Centerfield

The Face of the Anti-War Left

Storm the White House

It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators....The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars?

...The World Criminal Courts need to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for admitted crimes and known crimes of international scope. The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity.

For the GOP and the White House, this is the Gift that Keeps on Giving.

Open Thread

Just because.

Just Say No to Republican Adoption

Ron Reports:

State Senator Robert Hagan (D-Ohio) says he will introduce legislation to ban Republican couples from adopting children. According to Hagan, "credible research'' shows that adopted children raised in GOP households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities." Hagan agrees there is no scientific evidence backing his claims about Republican parents -- just, as Hagan notes, there is none backing State Representative Ron Hood's (R) bill banning gay parents from adopting. Hood claims children purportedly suffer from emotional "harm" when they are adopted by gay couples.

As somebody who was raised by Republicans and understands the scars that can leave, I fully support this legislation. Kicking poor people, forced family trips to the shooting range, not allowed to date until I was 18, no non-white friends, and old Walton re-runs... It was awful I tell you, just awful. For the children, we cannot allow these people to adopt.

Coast Guard Nellies

Nervous nellies like me and the Coast Guard have concerns about Al Qaeda infiltration of the ports company.

Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday. The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

It seems to me that the difference between my perspective and others on this blog is the starting point. I don't start from the idea that DP is innocent until proved guilty, that free trade is sacred, and that we have a moral duty to allow DP to run our ports as long as they pay cash.

I start from the question, why do we need this? Why is it good for us? Is the good (keeping foreign investors confidence up so they'll finance our deficit) so important that we take even a small risk on who runs our ports?

Dubai Withdraws

In the face of the rapid and prescient response of vigilant Americans, the nation of Dubai today withdrew from its plan to manage operations at 7 American ports.

Monday, February 27, 2006; Posted: 10:38 a.m. EST (15:38 GMT) (CNN) --President Ayvol Towled of the UAE admitted that "the whole United Arab Emirates has been run and populated by Al Quaeda stooges from day 1. But you're all too smart for us, so we give up."

This is a stunning victory for America's most stalwart anti-terrorists, and righteous proof that arabs can't be trusted. I can't ever remember being so wrong. After this, only an al-quaeda stooge would dare call these people xenophobes. They're HEROES!! I just hope and pray they let me stay here in America. I've been such an unwitting dupe!

The Race Begins: McCain Rips Hillary on Ports

Here is the full article.

The near-hysteria about this is not warranted, particularly in light of the other major crises that we're facing throughout the world," McCain told ABC's "This Week."

The Arizona Republican criticized Mrs. Clinton for urging that all foreign operation of U.S. ports be banned, warning that if she gets her way, "We've got a lot of disinvestment to do."

"Does that mean the British are not allowed?" McCain posited, before reminding that convicted al Qaeda shoe bomber Richard Reid "was British, as you know."

"I think obviously this has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis," he added, rejecting Mrs. Clinton's blanket ban.

McCain said that the United Arab Emirates, home to Dubai Ports World, is "freer than China," reminding that "700 [U.S.] warships have visited Dubai."

Round one to the Senator from Arizona... He shows again why I would walk across glass for him. If both were to get the nomination, Hill would need to do better than she has this week looking Presidential next to McCain.

This argument that we should have no foreign contracts to run American ports is thoughtless, ignorant, politically motivated, and there is just no other way to put it. Does this mean that we should break our deals with, for instance, the Singapore run company that operates ports in Seattle and Oakland, or the countless number of ports that are run by Chinese companies, both countries that are less free than Dubai? Just how many trade agreements are Hill and the others jumping on the hysteria band wagon willing to break, or do they even realize the consequences of what they are proposing, or care for that matter?

I find it absolutely hilarious that the some of those who were foaming at the mouth regarding George W. Bush hurting our relationship with the international community and the rest of the world hating Americans, are actually insinuating that we break deals with other countries without providing evidence that the work they are doing remotely threatens are national security, or that we are not getting what we paid for. Do they not understand that the rest of the word, as Fareed Zakaria pointed out this morning, sees the Dubai situation as blatant American racism?

They were playing politics before when they pretended to actually care about diplomacy and they are playing politics now. Things are looking bleak when a Clinton comes out against free trade and embraces isolationism.

Anyone up for a safari?

We tend to thing of world events in the rhetoric of left, right or center, but there are other views.
Here is a link to a website that definitely has a unique view . They have an editorial about the Golden Mosque bombing. He makes the argument (actually a pretty good argument) that nobody in their right mind would blow up the dome.

It's a whole other subculture, so prepare to be shocked by his assertions.

Post Soviet agriculture in Cuba

Here, is an interesting article about how a society deals with the collapse of its agricultural capabilities. As many of the old soviet satellite states are finding out, subsidized oil and gas is really nice, and losing your meal ticket really sucks. The article probably had to make it through the Cuban censors, so take the rosy side with a grain of salt. Even so, I find it an encouraging scenario. As we sit down to our Sunday dinners, look at your food's label and see where it comes from. Then think about what you would have to do, to grow you own.

Some quotes: “Hand tools and human labor replace oil-driven machinery. Worm cultivation and composting create productive soil. “

“This need to bring agriculture into the city began with the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of more than 50 percent of Cuba's oil imports, much of its food and 85 percent of its trade economy. Transportation halted, people went hungry and the average Cuban lost 30 pounds. “

“With meat scarce and fresh local vegetables in abundance since 1995, Cubans now eat a healthy, low-fat, nearly vegetarian, diet. They also have a healthier outdoor lifestyle and walking and bicycling have become much more common. “

Conclusion: Loss of oil imports is healthy, once you get over the whole starvation thing.
(Next on Oprah: The Peak Oil Diet)

Polar Opposites: Military and Universities

Will Marshall of the DLC has an interesting piece polarized both military officers and university faculty are from the average American

According to 2004 exit polls, 34 percent of the voters in the presidential election were conservative, 45 percent moderate, and 21 percent liberal. But an Annenberg School study in the same year found that, in the military, 40 percent of the officers say they are conservative, 40 percent moderate, and just 7 percent liberal. Only 15 percent of the officers were Democrats, while 47 percent were Republicans and 31 percent independents. If fighters tilt right, thinkers lean even further to the left. According to a national survey of college faculty, almost three-quarters professed left-of-center views, while only 15 percent identified themselves as conservatives. Only 11 percent owned up to being Republicans. In the humanities and social science departments, Democratic professors outnumbered Republicans by 7-1.

Given the prominence of national security issues in today's debate, conservatives clearly get the better of this deal politically. It's too bad that the two groups don't mix more. At the Kennedy School at Harvard, where I got a master's degree, there were a number of military officers taking courses. But I'd say that's a rarity in most college environments.

More Florida Computerized Voting Anomalies

Florida has been shown to have more e-vote consistency problems (via slashdot).

Of course, what's needed here are backup printed ballots, that are randomly checked on the precinct level, and used in case of any inconsistencies being spotted. We read of election workers often ignoring e-vote glitches, presumably because they have no backup to check. Would this have happened?

This isn't just about fraud - all human-made complex systems (which software is) have bugs. The only way we can work those bugs out is by having a testing regime whenever they're used, and having a way to fall back on other systems, like hand-counting machine-countable ballots. There's a long-time mailing list on the subject of inappropriate overtrust of computer systems, RISKS. Here's a pointer to search results for elections.

It is, by the way, possible to write provably true software. It's at least an order of magnitude harder than normal software development, and of course I have yet to read of any e-vote vendor saying a word about this possibility.

Another UAE port angle

Last week, plans were announced to develop a spaceport in the UAE. Interesting slashdot thread here. The same company announced plans to develop a spaceport in Singapore as well.

H2O: It's not just for drinking

Believe it or not, the USA has one of the largest reserves on the planet of a highly prized liquid resource. Fresh Water! (I'm talking about the Great Lakes by the way.) Interesting enough, water is also a major part of energy production.

I was over on theoildrum.com , and on one of their threads a commenter said:

“...My company is currently suspending drilling operations in Oklahoma due to lack of available water. State, municipal and private water owners have all told us that they will no longer sell water to us. We are experiencing similar problems in Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico, but not to the degree we have encountered in Oklahoma.
So what we have here in Oklahoma is one resources scarcity(water) precluding the extraction of another (petroleum) declining resource.....”

I knew they used water in oil and gas drilling, but evidently they use substantial quantities.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if the reason water was withheld from the drilling company was because it was a scarce resource, or because their operations caused problems for locals. I have previously read about problems with natural gas drilling operations bad habits. Evidently they pressurize the bore holes to fracture the rock and let the gas seep out. If you have a nearby water well, the water can become undrinkable, or your equipment could be violently expelled from the ground.

Here is a graph of natural gas production in the USA

Water is also a problem when it comes to alternative fuel production. Large quantities of water are used during the creation of ethanol and during the Fischer-Tropsch coal to gasoline process. Large amounts are also used in the extracting of oil from oil shale and tar sand. The quality of effluent from these processes is also a problem. If you're in an area where water is scarce, dumping polluted water is not going to make you popular.

Then there was the little problem France had with its nuclear power plants. Seems that a recent drought endangered their ability to produce power. Everyone calls it “nuclear” power but it's steam that makes the turbines spin. No water means no steam. No steam means no power.

I was raised in the northeast, and spent the second half of my life in the south. To little water was never really a problem for me. In both cases I always lived the proverbial stones throw from a major lake or river. Every decade or so there were some dry years, but I never went thirsty. In fact, rainfall rates in Alabama are occasionally measured in inches per hour. There is a reason the TVA built so many dams around here, and the road side ditches are 5 foot deep.

That's not the story in a lot of other places, water rights are the stuff of hot debate. An that debate is probably going to get hotter. The Colorado River, for instance, no longer runs to the sea. Heavy use of the river as an irrigation source has desiccated the lower course of the river. The Rio Grande is also in danger of becoming extinct. While climate change predictions say evaporation of soil moisture should increase in already dry areas. That's not a good thing. Population growth is already putting pressure on existing water resources in some Western and Midwestern states, as home owners, agriculture and industry compete for water. As population grows, more people means more water requirements.

More Centrist Blogs

I've found a few more centrist blogs:

Midtopia

Virginia Centrist

American Centrist

Let them know what you think of them!

Austin Centrists

The Austin Centrist is a good-looking new blog by some friends of the Centrist Coalition. Welcome to the centrist blogosphere.

Democracy Isn't Simple

The Arabic press is asking Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on why the administration is pushing Middle Eastern leaders to withhold funding to the Hamas controlled government.

Here is the article.

QUESTION:

"How is it possible to harmonize the U.S. position as a nation supporting freedom of expression and the right of people to practice democracy with your efforts to curb the will of Hamas and put pressures on other countries in this regard?

"Why don't you give Hamas a chance to express the will of people?"

ANSWER:

"For the United States, Hamas is a terrorist organization. We cannot give funding to a terrorist organization. It's really that simple."

But it isn't that simple, and she knows it.

Some argued that Bush's sudden shift to the argument that Iraq was necessary because it would create a light of Democracy in the Middle East, was simply an attempt to move on to the next justification after the first one failed. Rice's comments certainly lend credibility to that argument.

Did they think it was going to all be rainbows and ponies? Hamas is not anymore simply a terrorist organization; they are the political party in control of an elected democratic government. That means, yes, they are at the table and we have to deal with them. Cutting funding because we do not like whom the Palestinian people chose is wrong. Advocating democracy and then making efforts to thwart the will of the Palestinian people before the new government has had an opportunity to govern is wrong.

I am not granting anyone or anything a free pass. This is an organization with a violent past, no doubt, but so was Sinn Fein. If Hamas threatens our national security as the leaders of the Palestinian government then we should be doing more besides blocking outside funding. In the mean time they deserve to be treated with diplomatic courtesy. As Bush and Co. tell us all of the time, they did after all win the election.

Our Centrist Friends in Congress

National Journal recently took the 2005 voting record of Members of Congress, came up with a composite liberal and conservative score, and listed those who were in the middle.

Here it is.

Most Centrist House Members:

Republican - Rep. Jeff Flake, AZ
Democrat - Rep. Bud Cramer, AL

Most Centrist Senate Members:

Republican - Senator Gordon Smith, OR
Democrat - Senator Ben Nelson, NE

I am most stunned by Jeff Flake, who I always considered to be a conservative that I like on budget issues. This makes him even more impressive in my eyes. I don't know much about Cramer, but have always been a fan of Nelson and Smith. The Senate list isn't news, but I think you will be surprised by how large the House list is.

This is a little too black and white, and labeling who is and who is not a centrist may be a futile effort, but none the less, it is worth taking a look at.

Hat-tip to Moderate Voters.

Maybe Silence IS Golden!

Boycott backfires: South Park gets record audience

An appeal from the Catholic Church for New Zealanders to boycott an episode of South Park has resulted in a record audience there for the controversial cartoon.

The "Bloody Mary" episode of South Park drew more than six times the normal audience, New Zealand broadcaster TV Works announced Thursday.

I wonder how much they charge to issue a website boycott. I'm in for $5.

If not an evolving concept of decency, what about expanding concepts of science?

I offer two related areas for discussion today, both turning on the litigation surrounding the Federal Partial-birth Abortion Act (FPBAA), 117 Stat. 1201.

One of the things that I find most baffling about the litigation is the strange unwillingness on the part of liberals to kick a conservative when he's down. Last month, when the Ninth Circuit handed down Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales, I complained that the point had been missed:

In reaffirming the Circuit Court's verdict, the panel entirely fails to even consider the question on which any action against FPBAA should turn: did Congress have the authority to enact this statute in the first place? Answer that question in the negative, and the entirety of the litigation thusfar is nullified; it becomes irrelevant whether the act places an undue burden, it becomes irrelevant whether the statute's terms are "unconstitutionally vague," and it becomes irrelevant whether it includes a health exception.

The Ninth Circuit was not alone in reaching its conclusions; on the same day that the Ninth Circuit handed down Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales, the Second Circuit weighed in (National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales), and shortly thereafter, the Eighth Circuit (Carhart v. Gonzales) got in on the game, too. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted cert in Carhart (not to be confused with Stenberg v. Carhart, about which you're going to read a lot in connection with this case, although not from me).

Yet one reads searches these three Courts of Appeals opinions in vain for the "F" word: federalism. It wasn't brought before the Courts in the challenges, and it wasn't raised sua sponte, even by the Ninth Circuit. Something strikes me as being odd in all this; come on, liberals - kick us conservatives where it hurts! The FPBAA is a free shot! We evil FedSoc types keep going on about the limits of the commerce clause power, about states rights, about federalism; well, here's your chance to ask us to prove it! Why not litigate on the premise that this law is ultra vires (which, after all, it is)? Why give Mean 'ol Nino an easy getout, a way to uphold the law by merely ruling on the specific challenge before him? Surely, this isn't just because liberals are afraid of what it would mean to get on the federalism boat. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out yesterday, liberals have (arguably) suddenly become fairweather friends of originalism now that it suits their purpose (over the NSA program, and, of course, in general where the second amendment is concerned), and once this moment passes and it ceases to be in their interest to have a frozen Constitution, they will once again demand its defrosting. If liberals are willing to jump off the boat and swim for shore in other areas, why would federalism be any different? Or am I just missing the point - regular readers will know that I'm reluctant to discuss whether a law is a good idea on a normative level until we've established whether or not its Constitutional in the first place, but liberals are not exactly known for their respect of the structural (as opposed to rights-bearing) sections of the Constitution, so perhaps they simply regard it as normal to approach this (as it appears to me) backwards?

So that's my first question for discussion today.

The second question is related, but a little more esoteric, a little more theoretical. At SCOTUSblog, I averred that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't give Congress a free pass to regulate abortion:

On another blog a couple of days ago, someone (obviously pro-life) pointed out that the Constitution doesn't mention abortion or unborn children, but on the other hand, nor does it mention African Americans, Gypsies, Jews or Hispanics, and no-one would argue that they aren't protected. I sympathize, but the argument is just flat-out dumb. The Constitution may not mention any of those groups, but nor does it mention caucasians. The term used is "persons," and that term is expansive enough to cover anyone considered a person at the time of ratification, so In order to say that the unborn are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, you must either a) demonstrate that the unborn were considered persons in 1868, or b) abandon originalism in favor of something else.

In rebuttal, another commenter, Ben Kennedy, wrote:

I believe that it is not difficult to contruct the case that the term "person" used around 1868 could include the unborn. Blackstone writes,

"The right of personal security consists in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation. Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of the law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb ... An infant in ventre as mere, or in the mother’s womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of copyhold estate, made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to its use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law agrees with ours."

What Blackstone didn't know was that a fetus "stirs" 22 days after conception when the heart starts beating.

Wow! How convenient would that be! I'm not sure how to feel about that. Aren't I in favor of a static constitution? Isn't this an evolutionary content argument? And don't I think all that "evolving standards of decency" mush is pretty risible stuff? Aren't I stuck with reject this?

But hang on a moment - is this an evolving content argument? Is this really the "evolving standards of decency"?

If I might rephrase Ben's point: if fœtal personhood was understood to occur at the time of quickening in 1868, and since that time, science has demonstrated that quickening in fact takes place earlier during pregnancy, does that change the balance of probabilities that the original meaning of persons extended to the unborn? I don't know the answer to that, but it's certainly an interesting point. I have to say that I remain sceptical, though, since this theory of quickening as the start of personhood goes back at least as far as Blackstone, yet laws criminalizing abortion in England and the United States did not begin to appear until decades after Blackstone, in the early 19th Century.

But in any instance, and this is my second question for discussion in this post: It's an intriguing point, though. Arguendo, if the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment could clearly be shown to be accepting of fœtal personhood at, say, six months, on the premise that this is when "quickening" takes place, and that this confers Congress power to regulate abortion after this time, but in the years since 1868, we have determined that quickening actually takes place earlier (this is totally wrong, but let's say it takes place at one month), does that mean that the original understanding permits Congress to regulate abortion after six months (the original understanding of the timeframe), or after one month (the original understanding of the event)? That isn't, after all, an evolving concept of decency, but the expansion of scientific knowledge; it is a factual, not subjective, inquiry. I've argued before that, even absent evolving content, the Eighth Amendment does prohibit certain punishments, even if they did not exist at the time of ratification (that is, even if it is not a "living constitution" in the sense that it grows and morphs, it is alive in the sense that it continues to apply to new and unforeseen circumstances; Roe may be invalid, but Kyllo is not, and don't even get me started on Trop); hence, I don't know what to think about this point.

So has Ben proved me wrong? Has he made a successful (albeit rather novel) originalist case for Congressional regulation of abortion? Or is this just a little too much like that marvellously seductive "evolving content" stuff that I disparage at every opportunity.

Two different - and quite broad - areas for discussion there.

Friday Open Thread

So I'll have something to read when I get home at midnight.

UAE Agrees to Delay

"The reaction in the United States has occurred in no other country in the world... We need to understand the concerns of the people in the U.S. who are worried about this transaction and make sure that they are addressed to the benefit of all parties. Security is everybody's business."

The article is here.

Not exactly the actions of a government hoping to sneak terrorist through our ports. This is a huge favor to Bush that in my eyes they should not have had to grant. None the less, this gives the President an opportunity to do what he has been lackluster at to date, which is to defend his own policies. I hope this debate is open, that both sides honestly consider all of the facts, the administration is forthcoming with information, and that partisanship is laid aside. Furthermore, I hope Karl Rove does not use this as an opportunity to back out of a sticky political situation. I am not holding my breath on any of the above.

This should be considered as a good faith effort by the Dubai government. It would be a diplomatic mistake to fumble the ball now.

On a different note, a commenter was concerned that because I deleted comments that contained profanity and what I thought to be borderline racist statements from one of my earlier entries, that this article would not get shared. It is from Front Page Magazine, a right wing publication, and outlines a connection between Hamas and the UAE. I disagree with the article's premise and I stand by my statement that opponents of the deal have yet to offer any substantive argument that it threatens our security. Guilt by association and nationality alone are not reason enough to break our word.

I believe, for instance, the nation of China has committed atrocities against its own people, especially women and other peace loving nations such as Tibet. However, I believe the best way to end those atrocities is to introduce free markets to the Chinese people and the evidence has shown this to be the case. That is the policy of this country and has been under President's from both parties. Middle Eastern nations or companies who may or did once have ties to terrorist organizations, and I consider Hamas to be indeed a terrorist organization, should not be treated any differently. You cannot change the world through isolationism. History is our greatest lesson of that fact.

Protests Requested

Unlike the cartoons of notorious memory, the destruction of the domed Askariya shrine in Samarra is something that should incite worldwide protests--hopefully non-violent.

The thing about intellectual expression like cartoons is that having more ideas does not take anything away from anyone. If you don't like them, ignore them. But the destruction of physical property, while not as horrific as the taking of human life, does take away the enjoyment of the rightful owner.

This is something that the whole world, including the Muslim world, should protest. But because the perpetrators were not Westerners (unless you believe the demented president of Iran) I doubt that it will stir up the same emotion in the Muslim world.

Dangerstein

Dan Gerstein, a former advisor to Joe Lieberman, now has a blog. Here is his revealing post introducing the blog, and here is a recent post discussing the values analysis of the Democratic Party by American Environics.

We look forward to Dan's insight, and will add Dangerous Thoughts to the centrist blogroll.

Carter Backs Bush on Dubai

Pat pointed out in a previous comment section that former President Jimmy Carter supports President Bush regarding the Dubai deal. Since this issue has brought a flood of welcomed outside attention to Centerfield, and since Carter is breaking from his party to support an administration he has been very critical of, I feel this is deserving of a separate entry.

Here is the article.

Carter says:

"The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it's exists...

"My belief is that the president and his secretary of state, the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government or organization to manage their ports... I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

"I've been to Dubai, and I've seen the remarkable port facilities they have there, perhaps the best in the world."

My view of Jimmy Carter is that he is an incredible human being who had difficulty separating idealism from reality as President. However, one area that I believe he was leaps and bounds above the current President is mediation and negotiation. I have been critical of statements such as "axis of evil," "evildoers," "they are with us or against us," and "bring it on" because I firmly believe that you cannot mediate peace and start by punching the party across the table in the mouth. Carter understands this, has received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work as an international mediator, and has been called on by many world leaders to step into hot button policy disputes.

One reason the President gave for supporting the Dubai deal was our relationship with the Middle East. This is a shift in how this administration has historically approached foreign relations, it wasn't too long ago that they refused to allocate any Iraq contracts to France because of their position on the war. It is a good one and we should not only support it but encourage this type of behavior in the future. It is disheartening to me is that those who claimed in the 2004 election we needed Presidential leadership that recognizes the importance of world diplomacy, are now running from that position for what one can only conclude are political purposes.

For those of you who disagree, show me concrete reasons why the deal is a threat to our security? What countries have had contracts with the Dubai government and been the victim of a terrorist attack because of it? What specific evidence is there that this makes our ports more vulnerable? The fact that the 9/11 bombers were Arabic, isn't good enough for me.

Then they came for the bloggers

Michelle Malkin has been experiencing a denial of service attack from the Middle East today. Her site has been down all day, coming back up only intermittently. Michelle has been a vocal defender of free speech, and the zealots are now attacking her for it. Until her site is up again, she is posting over at PajamasMedia. She had previously posted on a wave of cyber-terrorism being used to attack many sites which linked to the cartoons.

This is intolerable. Muslim fanatics on the other side of the globe are now reaching across the ocean to electronically stifle our freedom of speech. Once the FBI identifies where the attackers are coming from and provides that information to the attackers' home governments, there better be some strong prosecutions of those cyber-thugs.

Please Come to Boston for the Springtime

South Dakota Senate passes abortion ban bill

Legislation meant to prompt a national legal battle targeting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was approved Wednesday by the South Dakota Senate, moving the bill a step closer to final passage.

The measure, which would ban nearly all abortions in the state, now returns to the House, which passed a different version earlier. The House must decide whether to accept changes made by the Senate, which passed its version 23-12.

"It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, the bill's main sponsor.

The bill, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison, would make it a felony for doctors or others to perform abortions.

On behalf of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, I'd like to let all potential political refugees from the state of South Dakota know that they are welcome here in Masachusetts, should push indeed come to shove. If you believe that the choice to carry a pregnancy to full term is best made by the prospective parents or in concert with the family in cases that involve prospective parents who are minors, come join us evil libruls.

If you decide to come here, you may be surprised to find that, no, the streets are not paved with dead fetuses. Yes we do have churches. Lots of 'em. All kinds. Most are even full on Sundays. And no, most of the people actually don't have horns or hate America. Although I have heard ugly rumors about the people from Cambridge.

We do our best to welcome all kinds here in Massachusetts. But I must confess that I am hoping that those South Dakotans who believe the state should make this decision the exact same way for all pregnant women will stay on their side of the Great Lakes.

UPDATE from CNN:PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.

The AOL Blogpulse invasion.

In the cold light of dawn, I not sure what to make of the AOL invasion. On one hand, the number of people who read our "stuff" just went up an order of magnitude, on the other hand it's like herding a cattle stampede through your neighbor's den. Won't it be polite to at least tell him beforehand? I'm sitting there in my underwear, eating Cheetos, when all of a sudden a bunch of strangers show up and start screaming.

True, it is easier to get forgiveness rather than permission, but I'm feeling a little violated (and secretly a little honored) by the attention. With some advance notice we could at least put some rules of conduct at the end of the original post. Heck, if I thought more than thirty people would end up reading a post, I would try and be more circumspect with my words (note the word "try").

One of the reasons I sought out Centerfield was because it was a smaller community that wasn't overwhelmed by screaming wing nuts. It's not like I showed up here by accident. I spent several weeks' googling words like "independent", "centrist" and "nonpartisan". Then I monitored several sites before jumping in.

They only seem to link to us when we post about the "Raging Hormone Story of the Day". I would guess if we were really boring and non-controversial they would stop linking.

Update: AOL news service has linked to us several times here is an example, it resulted in a torrent of drivebys.

Myrick to W: Hell No!

Red State points out this letter from North Carolina Republican Congresswoman Sue Myrick, to President Bush, which contains one line:

In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just no - BUT HELL NO!

I am sufficiently jaded and don't expect much from the Congress "critters" of either party anymore, but I DO expect that when explaining their position to the leader of the free world they at least take the time to, I don't know, present actual facts. I am not asking for much, maybe a sentence or two or even a paragraph is all I expect from a group of elected officials that make six figures. The fact that those opposed to the deal completely have failed to explain why, other than generally passing it off as a threat to our security, only makes it more obvious that their motive is nothing more than their own ambition.

I am also not naive enough to expect that elected members of the people's house wouldn't use public funds to run for higher office, Sue wants to be Governor of North Carolina for instance, but would at least appreciate that they avoid placing blatant attempts at political pandering on letter head that my frigging tax dollars paid for.

What an embarrassment to the great state of North Carolina.

I love free speech

LSU, my alma mater and current employer, has for decades maintained a tradition known as "Free Speech Alley". Every Wednesday, anybody with something to say gets up to say it at a particular spot in front of the popular and crowded student union. There's a moderator of sorts who does nothing more than keep things orderly so only one person has the bench at a time. It's open to anybody, and let me tell you, anybody comes. In addition to the regular Wednesday quasi-organized show, the spot itself tends to attract a regular crowd of preachers, pontificators, and product purveyors.

Today, there was a band playing Mardi Gras music for background. At one end of the line of tables piled with literature was a lone Muslim student explaining more about the Prophet. There was a well-dressed group of students promoting the Methodists at another table. A young child with the group of Christians carrying banners of bible verses handed me a small comic book showing a man being judged by God and found wanting, with a Capra-esque coda showing what would happen if he repented instead of continuing to wilfully sin. A couple of the preacher-types were shouting at passerby, but not in an overly obnoxious way (and everybody knows to be ready for that sort of thing on Wednesdays in that spot), plus he was mostly drowned out by the Mardi Gras music. A pretty female student was handing out free samples of a popular scent. There was even a table for the AHA organization of "Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics", completely with guides to the non-spiritual life.

This happens every week. And there are no fights, no riots, no violence of any kind. Students talk back at the preachers and anybody else they disagree with, and there are always quiet religious types who try to speak quietly and privately with interested students in a sincere desire to help them. I love this country. And I love the college campus.

John Edwards' Cause

A few months ago I wrote this. Since that time I have been following the travels of the former Democratic nominee for Vice President.

Recently he wrote this in the Boston Globe:

Thirty million American workers, 1 out of every 4, make less than $8.70 an hour. These workers, even the ones who work full time year-round, do not earn enough to lift a family of four out of poverty. While whole industries are exporting high-wage jobs to other nations, American workers have been left with jobs that don't pay enough to cover their rent, healthcare, or school books for their children. In this global economy, the service industry jobs that are staying here are not the jobs with the best pay and benefits.

This is both a shame and a challenge -- a shame because America has always honored the ethic of hard work -- yet millions of Americans are struggling at two or three jobs and still finding the middle class out of reach. It's a challenge because we have a moral responsibility to help those who are doing everything they can to get by, but are still stuck at jobs with poverty wages.

I agree.

Edwards, as the Director of UNC Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity, has recently launched this organization aimed at fighting what he says are the extremely poor working conditions of hotel employees.

He says in the Globe article:

Consider the hotel industry, which employs more than 1.3 million people in this country. The consulting firm Ernst & Young, in its outlook on the hotel and lodging industry, says: ''The Good Times Continue to Roll." But good times for whom? Profits have risen to pre-9/11 levels, yet the average wage for a housekeeper is below the poverty line. Hotel chains are finding the money to invest in their image, their grounds, and their rooms, while wages for hotel workers remain far too low. Hotel chains are investing more in imported cotton sheets, yet relatively less in wages for workers.

I don't know much in the way of what Edwards is proposing to do about poverty, but I got to admit as a former government employee, someone who has worked in the past as an aide to elected officials, and most importantly a Christian, I certainly am heartened by the man's sense of priority. Edwards' focus on issues that impact those in our society who have all but been forgotten by the mainstream electorate, can only be good for Amerian politics, or if anything, good for our soul.

Republicans and Good Government Redux

I couldn't resist a follow up post to look at two key "set ups" to Katrina and FEMA.

1) The creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Note in the administration's proposal FEMA is subserviant to protecting us fropm terrorist attack

The Department would oversee federal government assistance in the domestic disaster preparedness training of first responders and would coordinate the government's disaster response efforts. FEMA would become a central component of the Department of Homeland Security, and the new Department would administer the grant programs for firefighters, police, and emergency personnel currently managed by FEMA, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department would also manage such critical response assets as the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (Department of Energy) and the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile (Health and Human Services). Finally, the Department would integrate the federal interagency emergency response plans into a single, comprehensive, government-wide plan, and ensure that all response personnel have the equipment and capability to communicate with each other as necessary.

and

To fulfill these missions, the Department of Homeland Security would build upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as one of its key components. It would continue FEMA's efforts to reduce the loss of life and property and to protect our nation's institutions from all types of hazards through a comprehensive, risk-based, all-hazards emergency management program of preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. And it will continue to change the emergency management culture from one that reacts to terrorism and other disasters, to one that proactively helps communities and citizens avoid becoming victims.

Looks like the reverse happened
2)Michael Chertoff, the right man for the job. Did we get what we asked for? With all the heat Chertoff has been getting its easy to forget the great bipartisan support and easy confirmation he got back a year ago. This excerpt from an NPR story

The tone set in that exchange remained throughout the hearing. It wasn't in the least contentious, as were the hearings for Secretary of State Rice and Attorney General nominee Gonzales. Most of the questions focused on actions the Department of Homeland Security might take to better protect America

Note the last sentence "Better protect America". Or how about this quote in USA today from the loyal opposition regarding Mr Chertoff.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a frequent critic of the Bush administration, called Chertoff a good choice for the job.
"Judge Mike Chertoff has the résumé to be an excellent Homeland Security secretary, given his law enforcement background and understanding of New York's and America's neglected homeland security needs," Schumer said.

So what can we expect from a security department in responding to a natural disaster?

Posted by c3 at 11:56 PM | Comments (2)

Can We Discriminate Against The UAE?

Joe Gandelman covers the uproar over the news that a company based in the Persian Gulf may gain control over U.S. ports. Members of Congress in both parties are apoplectic, but President Bush has threatened to veto any congressional attempt to overturn the deal.

Some people dance around the core issue by arguing that foreign companies shouldn't control American ports, given that ports may be a key entry point for terrorists. But no one complained about the current British owner which is the seller in the deal.

Clearly, the uproar is because the prospective buyers are Arab Muslims. I doubt there would be an uproar if the buyer was an Arab Christian, and think the objections would be muted if the buyer was an Indonesian Muslim. But Arab Muslims were the ethnic group behind 9/11, so it's no surprise that Americans might be queasy about trusting other Arab Muslims with the keys to our back door.

So, can we discriminate against people just because they are Arab Muslms? Not if they are American citizens. That would violate the 14th Amendment. But can we discriminate among and against certain people who are overseas?

I think so. It may offend the principles of multiculturalism, but those are not enshrined in American law, or even international law, as far as I know.

Even if we can, should we discriminate against citizens of the UAE? President Bush thinks it would offend a country that has been our friend. I can certainly see how the UAE government would be offended, but as for the people in the street, I doubt it would have as much impact as cartoons or invasions.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I kind of think a little honesty might help our relationship with the Muslim world. We are not at war with terror in general, but specificially with a group made up exclusively of Muslims. This means that we must do due diligence when admitting Muslims to our country, and exclude those who were have a reasonble reason to believe have hostile intentions. We are also leery of having foreign Muslims in control of those facilities most crucial to our personal security.

Would the emirs of the UAE hire Israeli bodyguards?

Don't Let 'Em Near The Kids!

Sixteen states are poised to enter the next round in the never-ending "culture war" in 2006, with initiatives pending that would implement a constitutional ban on adoptions by gays. (Ohio, Georgia, and Kentucky jumped on board with 2004 Amendments that implemented bans.) When you've already used up your gay marriage card to turn out the vote in 2004, the pickings get slim, so why not just expand on a strategy that has proven successful in the past?

For many in the extreme right, banning adoptions by gays gels quite nicely with their repeated accusations that "radical homosexuals are trying to recruit YOUR children." Quite simply, their argument (with the rhetoric peeled aside) is that by adopting, gay couples are bypassing protective parents and recruiting by bringing orphans directly into their homes. While the very concept of "recruiting" may be laughable to some, there are many who are quite willing to buy into the concept--most often because of a level of fearful discomfort and unfamiliarness with gays, not because of widespread homophobia.

The problem with this type of legislation is that it targets a very specific class by forcing them to disclose something that should be considered a fundamental right of privacy--their sexual preference. Banning gay marriage may be one thing, but specifically telling gays that they cannot adopt children simply because they are gay is mind boggling. Putting aside the issue of scores of children in desperate need of a parent in their lives, this ban ignores the glaringly obvious fact that gays can simply bypass the ban thru the use of a sperm donor or surrogate. Of course, in the case of the couple, there are legal issues with both partners being legal parents, but setting that aside for the moment, you have to wonder what comes next. Will 2008 see an effort to completely remove children from the homes of gays, even if the child happens to be the natural child of that individual? While it may seem far fetched to some, there are many who wonder if it's really coming to that. (And don't think for one moment that there isn't an element on the extreme right that would not be willing to do just that.)

The backers of these amendments are constantly talking of the need of a child to be in a 2 parent (mother & father, of course) family. But, what about those children that are in just that with an alchoholic father or a mother whose social life consumes her existence? Will we ban chemically dependent individuals from having children? Socially unstable individuals? If the far right spent as much time working to actually improve marriages and families as they spend trying to protect their exclusive right to enter into and exit them, one wonders how dramatic the effects would be on juvenile crime and the divorce rate.

If a fine is good...

...then a fine AND a tax must be better:

New laws allow some states to tax drivers annually -- even if they live in another state -- simply because they received a speeding ticket. One Connecticut motorist, who asked that his name not be used, discovered this after driving in October in Niagara Falls, New York. Despite being caught in what he considered a brazen speed trap -- the speed limit was 45 MPH where he was caught, but 55 MPH at the same location in the opposite direction -- he accepted the $155 fine for driving 72 MPH thinking by paying the matter would be settled.

Last week, however, the state of New York notified him that it now considers him an "at risk" driver and therefore he must either pay the state an annual $100 tax or a lump sum of $300.

Silly me, thinking that the fine was the penalty for being a bad driver. You know what this smells like to me, though? Taxation without representation.

That outrage aside, I am deeply troubled by the extent to which various levels of government are coming to view the people as revenue sources. Police departments keep confiscated drug assets, have quotas for handing out tickets, towns install revenue-enhancing intersection cameras. Where will it end when it comes to sacrificing liberties piece by piece on the altar of public safety? When various levels of government have conflicts of interest due to budget struggles and public safety is the plausible rationale for a little bit more nickeling and diming, I am not optimistic.

Pursuant to "What is a religion?"

Supreme Court OKs Hallucinogenic Tea

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that a small congregation in New Mexico may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a four-hour ritual intended to connect with God. Justices, in their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, moved decisively to keep the government out of a church's religious practice. Federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church, Roberts wrote in the decision.

The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions. Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.

Remember when we were talking about "what's a religion?" briefly last week? Well, that question just got more urgent. If people get to do certain things under the umbrella of free religious practice that are otherwise prohibited, that puts the court, the government, and the people in the awkward position of developing fair and unbiased criteria for determining which sorts of organizations are religions and which are not. I'm sure they've already been doing such things in some way already, but this decision suggests the area could become a legal battleground over time. It's a loophole, state-approved. So stay tuned.

Partisans Of The Radical Center

Through Mark Jurkowitz in the Phoenix, I learned that the editors who resigned from the New York Press when it refused to print the Muhammed cartoons are associated with an online magazine

Siegel and Marchman are founding editors of the neocon-influenced New Partisan blog, which describes its ideology as “partisans of the radical center ... socially liberal and fiscally conservative.”

I thank Jurkowitz for the heads-up, but I think New Partisan is more of an online magazine that a blog. To call it "neocon-influenced" may also confuse some. The influence is more of the old New York intellectual circles before many of them went neocon.

It is also open to submissions, and I would encourage all of us to try to write some long essays and submit the pieces to them. There are very few magazines for centrists, aside from The New Republic and The Atlantic, both august publications not easy to break into. The right and the left both have farm teams that allow writers to grow. Perhaps we can join together with New Partisan to build the influence of the center.

Ok! What did you do with the real George Bush!

Green car congress is reporting on a speech by W that sounds like something I would write.
Which is an extraordinarily scary thing. Plug-in hybrids, nuclear power.....

“The administration has also launched what’s called Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative. It’s a $1.1 billion partnership between the government and industry to facilitate new plant orders. “

“Plug-in hybrids are a really important part of the strategy I’ve announced, and we’re going to provide $31 million to speed up research on these advanced technologies—this is a 27% increase over current funding levels. “

" Businesses that rely upon natural gas feedstocks have found that in order to stay in business they've got to move their plants closer to where vast quantities of natural gas are being discovered -- and that's not here in the United States, that's elsewhere."

"Oil prices rise sharply when demand is greater than supply. And when they do, it strains your budgets. It hurts our families, it hurts our small entrepreneurs. It's like a hidden tax. And so we're vulnerable to high prices of oil, and we're vulnerable to sudden disruptions of oil. What I'm telling you is oil -- the dependence upon oil is a national security problem, and an economic security problem. "

Be still my quivering heart. Looks like someone got that peak oil religion.
Or he's just faking it till gas prices crash.

Here is the Green car congress summary.
Here is the really long original speech.

Unhealthy Extremes

Too good NOT to post here.

Extreme Makeover
Scientific evidence that political anger is dangerous

It may or may not be that extreme politics is by itself what makes a person angry and uncompassionate; but it certainly cannot be improving the situation. After all, the partisan political machine today is geared toward the destruction of opponents--to convince us that the other side is not just misguided, but evil. Mounting evidence that adherence to extreme political attitudes correlates with a fundamental lack of compassion is not encouraging for the future of our civic culture, as long as rage is used as a political device.

Hey, it's short. So read the whole thing.

Get 'em while they're young

Nothing like childhood indoctrination to guarantee a new generation of highly partisan ideologues. And, some profits go to party candidates! I oppose using children's books for political indoctrination.

This somewhat new indoctrination book basically says: "My party believes in good things like sharing and feeding people and educating everybody." (Hint, hint, that other evil party doesn't like those things.)

The good news and the bad news

"Our natural majority in the country is a very reform majority. It's the taxpaying majority. It's the people who do not trust Washington, do not like seeing their money wasted, are not impressed with pork--if anything, they're irritated by it. And either the House and Senate Republicans are going to move substantially in the next few months or they're going to run a very real risk of losing the fall election."

Thusly spake Newt Gingrich, recently. Newt, of course, has not only an ideological but a practical reason for preserving Republican Congressional majorities - although he has been coy on the subject, his book last year is widely regarded as a declaration of his candidacy for the White House in 2008.

I actually want Newt to run in 2008; I'm not saying I want him to win, but I want him to run. I think he has interesting ideas, and I think the GOP should listen to and address them (the same goes, in my view, for Olympia Snowe, who's about his polar opposite in the GOP). My main concern, though, is that nominating Newt would force yet another polarizing election, not because of who Gingrich is now, but because of who he was in the 1990s. In a way, that's kind of sad, because Newt has many of the characteristics that I want in a President. He thinks big and broad; he's optimistic and forward-looking; he's rooted in strong philosophical commitments, but he's creative and pragmatic in finding solutions (having sacred cows is a good thing, but a willingness, grudging or otherwise, to slaughter them when faced with starvation is also important - as Justice Jackson noted, the Constitution is not a suicide pact); he's always thinking of ideas and looking for solutions; he tackles issues aggressively and head-on. If Roger Waters was a right-wing politician instead of a left-wing musician, he'd be Newt Gingrich (believe it or not, that's a compliment).

But on the other hand, he's a hugely polarizing figure, and with the Democrats showing as likely as not to nominate Hillary Clinton, such a matchup would inevitably become another partisan dust-up, another 51-49 election. Ironically enough, both Newt and Hillary have moved on from the very personas that make them so divisive; Clinton is not nearly so cold nor so liberal as she is portrayed, and Gingrich is far less the bomb-throwing counterrevolutionary he was in the mid-1990s. None-the-less, I would worry that in politics, sad as this may be, who you are counts as much as what your ideas are, and I'm just not convinced that another close, divisive election - even if fought over two candidates who really don't reflect such a split - is what the doctor ordered.

The Anti-Sheehans

In Minnesota, Progress For America* is airing two ads that highlight Iraqi war veterans and the parents of American soldiers killed in Iraq. These ads are the "flip side" of the Cindy Sheehan approach, featuring veterans and Gold Star Families who support the war in Iraq.

And the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party is trying mightily to get them pulled from the airwaves.

Last summer, an ABC affiliate Salt Lake City TV station refused to run issue ads from Sheehan's group, Gold Star Families for Peace, saying that the ads "could very well be offensive to our community in Utah, which has contributed more than its fair share of fighting soldiers and suffered significant loss of life in this Iraq war." While the ad itself is not available for viewing, a transcript can be found here.

Similar GSMFP ads ran in the Waco area for several weeks during the Sheehan Summer campout, and two other stations in Salt Lake City accepted and ran the GSMFP ads, including the Fox affiliate and the LDS-church-owned NBC affiliate.

Feel free to throw in your two bit's worth on free speech and hypocrisy.

[*--PFA is a conservative 527 group, in case you had any doubt at all.]

Republicans and a well-run government

I wasn't a Republican when Ronald Reagan was president so maybe that's why I didn't like his statement to the effect that government "was the problem". Even now as a registered Republican (and former federal employee trying to do some good to a needy population) I struggle with the essential conservative mantra that government IS the problem (as opposed to government can be a problem).

This has been on my mind much lately with the Katrina inquiries.

Clearly government WAS a problem and at all levels. But I'm still not clear how conservatives view this. Is it a) proof of the basic tenet "government is the problem" or is it b) a challenge for Republicans to do government smaller AND better.

I did a cursory webs search and of course got a lot of fodder for Dem Bush-bashing such as here and here. The latter quotes Hunter Thompson

Republicans are miserable at running the government because they have nothing but contempt for government.
They love business. The bigger the better. And maybe some of them are good at running big and small businesses.
But how can they be good at running something they hate?
Democrats, of course, love government. To a fault. We study government, go to school to learn more about governing and dream at night about making government better. (Pathetic, isn’t it?)
Democrats take seriously the job of running government. Republicans don’t, and they’re lousy at it.

There are many other partisan posts.

So, are Republicans supposed to be running a "better" government? At what point does "less" government become "poorer" government? As a moderate Republican these are important questions. And lest we think this is only an opportunity for Democratic Bush-bashing I leave with this exerpt from that liberal rag the Wahington Times

Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
Congress has passed two hurricane relief bills totaling $62.3 billion, all of which will be added to the deficit.
Republican leaders have been under pressure from conservative members and outside watchdog groups to find ways to pay for the Katrina relief. Some Republicans wanted to offer an amendment, including cuts, to pay for hurricane spending but were denied the chance under procedural rules.
"This is hardly a well-oiled machine," said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. "There's a lot of fat to trim. ... I wonder if we've been serving in the same Congress."

State by State Approval poll.

This is kind of neat. It's a state by state poll of Bush's approval.

If the election were held today he would only win 7 states.

Three of the more interesting results are:
Ohio Approve 37% Disapprove 60%
Florida Approve 42% Disapprove 55%
Tennessee Approve 46% Disapprove 52%

And while we are at it, here is a cool tool: Blogpulse shows how much activity a word or phrase has in the blogsphere. Here is the results for oil, climate and global warming.

Cartoon Pogrom

Up till now, rioters have been killed by security police. Now, rioters have killed innocents

Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings. It was the first major protest to erupt over the issue in Africa's most populous nation. An Associated Press reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze.

It does seem like it took a little longer for the anger to spread to sub-Saharan Africa, which is presumably less connected to global media. There have now been riots from Indonesia to Nigeria, which pretty much covers the entire swath of Muslim-majority settlement in the world.

Update: The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, makes a persuasive case for why it was appropriate to do so.

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.

Is Islam totalitarian? Not in the centralized form of the Soviet Union, but I believe it is accurate to describe Islam, and the tradition I was raised in--Orthodox Judaism--as totalistic systems which require constant obedience. Like Judaism, Islam does not have a single centralized authority to define what most be obeyed, but the traditions are quite specific and worked out. Neither tradition is philosophically accepting of freedom. For Orthodox Jews, the word for those Jews are are not religious is "frei" meaning "free" i.e. free from submission to God's will. Islam, which was derived from Judaism, seems to have a similar outlook.

Missing middle?

Where The Missing Middle Went

There is a lot to chew on in this article for the average Centerfield reader.

Taking a bullet for the constitution.

When the founding fathers created the constitution they envisioned a system of checks an balances between the three branches of government. For the most part this worked, but the ensuing centuries has shown some serious flaws. In a strange way, time an circumstances have created an additional side branch that doesn't really have any inherent constitutional power, but does have an enormous responsibility.

The huge federal bureaucracy that controls law enforcement, entitlements and the military was not fully foreseen by the constitution's signers. It has ballooned in times of crisis, festered in secrecy and become a double edged sword. Yes, it is part of the administrative branch, but when elected officials order it to do bad things it really has no power to object. Like a submissive child in a dysfunctional family, it does the dirty work of the father regardless of whether it agrees as an institution or as an individual.

There is something inherently wrong with this system. Whether it's an FBI agent before 9/11, a Contract manager objecting to no-bid Iraq contracts, NSA wiretaps or a career military talking about “able danger”, we should not be forced to sacrifice our careers and livelihood because someone else is corrupt and/or power mad. I'm not just talking about this particular administration. Regardless of who sits in the oval office they always seem to get around to abusing their power. In the end, it is the civil servant who has to sit by and watch. Then you go home at night and think “Do I forfeit a lifetime of work to stop this? Especially when my action probably will have no effect?” That is an unreasonable amount of sacrifice to ask. Particularly when it is only towards the end of a career that such decisions seem to appear.

Before anyone asks: No I have not witnessed a crime. I have witnessed some really stupid decisions being make that obviously would (and did) cause major problems. I've also watched the recent parade of career employees being forced out of their jobs and though, “there but for the grace of god go I”. It is inherently wrong that such a large group of people doesn't really have a way to effectively stop abuse.

Please, don't mentions the usual assortment of ombudsmen, union reps, internal affairs and inspector generals. I had a chance to watch them work a couple of years ago. What a circus! They know which side their bread is buttered on. The job description must include phrased like “ability to look the other way” and “Must possess skills at avoiding political tripwires.”

I halfway jokingly suggested, a while back, that a special prosecutor from the opposite party should be appointed at the start of every administration. Just administer the oath of office to the president and start the investigation. Because the system as it stands now is the real joke.

Friday Windbag...

Half open thread....speak now. Arts, movies, books. Celebrate Offend Everyone Day. Weekend plans. Good personal news. tell us about your favorite new toy. Whatever.

Instead of starting another thread, I'm going to pose one I wondered about, an adjunct to the dead Gore horse we've beaten so thoroughly and so mercilessly. I noticed that this was a real blogland barn-burner that didn't raise a peep in the MSM. Is it because the liberal media is protecting Gore, or because he's been filed as yesterday's news, or what? Watch out for saying something that tells us more about you than about Gore or the media though....: -)

The scramble for energy

Stories of coal mine accidents started hitting the news awhile back. I was raised in coal country so I pay attention to such things. My first thought was, "Its been a while since a coal accident made the national news". After a couple more stories about mine safety hit the papers, several separate thoughts slammed together and formed a pattern.

The local utility company increased the price of natural gas about 40 percent. There is a shortage of coal cars in the railroad industry and a plethora of coal mining safety stories in the news. I also know that some pharmaceutical plants can use coal, gas or electricity to operate.

It would appear that the shift to coal has begun and the pressure to produce more coal is causing more accidents. Not that surprising. For each volume of coal mined a certain amount of accidents are going to occur. If you were to double the volume you would get double the accidents. Next time you leave a light burning in an empty room remember that. The chain that gives you electricity is long and occasionally bloody.

Coal accidents are tragic, nuclear accidents are scary. After decades of quiet I am starting to hear and see problems in the nuclear industry. Some of the problems are extraordinarily serious and some merely alarming . When I talk to the people actually working in the nuclear plants the story is of ever increasing financial pressure from the corporate office. That is not a good think. Nuclear power can be very safe, but only if you let the engineers and scientists do their jobs. I'm really not happy with this trend.

By the way, the latest projection for Canadian natural gas is 8 years . If you heat your house with gas you may want to think about alternatives. If you weren't aware of it, U.S. oil production peaked in the 70's, and unlike natural gas it was relatively easy to switch to foreign sources. That's not really as easy a thing to do with natural gas. LNG terminals are very controversial.

For more information on natural gas here are two links from theoildrum and a surprising one from kos. The Kos one has some very good graphs. Just scroll down.

Polarization - It's Real

James Q. Wilson disputes Morris Fiorina's thesis that political polarization is a myth.

New Abu Ghraib Photos

I saw them earlier today on Salon.com, but Salon is now being hammered by so much traffic that I can't bring it up any more.

The Christian Science Monitor has an article on it.

Salon was not the first to publish them (that was an Australian media source) but the explanation by Mark Benjamin about why its necessary to publish them (the public's right to know) makes no sense obvious sense when compared to not publishing the cartoons of Muhammed.

Mike Bloomberg, Independent Candidate for President?

Ron reports:

Add another potential name to the 2008 White House contest, but it is way too early to tell if he'll really run and under what party banner. Liberal New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (R) -- a billionaire publishing tycoon reelected in a landslide last year -- is reportedly considering making a Presidential run in 2008. According to the New York Observer, Bloomberg political advisor and Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey is promoting the idea -- even if Bloomberg seems uninterested in the race. One advisor told the newspaper the only way Bloomberg would ever again run for office would be to run for President. And, if he runs, the newspaper reports he would run as either an Independent or a Democrat. Bloomberg is, after all, a former Democrat. According to the newspaper, Sheekey is trying to drum up support to convince Bloomberg to change his mind and jump into the race -- as he is also credited with being the driving force that convinced Bloomberg to seek a second term as Mayor.

Hizzoner has received credit for doing a good job in New York and recently won re-election by a whopping margin. He doesn't have a chance in hell at winning the nomination of his own party, as he is really a pro-business Democrat, and I doubt liberal activists would forgive him for switching to the dark side. The thing about Bloomberg is that he has got the money to run as independent, a route I would strongly encourage as one of his fans.

Because of the polarized nature of partisan politics and the apparent discontent from average American's regarding both of the major parties, I think an independent candidacy for President is not completely out of the realm of possibilities... An uphill battle, no doubt, but one that I think could be beneficial for the country. I hope Bloomberg seriously considers running. The vast majority of the American electorate who doesn't feel represented by hard right Republicans or left, anti-war Democrats, deserve to have a third option. It's time.

Cheney: "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger"

While I continue to believe that this is a non-story ("citizen involved in hunting accident") being exploited for political purposes, it is perhaps worth noting that Cheney has claimed responsibility:

"Ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and fired the round that hit Harry," Cheney said in a hastily arranged White House interview with Fox News Channel anchor Brit Hume. "And you can talk about all of the other conditions that existed at the time, but that's the bottom line. And there's no -- it was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that is something I'll never forget."

Also, although it has since been corrected in comments, I really feel that Bob's post from Tuesday needs explicitly correcting on the frontpage. Bob averred that Cheney "shot Whittington at 6:30 pm. That's insane! Sunset this time of year in the south is 5:30 pm. What kind of person does a 180 in the darkness and blasts away? This is not normal behavior." However, the timeline that Bob's comment was premised on gave times in EST; the local time in Texas was 5:30, which (as Bob acknowledged in the comments to his post) is almost an hour before sunset.

The future of the electoral college

I was intrigued to read a new paper in Berkeley Elctronic Press' journal The Forum called Where the Votes are: The Electoral Geography of the Coming Democratic Majority by Todd Estes, which posits where the votes are going to be found for the Democratic Party's emerging electoral majority (I know what you're thinking: did the emerging democratic majority see its shadow in 2000, giving us six more elections of Republican Presidents?). Todd's paper immediatley made me think of a paper from last year by William Frey, The Electoral College Moves to the Sun Belt, because it undercuts its own premise: even if it applied to 2008, it doesn't take account of the reapportionment that will follow the 2010 census, with small - but potentially important - consequences for his model. I discuss precisely that in:

• Electoral tectonics for statisticians: a reply to Todd Estes (PDF warning)

(Technically it's less of a reply to Todd and more of a comment on his paper, but what's the functional difference really).

The point I offer is actually only a very minor caveat; if the Dems can win Ohio or Florida, it's game over, in 2008's electoral college or any other. But in a close race, its practical effect is to narrow the options of an electoral strategist. In any instance, Todd's paper is certainly worth a read, and mine may or may not be. ;)

Giuliani Looks Best

Dick Morris has an interesting analysis of the potential 2008 candidates, comparing their popularity within their party with their population among independents. Giuliani comes out best in being both popular within his own party and reasonably popular among independents. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are too popular, or not popular enough, among partisans. Gore has relatively weak support both among partisans and among independents.

Yet another Cheney thread. Kinda!

I don't really want to start another shooting thread but this was kind of interesting.

I have lunch every week with a bunch of conservative (although not partisan) Baptist friends. Now that the whole "See Dick Shoot" episode has turned from joke to political pot boiler, I was interested in hearing what they had to say. I decided early not to prompt them, because I wanted an unbiased response. The conversation usually turns to politics, so I suspected I would not have to start the subject in question.

It started with the standard Cheney jokes, moved on to the concern for Whittington then ended up in a strange place. Putting the blame squarely on Cheney and questioning his competency to hold his current office. My jaw kind of dropped open.

I've never like the Bush/Cheney team, but these guys all voted for him and have defended him threw the Iraq war, torture and the WOT. They are very very anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. With one blast of the VP's shotgun he seems to have lost their confidence.

Now I use the word confidence because they still want their anti-gay/abortion agenda to be pursued. And still think Bush is the best chance of getting it done. They just don't feel comfortable with (in their opinion) a man of Cheney's temperament in the VP slot. The other phrase they used was "It makes you wonder about this administration".

Fables in Diplomacy

Once upon a time, long long ago, in the days before diplomacy, a politician named Mr Blabbityblah from Righteoustania visited Dirkadirkastan. When he got off the plane, he was greeted by his royal highess, King Threeface.

The king asked Blabbityblah to say a few words to his people. "They're unhappy about your new policies, and feel they treat our people far worse than they deserve. I think it would go well both for you and for me if you could say a few kind words. If you show that you at least understand how they feel, they may like your country a little bit better."

Blabbityblah agreed that this was worth trying, so he told the gathered Dirkadirkastanians that not all Righteoustanians agreed with the policy.

"In Righteoustania," Blabbityblah said, "we have a saying. One bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch. I know that the Dirkadirkastanians are a good people. They have been our friends for a long time, and we have both benefitted. You can trust that should I become the leader of Righteoustania, I will not forget that one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch."

Blabbityblah smiled and bowed in the customary Dirkadirkastanian way of showing respect. "Ich ein Dirkadirkastanian," Blabbityblah said. The crowd went wild. "Perhaps these Righteoustanians are not ALL so bad," the people murmured."

Later in private, Mr Blabbityblah and King Threeface discussed ways to deal with the dangerous Dirkadirkastanians who were a serious threat to both Righteoustania and Dirkadirkastan.

But diplomacy was born that day. Its first principle? When in Dirkadirkastan, do as Blabbityblah. True story. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. Or the guilty. :-)

The Lonely Watch

Harvard students print Danish cartoons

A conservative student newspaper at Harvard University has become one of the few media outlets in the country to show inflammatory Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, angering students on campus and prompting a forum to discuss the controversy.

The four cartoons appeared in the Feb. 8 issues of The Harvard Salient, a conservative, biweekly newspaper, under the headline, ''A pox (err, jihad) on free expression." The student editors called the cartoons, including a sketch of Mohammed carrying a bomb in his turban, ''relatively innocuous."

...

Travis R. Kavulla, a junior and the editor of the paper, said the student journalists meant no disrespect to Muslims, and had hoped instead to provoke a debate on campus. ''Now that [the cartoons] have provoked such a firestorm around the world, it's a shame that the mainstream media isn't publishing them because many people don't understand what they look like," he said.

I agree that it's a shame that major publications have chosen in this case not to provide their readers with relevant content. Apparently the public's right to know is a variable, not a constant. Who'd a thunk it, based on past media use of this principle as righteous justification for publishing all sorts of things many found odious?

Free speech. Far from universally appreciated, even here in America. A lefty sin? A righty sin? Look around. You be the judge. My experience is that among partisans, appreciation for free speech inversely correlates with whoever's ox is getting gored. YMMV.

What Do Al Gore and Two B-List Hollywood Actors Have in Common?

If you guessed that they've engaged in rabid anti-Americanism, and have undoubtedly contributed to the inflammation of anti-Americanism in the Arab world, you'd be right. I've always respected Al Gore, but his comments in Saudi Arabia were, for the lack of a wittier expression, over the line. For the purposes of context and accuracy, here's what he said, courtesy of the Calgary Sun-Times:

JIDDA, Saudi Arabia -- Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore told an audience yesterday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. He said the administration of President George W. Bush was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jidda Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Here's the thing. Even if one submits the idea that some Arabs were mistreated post-9/11, it is utterly false to accuse the U.S of indiscriminate roundups. Were mistakes made? Sure. Was there a lot of anti-Arab sentiment in certain quarters? Sure. But Gore made it seem like we just rounded up all the brown people we could find. The fact is, it didn't happen. I'm sure many on the far-right probably hoped it would happen, but at the end of the day, our response was pretty restrained.

Let's not forget that Muslims and Arabs in America are the freest on the Earth. I'm left wondering how many people realize that Muslims have more religious freedom to be Muslims here, than in Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia a sweeping theocracy, one cannot question the government. In fact, if the Islam you happen to practice is the wrong one, three guesses as to what happens. If Gore wanted to open a dialogue on U.S-Saudi relations, then he should rebuke the Saudis for their theocratic ways, and openly show how the U.S is not only better, but the best, in terms of human rights and religious liberty.

Never mind the fact that he said this in Saudi frickin Arabia!

Of course Gore's behavior seems like small stuff compared to what certain American actors have gotten themselves into, with a Turkish film that is nakedly anti-American, and anti-Semitic. In a new Turkish movie, called Valley of the Wolves Iraq, is the most expensive Turkish movie ever. In the film, American soldiers are brutal murderers, and B-list actor Gary Busry plays a Jewish doctor, who steals the organs of Iraqis, and sells them to wealthy buyers in New York and Tel Aviv. This of course gives credence to the damnable blood libel against Jews, that Jews steal the organs of Arabs. Billy Zane stars in the film as well.

Aside from trying to make some cash to salvage their washed up careers, what would possess these two idiots to do such a thing? Even if it was for the money, how desperate do you have to be to engage in such filth? Busey's supposed to be a Christian, for God's sake! AS far the larger impact on Hollywood goes, the one saving grace is that these are two B-List actors, and no major Hollywood actors or producers have touched this steaming pile of anti-Semitic dung. I thought Busey was cool. I'd say a boycott's on the way, but I suspect that the majority of Americans' commitment to good cinema will take care of that.

Story is here.

More Cheney

Jeff Greenfield.

(CNN) -- What did you see when you saw the story about Vice-President Cheney's hunting accident?

If you were a comedy writer, you saw definitive proof of the existence of God.

If you hold the Bush Administration in minimum high regard, you saw enough metaphors to power a Ph.D. thesis: a reckless, inept use of force directed at the wrong target, compounded by a cover-up.

If you support the administration, you saw the press in full hysteria, "going nuts" (as a FOX News personality put it), by pounding White House spokesman Scott McClellan on the 20-plus hour delay in making the news public. . .

What's so striking, I think, is how a story like this becomes an instant Rorschach test, with political predispositions substituting for inkblots. We know the meaning of this incident because we know how we feel about the vice president, or the administration, or the war in Iraq, or the press -- and therefore, we know how to judge the event.

The exact same thing happened after Katrina. Among diehards on each side, conclusions come first and as the facts come out they are embraced or discarded based on whether or not they support those conclusions. What I find disheartening is that otherwise very smart people are not immune from this phenomenon.

Cheney's shotgun pellets continue to do damage.

Well, the jokes are starting to die down, but the controversy continues.

Question #1: What happens if this guy dies?

Question #2: Who fires a shotgun after sundown?

According to this timeline he shot Whittington at 6:30 pm. That's insane! Sunset this time of year in the south is 5:30 pm. What kind of person does a 180 in the darkness and blasts away? This is not normal behavior.

Update: The timeline is for Eastern Time (ET), not Central(CT). For the day in question, Corpus Christi sunset is about 6:18 pm and in Kingsville its 6:21pm (CT). For the 5:30 pm (CT) shot it would have still been light. In fact, that would put the sun right in Cheney's eyes as he tracked the bird into the west an fired. Is this really any better than firing into the dark?

Please mentally exchange the old the scenario of "What kind of person does a 180 in the darkness and blasts away?" with "What kind of person does a 90 degree turn into the blinding sun and blasts away?"

Let me explain how Washington really works, Mr. Hackett

Completely disgusted by the national leadership of the Democratic Party, Paul Hackett gave up his quest to challenge Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) yesterday. Not only did he leave the Senate race, this former "rising star" also announced he was leaving politics.

Before you start asking "Wasn't this?", "Isn't this?", I'll just spare you the trouble--Yup, this is one and the s