Centerfield

Whenever there is a crisis.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. Unlike monarchies and dictatorships it has this wonderfully peaceful method of redirecting the course of a nation called voting. However, it does have some flaws. The founding fathers recognized those flaws and tried to correct for them in the constitution and bill of rights. But the founding fathers were not gods and they could not completely remove some of the major flaws of the system or alter human nature. Namely, they couldn't change humanity's predisposition toward mass panic during a crisis and a herd mentality.

It just seems that every time anything bad happens people rush to toss away reason and embrace the stampede. Since the version of history taught in public schools is plain vanilla, no one ever learns it was a bad idea last time we did it.

As I read the daily news I think of the great crisis, movements and the resulting stampedes of yesteryear:

Consider the sinking of the "harmless" passenger ship the Lusitania . The incident played a role in the United States' entry into World War I. Even thou it was later shown to be caring munitions for the allies. If ever there was a war we had no business in it was WWI.

Or consider the XVIIIth amendment. What a disaster. In a righteous attempt to exorcise the demon rum we created organized crime, the drive by shooting and corrupted law enforcement to a level unseen until the “war on drugs”.

The great depression caused a veritable cascade of rash behavior, as humanity embraced/attacked fascism, communism and socialism.

FDR used the depression to his advantage, but Huey Long wasn't far behind. If you enjoyed the welfare state that FDR built you would have really loved what Mr. Long had in mind. It's hard to decide if Long was a fascist or a communist, but I do believe that a bullet changed American history. "Every Man a King" was his slogan and there were indications that the lingering wave of despair from the great depression was going to wash over FDR, and install Huey.

Of course FDR went on to make Huey look like an old softy. After Pearl Harbor he locked over 100,000 American citizens up in internment camps.

Then there is the Second Gulf of Tonkin incident. The famous event that allowed Secretary McNamara to acquire the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, that facilitated increased U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Even thought the reports of the first incident were a distortion of reality, and the second incident a complete fabrication.

And I can't leave out my favorite act of mass insanity, the Spanish American War. A badly designed warship blows itself up, so we attack Spain. Remember the Maine!

All this doesn't mean that the combined force of our collective will is always a bad thing. It was that same irrational herd mentality that created this country. The founding fathers were men of means, who risked lives and property to secure the blessings of liberty. They didn't have to do any of that, they were very financially well off. It would have been much simpler and safer to just pay the English taxes.

Courage doesn't have to mean joining the military. Sometimes it just means refusing to live in fear of 19 men in stolen commercial airliners. It means not subverting hard won liberty to protect ourselves from a couple of dozen men. We are a nation of almost 300 million people; on September 11th we lost about 3000 at the hands of 19. As traumatic an event as that was, that's not a lot of people.

The constitution and bill of rights are special, they made this country what it is today. To undermine them for the sake of expedience would chance the character of the country.

How about we have a little courage of our own? Let's think about the long term consequences of our decisions, let's learn from the past!

On Poverty

The year end issue of the Economist has a thoughful essay on poverty To spark discussion the essay contrasts a disabled worker in Appalachia with a doctor in the Congo. There's a well worn view of American poverty (that might please a conservative)

He “draws” $521 a month in supplemental security income (a form of cash assistance for the elderly, poor and disabled). He laments that the authorities deduct $67 a month because he won $3,600 on the slot machines. Why, he asks, won't they take account of all the money he has lost gambling? It is a fair question. If middle-class America had this problem, accountants would surely find a way round it. Mr Banks also complains that he cannot draw food stamps. In order to qualify, he would have to sell his truck, which he cannot bear to part with

and a clear eyed view of the horrible conditions in Africa.

Having seen how doctors live elsewhere, Dr Kabamba would quite like running water and a regular power supply. His family fetches water in jars and the electricity comes on maybe twice a week. Air-conditioning would be nice, but “that's only for VIPs,” says Dr Kabamba.

The gist of the essay is in here

“Poverty” describes two quite different phenomena: utter penury, of the sort experienced by the billion or so souls who subsist on $1 a day or less; and the situation of people in rich countries who are less well off than their compatriots.

and the author's conclusion/question is

if poor Americans were to compare their standard of living with what is normal elsewhere in the world, let alone in Congo, they would see they have little cause for discontent. Then again, were Americans not so incurably discontented with their lot, their great country would not be half as dynamic as it is.

I'd encourage you all to read it and to share your opinions

Mexican Farmers In San Pancho

An interesting piece on illegal immigrant day laborers in the left-wing rag, the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

The collapse of world coffee prices and the flood of cheap, subsidized US corn into Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is driving southern Mexico's Indian farmers off the land and into the immigration stream north. According to recent roundup stats released by the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration Control Enforcement (ICE) division -- once the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or "Migra" -- deportees from Chiapas led the charge from southern Mexico in fiscal 2004-05.

I don't normally think about NAFTA in terms of agriculture, and I don't know if it's correct to describe U.S. corn as subsidized, but I take the point that mechanized U.S. agriculture can outcompete inefficient Mexican farmers, and drive them to the cities. Ideally, they would be going to their own cities rather than coming to ours.

I do believe we're best off in bringing in immigrants with skills rather than completely unskilled laborers. I don't believe the rhetoric that "they're doing jobs Americans won't do." That is true in a static way--as long as wages are held down by competition with illegal immigrants, Americans won't do those jobs. But if the stream of unskilled illegal immigrants was curtailed, wages would rise and those jobs would attract citizens and legal immigrants. If it means fewer landscapers available to trim American hedges, so be it.

Ford to Opponents: Balance the Budget

Congressman Harold Ford, now a Senate candidate in Tennessee, on the Federal budget vote:

“I support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I believe in shared sacrifice and fiscal responsibility. I have always taken the position that it is immoral for our government to live beyond its means and pass on billions of dollars of debt that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay. Tennesseans expect their Senators to be good fiscal stewards of the tax money they send to Washington, and I strongly believe that these values should be upheld. To lead is to choose and it is time for my opponents to tell the voters of Tennessee how they would vote on the federal budget bill that is presently before Congress.

I will vote no because a failure of leadership and blind partisanship have produced a deficit reduction bill that does nothing to reduce the deficit and, in fact, adds billions to the national debt. Furthermore, I will vote no because the sacrifices for fiscal responsibility, war and natural disasters should be shared. The budget bill fails this test, plain and simple: it makes college loans more expensive, removes children from the food stamp program, cuts health care for middle class Tennessee families, slashes funding to go after dead beat dads and makes it harder for Tennesseans to pay their home heating bills this winter, while providing a $70 billion tax cut for millionaires. It’s morally wrong. Voters are hungering for competence, bi-partisan problem solving and the truth from their leaders. This budget and tax package achieves none of these goals and is yet another example of why we need change and reform in Washington.”

Can we clone this guy?

The Last Friday Open Thread...

...of 2005.

An optimist stays up until midnight to see the new year in. A pessimist stays up to make sure the old year leaves. --Bill Vaughn

Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you. --Satchel Paige

Stupid Prediction Time!

As the end of the year draws nigh, I invite one and all to make their predictions for 2006.

You too can be a Cassandra, or a Nostradamus! All it takes is prescience, staggering intellect, plain dumb luck, or a good sense of humor. And if you're funny, we won't even hold all those wild misses against you!

Have at. Have fun.

(Last year's Stupid Prediction thread is here.)

Tully's Law

Tully's Law:

Escalation of blog hyperbole --> asymptotic attenuation of informational/factual content, rapidly approaching zero.

Just a hypothesis. :-)

Knee jerk libertarianism

I saw somewhere today (I can't find it now) an opinion that there was a "knee jerk libertarian" reaction by many to the domestic eavesdropping news. I won't object to that statement because it certainly describes my initial reaction.

My initial reaction has not changed significantly, but it has softened. Suffice to say that many opiners (with special mention to the authors of this column) caused me to rethink some issues. I will accept that this is a close call.

At this point, current policy is clear for the world: Bush is going to continue what he has been doing. If the policy is not a secret anymore anyway, I see no reason not to have a political debate about it and where to draw the very tricky line.

Partisanship Across The Generations

Harvard Magazine has an interesting article on how partisan loyalties develop, and how despite stereotypes of teenage rebellion, there is plenty of continuity across generations

we never really shake off our parents' convictions. He offers the example of children of strong Democrats who, when asked about their opinions on specific issues, revealed themselves to be quite conservative. Yet on average, those people were unlikely to think of themselves as Republicans. Instead, Niemi says, they were unable to dodge the gravitational force of their parents' politics and self-identified as independents who merely leaned to the right. "The real point we were making in this paper is that parental partisanship has some pull on offspring, even years after the offspring have flown the coop."

My parents were working-class New Deal Democrats. My father has passed away, but my mother is still surprisingly Democratic given some of her arch-conservative social views. It's a class thing. I'm an Independent, but most of my friends are Democrats, and I definitely live a Blue-State lifestyle.

How does your politics compare to your parents?

FISA Wiretapping Rejections

An seattlepi.com article, "Secret court modified wiretap requests", provides speculation as to why the Bush Administration bypassed FISA:

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation... since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's history.

Unfortunately, if this story gets bigger the Bush Administration will spin FISA as being a roadblock to National Security and opponents will spin this as proof the Admin's recent unapproved surveillance was unjustifiable. Without the public being able to access the details of these modifications and rejections, partisan camps will merely circle the wagons around their side's particular brand of hearsay.

Hat tip to Brendan Nyhan.

Alleged Terrorists Ride To Bush's Defense

They don't mean to, but alleged Al Qaeda supporters going on trial will hand the Bush administration a valentine if they contest their identification as being possibly through illegal NSA wiretaps. It's not clear if the questionable wiretaps were responsible for identifying these extremely despicable individuals(they have been credited in a couple cases), but if they were, look for the public support for wiretapping to rise.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that wiretap evidence obtained without a search warrant would not be admissible in court. But it would not taint the whole process to the point that evidence subsequently obtained through orthodox means could be excluded.

The Unions' Dilemma--and Ours

Once upon a time, unions fought against Big Business to stop abuses against workers, improve working conditions, and gain a larger share of business profits (in the form of higher wages and benefits) for the laborers that produced them.

Times have changed.

With private-sector union membership declining drastically, overall union membership is increasingly driven by public-employee unions. In 1953, the peak year for private-sector union participation, there were over 15 million union workers in the private sector, and less than 800 thousand union workers in the public sector. Today, with overall union participation rates at their lowest levels since World War II, the number of private-sector and public-sector union members is roughly even, at a bit over 8 million each. Unions have largely abandoned private-sector organizing [PDF] in favor of the dedicated base of public-sector employees, where the task is easier and where special-interest lobbying and politics so much more effective--and rewarding.

With private-sector unions under continuing pressure from globalization and the relentless ongoing shift away from a purely labor-based industrial American economy to a mobile and information-based world economy, the overall trend is towards an overwhelming public-sector domination by unions. More and more, unions are becoming the voice not of the American worker, but of the American bureaucratic rank-and-file. And the voices of the unions are increasingly aimed at guaranteeing that these bureaucracies enjoys wages and benefits far above and beyond those received by the people who pay for the public sector, a problem that is only likely to get worse.

More and more, the idea that unions are representing the "little guy" against Big Business is becoming a hollow joke. More and more, "union" means representing government employees directly against the government, and indirectly against the taxpayers. We saw this illustrated very well last week in the New York transit strike.

At what point will the unions and their lobbyists become the government, for most practical purposes and at all levels? And with unions more and more representing employees in areas exempt from any meaningful competition or market discipline, how long before it's the unions versus everyone else?

Universal Health Insurance

I'm finally getting around to mentioning this Harris poll, which finds that 75% favor universal health insurance, compared with 17% who oppose it.

It seems to me that the system of employer-based health insurance is in decline, with its costs being a competitive disadvantage to those employers who have it. Here in Massachusetts, outgoing governor and future GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been involved in the issue, so its likely to be a subject in 2008 among both parties.

Why is it so hard give people what they want?

X-Mas Open Thread

Because there's no point trying to be serious.

Football The Way I Like It: Smart Football

When I was going to Seneca Valley High School, in Maryland (suburban Washington), I often went to the football games, but to encourage my friends in the band. The games themselves were pretty boring to me. Same deal with the powerful Redskins of the era. And until I came to Austin, I only got interested in occasional playoffs.

When I moved to Austin, I discovered a largely different kind of football. Smart football. Both the coaches and the players are alot smarter than they were back in Maryland. Back in my high school, there was just one, lonely, smart football player; otherwise it was classic jocks vs. geeks. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, that makes all the difference. The play is much more interesting, because it's more thoughful, and they put more passion into it. Plus, it makes for more wins, and let's face it, a winning football team is more fun than a losing one.

That's how I became a Texas Longhorn fan. Of course, there are other schools like that: Berkeley, Stanford, UW, etc. Plus, others when they have smart coaches. Even the University of Maryland is like that at the moment due to a new, smart coach who understands about smart football.

Right now, the place where the Profesora teaches is also fortunate to have a coach with a smart football style. His first year was uneven, because he had to get the idea of thinking across, but last year they made it to the third playoff game in the NCAA-1A tournament. Watching was lots of fun, because everybody was in it. It hardly seemed like the same game as they played the first time I went to one of their games, the year before the new coach.

I only find NFL games interesting if there's something of that element on at least one side.

The Last Pre-XMas Open Thread This Year!

PANIC!!! (If your shopping is not complete.)

Otherwise, kick back and chill. Where's that remote?

Nuclear Snooping

Compared to the NSA snooping of telephone calls, I wholly endorse nuclear monitoring done without search warrants.

The question of search warrants is controversial, however. To ensure accurate readings, in up to 15 percent of the cases the monitoring needed to take place on private property, sources say, such as on mosque parking lots and private driveways. Government officials familiar with the program insist it is legal; warrants are unneeded for monitoring from public property, they say, as well as from publicly accessible driveways and parking lots. "If a delivery man can access it, so can we," says one.

Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don't need a warrant to drive onto the property -- the issue isn't where they are, but whether they're using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause." Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use -- without a search warrant -- of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home.

I feel this is different from wiretapping, for several reasons.

1. This is the ultimate emergency that we all fear. The greater the danger, the greater latitude I'm willing to grant.

2. This is unexplored territory. Congress clearly spoke on wiretapping, and was fairly clear on what they wanted to prohibit.

3. No harm, no foul. I can't see much risk of abuse in this program. In tapping phones, inevitably along with criminals or terrorists, innocent people will be overheard. The exposure of their personal business can be embarrassing, and in the case of Martin Luther King, Jr., was abused. In the case of nuclear monitoring, if the target has no nuclear material, there is no data, and nothing that would harm the innocent target.

By the way, I am concerned about all these leaks. I don't see that the Plame leak was uniquely evil, and all these other intelligence leaks are just fine. I'm concerned about them all, even if as an aspiring journalist, I have a professional vested interest in leakiness.

Update: Sensible liberals (like my wife) feel that the stakes involved justify the minor bending of the rules. Via the Daou Report, I've found one who argues that the FBI should have less access to your driveway than Fedex does.

On the issue that the FBI is "picking on Muslims," if there is evidence that the government has decided to spy on all Muslims to the exclusions of others, there might be a case. But if instead of such a top-down approach, it has taken the bottom-up approach of identifying Islamic radicals with ties to terror, and then identifying locals they have visited, that seems perfectly legitimate. If so, it will be the case that all those monitored are Muslims, but not all Muslims will have been monitored.

As centrists, we understand about balance. We are at war with a subset of the Muslim community. While we need to monitor the radical element, we have to do it in a way that is not oppressive to those Muslims who are just regular folk, both from the point of view of justice, and for fear of alienating them and pushing some of them to join the radicals.

Invoking the golden rule, I would not mind if the FBI parked in my driveway and checked my home for radiation. The utility companies already come to the wall of my home from time to time to check their meters. If they want to install a free geiger counter next to the electric meter, fine with me.

Blogroll Maintenance

I've added some new blogs to the blogrolls, and deleted some that seemed to be dead. The blogroll should be in pretty good shape now, so if you do see dead links, send an email to cf at centrist coalition dot com. Also, if you think any blogs should be added, email the URL

Most of the comment spam lately has beem coming from .ru domains, so I have banned links to url's which contain ".ru/" If you wish to recommend a legitimate site with a URL in that form, just post it as plain text, if necessary with a space strategically placed to fool the anti-spam software.

New Centrist Blogs

Check out:

Moderate Musings.

Harper's Mews

Update on the Event Horizon

Over a month ago, I posted about detainees who had been determined by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal to be civilians--i.e., not enemy combatants--but who nevertheless remained in detention at Guantanamo Bay. The Washington Post updates their situation today. The good news: yesterday, Judge James Robertson (yes, the same Judge James Robertson who recently resigned from the FISA court over the Administration's domestic surveillance program) agreed that the continuing detention was illegal.

The bad news: Judge Robertson denied their writ of habeas corpus. The court has no authority to order the military to release the detainees to roam free on the military installation of Guantanamo Bay. Because neither their own country nor any other will have them, these detainees cannot be "freed" to anyplace except the United States. But the court determined that it lacked the power in the absence of statutory authority to order the executive to admit an alien into the United States. Accordingly, though their detention is illegal, detained they must be, because there's no place for them to go.

Even in Kafka's The Trial, a verdict of definite acquittal resulted in the accused being set free; the problem in The Trial was merely that no one ever won a definite acquittal.

"Such acquittals," said the painter, "are said to have occurred. Only it is very difficult to prove the fact. The final decisions of the Court are never recorded, even the Judges can't get hold of them, consequently we have only legendary accounts of ancient cases."

Here, the detainees have won definite acquittal--surely when both the Combatant Status Review Tribunal determines one is not an enemy combatant and when the court considering one's petition for habeas corpus determines one's detention is illegal, one has won a definite acquittal--but they must remain in detention.

Yes, we've transcended even Kafka in the legal spaghetti we've extruded in the "War on Terror."

Kos Call

Meet Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. "Kos." According to the author, for better or worse this is the new public face of the Democratic Party.

"Everybody says I'm an a$$hole, and they're right...".

How to win friends and influence people.

The Continuing Xmas Season Open Thread!

Tick tick tick tick tick.

It's mostly good. Most of the time. Really.

Why I'm Bothered by Domestic Spying

IMHO, Posner's position misses a pretty amazing amount for such a smart man. The masses of data are purely a red herring. Of course he's right that those are automatically sorted.

But, back on the right hand, away from where Posner wants you to look, we still have the issue of public employees looking at data generally considered private like personal phone calls and emails, including lovers' stupid emails, meeting arrangements, financial transactions, credit card info, SSNs.

Now, if public datasystems and employees were perfect and incorruptible, this would present little problem. But, in reality, we know people are sometimes little J. Edgar Hoovers and like to collect data on rivals and troublesome reporters and big wheels for blackmail. Also, many federal computer systems are insecure; will every computer the data goes be secure? Worst, we also know that cash-strapped public employees regularly sell data at sufficiently low rates as so suggest that such data is in high supply.

Worse, even if the Bush Administration doesn't use that kind of data for political purposes, we've seen that not all Presidents are so benevolent.

Awhile back I said that I'd be unbothered if FISA was involved. Well, now I'm bothered, because not only is FISC out of the loop (!)(!)(!), but, as Bruce Schneier explains, this is the replacement of retail data collection with wholesale data collection. See here and here. Great reading. IMHO, Schneier's blog is worth watching.

Weld: Fire NYC Transit Union Leaders

It is hard to dig your anchor into any of our political leaders today because you more than likely will end up lost at sea, but one of my political heroes is former Massachusetts Governor, and current candidate for New York Governor, Bill Weld. Weld has had a positive impact on American politics, IMO, because he has shown that being centrist doesn't always mean acting in moderation, and that sometimes being a leader means proposing bold solutions and dramatic change. I know some question Weld's leadership in his latter years as a resident of the Governor's mansion on Beacon Hill, and as someone who doesn't live in that state I won't dispute his imperfections, but I have admiration and respect for the man who stared down Jesse Helms and wouldn't abandon a position on medical marijuana in order to be President Clinton's Ambassador to Mexico. That is character in my book.

Weld is again showing his iron will by taking on a union in the biggest union town of them all, stating that as Governor he would fire labor leaders who strike illegally, specifically the members of the Transit Worker's Union in NYC. Weld's likely Democratic opponent, Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, has yet to take a position.

Spitzer is the darling of the DLC wing of the Democratic Party, and has earned the respect of many center leaning groups and individuals. I don't know much about the man, but my personal impression is that he is a prosecutor of the worst kind; the type that only takes the cases solely to get his name in the paper. Is that fair? Maybe or maybe not, but the fact that he is mum on an issue that seems so plainly obvious to me, doesn't help his image.

The TWU's actions were unacceptable. During a cold east coast December, the strike, that is now over, left millions walking to work in the biggest city in the world. I don't know how many of you have been to New York or understand its geography, but there is no place on the planet where public transit is more vital to the economy and the overall well being of the city. There is a good reason that certain public employees by law are forbidden to strike, the situation in the Big Apple was a primary example.

The Weld campaign recently released a radio ad:

While the campaign for Governor has just begun -- the current New York City transit strike has already become an issue. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has accepted campaign contributions from the transit union for the past four years. His main opponent, Bill Weld, has called on Spitzer to answer a simple question: as governor, would you fire the union leadership?

Mr. Spitzer owes the voters of New York an answer. To date, he has not given one. Bill Weld has a different view -- the current NY transit strike is blatantly illegal. As Governor, Weld would FIRE the union leadership for advocating and participating in an illegal strike. This strike is costing hundreds of millions in lost revenue for New York businesses.

Bottom line: This is no time for appeasement.

A strategic political maneuver no doubt, but an effective one, and overall I agree. There is a time to negotiate and focus on interests. There is a time for give and take. There is also a time to put your foot down and say enough is enough. I am sure most middle class working families who were forced to walk over the Brooklyn Bridge to get to work at 7:30 in the morning, would agree.

Appeals Court Judge Defends Domestic Spying, Offers Possible Changes

Richard Posner, a Judge on the U.S. Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit and widely respected senior lecturer and the University of Chicago Law School, writes about domestic spy programs:

These programs are criticized as grave threats to civil liberties. They are not. Their significance is in flagging the existence of gaps in our defenses against terrorism. The Defense Department is rushing to fill those gaps, though there may be better ways. The collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value. This initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer.

The data that make the cut are those that contain clues to possible threats to national security. The only valid ground for forbidding human inspection of such data is fear that they might be used to blackmail or otherwise intimidate the administration's political enemies. That danger is more remote than at any previous period of U.S. history. Because of increased political partisanship, advances in communications technology and more numerous and competitive media, American government has become a sieve. No secrets concerning matters that would interest the public can be kept for long. And the public would be far more interested to learn that public officials were using private information about American citizens for base political ends than to learn that we have been rough with terrorist suspects -- a matter that was quickly exposed despite efforts at concealment.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities. That is too restrictive. Innocent people, such as unwitting neighbors of terrorists, may, without knowing it, have valuable counterterrorist information. Collecting such information is of a piece with data-mining projects such as Able Danger.

Posner goes on to discuss the goals of domestic spying, the roll of the FBI, and programs in other countries with "longer histories of fighting terrorism than the United States." It is a good read from someone with a legal background.

Hat-tip to Leon.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem--the Undying pre-Xmas Open Thread

In darkest R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu lies dreaming....

Well, hey, it can't all be good!

Patriot Act Extension Passes

The SEnate tonight passed a six-month extension of the Patriot Act, and now have until the summer to hash out the final compromises. I'm calling this a victory. Provoded that the Congress doesn't sit on its ass, we should have this worked out. One can only hope.

Read the story here.

A Question About the Patriot Act

In the midst of all the debate and demagoguery of the renewal of the Patriot Act, I have a few questions. First off, if there are flaws in the bill (concerns have been raised long before this vote), then why can't they just vote for an extension? Is it just ego? Secondly, does the entire PA expire, or just those provisions that needed to be renewed? If parts remain, will they essentially be useless and toothless measures?

Should the opponents of the current conference bill just vote for the flawed bill, and make changes later? Can that be done? There's a lot of fearmongering, fingerpointing, and bloviating (on both sides) going on. I'm looking for reasoned responses here.

Deficit Reducing Budget Passes Senate

Cheney cast the deciding vote.

The Washington Post reports:

The bill "robs from the poor to make room for tax giveaways to the wealthiest individuals in the country," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an ideologically driven, extreme, radical budget" that "caters to lobbyists and an elite group of ultraconservative ideologues here in Washington, all at the expense of middle class Americans."

The five maverick Republicans-- Susan M. Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island -- joined James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont, and all Senate Democrats in opposing the bill, which would allow states to impose new fees on Medicaid recipients, cut federal child support enforcement funds, impose new work requirements on state welfare programs and squeeze student lenders.

According to budget experts, the bill would barely dent the federal deficit, cutting less than one-half of 1 percent from an estimated $14.3 trillion in federal spending over the next five years. Opponents said the poor would bear the brunt of the cuts -- especially to Medicaid, child support enforcement and foster care -- whereas original targets for belt-tightening, such as pharmaceutical companies and private insurers, largely escaped sanction.

Republicans passing smaller budgets, Democrats accusing them of doing it on the backs of the poor... Sounds like the two parties are hunkering down and going back to their roots inside the beltway... Or are they?

My only question would be is this a budget truly intended to reduce the deficit, or is it a budget that thoughtlessly cuts programs to those people who don't vote so Republican leaders can say: "see, we are still the party of fiscal discipline?" More research is obviously needed, although on it's face I am glad that the GOP is at least veering back in the direction of fiscal responsibility.

I am all for reducing deficits and smaller budgets, but I would hope that we get to that point by coming up with progressive new alternatives to how the government distributes services, rather than making cuts in places where people will bitch the least. For instance, we need to reform Medicaid, make it more efficient, but also increase the size of its scope with the intent of reaching more Americans who do not have healthcare.

Another Xmas Open Thread!

But I've lost track of the days....

Vat der heck. It's all good.

Good News For Science

A federal court judge has ruled against the teaching of Intelligent Design in public school science classrooms as science. In his decision, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones said:

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom..."

Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

Party Ideological Shifts Throughout History

Dr. David Brin recently directed his readers to The Claremont Institute's article "Not Your Father's Republican Party," which summarizes the Republican party's ideological evolution from the progressive days of Lincoln, through modern conservativism, into new conservativism, and ending with Bush Jr.'s seemingly half-way progressive, albeit "faith-based," half-way neoconservativism (That's not the best way to describe it, I know. Alternatives welcome).

While I find the article's stance on the Republican Party's ideological shifts accurate, I also accept that other perspectives are also possible and equally valid. The article reminds us of how our "left/right" political dichotomy tends to make us fall into the trap of equating party with ideology, when, in fact, a party's ideology is forever shifting and may completely contradict its positions from a mere decade before.

Impeachment!

Some Democratic elected officials are talking about impeachment because of the domestic spying story which broke on Friday.

Georgia Rep. John Lewis told an Atlanta radio station that he would vote in factor of articles of impeachment if George W. Bush violated the law in approving the spying plan, as Lewis seems to believe he has. "It's a very serious charge, but he violated the law," Lewis said. "The president should abide by the law. He deliberately, systematically violated the law. He is not king, he is president."

Meanwhile, California Sen. Barbara Boxer said she has asked four legal scholars to offer their opinion as to whether Bush's violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amounts to an impeachable offense. In a letter posted on her Web site, Boxer notes that John Dean -- who, as Richard Nixon's White House counsel, learned a thing or two about the abuse of power -- called Bush's actions an impeachable offense, and she wants to know what others think. "Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents," Boxer writes. "I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible."

Democratic activists have been talking impeachment for some time, based on the notion that the President lied to get us into Iraq. That was never going anywhere, because spinning is not against the law. But if a law has been broken here, that brings it to a new level, certainly one that could start with a criminal investigation and go who knows where.

Still, I would advise Democrats to downplay the impeachment talk, in favor of a sober investigation of whether laws have been broken. The public wants a change in 2006, but I doubt they are going to install a Democratic congress if the major agenda item is impeaching the president.

In truth, I don't understand the administration's logic. I am totally in favor of wiretapping bad guys, and personally, I wouldn't even mind if they wiretapped my own phone. My life is an open book, and I don't commit any crimes. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the public wanted the government to do whatever was necessary to protect us, and worry about the legalities later.

But now it is "later." They've had four years to get this on a firm legal footing. Why didn't they?

5th Xmas Open Thread

...on the 7th day of xmas open threads, because I didn't get around to firing up 5 and 6 this weekend. Oh well.

1-2-3-4-fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifff! What's on your mind?

Who else enjoyed big discounts from panicking retailers this weekend, and the re-emergence of the Peyton Manning pout just in time for the NFL playoffs? I know I sure did...

Hillary Clinton's Bachelor's Thesis

Below is an article I wrote for one of my journalism classes at Boston University. This is its first publication.

A Well-Fed Establishmentarian

WELLESLEY, Mass. -- Hillary Clinton's 1969 bachelor's thesis at Wellesley College shows a young women tempted to enter the training program of radical political organizer Saul Alinsky, but choosing the safer route of Yale Law School. The thesis, which was sealed from public inspection while the New York senator was first lady, can now be read by anyone who asks to see it at the Wellesley College archives.

The thesis, entitled "There is only the fight: An analysis of the Alinsky model," was written by a young woman then using the name Hillary D. Rodham. It was submitted as part of an honors program in political science.

In her thesis, Clinton analyzed the career of a man who she described in a section heading as, " Saul David Alinsky: An American Radical." Alinsky was a community organizer who came to public attention in 1939 by helping to create the Back of the Yards Council in the Chicago neighborhood that was the setting for "The Jungle," Upton Sinclair's novel exposing the meatpacking industry. Alinsky was known as a showman and self-proclaimed agitator who used publicity stunts to inspire people in low-income neighborhoods to demand improved public services. Yet Alinsky recognized the Roman Catholic Church as a partner, and was supported by the Bishop Bernard Shiel of the Chicago Archdiocese. Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation was supported by Chicago retail magnate Marshall Field III.

Clinton noted that Alinsky, whose academic career was capped by a fellowship in criminology, became a pioneering community organizer after being offered the job as head of probation and parole for the City of Philadelphia. Clinton wrote, "Security. Prestige. Money. Each of these inducements alone has been enough to turn a lean and hungry agitator into a well-fed establishmentarian. Alinsky rejected the offer."

By the time she had written the thesis, however, Clinton had made the opposite choice. An appendix to the thesis contains a blank application form to an institute formed by Alinsky to train community organizers. Among Alinsky's earlier protégés was Cesar Chavez, who gained fame in the 1960s by organizing migrant farm workers and initiating a grape boycott. Yet Clinton chose another route. In a bibliographical note on sources, Clinton wrote of having interviewed Alinsky twice, and added, "His offer of a place in the new Institute was tempting, but after spending a year trying to make sense of his inconsistencies, I need three years of legal rigor."

A biographer, David Brock, wrote in the "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham" that Yale Law School had a reputation at the time of being more interested in social change than "corporate-type "schools like Harvard and the University of Chicago. Still, in choosing Yale Law School over Alinsky's institute, Clinton selected a path which offered security, prestige, and money. Yale was also the place where Hillary Rodham met her husband-to-be, Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton wrote that Alinsky saw liberals and radicals as sharing the same ends, but differing in the means they were willing to use. Clinton characterized Alinsky as "neo-Hobbesian" in his philosophy of power, i.e. willing to use any means to achieve a desired end. Liberals, by contrast, were committed to working within the established system. In choosing Yale Law School, Clinton chose the path of the liberal.

She noted that Alinsky was skeptical of the model of intervention employed by the anti-poverty programs rolled out by the Johnson administration. The Alinsky model sought to empower the poor to demand better services. He feared the top-down approach taken by the Johnson-era programs would be used by social service bureaucrats and city government to keep the poor in line. Clinton observed that while Alinsky's model had improved the lives of the Back of the Yards community, it also produced a community that was resistant to racial integration and supportive of the 1968 presidential campaign of Alabama Gov. George Wallace.

The thesis is 84 pages long, including appendices, It is written in academic language that is clear, and generally free from social science jargon. Typed in the days before personal computers, it is free from spelling errors, though vertical slashes added by hand to separate words abound in the manuscript. Even now, the Wellesley College library archive does not permit then entire thesis to be photocopied, and the text is not available on the Internet. The reason given by library staff is "copyright" issues, though of course Sen. Clinton could waive the copyright restrictions if she so wished.

It's understandable why Sen. Clinton might not want her thesis to be widely read. Clinton's generally positive, though not uncritical portrayal of a person who identified himself as a "radical" could be fodder for critics wishing to portray her as a radical. In a 2003 op-ed, Clinton critic Gary Aldrich claimed that Alinsky was a "long-time Communist Party, U.S.A. member" and that Hillary Clinton herself was a dedicated Marxist. Alinsky once told "Playboy" he'd worked with Communists while organizing during the 1930s, though he said he had never joined the Communist Party. By 1969, Alinsky's radicalism was tame enough that Daniel Patrick Moynihan, working at that time for President Richard Nixon, asked Alinsky for ideas in formulating the administration's anti-poverty programs. Clinton's thesis does use the word "Marxian" once in describing one type of radical perspective, but not in a way that indicates she was herself a Marxist. Still, it would not be helpful for Clinton's presidential aspirations for her to have to defend herself from a charge of radicalism by claiming she was "just a liberal" when the label "liberal" itself is frequently disparaged.

Even a balanced portrayal of Clinton's thesis may not be advantageous for her, because it focuses on the issue of poverty. During the 1960s, this issue was so prominent that even men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld focused on it at the Office of Economic Opportunity under President Nixon. In the 2000s, poverty issues have yet to demonstrate vote-getting potential at the ballot box.

The title of the thesis is derived from the T.S. Eliot poem, "East Coker." In the front piece of her thesis, Clinton presented the poem, underscoring the words "There is only the fight to recover what has been lost | And found and lost again and again." For Clinton, these words may be more apt then ever, as Democrats seek to recover control the White House they have lost again and again.

China - A Rival?

Radical Middle author Mark Satin questions those who see a rising enemy in China. I agree. I don't see any fundamental conflict with China, and even over Taiwan, I'd prefer to see it integrated into China in the fashion of Hong Kong rather than go to war to preserve it's independence. China has its militarists, just as we have ours, but it's evolving slowly in a positive direction. I think must of the talk of a threat from China is an attempt to not so much to justify more defense spending, but a particular type of spending on items relevant to great power conflict.

The Ernie Pyle Style

Dissent Magazine has published an appreciation of Ernie Pyle, the World War II reporter killed in action. He was not neutral about which side won the war. That is apparently considered a journalistic sin nowadays.

Hillary Site

Here's a site, JustHillary.com that doesn't seem to be for or against Sen. Clinton as much as obsessive about her. The site is by Gregg Birnbaum, political editor of The New York Post.

2006 Hurricane season!

You can never be to rich, to good looking or have enough warning. For those of you who don't think hurricanes have any political impact I refer you to Brownies wikipedia entry.

It may seem that I'm a little obsessed with the imminent destruction of the gulf coast. My excuse is that I live just close enough that the remnants keeps passing over the house. (Interesting side note: Hurricanes are noisy, even when they decay into tropical depressions. That fact never really sunk in till I tried to sleep through one). Anyway, here is a helpful holiday tip: The first flush of next years hurricane predictions come out in December.

I know of two groups trying to do long term hurricane forecasting in the Atlantic, Tropical Storm Risk and The Tropical Meteorology Project. If you thought 2005 was a whirlwind of fun and excitement then hang onto those Christmas stocking, cuss here comes 2006 .

Besides giving next years predictions I thought I'd show a sampling of the accuracy of past December predictions. I am only showing “Named Storms”, these are storms that reach tropical storm strength (maximum sustained wind speed from 39 mph to 73 mph ), receive a name from the official list and may go on to form hurricanes.

The TSR Forecasts

2005 forecast for 2006 Named Storms = 15.7 (±4.5), actual ?
2004 forecast for 2005 Named Storms = 13.4 (±3.6), actual 26
2003 forecast for 2004 Named Storms = 13.0 (±4.0), actual 16
2002 forecast for 2003 Named Storms = 12.4 (±3.5), actual 21
2001 forecast for 2002 Named Storms = 13.0 (±3.6), actual 14

The Tropical Meteorology Project forecast
2005 forecast for 2006 season Named Storms = 17, actual ?
2004 forecast for 2005 season Named Storms = 11, actual 26
2003 forecast for 2004 season Named Storms = 13, actual 16
2002 forecast for 2003 season Named Storms = 12, actual 21
2001 forecast for 2002 season Named Storms = 13, actual 14
2000 forecast for 2001 season Named Storms = 09 actual 17

The bottom line is two fold. First they are forecasting more storms than last year and second they always seem to underestimate the number of storms.

Cavet: I think I read the reports correctly. Click the links and check out the web sites for yourselves.

A couple of interesting links.

Just for informational purposes here is a link to Watching America . It is a site that links to foreign news sources, and translates them if they are not in English. I find it very interesting to see what other people are reading in their newspapers. Doesn't seem to have any agenda except being a window to the world. Of course most of the world doesn't see us as all that cuddly at the moment, but Watching America is just the messenger.

One article I found on the site was from The Times in the U.K. So many bad thing have happened this last year, that reading it all in a concise article kind of made me sit back and go harrumph. We certainly have been busy.

Domestic Spying, So What

I understand that this is preliminary and more facts will be availabe in the coming months, but I am not sure what I think of that; furthermore, I am not sure what the big deal is.

Say it is WWII and the United States received intelligence in regards to a line of communication from the Nazi's. Wouldn't we want them to monitor it? Of course we would. So why is Russ Feingold stoking his national aspirations by making a big deal about the government spying on American connections to al- Qaida? Seriously, after 9/11 didn't we really believe a program like this was possible, and deep down weren't we thankful for it?

MSNBC reports:

Bush said the program was narrowly designed and used "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations.

The program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program, the president said.

Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities.

I have not been a fan of how this administration has implemented every aspect of the Patriot Act, especially under Attorney General John Ashcroft; however, based on the facts that I currently have, the secret program sounds good to me. Furthermore, I wish certain members of Congress would quit acting like they are sincerely concerned about our civil liberties and call this what it is, political maneuvering against a President whose poll numbers started to inch up last week.

This American doesn't feel violated. The secret program to spy on our enemies should have stayed secret.

Catch 22: Health Insurance in America

The New York Times has been running a series on the major problems with the American health care system. Today's article is particularly revealing of one of the biggest "traps" in the system.

Sick and Vulnerable, Workers Fear for Health and Their Jobs

As usual with the NYT, you have to get most of the way through the "mood setting" heart-rending personal stories to get to a succinct point, but there really is one, and it's an important one.

The Catch-22 of the American health care system is that while many people work "for the insurance," when they become too sick to work and are most in need of that insurance, they are most at risk of losing it.

Indeed. Not only does our health care system make it difficult to afford insurance at the lower levels of employment in the country, it gives employers enormous leverage in keeping employees in line if they have the least fear of needing serious medical care. And if they actually use that insurance, they're really at the mercy of the employer.

from the border, on the border

Immigration is finally making some headway in Washington. Here are a few related issues from the state that has seen a huge increase in illegal border crossings in the past several years (and the consequent political turmoil).

First, our House representation appears to be surprisingly split on the what to do on border issues (based on the latest vote).

Opposition arose on both sides of the debate, even within the Republican majority. Arizona GOP Reps. J.D. Hayworth and Jim Kolbe, who rarely agree on any immigration question, both opposed the bill and voted against two procedural motions needed to advance it to a final vote. Hayworth voted against final passage, one of only 17 Republicans to oppose the bill.

Kolbe, who will retire after this term in office, skipped the vote on final passage. His office released a statement saying he had a prior commitment but would've voted against the bill.

"These people, having voted on enforcement only, are never going to touch it again," said Kolbe, who has co-sponsored a guest-worker proposal with Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that mirrors McCain's proposal.

Kolbe said he fears the House will never act on it.

"After we pass this, we send it to the Senate. And I think that's the end of it," he said.

Meanwhile, Hayworth predicted the Senate will pass its own guest-worker program that the House eventually will take up instead of the bill passed Friday.

"In terms of truth in labeling, are we in fact engaged in enforcement first, or are we in fact engaged in enforcement maybe?" Hayworth asked.

Three different proposed bills (1 House: Kolbe/Flake, 2 Senate: 1 McCain, 1 Kyl) have come from the AZ congressional delegation; all include some provision for "guest-workers".

In a more locally relevant issue, once again AZ is being told by the courts "this time I REALLY mean it" concerning AZ's lack of funding for bilingual education. Given the costs of improving bilingual education (which in AZ pretty much means English for Spanish speakers, many if not most of who are non-citizens) you'd expect folks from AZ to be stridently anti-immigrant. (But then again there is the lower cost construction costs, lower prices at restaurants etc. As I write this my house is getting repainted and I can hear the need for bilingual education.)

Finally, this little tidbit warms my heart. Personally, I feel cross-border migration will not slow until the economic pull is diminshed. However, that won't improve until Mexico seriously improves its corruption problem. I've hoped for some time that our "immigration problem" will, in the long run, be a key part of Mexico's corruption solution as ex-patriot Mexicans demand cleaner and more effective government (as they've experienced in the US).

PS: Oh yeah, for those who say the immigrants are changing American culture and traditions, I say "yes, and...?" And don't forget to light your luminarias!

West Wing Actor Dead

John Spencer, Leo McGarry of NBC's West Wing, died suddenly of heart complications today.

I loved Spencer's roll on the West Wing, the politically savvy Presidential Chief of Staff with a troubled past, always reigning in his more liberal boss for the sake of getting things done. This season, in case you don't watch, McGarry was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in an election that has yet to play out on television. The roll fit him well. IMO, the show is getting better after years of going down hill, but the loss of Spencer will be a hit.

Before the West Wing, Spencer was on L.A. Law, another hit NBC show. He was only 58, to young to go. May he RIP.

Laffey/Chafee Race

In Rhode Island, centrist Republican Senator, Lincoln Chafee, is facing a Club for Growth primary challenge from the right in Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey.

Red State has some words in regards to this race, posted today:

Lincoln Chafee's liberalism is a well-known and chronicled phenomenon. Chafee is a run-away and unashamed pork-barrel spender who is skeptical of tax cuts and socially liberal. He is also incompetent and stupid. Chafee frequently chooses inopportune moments to backstab the party, and is a constant flight-risk, a la Jeffords (I could go on further about the other similarities between Jeffords and Chafee, but that is outside of the purview of this post.) For all intents and purposes, Lincoln Chafee is not much better than a Democrat, and in some situations may actually be worse (see below). The unanswered question, however, is whether a Laffey victory in the Republican primary would necessarily be a good thing for either the Republican party, or for conservative ideals.

In other words, Lincoln Chafee has a mind of his own, and we don't like him, but as long as Bill Frist gets to stay in charge maybe we should vote for him anyway... That is principle if I have ever seen it.

The truth about why Conservatives and the Club for Growth are jumping on the Laffey band wagon:

It's been 25 years since an incumbent Republican Senator was defeated in a primary, and perhaps it's time to invoke some party discipline, voter style, as a reminder to the rest of them about exactly who is buttering their bread.

Who butters their bread? I don't know, but I think in what may be the bluest state in the Union, next to its neighbor, the job of the Republican Senator who ran on a centrist message to begin with is to represent his constituents, not the right-wing of the Republican Party. Whether or not you like Lincoln Chafee, is their a doubt in your mind that he is representative of the typical northeastern liberal voter?

I think the "butter their bread" statement is very telling. The Club for Growth tells us that Chafee has to go because he is anti-tax cuts, pro-pork barrel spending, and anti-free trade, but the Senator points out some interesting facts on his campaign website in regards to his record, compared to his opponent's:

-As Mayor of Cranston, Stephen Laffey raised taxes 22.6 percent since he took office just three years ago.

-Thanks to Mr. Laffey the average Cranston home-owner now pays an additional $1,000 a year in taxes.

-Under Mr. Laffey, The City of Cranston’s budget increased by more than $13 million between 2003 and 2005.

-The Concord Coalition twice named Senator Chafee the most fiscally responsible member of the Senate for his support of a Pay-As-You-Go approach to the federal budget.

-Senator Chafee received the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “Spirit of Enterprise” Award for his strong pro-business record.

-Senator Chafee was the only member of the Rhode Island delegation to support the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which will add local jobs and strengthen our economy.

-As a Senator, Lincoln Chafee has voted for cutting the marriage penalty tax, and for other targeted tax cuts and voted against major spending bills such as the $700 billion prescription drug benefit and the $274 billion farm bill.

The Club for Growth continually fails to point out that the current budget deficit was passed by the so-called pro-growth, anti-tax, budget hawk conservative Republican leadership in Congress, and signed into law by the conservative Republican President that they endorsed for re-election. The Laffey endorsement is nothing more than an attempt to burn an independent-minded Senator at the stake because he doesn't fall into line. It has got very little to do with fiscal responsibility. If that were the case, the Club for Growth would be endorsing Senator Chafee, and not his opponent.

I am not defending the spending habits of any U.S. Senator. With the exception of maybe one from Arizona and possibly another from Wisconsin, they are all guilty of pork-barrel spending, but Lincoln Chafee has regularly stood against his own party’s legislation that is a major reason for the current fiscal situation in this country. Whether it is energy, transportation, Medicare, agriculture, corporate incentives, or pay-as-you-go, the Senator has been on the right side of the issues over and over again. He deserves re-election.

Pay For Play

Doug Bandow has resigned from the Cato Institute for accepting money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing opinions. Others may do it too.

For years, rumors have swirled of an underground opinion "pay-for-play" industry in Washington in which think-tank employees and pundits trade their ability to shape public perception for cash.

"NAIVE PURITY STANDARD." Bandow isn't the only think-tanker to have received payments from Abramoff for writing articles. Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist's clients. "I do that all the time," Ferrara says. "I've done that in the past, and I'll do it in the future."

I don't think anyone in their right mind would pay someone to blog favorable posts at Centerfield, as we're not that influential. Still, I hope all our bloggers have enough sense to realize that you're entitled to your opinion, but if you're paid to express that opinion, you must disclose it.

...4th day of Xmas Open Threads

...for whatever.

McCain wins

White House Closer on McCain Torture Ban

After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday.

Good News from Iraq: Parliamentary Election Edition

MSNBC reports:

Iraqis voted in a historic parliamentary election Thursday, with strong turnout reported in Sunni Arab areas and even a shortage of ballots in some precincts. Several explosions rocked Baghdad throughout the day, but the level of violence was low.

Strong turnout in Sunni areas... A shortage of ballots in some precincts.... Low violence... Good day indeed.

Up to 15 million Iraqis were electing 275 members of the first full-term parliament from among 7,655 candidates running on 996 tickets, representing Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish, Turkomen and sectarian interests across a wide political spectrum. Iraqis do not vote for individual candidates, but instead for lists — or tickets — that compete for the seats in each of the 18 provinces.

Sunnis appeared to have turned out in large numbers — even in insurgent bastions like Ramadi and Haqlaniyah — to try to curb the power of Shiite clerical parties now in control.

Sounds like Democracy.

Scary Words

I certainly do not want to underestimate the threat from Al Quaeda. On the other hand, I am consistently disturbed by the Administration's willingness to exaggerate the threat in order to justify it's policies. This article is, in my opinion, a good example of how politicians (not just Bush) use language in a way that obfuscates issues. The article points out how the administration constantly invokes the threat of an Islam caliphate when talking about Al Quaeda, presumably as a way to justify it's policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

Now, it's certainly true that a stated goal of militant Islamists, most especially including Al Quaeda, is to reestablish the caliphate over the entire Islamic Middle East.

Specialists on Islam say the word is a mysterious and ominous one for many Americans, and that the administration knows it. "They recognize that there's a lot of resonance when they use the term 'caliphate,' " said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst and now a scholar at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, said that the word had an "almost instinctive fearful impact."

Now, certainly, you can't ignore what Al Quaeda or related groups say about their goals because this obviously impacts their actions. On the other hand, it makes no sense to act as if Al Quaeda has a realistic ability to establish a caliphate, when they clearly don't. All this talk about an Islamic caliphate is stir up fear, because, in reality, as the article points out, the caliphate has very little support in the general Muslim community.

A number of scholars and former government officials take strong issue with the administration's warning about a new caliphate, and compare it to the fear of communism spread during the Cold War. They say that although Al Qaeda's statements do indeed describe a caliphate as a goal, the administration is exaggerating the magnitude of the threat as it seeks to gain support for its policies in Iraq.

This kind of overheated rhetoric has two problems: it causes on overreaction to the perceived threat and is often counterproductive to dealing with the actual threat.

"It is certainly correct to say that these people have a global design, but the administration ought to frame it realistically," said Mr. Esposito, the founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown. "Otherwise they can actually be playing into the hands of the Osama bin Ladens of the world because they raise this to a threat that is exponentially beyond anything that Osama bin Laden can deliver."

Let me reiterate, I am not claiming that Bush is the first administration to do this. The United States did this consistently during the Cold War, in administrations from both parties, overestimating the Soviet Union's military power and it's ability to accomplish its expansionist goals. As a result, we ended up with weapons we didn't need and helping to create an arms race. (And, yes, I know that people will say that the arms race helped destroy the Soviet Union, but is it really good that both sides had thousands of nuclear weapons sitting around?)

Hot rhetoric is often a useful tactic for politicians that do not want to focus on the actual issues. It helps to stifle debate on the subject: "disagree with our policies? Do you want to see an Islamic caliphate?" It sort of fits in with this administration's use of language to advance its agenda. We need to recognize that Islamic militancy is a threat. But we also need to recognize that its power is not unlimited and that saying you have a goal to do something is not the same as actually having the ability to accomplish that goal.

The Revenue Bone: Still Connected to the Promise Bone

The NY Times reports even more spread of the baby boomer's demographic/economic time bomb. Just in case you don't know yet, that's the one where a big population bubble of Americans born from about 1945 to 1960 bargained itself to way more promises than the next generation could afford to keep.

The Next Retirement Bomb

Since 1983, the city of Duluth, Minn., has been promising free lifetime health care to all of its retired workers, their spouses and their children up to age 26. No one really knew how much it would cost. Three years ago, the city decided to find out.

It took an actuary about three months to identify all the past and current city workers who qualified for the benefits. She tallied their data by age, sex, previous insurance claims and other factors. Then she estimated how much it would cost to provide free lifetime care to such a group.

The total came to about $178 million, or more than double the city's operating budget. And the bill was growing.

Whoops!

Off the government balance sheets - out of sight and out of mind - those obligations have been ballooning as health care costs have spiraled and as the baby-boom generation has approached retirement. And now the accounting rulemaker for the public sector, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, says it is time for every government to do what Duluth has done: to come to grips with the total value of its promises, and to report it to their taxpayers and bondholders.

The board has issued a new accounting rule that will take effect in less than two years. It has not yet drawn much attention outside specialists' circles, but it threatens to propel radical cutbacks for government retirees and to open the way for powerful economic and social repercussions. Some experts are warning of tax increases, or of an eventual decline in the quality of public services. States, cities and agencies that do not move quickly enough may see their credit ratings fall. In the worst instances, a city might even be forced into bankruptcy if it could not deliver on its promises to retirees.

Unfortunately, deserve has got precious little to do with this problem. Each individual town, city, and state government has the number of dollars it collects in revenue. Shortfalls are on the way. Someone will have to pay. The money will have to come from somewhere. The first step you can expect to see is that the promises made to curent emplyees will stop being made to new employees. Then they'll start cutting into the promises made. (This, BTW, has already begun on healthcare financing in some places).

Hopefully we all wake up at once and commit to responsibly
solving the problem of overpromising to baby boomers. If there's no free lunch, then there's definitely no free lifetime healthcare.

And Again! LAST CHANCE!

VOTING CLOSES AT MIDNIGHT EASTERN TIME!

Centerfield has made the final ballot for the 2005 Weblog Awards in one of the ecosystem categories. So go vote for us! You may place one vote per category every 24 hours, so for once it's not cheating to stuff the ballot box (by the rules, of course).

VOTE HERE!

To see the whole category list, and vote for some of the other fine choices (in OTHER categories) go HERE. And what the heck. Check out the other fine blogs in our category as well--AFTER you vote for us. Repeatedly. This post will be periodically bumped to keep it towards the top of the page.

(N.B.: It is well known to science that voting for anyone else in our category can cause dandruff, scurvy, hives, and loss of sex drive, and result in missionary Satanists visiting you at work to sell you Amway and Mary Kay products. Or something like that. Just so you know. Don't say you weren't warned.)

On the 3rd Day of Xmas Open Threads

...we wish everyone a happy Festivus. We therefore put out a call for the airing of centrist grievances, wherein we list all the ways that partisans have disappointed us in the last year.

Another call goes out to choose the partisans you'd like to see wrestle during the Festivus feats of strength.

And since the 12 days call repeats the calls from previous days, we repeat the call to lurkers to take up our challenge to shout out a good word or two. It's a centrist occasion, a Festivus for the rest of us. So be of good cheer, and let your heart be known!

My #1 grievance below the fold.

My number 1 grievance for 2005? The utter lack of any progress in stabilizing Social Security or Medicare. Another year has passed, we're that much closer to the day when SS has to pay out more than it collects, and yet the heels are all dug in. Many on the left won't even admit that the SS trust fund does not hold real assets from the point of view of our government as a whole, and many on the right simply want to opt out or change the system to give them more.

I'd settle for longer-term solvency and improved predictability. I'll pick up on this with another thread above this one.

Totten Visits Hezbollah

This is not the journalism I intend to do (I don't have the bowel control) but blogger Michael Totten, who is in Beirut, attended a Hezbollah event and writes about it in LA Weekly. They're still not friendly.

The Fringe goes Mainstream?

One of the things I really love about the web is access to fringe groups and nutcases, in a way its part of my obsession with the future. If there is going to be a sea change in technology, culture or the economy, reading the fringes will put you ahead of the curve.

So I was really shocked when I read that a multi billionaire from Texas (and friend of W's) was doing the same thing and had come to the same conclusion. (The article was originally published in Fortune magazine on December 14th, but this link has a nicer format)

Here is an except:

"Most people invest and then sit around worrying what the next blowup will be," he says. "I do the opposite. I wait for the blowup, then invest."

The next blowup, however, looms so large that it scares and confuses him. For the past few months he's been holed up in hard-core research mode—reading books, academic studies, and, yes, blogs.

Last minute shopper book reviews

I was talking with Bobby about favorite nonfiction books. He posted a nice list, so I thought I'd repost it as a book review thread. Feel free to post reviews of you own favorites.

Bobby's suggestions:
Best non-fiction history on my reading list are probably (in author's alphabetical order):

Mark Bowden's Killing Pablo, about the combined US-Colombian search for Medellin drug lord Pablo Escobar. It reads like fiction (Bowden is a great writer), and it's fascinating to get into the heads of the drug barons, Delta Force, and the Colombian paramilitary. Bowden doesn't specifically state it, but there's definitely lessons learned there that could (or perhaps should) have been applied to the hunt for Osama. It's also kind of sad to see so many decision-makers sacrifice their own moral code in order to bag the bad guy.

Henry Kissinger's A World Restored, his dissertation about post-Napoleonic Europe and the luminaries at the Congress of Vienna that put the world back together again. As pure history, it has its problems, but if you take it in context of his "Grand Design" that he would later try to implement under President Nixon, it actually gives you some great insights into how he viewed detente, SALT, and triangular diplomacy.

Michael Lewis' Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game used Billy Beane and the Oakland A's to demonstrate how organizations make assumptions that breed vulnerabilities, and how "maverick" organizations can identify and use "market inefficiencies" to exploit those weaknesses, thereby successfully competing for a fraction of the operating costs. If you read it literally, much of its insights have been two dated (in just two years!), but as an allegory about how to use asymmetric methods to compete with more powerful organizations, it was a masterpiece.

John Nagl's Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam is a really good comprehensive account of the differences between British and American military culture, and why the Brits were able to adapt and overcome in Malaysia, while the Americans just kept doggedly applying the same failing strategy in Vietnam. He's updating it with a chapter discussing his experiences in Iraq (where he was a battalion operations officer).

Alan Schwarz's The Numbers Game: Baseball's Lifelong Fascination with Statistics sounds really boring (a history of baseball statisticians and the stats they pioneered and championed?), but it was actually mind blowing for me to learn about how these individuals, often with ulterior motives of their own, managed to create definitions that change the way future generations view the performance of ballplayers.

Fareed Zakaria's Future of Freedom explores the historical relationship between democracy and freedom, and concludes that (contrary to popular belief) democracy in fact has little to no correlation with freedom (and can in fact be quite illiberal without proper legal protections); instead, Zakaria argues that "constitutional liberalism"-- the Lockean tradition to come out of the Enlightenment-- is really the cause for increased social freedom.

And of course I have to add my two cents:

Salt: A World History by Mark Kurlansky
Prior to modern preservation technology Salt was actually a strategic war material. If you didn't have salt you couldn't preserve rations for your troops. It was the oil of yesterday. I read that it was on W's reading list last summer.

1776 by David McCullough
I was stunned by how massive the British forces were and how bad the colonist were. The size of the armada sent against New York was huge. Some of the debates in the British parliament in 1770's sounded like what's coming out of congress about Iraq. Very much an eye opener about conditions during the revolution, and how close we came to remaining a British colony.

Benjamin Franklin : An American Life by Walter Isaacson
Very impressive man. The book provided a lot of local color for the era. I felt like I was back there watching it all unfold.

...On The 2nd Day of Xmas Open Threads

...what will our true loves give to us?

How about this. For the rest of these open threads, we're requesting that those who consider themselves lurkers and not commenters give us a holiday shout out. Tell us one thing you like about centerfield, and one thing you don't. What's the one thing about centrism that really resonates for you?

Or tell us what your favorite blogs are, what you want for christmas, what you're reading, what you've seen that you think makes a great gift, what you're doing this year to make the holidays work for you and yours, what's really stressing you. Whatever. Let us know you're there.

Peace, hope, and love to all the lurkers!

Oh yeah...

...and don't forget to vote!

Yes, you can vote more than once. You can vote once every 24 hours per computer.

Less Than 13 Days 'til Xmas Open Thread

...here's an open thread for all things holiday and otherwise. Maybe we can even have a "12 days of Open Threads" just for giggles.

Two goodies from me: I think the consumerist is an entertaining and on-point blog for the holiday season.

And a tidbit for anyone considering a live xmas tree, after the fold:

update: Comments closed to foil spam. Steer all comments to newest open thread.

The experts will tell you that if you buy a live tree, you can only keep it in the house for a few days, and then plant it soon after. Which makes it sound like a real pain. So I'm here to tell you that's not written in stone. I have 4 surviving live xmas trees in the ground, and here's how I do it. I buy a fraser fir, so I know it works for those.

We live in Massachusetts, zone 6. After we buy ours we do put it in the cellar for a few days so it doesn't get shocked by indoors temps after being outside in the cold. We pack it in a big bucket with well-moistened peat moss. We use one of those big party drink buckets that have the plastic rope handles, like they sell at walmart. You need a bucket big enough to hold the root ball and, at a guess, a couple cubic feet worth of peat moss. Don't use mulch, it dries out too quickly.

Contrary to conventional recommendations, we've found that we can keep ours in the house for at least 2 or 3 weeks with no adverse affects. After xmas, we bring it back down in the cellar and place it near a sliding door where it gets plenty of light, and water it every couple of weeks. As long as the peat moss stays moist and you give it a gallon or so every so often, the tree seems to do fine. The roots are packed in clay, so they generally don't dry out, and it's cool enough to keep the tree pretty much dormant if the temps are 50s-ish for the most part. I expect that the tree needs sun, so if you cellar doesn't have any, this method may not work.

[I've speculated that an unheated 3-season porch might work out ok, but those can get pretty cold in winter in some spots, so I dunno.]

We plant the tree in the early spring when the ground thaws, removing much of the packed clay from the sheared roots. This has worked fine, and 4 of the 5 trees have survived quite well. The only one that died was neglected water-wise, and we used mulch instead of peat moss for packing. Spending one winter inside as a semi-house plant doesn't seem to be a problem. So if any of you wants to try out a live tree, I know for a fact that you don't necessarily have to baby them as most people suggest, which would be a real nuisance during the busy holiday season.

A live tree smells nice, looks nicer, is less of a fire hazard, makes almost no mess with needle drop, and leaves you with a nice new tree come springtime. So consider trying one out and it may well survive fine as long as you can over-winter it in cool spot with some sun. And for what it's worth, no I'm not a tree salesman. I've just come to love having a live tree, and want to spread the word.

update: Comments closed to foil spam. Steer all comments to newest open thread.

My First Clip - Pols Meet Bloggers

My first-ever published news story has appeared in the Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph (free registration required). I covered BlogLeft Massachusetts, a conference where several Massachusetts politicians running for office in 2006 came by to court liberal bloggers. This is my "kicker," how I close the piece.

District attorney candidate Festa reads blogs and sees them as reinventing the neighbor-to-neighbor activism of the 1970s. But he also had a practical explanation for showing up at a blog conference.

“In the old days, when you wanted to campaign in town you went to the town dump, because that’s where you saw everybody,” Festa said. “Well, you know what? Cyberspace – that’s where you’re finding people now. So you’ve got to go where the people are.”

Gerrymandering On Trial

Supreme Court to review Texas political map

The legal battle at the Supreme Court was over the unusual timing of the Texas redistricting, among other things. Under the Constitution, states must adjust their congressional district lines every 10 years to account for population shifts.

But in Texas the boundaries were redrawn twice after the 2000 census, first by a court, then by state lawmakers in a second round promoted by DeLay.

I hope SCOTUS comes down hard on this, even if Simon and Pat think it lacks the authority. And yes, that's just a needle-y joke. I dunno what they think.

Iraq Voting Begins

On the eve of national elections, a new poll from Iraq show both improvement and promise.

UPDATED: The voting has begun. Mohammed of Iraq The Model has some details.

Notable quote from Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari :

"We want the multinational forces to leave, but we don't want security to disappear as well," al-Jaafari said. "When the Iraqi hands are in complete control of the security situation in Iraq, then we will tell the multinational forces, 'Thank you. Please leave the Iraqi lands.'"

UPDATED UPDATE: The Iraqis are voting and you can vote too!

Voice Mail H***

We interupt partisan wrangling and endless debate over all things serious to bring you this helpful (entirely non-religious) holiday message. Paul English posts the 800 numbers for many major consumer-oriented businesses. More helpfully, he also posts instructions for bypassing the automated voice menus and getting directly to an actual living human being for each one of those numbers. This goes far beyond your typical press-and-hold "0" that many of us may have tried. For instance, to get a Dell service representative on the line, choose: "option 1, xt 7266966, option 1, option 4, option 4". At CIGNA insurance, speak the mysterious code words "REGARDING A BILL". There are many, many more. And if your company is not listed, Paul has compiled the usual suspects to try. Use it early and often to get you through the shopping and return season!

Hat Tip: Booker Rising

Come Clean for Gene

I thought Centerfield should join the many blogs that are recognizing the loss of Senator Eugene McCarthy, who died Saturday in his sleep at 89.

In 1968 the hippies put on their suit and ties to support the Minnesota Senator for the Democratic nomination. With the help of the "Clean for Gene kids," McCarthy took 42% in the New Hampshire primary forcing President Johnson out of the race. Although McCarthy's star faded and was later replaced by Bobby Kennedy, then another Minnesotan - Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, the anti-war movement might not have ever gained traction as early as it did.

Little known facts about McCarthy: He ran for President five times, the latest a short campaign in 1992 that ended in New Hampshire where he got only 1%. Also, as an attorney after politics, he opposed campaign finance reform and was one of the litigants in the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court case.

In regards to the historic 1968 Chicago convention, McCarthy once said:

"It was a tragic year for the Democratic Party and for responsible politics, in a way... There were already forces at work that might have torn the party apart anyway — the growing women's movement, the growing demands for greater racial equality, an inability to incorporate all the demands of a new generation.

But in 1968, the party became a kind of unrelated bloc of factions ... each refusing accommodation with another, each wanting control at the expense of all the others."

Interesting quote from a good man, historic figure, and a true public servant. May he rest in peace.

Pull the Ad

The Moose says:

"The President should order Republican National Committee to immediately pull down the "white flag" ad against Democrats. It is a low, dishonest attempt to further divide a polarized country. Fortunately, this morning on Meet the Press, Republican Senator Graham, a statesman, also suggested that this ad end.

The Moose has made it clear that that America must achieve success in Iraq. But the divisive politics of this Administration and the GOP have made the effort to achieve national unity on the national security front nearly impossible. Of course, those lefties who suggest that the President lied also put partisanship before country."

I agree, and call on my party to be above this crap.

Dean and Pelosi are wrong, as are those who suggest that a timeline determined by anything other than the situation on the ground; however, it is not honest to depict all Democrats as waving a white flag and running for cover. Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, and Wes Clark, have all to my knowledge stated that we need a strategy to win, not to pull out. Congressman Earl Pomeroy had the courage to stand against Dean this week.

The Democratic message is inconsistent, no doubt, and I stand by my belief that Dean and Pelosi's message hurts not only their party but our ability as a nation to conduct foreign policy; however, even if what the party's chair and leader in the House are proposing was the message conve