice can balance out the rest of Bush's foreign policy team as an insider. She continues to have Bush's ear, but she now has the relative independence that comes with her position as secretary of state. No longer is she just the president's chief foreign policy advisor. Now she's one of his top Cabinet members. And the results are clear.

To be sure, the apple hasn't fallen too far from the tree. Rice is still on Bush's side, as expected, and she's still representing Bush's interests in the international community. On Wednesday, for example, at a conference on Iraq reconstruction in Brussels, she announced optimistically that ''[t]errorism can be defeated in Iraq, it will be defeated in Iraq... When it is defeated in Iraq, at the heart of the Middle East, it will be a death knell for terrorism as we know it." Okay, but how? Unclear, unabashed optimism is, of course, the way of the Bush Administration generally -- consider Cheney's "last throes" comment -- but it would be nice to hear something other than unsubstantiated claims of hopeful resolution from the secretary of state.

Nonetheless, Rice is proving herself to be a forceful ambassador for democracy and justice, and this, I think, is where ever her harshest critics need to give her her due. In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, according to the Times, she "called on Egypt and Saudi Arabia on Monday to embrace democracy by holding fair elections, releasing political prisoners and allowing free expression and rights for women". "For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," she said in Cairo. "Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." And she criticized Iran: "The appearance of elections does not mask the organized cruelty of Iran's theocratic state." But she added, "The United States has no cause for false pride, and we have every reason for humility".

Think about this. A woman. A black woman (neither of which could have gone over too well). In the very heart of the Arab world. Challenging Egypt and Saudi Arabia on their own turf. Addressing Iran and making a firm stand for democracy. Promoting democracy. One wonders what was going through the minds of her audiences. But she got her message across, and, in so doing, proved a capable proponent of liberal principles in an illiberal world, not to mention a fine representative of America's interests.

But that was not all. In recent days, she has met with Sharon and Abbas to help hammer out an agreement for a peaceful Israeli withdrawal from Gaza (see here); told Syria to "knock it off" in Lebanon, where it continues to foment instability (see here); and pressured Pakistan to return Mukhtaran Bibi's passport so that she can travel freely (see here and, for my take, here). That's an impressive record, especially when added to her comments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

This is not to say that all is well with Condi. Iraq continues to be a problem, and no one in the Bush Administration, Condi included, seems at all willing to admit that mistakes have been made and that perhaps the U.S. needs to reconsider its options. Blind optimism -- or, really, blatant denial -- doesn't help.

Regardless, let's give credit where credit is due, and, these past few days at least, Condi has done very, very well.

Everything You Know Is Wrong

OK, maybe not everything. But some of the "common knowledge" tossed around of late has reminded me of one of my favorite subjects. Namely, the mythic nature of history in common knowledge. So many of the things we think we know are wrong. And so many of the opposing viewpoints that claim to have the truth are also wrong. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction, and highly uncertain.

A case in point is the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Monticello slave Sally Hemings, and the allegation that he fathered all her children.

Jefferson's political opponents accused him of sleeping with his slaves. Descendants of Hemings have claimed for years that Jefferson fathered her children. Supporters and descendants of Jefferson have forever denied it. DNA studies from the late 1990's showed a genetic link between some of the Hemings descendants and the Jefferson family, which some took as "proof."

In the interest of what we do know and what we don't know, and of showing how what we think we know is often wrong, or at best ambiguous instead of certain, here's the lowdown.

Jefferson's political enemies threw slanders at him, accusing him of both adultery and sleeping with his slaves. Jefferson never openly responded to the attacks. In private correspondance, he admitted only to having "offered love to a handsome woman" when young and single. That fits with the adultery accusations (wherein he was reputed to have pursued a married women who was seperated from her husband) before he married. He never in any way gave any personal credence to the other accusation, that of sleeping with his slaves.

Enter Wayles plantation slave Sally Hemings. In 1772 Jefferson married the widow Martha Wayles Skelton. Sally Heming was sent to Monticello with Martha as her servant. Sally Hemings was actually Martha's half-sister, the daughter of a half-white slave and Martha's father, John Wayles. Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson died in 1782 after 10+ years of marriage to Jefferson and six children, only two of whom (daughters) survived to adulthood. Jefferson never remarried. Hemings became nurse and nanny to the Jefferson children--her half-nieces and nephews.

Without Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine no one can prove that Thomas Jefferson fathered ANY of Heming's seven children. That's a fact. On the other hand, the possibility that he fathered at least one of her children is very real, and cannot be disproven. It's 99+% certain that a male Jefferson fathered that child, the only dispute is over which Jefferson. It's also a fact that a Jefferson (or Carr--see below) did not father Heming's oldest son.

DNA studies in the late 1990's showed that at least one of Heming's seven known children was fathered by a male Jefferson, and that another one was not. Jefferson left no known male line, so the descendants of Jefferson's paternal uncle, Field Jefferson, and Jefferson's nephews the Carr brothers, agreed to the testing. The descendants of Eston Hemings, Sally Heming's youngest son, carry the same "Y" chromosome markers as the descendants of Field Jefferson. The descendants of Sally's oldest son Thomas Woodson do not. So it is a given that Eston Hemings was the son of a male Jefferson. Everything past that is speculation. Due to a loss of male chromosal genetic links over the generations, the descendants of Sally's other known children cannot be traced by the "Y" markers, so there is no current way to determine if they are also Jeffersons, though in at least the case of Madison Hemings it seems likely.

Madison Hemings reported after Jefferson's death that Sally had three sons and one daughter by Thomas Jefferson: Beverly, Harriet, himself, and Eston.

The historical records are incomplete, and ambiguous. There were as many as 25 male Jeffersons within one hundred miles of Monticello, and several of them visited regularly. There are contemporary testimonies from Monticello staff that other male Jeffersons "visited" with Sally Hemings, but none that TJ did. But loyalty runs deep, and Jefferson paid the bills. For many years the Jefferson descendants implicated the nephews (his sister's sons, the Carr brothers) as the most likely candidates, which the DNA record shows simply is not true for either Eston Hemings or Thomas Woodson. Woodson's male line has neither Carr nor Jefferson DNA markers. A male Jefferson, not a Carr, fathered Eston. The question is, which one? The historical record leaves open the reasonable possibility of Jefferson's younger brother Randolph being a likely suspect with a very few less likely suspects. He is known to have been at Monticello during the time Eston was conceived, and when some of the other chidren were conceived. But, of course, so was Jefferson.

Some descendants of Thomas Woodson continue to maintain that he was the first child of Jefferson and Hemings, despite the dispositive evidence. And some descendants of Thomas Jefferson (including novelist & screenwriter Lucian Truscott IV) continue to fight for the right of all Hemings descendants to be counted as Jeffersons, and be buried in the Monticello graveyard.

We're left with no way to ever know for sure exactly what happened. All we can be positive of is that the descendants of Eston Hemings are indisputably Jeffersons, whether from TJ or another male Jefferson. The members of the Monticello Association (limited to verifiable descendants of TJ himself) continue to grapple with the question of whether or not the descendants of Eston Hemings are technically eligible for membership.

And that's as certain as it gets.

ADDENDUM: The bulk of Jefferson's slaves were inherited from his wife. The children of Sally Hemings were the only slaves he manumitted during his lifetime.

Tales from the Flying Circus

Crossposted on John Brodigan for a Better America

"In politics, you have to remember that it isn't what is actually happening - it's the perception that's out there." - George H.W. Bush

Voters don't trust the candidates because they are phonies who are never honest. Candidates can't be 100% honest, because if they slip up the press will be all over them. The press will be all over them because the only thing voters seem to care about is the trivial nonsense they claim turns them off of politics.

It's a never-ending cycle that Alexandria Pelosi tried to get to the bottom to in her book Sneaking into the Flying Circus - How the Media Turn our Presidential Campaigns into Freak Shows. Honestly, she didn't really get to the bottom of anything, other than the fact that the process is all stoogats. The journey on the other hand, was a very entertaining and informative one to read.

One thing I found really interesting was I never realized how much of a "deck of cards" Howard Dean's campaign was. This book made it sound like most of his success was a media creation, because none of the other candidates were giving them anything exciting to write about. They saw crazy ol' Howard and his crazy ol' supporters, and thought, "we can sell this."

And I admit it, I fell for the hype. I admired the way he was running a "different" campaign and that he wasn't afraid to speak his mind. What I didn't realize at the time was that most of his minions were the same strain of Internet dork that I hated dealing with when I was editing the wrestling magazine. Gov. Dean turned out to be just another wack job claiming his "being a Washington outsider" qualified him for the Presidency. In the immortal words of one Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

They also, apparently, created Sen. Kerry's resurgence once they were bored of Crazy Howard. He was barely breathing until right before the Iowa Caucus, when one paper decided to write and article calling Kerry "The Comeback Kid." Then everyone decided to do the same, because they didn't want to miss out if he actually happened to win. Once the papers started calling Kerry the front-runner, the voters figured that he must be the front-runner so they all voted for him in Iowa. Then New Hampshire figured, "eh, I guess since everyone else is doing it." All this, just because one paper decides to write one article, and the rest of the media are a bunch of copycats. As far has his campaign went, you could almost hear the author asking herself, "Is this really the best we can come up with?"

Back to the campaign coverage and the most telling sign that the way we do things is dumb? There's a chapter focusing on an argument Ms. Pelosi had with her little niece and nephew about why she wasn't allowed in the John Kerry fundraiser. This was easily my favourite part of the book and worth the cost of admission alone. I won't spoil it here, other than to say the argument ended when the author ran out of answers and they all decided to look for a cookie.

Other highlights in the book include "The Top 10 Things You're Not Allowed to Say on a Presidential Campaign," "Top The Lessons Learned," a chapter on the protesters in NYC, and a list of off the record comments from the press corps.

The candidates are already starting to identify themselves and the real free for all starts right after the midterm elections in 2006. Will 2008 be a remake of 2004, where the actors are different but the story remains the same? Like I mentioned before, the book didn't offer a solution. It did however analyze the problem. The trick now is to do something aboot it.

Supreme Court season

Over the course of the next week, we are going to get a daily dose of high interest rulings from the Supreme Court. Today,

Homes may be 'taken' for private projects

Kennedy was the swing vote (again).

USAF got that old time religion?

There's a hefty debate going on over at RedState about the recent report about allegations of religious intolerance and prosletyzing by superior officers at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In short, the report substantiated some allegations, refuted others, and generally credited the current Superintendent with working hard to teach everybody the rules about religious tolerance. As the New York Times reports, the Superintendent seems to take it seriously. He likened the Academy's struggles to a plane crash: "When you go back, everything becomes very obvious, but while you are flying the airplane, the kind of things that lead up to the accident are not very obvious."

I like his analogy. Taken in isolation, the individual events cited are not all that serious (although as you'll see in the RedState entries I've got major quibbles with some), but taken all together, they point to a serious problem of officers confusing their private religious obligations with their public duties of preparing our troops for battle. I don't support fighting over petty and symbolic matters like "under God" in the Pledge or singing "God Bless America", but the leaders of the Academy went far beyond symbolism or merely practicing their own religion on their own time. They actively communicated to the cadets in their charge that they were going to Hell if they didn't believe in Jesus. I don't believe the military is the place for that.

What are your thoughts on balancing the "no establishment of religion" clause with the "free exercise thereof" clause in the context of the military and its command structure?

No Time For A Flag Burning Amendment

The Moderate Voice took the words out of my mouth. It's wrong to burn the flag, but this is no time for a Flag Burning Amendment. I recall that during the 2004 campaign, my candidate, Wesley Clark, supported this amendment, noting that he had fought and been wounded for the flag, so it was an emotional issue for him. It is not unreasonable to set aside the flag as a "holy icon."

But not now. With the war going badly, and Republicans on the defensive, this is a transparent attempt to switch the conversation from a substantive issue--the war--to a symbolic issue--the flag. Joe Gandelman notes that the main sponsor of the proposal is Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., the very member of Congress who is under investigation for a real estate scandal.

This time, the hypocrisy is transparent.

Us and Them: political spectrum pop quiz

We've done a lot of talking on this blog about "what defines a Centrist". What intrigues me is how we tend to distinguish ourselves by who we disagree with. This comes out by describing how we regularly disagree with _________ (fill in the blank). Our favorite term here for the "others" are the "wings". For example, "What a jerk Joe Blow, the left -wing pundit, is"

Now, if you're a party partisan that distinction is easy. If you're a Democrat you're likely distinguish yourself from those within the Republican Party (or pundits thereof). If your a Republican, the reverse is likely true. The further out you go (and none of here would be "that far out") the more likely you are to distinguish yourself from "moderates" within your party. (i.e. "The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" or the "true Conservative")

Well let's take a little test here. Who are your "them"? Draw your line by identifying someone on "the other side" but try to get an example as close to that "line" as possible. (In other words, don't pick an extreme right-winger who no one would identify with.) Presumably, as a Centrist you'll have two lines defining each "wing".

To get the ball rolling I'll start. I'll chose columnists who regularly appear in my local paper, the Arizona Republic. Each are thoughtful but they seem to consistently be just "beyond" my personal views. On the Right: Charles Krauthhamer, On the Left: Ellen Goodman.

Gov. Romney: Fish or Fowl?

We've previously seen posts on Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney's drift to the right. By moving away from previous positions on gay marriage and abortion we've assumed he's positioning himself for a Presidential run. Conventional Wisdom: move to the Right to get the nomination then swing back to the Center to win the election.

Well now this piece appears. In essence Mitt proposes to mandate individual's to buy health insurance.

Romney's plan would require all residents in Massachusetts to have some form of health insurance or agree to pay their medical bills out of their own pockets...If they refuse, the state could recoup the medical costs in several ways, Romney said yesterday: The state might cancel the personal tax exemption on their state income taxes, which is worth about $175. It could withhold some or all of their state income tax refund and deposit it in what Romney called a ''personal healthcare spending account." Or, it might take money out of the person's paycheck, as it does now to collect child support.

''No more 'free riding,' if you will, where an individual says: 'I'm not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I'm not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it. I'm instead going to just show up and make the taxpayers pay for me,' " Romney told reporters after a healthcare speech at the John F. Kennedy Library.

These don't sound like the ideas of someone "moving to the right". I'm not sure those libertarians on the Right would want their government telling them they "have" to get health insurance or else!!! To further compound our confusion Mitt received a cautious thumbs up from a bastion of right-wing politics

US Senator Edward M. Kennedy described Romney's call for an individual mandate as ''a healthy step forward,"

The article goes on to outline some potential problems with the idea including the unintentional increase in the rolls of the uninsured.

Rick and the rest of you all from Mass. help me understand. Maybe he's defining a new Centrist: conservative socially and liberal (not in the classic economic sense) fiscally.

Trouble with Hamas?

Here are two completely different perspectives on how the Palestineans are dealing with Hamas. In The New Republic, Rober Satloff criticizes Mahmoud Abbas (or Abu Mazen) for coddling Hamas and not confronting it to stop what Satloff calls the "anarchy" in the Palestinean areas. According to this view,

Abbas's political strategy is based on being nice to the terrorists and the hooligans--members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and even his own Fatah party's most violent wing, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades--rather than actually implementing his own principle of "one authority, one law, one gun." Indeed, when one radical group threatened to break what passes for a ceasefire last week, Abbas didn't threaten its leaders with jail; he ordered the release of nine terrorists from jail.

In The New York Review of Books, a more liberal periodical, Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, have a different view. They argue that Abbas is essentially trying to coopt Hamas by persuading it to participate in the elections and to work inside the system rather than outside. They argue that

Abu Mazen hopes that, given adequate time, as well as guarantees from the Authority and sufficient pressure from the Palestinian public, Hamas will allow its pragmatism to work out new and different policies. Hamas may sponsor suicide bombers, but it is not suicidal.

Agha and Malley argue that the policies Satloff advocates--confronting Hamas and forcing it to renounce violence--are not realistic.

To those who criticize Abu Mazen's approach as naive, his response is to ask for a credible alternative. The status quo allows Hamas both to function outside a system from which it benefits and to discredit any political arrangement with Israel without having to propose a substitute. It further deprives outsiders of any ability to influence the debate between hard-line and pragmatic wings within the organization. For the Palestinian president, shunning Hamas also means putting his current strategy at perpetual risk of an armed attack. Once Hamas is brought into the legislature and the PLO, he believes, he can more confidently rely on Hamas's commitment to implement the cease-fire and on its discipline in enforcing it.

Satloff would certainly not agree with such reasoning.

With each passing day, the situation in Gaza and much of the West Bank seems to grow more like Jordan circa 1970-71, when King Hussein felt he had no choice but to cede authority to emboldened Palestinian fedayeen, then led by Yasir Arafat. Eventually, Hussein's own army forced him to take tough action against the militants, lest his regime perish. In the Palestinian areas, however, it's not even clear there are enough officers and soldiers itching to do the job; the Abbas regime--a noble experiment in popularly elected government--may perish without a fight.

It's easy to dismiss Agha and Hussein as left-wing apologists for Hamas or as naive. (They acknowledge in the article that some call Abu Mazen's approach naive.) And, on the other side, Satloff would be called an obstructionist. But they both present different facets of the problem in the Middle East. The Israelis, reasonably enough, fear that Hamas will never renounce its goal of eliminating Isreal (as do I). On the other hand, Hamas is an entrenched part of Palestinean society and has a much better reputation than Fatah because of its history of providing social services. One could argue that Hamas is similar to the IRA in Northern Ireland; a terrorist organization without which it is essentially impossible to make peace. But the IRA never called for the destruction of England or even of the Protestants. Mazen is gambling that he can control Hamas by coopting it; I'm sure Hamas thinks that it will be able to hijack Fatah. And Israel has an obvious interest in strengthening Mazen, but does it trust Mazen enough to accept his way of dealing with Hamas? And should it? Sharon is having enough trouble selling the Gaza pullout to his public--allowing Hamas a more public role is only going to make it harder.

Sharon and Mazen need each other, yet they are faced with having to satisfy constituencies that are, in many ways, incompatible. Given these realities, I find it hard to be terribly optimistic.

New Iraq Assessments

Greg Wythe has an interesting take on some new assessments of Iraq and policy/strategy suggestions from Joe Biden and the DLC, among others. It's worth a read.

Stirring the Media Bias Pot

Last week, Australian hostage Douglas Wood was rescued from his kidnappers by the Iraqi army's 2nd battalion, 1st Armored Brigade, with assistance from U.S. forces. The story made the Washington Post print edition on June 15th. It also appeared in the New York Times, same date.

After which, the story of Douglas Wood vanished from both papers' print editions, and from the NYT online edition. No followup story at all in the NYT.

On the 19th, the first followup story appeared on the Agence France Press newswire (via Yahoo portal).

Here's the Reuters followup article from June 20th, via the Washington Post gateway, but not in the print edition. And here's the online-only followup from AP that also came through the WashPost web gateway on June 20, but didn't appear in the print edition. It did appear in print in the Washington Times.

UPDATE: The Australian reports today that:

Government sources have also rejected claims by a senior Australian Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, that last week's raid, which freed Mr Wood, "had almost certainly cost the lives" of two Iraqis taken hostage with him. In fact, the two men, Faris Sahkir and Adel Farhawy Najm, were found dead in Baghdad a month ago.

Compare and contrast. Your mileage is strictly your own.

Defending Durbin: Courage in a time of cowardice

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

As many of you know by now, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois recently set off a storm by implicitly comparing allegations of torture at Gitmo with similar practices commonly used by the Nazis and Soviets (as well as other grotesque regimes around the world). The right, which refuses to discuss or debate these torture allegations on the merits -- and, increasingly, the truth about the atrocious treatment of detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere is coming out despite the right's efforts to keep the lies alive -- has predictably spun Durbin's remarks into a vehicle for political gain by playing the patriotism card. How dare Durbin say such a thing? What kind of traitor is he? Comparing the American military to the Nazis like that! He needs to be censured! He needs to be kicked out of the Senate! Am I exaggerating? Hardly.

Here's what Hugh Hewitt, hardly a voice of disinterested reason, said in The Weekly Standard:

"Not only did Durbin's remarks injure America's position in the world, provide an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy, and slander the United States military, they also represent an escalation in the political rhetoric of the left, which is designed to undermine the public's confidence in the military, the administration, and the war. The censure resolution will oblige every senator to go on the record about how they view the American military as we enter the long phase of the war.

"The outrage over Dick Durbin's comparison of interrogation practices at Gitmo to the Nazi, Soviet, and Pol Pot regimes has deeply injured Durbin's reputation and the reputation of the Democratic party that keeps him in the number two leadership position in the United States Senate."

See what's going on? See the spin? Durbin has injured America. Durbin has aided the enemy. Durbin has slandered the military. Durbin is representative of "the left," which seeks to undermine public confidence (is there any left?). How you stand on Durbin and his treasonous remarks is how you stand on the military (as if Durbin blamed the entire military). Durbin compared American "interrogation practices" to what the Nazis and Soviets did. Durbin has brought low both himself and the Democratic Party.

Really? No. And Andrew Sullivan is right to call this "rank hysteria". Here's what really happened: In his remarks, which the right has conveniently removed from any semblance of context, Durbin was referring to a report by an FBI interrogator who witnessed some of those innocuous "interrogation practices" at Gitmo. For example:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor."

All Durbin said was this:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

Andrew Sullivan responds in brilliant fashion:

"Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying? Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against this prisoner are worthy of the United States? Does he believe that this happened without authorization? If he were told this story and informed that it occurred in, say, Serbia under Milosevic, would he be surprised? Hewitt should then answer the same question about the 5 detainees which the U.S. government itself has acknowledged were tortured to death by U.S. interrogators, and the scores of others who died in detention during or after "interrogation". Does he deny that this happened? Does he honestly believe that removing the legal restrictions on cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees by our current president had nothing to do with this? Maybe he needs a little refresher on the extraordinary range and scale of the record of abuse that is still accumulating. I'm just amazed that some can view what has happened and their first instinct is to attack those who have criticized it, rather than those who have perpetrated it. It is this administration that has brought indelible shame on America, and it's people like Dick Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against this stain on American honor and call it what it is. Good for him. Thank God for him."

Absolutely. And this goes for Hewitt and all of Durbin's other critics on the right. Consider how the right is trying to turn Durbin himself into the issue. As Richard Cohen put it in yesterday's Post:

"He has instead come under vitriolic attack by Republicans who would have you think that the Democrat from Illinois likened America to the Soviet Union or the American military to Nazi Germany or disparaged the military in its entirety. In the name of our armed forces, Virginia Sen. John W. Warner asked for an apology. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House, called for Durbin to be censured by the Senate. That would be a more severe penalty than that accorded Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) for praising the late Strom Thurmond's racist 1948 presidential campaign.

"Bill Frist, the Republican leader of the Senate, also called on Durbin to apologize -- although he himself did nothing of the sort when his videotaped patient, Terri Schiavo, turned out to be horribly brain damaged and not, as he suggested to the Senate, potentially treatable. Frist has lost the ability to blush, but not to mischaracterize. He said Durbin "called Guantanamo a death camp" -- words that do not appear in the text..."

And so:

"The contempt the Bush administration has shown for world opinion and international law -- not to mention American traditions of jurisprudence -- is costing us plenty. We are not the Soviet Union and we are not Nazi Germany, and Dick Durbin did not intend to say we are. His detractors have to know that. Their intention, however, is not to answer criticism but to silence a critic."

This is the reasoned response to the right's trumped-up charges against Durbin. It's possible to be for the war and to support the troops without resorted to the indefensible position of defending torture. No, they're not just "interrogation practices" -- let's call them what they are. But the right, which in the wake of the war's gross misconduct and increasing unpopularity has grown defensive and hypocritical, seems now to equate dissent on any issue, or even the questioning of the war's conduct, as treason. That is nothing if not deeply and profoundly un-American.

If the right wants to defend what's been going at Gitmo and other detention facilities, then, well, it's representatives should come out and be straight with the American people (and the rest of the world). Yes, let's have that debate. I'd welcome it. But what I suspect is that the right knows it would lose. Andrew Sullivan again:

"If Durbin had said, as Amnesty unfortunately did, that Gitmo was another Gulag, I'd be dismayed and critical, as I was with Amnesty. There's no comparison in any way between the scale, intent and context of the Soviet gulags and Gitmo. If Durbin had said that what was being done there in the aggregate was comparable to Auschwitz or Siberian death camps, the same would be true. But Durbin said something subtler. Now I know subtlety is not something that plays well on talk radio. But in this case, it matters. Durbin focused on one very credible account of inhumane treatment and abuse of detainees and asked an important question...

"So go ahead: answer his implied question. If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course, you would. In fact, I spent much time and effort before the war documenting the cruel and inhumane conduct of the regime we were trying to destroy - a regime whose cruelty encompassed low-level inhumanity like Gitmos - and, of course, unimaginably worse."

Yes, America once had the moral high-ground (no matter your position on the war), at least with respect to Saddam, al Qaeda, and the fascist jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere. In some ways, it still does, and I continue to reject the notion that there is any kind of moral equivalency here. But these allegations of torture -- no, let's call them what they are: these instances of torture -- perhaps isolated, but more likely part of a larger problem -- have destroyed much of that reputation. The right may spin these stories however they like, and they'll no doubt continue to do so, but the truth is that this prisoner abuse, not Durbin or the various comments of critics and dissenters, has "injure[d] America's position in the world" and "provide[d] an enormous propaganda victory to the enemy". To blame Durbin is to live in denial, but that's precisely where much of the intransigent right -- whether in Congress, the commentariat, talk radio, or the blogosphere -- finds itself today.

Along with Andrew Sullivan and Richard Cohen, Kevin Drum is right: "The 'outrage' over this incident is obviously manufactured and deserves to be treated with scorn." The real outrage should be directed at the perpetrators of torture and their military and political enablers -- and that, ultimately, means President Bush. The buck needs to stop somewhere. The right wants to deflect our attention away from the real issue, but we all know that the buck ultimately stops in the Oval Office. (Not that the occupant of that office is taking any responsibility for anything happening under his watch.)

On Monday, Senator Durbin stood on the floor of the Senate and apologized for "a very poor choice of words," for being unclear, and for possibly "cast[ing] a negative light on our fine men and women in the military". That he did so, and that he needed to declare that he loves America and respects the men and women in the military (as if that really needed declaring), speaks to the volume of the attacks hurled at him from the right. But he needn't have apologized. He said what he said because hearing of a man chained to the floor in the fetal position without food or water and wallowing in his own urine and feces does remind us, those of us who aren't deafened by the noise of partisan rancor, of the worst abuses of the twentieth century. No, Gitmo isn't a Soviet gulag or a Nazi concentration camp, but that doesn't mean that there aren't appalling similarities.

When so many of America's leaders see no evil and hear no evil and continue to live in denial, fiddling while prisoners in America's care are brutally tortured and denied their basic rights as human beings, Durbin's candid remarks reflect courage in a time of cowardice, a moral core in a time of political opportunism. Yes, good for him. We need more like him to step forward and face up to the real outrage that threatens America's standing in the world, indeed, that pollutes America's own moral core.

If America truly stands for liberty and democracy, is it too much to ask that it live up to its own principles?

A Rant Aboot Live 8

Crossposted on John Brodigan for a Better America

There was an interview in Time Magazine with Bob Geldof, Bono, and the director guy who did "Love Actually" (great movie). They were together to promote Live 8, curse, petition world leaders, and blah blah blah. To reiterate my previous position, I still think that I work two jobs, and for people who have spent more in the last fifteen minutes than I'm going to make all year to lecture me aboot living in a "country of excess," they can all kiss my ass.

But that's just me, and to be fair it's more of a broad statement about the celebrities and their issues du joir, not this particular interview. I do honestly think these three are decent blokes who, unlike most of their peers, aren't completely full of shit. I was also surprised that they aren't looking to raise money with Live 8 (all five concerts are free), just awareness for poverty in Africa. I can kind of admire that.

There are just two things I have an issue with...

One is that, what awareness are they actually expecting to rise? What kind of an impact do they actually think they'll make? The average member of your typical "pop audience" (which, looking at most of the acts, is who they're targeting) can't even spell G8 let alone know what the G8 Summit is. And I know this as fact because I deal with a lot of these chuckleheads on the weekend. All they understand is how dreamy the lead singer of Maroon 5 is, and that he'll be there. The thousands of starving Africans will take a back seat to the hundreds African Americans standing on stage behind Jay Z screaming "yeah" and "aww." Honestly? I didn't even fully understand what the G8 Summitt is, and I like to consider myself to be at least slightly above average (I can read Time as well as enjoy the latest Kanye joint).

Don't get me wrong. Geldof, Bono, other guy - I think their intentions are good. Raising awareness that there are hungry people in the world (in our country too, but why argue over details?) is honourable. I just don't see the result being anything different than "Free Tibet," "Help Tsunami Victims," or "Support the Troops." Tibet still isn't free (I think), the tsunami victims still don't have homes, and the troops are still an after thought to people who would rather whine aboot the President. The famous people will support the issue until it's no longer fashionable, and the audience (the children who Dionne Warwick believed were our future) will just go back to their really expensive hubcaps.

The other thing that bugs me goes with my "kiss my ass" comment. I'm tired of being lectured by Hollywood about what "I" should do. How about what you should do? I know someone, who doesn't make millions and millions playing make believe, that invites African students to this country to stay in her house. Now, I'm sure she has a lovely home, but I can only assume that someone like Brad Pitt has a nicer one. Yet while she opens her home, Brad only seems to have heard of Africa after getting bad press for cheating on his famous actress wife with another equally famous actress. Yet, he talks about what "we" need to do. How much money did you make off of Mr. And Mrs. Smith alone vs. how much have you donated to "the cause?" The next time he gets interviewed about how we should do more, he should have to watch "VH-1's The Fabulous Life of Brad and Jen" and "E's It's Good to Be Brad Pitt," which highlight all the money he (and his ilk) spends on materialistic crap. Then have him tell the American public how we all need to help those less fortunate.

Every year, the various entertainment rags have a Top 100 most successful entertainers, or most powerful, or most bling bling, or what have you. Instead of lecturing me about how I should give some of my salary, why don't each of you put up $1,000,000 to help stamp out world...whatever it is this week. Instead of petitioning the President, why not petition the people on the Forbes 500 to put up the same million. That's $600 million right there. Instead of talking about how "we" should do something, let's see you actually do something yourself.

The woman I know who invites the Africans to stay with her leads by example. If she ever asked me to help, I would without hesitation. If the "real" world powers (the entertainers) would set a better example of actually doing something, I'd be more inclined to listen to what they have to say.

Until such time comes, meh.

A Welcome Sign

From the New York Times:

Marines See Signs Iraq Rebels Are Battling Foreign Fighters

"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."

The nationalist insurgent groups, "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the Jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.

Competitiveness In Redistricting Reform

My inclination in redistricting reform has been to focus on compact districts and let the "competitiveness" take care of itself. By contrast, "competitiveness" as a criterion means looking at how people vote, and drawing the districts in a more irregular way to make them more competitive. Here now (thanks to petey) is an article in the left-wing Mother Jones magazine, which takes issue with that, arguing that the criteria of compactness favors Republicans

It turns out that there is a fundamental anti-urban (and thus anti-Democratic) bias with single-seat districts. The urban vote is more concentrated, and so it's easier to pack Democratic voters into fewer districts. As Democratic redistricting strategist Sam Hirsch has noted, nice square districts are in effect a Republican gerrymander because they "combine a decade-old (but previously unnoticed) Republican bias" that along with a newly heightened degree of incumbent protection "has brought us one step closer to government under a United States House of Unrepresentatives."

Here's the best-known recent example of this dynamic. Even though Al Gore won a half million more votes nationwide than George Bush in 2000, Bush beat Gore in 47 more of the 2002 congressional districts. And that's up from a previous 19-seat edge, showing that trends are tilting Republican. The winner-take-all system distorts representation and the edge clearly gives Republicans an advantage, allowing them to win more than their fair share of seats. So the current Republican margin in the House of 232 to 203 -- only 29 seats -- actually is a decent showing for the Democrats. It will be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to improve on this.

And note that this GOP advantage is not the result of partisan gerrymandering, a whole 'nother bit of shenanigans that is overlaid over top these regional partisan demographics. No, these dynamics are happening outside any redistricting distortions.

I'd like to see the data behind this to verify it, but it makes intuitive sense. Before the realignment of the parties which started in the 1960's, the Democrat's had a base in the rural South which balanced the support Republicans received in Midwest farm states. But since then, Democratic votes have been increasingly concentrated in urban and inner ring suburban areas. If it is true that geographical compactness by itself would favor Republicans, then competitiveness must be a criteria in non-partisan redistricting.

Politics Aside....

...how can people be so dumb as to buy into the assorted 419/advance-fee fraud scams floating around the internet? I realize that the low cost of mass emailings means the investment in finding a sucker is cheap, but really!

Today I got my umpteenth scam-spam email on my spamcatcher addy. The old "Microsoft Money Giveaway" one.

This one told me that I had won €1 millon in the Microsoft Promotional Lottery! Woo hoo. As always, the usual errors. "Bill Gate" (no "s" on the end) is such a generous fellow, giving away his riches this way. The email purports to come from a European Microsoft promotional office in The Netherlands. So why, I ask myself, did the email originate from a freakin' DisneyLand server in Burbank, California? [199.181.134.43]

And why can't I just call up the company on the telephone, rather than being admonished to reply "confidentially" to an email addy that doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft but that supposedly will put me in touch with the claims administrator in The Netherlands, even though it's actually a "blind dropbox" email service registered in a small town in Louisiana?

Well, my suspicious nature has no doubt cost me my €1 million, as the email tells me that "Any breach of confidentiality on the part of the winners will result to disqualification." And here I am telling YOU about it.

Over the years, out of sheer ornery amusement, I have backtracked similar scams. The all seem to originate out of Eastern Europe, Malta, or Africa, and almost never from where they claim to be. This is the first one I've gotten that originated in DisneyLand, so I thought it worth mentioning.

For amusement, try poking around this site, which chronicles the efforts of some to have fun at the expense of the scammers. My favorite is the tale of Father William Wallace, of the Holy Church of Fish, Bread and Wine, and his efforts to ensure the spiritual worthiness of one of the scammers....

And their links page, with dozens of links to other people who are having fun wasting the t