Centerfield

Green GOP?

A Republican environmentalist blog, GreenGOP.

It's The Friday Open Thread!

Slackers.

Texas Declaring It's Independence?

Ron reports:

A new SurveyUSA/KEYE-TV poll shows Governor Rick Perry (R) continuing to hold a strong lead in his race for Governor. The results: Perry-39%, State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorne (Independent)-25%, singer/author Kinky Friedman (Independent)-16%, former Congressman Chris Bell (D)-15%.

What do we know?

1. Races with strong and viable independent candidates are hard to poll.
2. Viable independent candidates, especially uknowns like Kinky Friedman, usually do better than their numbers suggest because unlikely voters go to the polls on election day. Remember, Jesse Ventura was way behind.

If I were Rick Perry, I'd be a little nervous.

Prediction: An independent will be elected Governor of Texas. "Why the hell not?"

Sean Aqui On The Death Penalty

I agree with Midtopia that the death penalty should be used but rarely.

Mmmm...Irony......

Going a Short Way to Make a Point

Gas prices have gone above $3 a gallon again, and that means it's time for another round of congressional finger-pointing.

"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."

She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away.

WaPo reporter Dana Milbank has fun counting cars. Enjoy!

Is Rumsfeld Being Mobbed?

Is Rumsfeld being mobbed?

Except for his disinterest in stopping torture, this Democrat mostly thinks that Rumsfeld's done a good job. And the reason for that is that he's been good at pushing for a military of the sort a Democrat likes.

Unlike his Reagan-era predecessors, he's worked hard to make military spending more thoughtful than vastly plentiful, and to keep the numbers of soldiers small. Many Democrats grumbling about an overly small military strike me as engaged in partisanship and mobbing. Would you have thought the same if Gore had won and gone to Iraq with the same strategy?

Best of all, and he's SUCCESSFULLY kept the casualties and collateral casualties low, another virtue this Democrat likes.

Oh, but of course we have no choice but to mob Rumsfeld - Rove made us do it.

Economist Cover Story: Can The Democrats Get Their Act Together?

The Economist is the only magazine I read with any regularity because of its lack of the petulance, rigidity, predictibility and partisanship of most other magazines.

This week they take a fair, at times unfair, and sobering look at the Democratic Party.

These quotes best sum up their point of view (and mine):

Two years ago, this newspaper narrowly favoured Mr. Kerry's incoherence over Mr. Bush's incompetence. Since then, Republican incompetence has exceeded even our worst fears. How depressing to report that Democratic incoherence has soared too. America deserves better.

...if the Republicans reek of decay, the Democrats ooze dysfunctionality: divided, beholden to interest groups and without a coherent policy on anything that matters to America.

(The GOP) that once prided itself on businesslike pragmatism has become synonymous with ideologically skewed ineptitude.

So we have disgust with both sides for a lack of realism, principle, integrity, honesty and real leadership. As they put it elsewhere in this issue in terms of rhetoric and communication with voters:

a veritable Hobson's choice: the droning inanities of John Kerrry versus the scripted platitudes of George Bush.

But the meat and potatoes is on the pressing issues and realities of a Dem-controlled congress in 2007 in terms of predictions and hard questions from the Economist:

They see no real difference in terms of practical ends on Foreign Policy...just means. Dem incoherence on this is their worst obstacle since public faith in the GOP vs. terrorism has become a non factor.

The economy is where things get juicy but still depressing. GOP budget deficits and profligate spending are clearly an advantage...especially in light of looming budget busters in Social Security and Medicare. But the Dems are high on critique but low on clear alternatives. They're pressing for "PAYGO" policies and a 2001, 2003 tax cut repeal of the richest. Yet, they propose little else on the revenue side while calling for more spending in certain areas like subsidized savings for 100 mil of the least well-off, widened eligibility for Medicaid, tax credits for health costs along with an increase in Minimum wage. Cautious yet expensive ideas.

An one Dem consultant said, the real solutions to these budgetary problems are nowhere near the table for anyone and simply not "palatable" to voters. Yes, blunt honesty and pragmatism is admired but not wise in politics.

In education, they point out good ideas from independently aligned think-tanks like the Hamiltion Project. Supporting these measures on stricter teacher qualification would anger the unions but it would send a good message that they'll go some its base on principle.

Speaking of special interests, they applaud Schweitzer, Montana's new Dem governor, for telling narrow interest liberal groups to take a back seat. It worked. He won. But it's doubtful Dem leaders will do the same and take a more practical stand on popular positions that go against the rigid agendas of some these groups. However, they need to be more vocal for the one's that resonate in the areas of envirnment/global warming and civil rights.

Economist Fear: there's concern of overly protectionist measures from Dems on areas of trade. Action for "fair trade", the magazine opines, is cloaked protectionism by demanding standards poorer countries could not meet without increased prices for american consumers and higher unemployement abroad. Tricky topic. It's also where the Economist's agenda is most clear.

But the most promising area is in terms of checks and balances where a divided government would lend itself to some vetos and legislative battles...perhaps resulting in decreased spending. But it's also an area where Dems could find themselves between a rock and hard place, if they wind up fighting for more spending after blasting the GOP record on it. In which case, a clear opportunity to redefine themselves will be wasted and they'll be back to where they started in no time.

One final message to the party is not become, out of Bush Hatred, a diametrically opposed faction to everything that Bush is..namely as an isolationist, protectionist party. This is bad for policy and messaging.

Allah Astronomical

Muslim Nations Urged on Space Exploration

Muslims who travel to space must tackle religious challenges such as performing prayers at zero gravity and ensuring their meals fulfill Islamic dietary conditions, said Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad, a United Arab Emirates-based university professor in Islamic studies.

"We are all very hopeful that the efforts by the Malaysian government will inspire other Muslim countries to inaugurate space initiatives," Ahmad said on the sidelines of a conference in Kuala Lumpur to discuss Islamic perspectives on space expeditions.

Not to mention the dizziness problem from continually facing Mecca during prayers while zipping around the globe in zero-G at 17,000 mph in low earth orbit.

(Slow news day.)

Just A Rumor...

...but sources on the Hill are whispering that in the recent White House re-organizations, someone may have actually found the long-missing Veto Pen.

UPDATE 7:12 PM EDT: Bush threatens to use veto over spending bill

President George W. Bush yesterday threatened to use the first veto of his five-year presidency if the Senate refuses to cut back spending in an emergency bill to fund the war in Iraq and rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina.

Almost six hours ahead of the curve! My whisperers were right. But we still don't know if the pen has any ink in it. I remain skeptical.

Congress to start debating Oil Industry again. Where can this really go?

I noticed, in passing, the Senate today, was starting to debate many issues surrounding the Oil Industry...mainly about price and so forth. I just caught a glimpse of a reporter outside the Capitol talking about it and then a clip of Harry Reid making statements about the problem on the Senate floor. Reid's comments were what you what expect: a criticism of the the adverse effects the high prices are having on most Americans and the need for intevention to provide some kind of immediate relief.

Hey, I'm all for discussing and solving the huge geopolitical and socio-economic riddle that is ENERGY. And though I'd LOVE to believe that there is malfeasance and price gouging occuring, how can we really say??

Most of all, I'd like to believe these guys aren't just showing a half-hearted effort to get angry constituents off their backs.

I open it to discussion: What CAN they really do? tapping reserves is a short-sighted measure. What can be done about the real problem?? is there anything??

Some may say that diverting money from subsidies and excused royaly payments would cause an increase in production cost, less new drilling and higher costs in the long run. others would say they don't need the subsidies and they're doing just fine without them and that that money should go into consevation and alternative energy research.

Where do we go? Is this just a lollipop for good will with voters or is there a feasible agenda??

I'd love to know......

Bass-Ackwards Energy Policy

So deficits are okay? Not when they constrain spending in critical areas like energy conservation research. At least that's the administration's excuse for cutting spending on energy conservation when we should be doing just the opposite.
According to BusinessWeek Online
"...White House's proposed 2007 budget, efficiency spending is down 17% overall from 2006 appropriations, and 25% from levels in 2002. The cuts are deeper for individual programs. Research to help industry reduce energy use is slated for a 30% decrease, and some programs are being shut down."

Those cuts are hitting advance technology programs such as one that is finding a way of producing engine blocks with 30% less energy, as well as successful programs such as the Energy-Star standards and a program that helps poor people weatherize their homes. With oil at $75/bbl how the heck does cutting energy conservation efforts make sense? Don't go around telling everyone that the market can take care of it. The market cannot do it alone, at least not in a timely manner. The energy market never does anything alone anyway. Oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy all have their considerable subsidies and tax breaks that run to the tens of billions of dollars. For that, the American consumer is now being amply rewarded with high energy costs while watching record profits go to the energy companies and sky high compensation packages go to their executives. There's also our extreme vulnerability to sudden shortfalls in supply due to economic conflicts or war.

Just how important has energy conservation, that neglected economic netherworld child of America, has been to our economy in the past? From 1973 to 1986 we had a 35% increase in GNP with no increase in energy use**.
(note: link added - see extended entry at bottom)

About 2/3 of this was due to conservation, the other third due to a major sructural change in the US economy that included a decreased production in primary metals and increased foreign imports of the same as well as finished goods like cars and appliances. The energy conservation represents, over the past 3 decades, hundreds of billions of dollars that did not have to be spent on oil imports, money that could instead be invested into our own economy.

Art Rosenfeld, whose figures I'm using came from a technical session handout at the 1989 AAAS meeting in San Francisco, notes in the BW article that California's per capita electrical use is at 1976 levels while the country's overall use has jumped 50%. California ranks a low 47th in per capita energy usage. Mind you this is despite the fact that we have all these server farms in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the state that let you boys and girls surf the web for porn and ebay bargains.

Energy conservation, I guess, is a bad word at the Bush administration, unless there's a photo-op involved. If you want to see how serious that bunch of ex-oil company execs view energy conservation here's this quintessential example. When Bush went to Boulder in January to speak at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory they were in the process of laying off 32 people because of budget cuts. Fortunately for the photo-op, the administration managed to find 5 million dollars to keep the personnel at the lab.

For many years industry execs and not too few Republicans have constantly, and falsely, painted energy conservation measures as bad for the economy and bad for jobs. That's been one of the major arguments opposing stricter mileage standards on the US auto fleet. Heck what's good for GM is good for America, right? Well back in 1990 the folks over at Toyota thought it would be good business to develop hybrid vehicles for a number of reasons, including lengthening the years large number of autos can be produced by reducing fuel consumption. after all if you can't find gas why buy a car? Let alone build one. So now Toyota is not only eating GM's lunch, but breakfast and dinner too. And while the incompetent executives at GM, Ford and Chrysler get bail out bonuses that can feed a small country for decades, tens of thousands of their soon to be former employees will be trying to find other work to put food on their tables. But then again that may be the way automakers are conserving more energy in this country, by closing down manufacturing plants. That way we can import more Toyotas.
America is not stronger than it was 6 years ago, it's weaker.

We need serious efforts to not only conserve energy but to remake the way we use energy. With the era of cheap fossil fuels disappearing and we need a kind of visionary political leadership that pays more attention to a decades long timeline than quarterly reports. We need to rethink our urban and exurban planning. We'll have to rely more on renewable resources as well as increase conservation efforts. We'll have to invest in mass transit infrastructure, whether that's more rail or buses or ferries or whatever. Don't be naive enough to think that we're going to produce our way out of this with more oil and coal exploitation. A lot of the easy stuff has already been found used up. Even ANWAR doesn't have enough to make a major dent in the shortfall of domestic oil supplies in the long term. More nuclear power plantss will not do it in the short term as lead times are long and costs are high, even with government subsidies. It's probably going to be cheaper to build windmill farms and string new transmission lines from the Great Plains and coastal areas instead. Hydrogen? just where are you going to get hydrogen from? When our President eats a burrito? His current energy proposals are costly, harder to implement and have long timelines. We need policies like planting trees to reduce the urban heat island effect and save peak energy on cooling and while that takes time to implement - up to 10 years for the trees to grow - there are significant energy savings thereafter. We need to keep weatherizing more homes, make appliances and automobiles more efficient and fast-track more efficient technologies. What's good for GM is no longer necessarily what's good for America. What's been good to California, increased energy efficiency and a growing economy, can be damn good for the rest of America.

Delaying action on energy is costly, not only to the average Joe but to the economy as a whole. We need to gear up on energy conservation, not gear down like the Bush administration wants us to. As Peter Molinaro, vice-president of Dow Chemical says, "efficiency is the quickest and cheapest solution ... It won't get us all the way there, but it is absolutely the way to start."

Footnotes:
** The folks at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory calculated efficiencies by freezing them at 1973 levels and found that the US avoided about $150 Billion in energy bills; $100 Billion due to improved energy efficiency and $50 Billion due to structural change. By the end of the 80's the actual consumption of oil was 14 million barrels/day lower than was projected in 1973. If you want an energy comparison it's like running about 250 baseload power plants, each producing 5 billion KWH/yr. Now think of just those savings going on through the present day in April 2006. That's no drop in the bucket as far as the economy is concerned.
Right now a lot of us are paying 10 cents or more per KWH. That's 125 Billion dollars per year at the 10 cent rate. That's our dividend just on the earlier energysavings made more than 20 years ago.

Art Rosenfeld has an energy study in pdf format with lots of charts comparing energy usage and consumption. Makes for very good viewing.
The California Vision: Reducing Energy Intensity 2% Per Year
You'll also find the chart detailing California per capita energy consumption vs. US energy consumption in Fig. 11.

A Global Warming Question

All right. Being that we're all centrists here, and reasonable people, I think I can pose this question, and get reasonable responses. The aim is to spur debate, so be civil. OK, here we go:

I believe global warming is a real threat that must be confronted. I have a hard time, at least in the short term, seeing it as a threat greater than terrorism. Am I the only one? Have I answered my own question?

A Skeptical Globalist

In the New York Review of Books, John Gray reviews a number of books relating to the issue of globalization and presents a skeptical look at the issue of whether globalization is likely to lead to either universal peace and prosperity or the impoverishment of the Third World. (Note that I am imputing the positions of the reviewed books to Gray because he seems to accept the general theories that the authors advance and I am too lazy to discuss each book separately.) His conclusion is that neither is likely, largely because globalization is essentially a phenomenon of the developed world that essentially ignores the poor countries.

The belief that financial globalization is promoting economic development in poor countries is also delusive. Global financial markets have few incentives to equip poor countries to be globally productive. It may be profitable to computerize a grocery store in New York, but in Lagos customers are too poor to pay the prices required by such investment. The result is that technology is very unevenly diffused, and the poor stay poor.

At the same time, neither is globalization causing the impoverishment of the Third World.

The poverty of developing countries is often blamed on unfair terms of trade, and there can be little doubt that protectionist practices in agriculture both within the EU and in the US, for example, have hindered poor countries; but Cohen argues that on the whole trade is not as unequal as has been widely thought. The basic reason that poor countries stay poor is that they have little that rich countries want or need.

He argues that the idea that globalization, to the extent it exists, imposes a single development strategy (i.e., the “Washington Consensus”) on countries is not true because there are a wide variety of market and non-market economies that are still functioning. But, this also means that the idea that the world is converging toward a universal system of democratic capitalism is wrong; as an example, he cites Russia as moving toward what he calls “traditional Russian authoritarianism.”

Gray questions whether globalization can ever succeed exist because its spread will be limited by the effects of increased use of resources to fuel economic growth. He sees two consequences of this. First, Gray believes that the case for negative effects of global climate change caused by human economic activity is largely proven and he presents a dire picture of ecological changes in the future, which will disrupt economic activity. Second, the competition for scarce resources will lead to increased geopolitical conflict, as we are starting to see with respect to the Chinese quest for energy. Ultimately, he thinks the combination of these factors will lead to a disruption in growth of the globalized economy.

As the reverse side of globalization, environmental crisis could well derail it. If there is a way forward it lies in the intelligent use of science and technology to develop less dangerous sources of energy; but it is a mistake to think that a large change in the way we live can now be avoided. Climate change cannot be prevented, only mitigated, and whatever is done to deal with its effects there is sure to be large-scale disruption and conflict. The defining feature of the industrial civilization that is spreading everywhere is exponential growth; but such growth is eventually self-limiting.

Finally, Gray accepts the idea advanced by one of the authors that unconstrained globalization is not good for the United States, at least in the sense that it means that government abdicates any responsibility for the national interest in favor of allowing market forces to determine economic outcomes. He argues against the idea that increased globalization will necessarily lead to greater stability and peace. He points out that the world economy was actually more integrated in the early part of the 20th century, but that did not stop World War I from happening.

The long supply lines of the global production chain extend into many countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. Any serious threat to these regimes will have global repercussions, and it will not be easy for democratic states to side with dissident movements. Free trade requires stability more than democracy, and this is especially true when production is globally dispersed. At the same time, stability is not ensured in the current state of international affairs. As in the past, states have divergent strategic objectives; they prize their own security highly and will seek to thwart global market forces if they seem to threaten what are seen as vital national interests. It is only reasonable to expect that these differences will sometimes lead to conflict.

My personal belief is that, on balance, globalization--to the extent it exists--is probably more beneficial than it is harmful. But I think Gray is correct that globalization is not a self-correcting mechanism any more than markets themselves are. People often accuse those concerned about outsourcing with being "protectionist" but it's not unreasonable for workers to worry about their jobs leaving. Simply assuming that the market will replace those jobs is not much comfort. The point is that globalization does have a dynamic of its own, whose consequences are often, but not always, beneficial to society. Government needs to manage these dynamics--difficult as that undoubtedly is--rather than simply let itself be swept along by the tide.

If This Is Kansas, You Must Be a Methodist!

Well, not really, but this Religious Demographics Map Set is cool. Hat tip to Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution for poining out this site, hosted by Valparaiso.

It's sortable by a variety of faiths and classess of faith. Baptist dominate the south, but are surrounded on their borders by the Catholics, while the Lutherans have a northern midwest hegemony, and the Mormons own Utah. The Jews have a foothold in NE, NY, Pa, NJ, and South Florida. The Methodists have a good hold on the very middlest west, and all the other faiths look to be relative also-rans, at a glance. Check it out.

Yin-Yang Centrist

Political Yen-Yang is a blog that comes to centrism with an approach very like mine--a need for balance.

By the way, I came upon this centrist blog via a comment. Don't be shy if you're a centrist. If you want a plug, send an e-mail to cf at centrist coalition dot come.

Bin Laden on Darfur

Bin Laden has a new tape out expressing his concern for Darfur

Regarding the situation in Sudan, bin Laden said, "I call on Mujahedin and their supporters, especially in Sudan and the Arab peninsula, to prepare for long war again the crusader plunderers in Western Sudan. Our goal is not defending the Khartoum government but to defend Islam, its land and its people.
"I urge holy warriors to be acquainted with the land and the tribes in Darfur. They should know the rainy season approaches and that will hamper their movement," he said.

This fits in with my sense of Islamic radicals concerns for the Palestinians. The radicals are not concerned for their health and welfare, and wouldn't have the slightest concern if they were dying due to a famine that was an "act of God." It's a xenophobic reaction due to the presence of non-Muslims that stirs their passion.

The Secret War

CIA Fires Employee for Alleged Leak

In a highly unusual move, the CIA has fired an employee for leaking classified information to the news media, including details about secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe that resulted in a Pulitzer Prize-winning story, officials said Friday. The Associated Press has learned the officer was a CIA veteran nearing retirement, Mary McCarthy.

This was NOT a low-level leaker. McCarthy was Clinton's Director of Intelligence Programs on the National Security Council, succeeding Rand Beers in the position. She was subsequently elevated to Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of Intelligence Programs by Sandy Berger. She is a close associate of Richard Clarke.

McCarthy was co-author with Clarke on many of the reports on the Clinton administration's handling of millennium terror threats that Berger was convicted of stealing (and destroying) from the National Archives while McCarthy's mentor and Clarke's friend Beers was the National Security advisor for the Kerry campaign.

In 2004, McCarthy and her husband gave $4,000 to the Kerry Campaign, $5,000 to the Ohio Democratic Party, and $500 to the DNC.

Google is such a useful thing when playing "connect the dots."

When Competence Seems Spectacular

As I came in the house from walking our dogs this morning, my wife told me I missed a long interview on NPR with former Virginia governor Mark Warner. I've mentioned to her once or twice that, out of all the interesting prospects for 2008 (and there are many), Mark Warner might be the one would do the job right, if elected.

The interview is available at NPR's website. They have a longer 20-minute version that gives you a pretty solid dose of his views and personal style. On the one hand, he does have a kind of earnest, nerdy quality -- he may not have the personal charisma that works so well on the presidential stage. On the other hand, he is sharp, thoughtful, passionate, level-headed, and he exudes a kind of leadership competence that almost seems spectacular, in the present political context.

Guys like him should be in the upper echelons of leadership in our country. Have a listen.

Purple Party

Charging RINO points out a call in New York Magazine by Kurt Andersen for a Purple Party. A separate article considers the perfect purple frankencandidate.

Visit by Chinese Pres. Hu spurs currency debate...again. What's the answer?

First of all, I think President Hu's visit is important. Our countries need dialogue on many key issues....with trade being of the main and furthest reaching areas of debate. But I remain a bit cynical. While I'd like to see Bush make some progress with Hu, I know China will not be as cooperative as some in the West would like.

In a nutshell, many American pols, economists and trade experts think the Yuan is seriously undervalued. How so? Basic economics tells us that when a country has a severe trade imbalance with another, the currency values will fluctuate to correct the deficit. Specifically, when a country like China has a huge trade surplus with the U.S., the yuan should increase in value and the dollar decrease. This will, in basic theory, make chinese imports more expensive and american imports (to China) cheaper. The markets adjust and life goes on. But China's currency policy is such that the Yuan is pegged to the dollar so they move together at a fixed exchange. The Yuan is a not a free-floating currency like the dollar, euro or pound. So, the currencies don't revalue and help correct the deficit. That's the gist of it.

China's central bank, trying to offer a token compromise, introduced a limited "managed float" of the Yuan last July. Since then, it has gained more than 3% against the dollar.

But US critics say it is still valued around 40% too low, and want the Yuan to be freely floated on international currency markets.

from ABC News:

Bush, sitting in the Oval Office with Hu before a formal luncheon, praised China for previous progress in what is perhaps the major irritant in the relationship Beijing's tightly controlled currency.

The United States views the Chinese yuan as undervalued, and Bush said, "We would hope there would be more appreciation" in allowing the currency to rise with market forces.

One remedy put forth by and supported by the more populist and protectionist wings of both parties is a 27.5% protective tariff on Chinese imports to get them to loosen up and "play fair". Many however are skeptical about its ability to help level the field against China. Prudent or not, it's an easy sell on Main St. for pols. I'm not so sure it's a bad or good idea. I can't really tell. Making many "WalMart products" more pricey may make Americans angry since they've learned to think first as consumers and second as workers.

In an issue of the Economist earlier this month, the writer claims these currency debates are largely overblown and wrong-headed. Ofcourse one must keep the magazine's free-trade, almost libertarian, view in mind when reading.

The article claims that the deficit with China accounts for only 1/3 of the total US trade deficit over the past five years...making focus on China unfair. It also states that since joining the WTO, China has become an attractive place for manufacturing....which used to be done in other places like Taiwan and S.Korea. As result, America's gap with the rest of Asia has closed and been offset by rising deficits with China. It also states that China runs a deficit with other Asian nations and its exports to the U.S. are what give China its total trade surplus (not sure this one makes total sense since europe and S.America are not considered). It also claims since China accounts for only 10% of trade with America, currency adjustment will only yield minimal results.

None of this matters, according to the Economist. No. To them the problem is internal and Ameica needs to look in the mirror: "..the real cause of that deficit is that the country consumes too much and saves to little.". Also, protectionist measures would not bring back jobs...though it may slow down the outsourcing. But they may make other less expensive countries more attractive...but still more expensive than China. This may, however, encourage China to finally do things to boost domestic consumption in the form of better workers' rights and higher wages.

The article goes further and claims the current arrangement with China has actually helped America because cheap imports hold down inflation and interest rates. China's gobbling of Treasury Bonds has also kept money cheap and fueled the housing boom. If China started shedding these Bonds, the bond yields would go up and slow down other economic sectors.

Ofcourse, China is not blameless or innocent. And I agree with the Economist in its claim that China needs to do a better job at respecting intellectual property rights and improve access of American firms in China to do unfettered business in China. This will boost Chinese consumption of American products. China's middle-class market for such goods is arguably bigger than most large western european countries. In closing however, the Economist points first to America to get its fiscal house in order and start saving some cash: "America would be in a much stronger position to lecture China over its currency if its own economic policies were in good order"

Ofcourse, I'm also starting to hear certain circles claim that boosting national savings is an antiquated goal. Not sure I see why or agree. I agree that Americans consuming less and saving more would massively shrink the trade deficit but may also shrink other growth-senitive areas as well. Never an easy answer. But getting China to boost domestic consumption seems the best idea to me. I think, in our gloablly integrated economy, that protectionist measures have negative reprecussions. Global integration means less obstruction....but it must have rules that encourage equality. If not, it's just fancy policy for sweat shops and a race to the bottom in terms price and profit margin.

Run Away!

Census: Americans Are Fleeing Big Cities

Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Premature Open Thread!

Because I'm back on the road today and won't get a chance to race someone to it tomorrow morning.

Good news! Less death...

Continuing in the good news vein, the death rate appears to have dropped precipitously in 2004, from 833 deaths per 100,000 people in 2003 to 801 in 2004. In other words, 50,000 fewer people died in 2004 than in 2003. No word yet on whether the reduction is based on Chicago voter rolls... (I'm here all week, folks!)

Man, if only that data had been available before the presidential election. Forget death taxes, try out these slogans: "Mission Accomplished: Death Defeated". "Want grandma to die? Vote for Kerry. President George Bush has brought us the biggest death rate drop since 1944." Or: "Tired of Death? Re-elect President Bush!" Or for the Latino vote: "Death No Mas: Viva Bush!"

Come on everybody, let's see YOUR slogans...

Osama Senses a Disturbance in the Force

The Boston Globe reports on a Clash-like punk band for young American Muslims

The Kominas, whose name means ''bastards" in Punjabi, say they hate labels but offer ''Bollywood Muslim punk" to describe their sound, a blend of punk, metal, and Bhangra folk music. The lyrics, written mainly by Usmani, are clever, sometimes risque commentaries on racial profiling, foreign policy, and religion.

The Kominas are among the first American Muslim musicians to emerge from a nascent punk culture its adherents call Taqwacore, the name taken from a novel by a white convert to Islam named Michael Muhammad Knight. If it develops -- and channel MTV Desi has already done a spot on the Kominas -- the band will likely be remembered as Taqwacore's pioneers.

I can't begin to describe how positive a development I think this is, and I hope it has legs. Culture changes are very often only achievable via slow multi-generational movement. The voices of muslims who view both American culture and the most rigid aspects of islamic culture with a jaded eye are good ones to listen to. Punk rock is IMO a form of folk music, and the audience is people who feel unmoved by the preachings of the spectrum of the loudest mainstream popular messages. Artists such as these can testify with the kind of credibility that is only granted to those who complain about the bullsh!t being shopped by both sides.

It's only a little punk band, for sure. But it offers the hope of an oppositional culture for muslim youth, one that questions the received wisdom of authority. There's nothing more vital to a vigorous democratic culture than to question authority and the received wisdom it declares sacrosanct.

Shakeups at the White House

Scott McClellan is out, and Karl Rove is giving up his policy responsibilities to focus more on politics. Fox News Radio host Tony Snow is rumored as a possible replacement for McClellan. I predicted here more than 2 weeks ago that, contrary to initial reports, a real shake-up in White House staff was about to happen.

This is a major shake-up. Even the Twins will be replaced by Chelsea starting next week.

Slapdown...

....for Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline.

Judge rules against Kline in teen-sex case

In a case watched across the nation, U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled that Kansas health care providers should retain discretion in deciding what teenage sexual activities they report to the state as abuse. Attorney General Phill Kline had wanted most sexual contact involving children under age 16 reported.

In a predictable but noteworthy grandstanding statement, Kline attempted to claim the decision as a victory. It wasn't. It was a slapdown. If the ruling stands, the state could be ordered to pick up the $100K+ legal bills of the plaintiffs, the health care providers.

I say we should take it out of Kline's salary. But I'm prejudiced.

A Century Ago Today...

...San Franciscans were learning to shake, rattle and roll.

The post-Roe map

USA Today has a speculative story and graphic, contemplating what abortion law might look like in America once Roe is overturned. It presumably means "Roe as a cypher for that case and its progeny," and assumes that the ruling would take the federal courts out of the abortion business altogether. Based on that premise, it concludes that 22 states would restrict abortion, while 16 would "protect access to abortion."

Hat tip: Steve at Eminent Domain.

More economic good news

From 1997 to 2002, the number of black-owned businesses increased by 45%, to 1.2 million businesses, with a combined revenue of $88 billion, according to a recent Census Bureau study.

Doris Carson Williams, president of the African American Chamber of Commerce of Western Pennsylvania, attributes this in part to individuals taking personal charge of their futures after corporate downsizings (a very traditional route to entrepreneurship):

As blacks join the numbers of those being downsized by corporations, she said, "more and more have found that entrepreneurship is a viable option for them. They don't want to go through the corporate menagerie again."

Such is the strength of the American economy: people who lose one job use their talents, skills, and knowledge to create a new one from scratch, one which will eventually employ not just themselves but hosts of others as well.

National Centrist Meeting 2006

We've firmed up the details for our meeting in New York on May 6. Fittingly, we will meet at the Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace, a national historic site. In a nutshell:

National Centrist Meeting 2006
Saturday, May 6th
1pm to 5pm
Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace
28 East 20th Street
New York, NY 10003
(212) 260-1616

RSVP appreciated, but not required. Some attendees will be getting together for brunch beforehand. If you would like to be part of this, e-mail me at cf at centrist coalition dot com.

At the meeting, in addition to electing new officers for the Centrist Coalition, we will be brainstorming ideas for expanding the Centrist movement and discussing marketing, fundraising, and Internet strategies. We'll go out for dinner and drinks afterward, with plenty of time to chat about politics and the challenges facing our country.

To keep up with the latest developments, join our daily discussion yahoo group:

Hope to see you in New York,

Midtopia on Immigration

A long and comprehensive post. I agree that dealing with the demand side from employers is key, because if there is a demand, the supply will make itself available.

Tax Day

If you haven't filed by midnight tonight, better hope you're on the refund side of the equation.

On Beauty

Mark Satin recommends Zadie Smith's On Beauty as a great radical middle novel.

Your European City

Harper's Mews has a new URL. and posts a link to this quiz: What European city do you belong in? Apparently, I belong in Dublin too. I've never been there.

New Moderate GOP Blog

Check out Weekend Pundit.

Why Cars Rule And Public Transit Hasn't Taken Off: Total Trip Time

Why is public transit very unpopular in most of the US? The reason is a transit metric simply not present in public discussion, and little-discussed even in the transit literature. Total trip time is the total time it takes to get all the way from out the door of where you start to the door of where you're going.

In NYC, it seems to take roughly 50 minutes to get anywhere by public transit, more like an hour by car, and the car costs more. Thus, in NYC, it makes sense to take transit. In the medium-size city where I live, it takes 20-30 minutes to drive places. Even if we had NYC-level transit, it'd take a lot longer to go that way. But, of course, we don't: the trip time I see (yeah, I ride it alot) is 1 1/2-2 hours. It'd be half an hour more if I didn't ride my bike. If I were going downtown, it'd be merely 1hr, 1 1/3 hours if I walked like most people.

Despite the near lack of the idea in the literature or media, it's probably understood at a nonverbal level by the overwhelming majority that doesn't take public transit. For most people in the US, it just takes way too long to get places that way. Most of the places public transit is popular either have either high trip times by car (NYC) and/or confusing roads (Boston, DC).

I'm hoping that this idea gets out and starts to become part of the debate in places considering new transit systems. Article after article and post after post assume that public transit is unpopular because people are ignorant or stupid.

Of course, this post mostly covers the car-friendly areas where most Americans live. There are high-density cities such as NYC, where the traffic is so bad that public transit is a great option. There are many places in Europe like that, too, which is why public transit is much more popular there.

So, what is the total public transit trip time? It's the time from door to door. It can potentially include, as parts:

Get from door to public transit
Wait for first public transit leg
Take public transit first leg
[Wait for second transit leg]
[Take second transit leg]
. . .
[Wait for last transit leg]
[Take last transit leg]
Get from public transit to door

All of these components have a real potential to be serious in length. Of course, some people are lucky, and have fast transit close to home, close to work and commonly visited places, and don't have to change busses/trains to get to work, but these people are lucky. Most trips for most people outside very-high-density cities have to be considerably more time-consuming than by car.

In my opinion, people proposing public transit systems should do studies of how long it'll take the median person to get from end to end, and publish them up front. That'll make it clear how successful it'll be. Will it just be like busses, where the population is largely limited to those who get lucky on routes, those who don't like driving, can't afford cars, or or can't safely drive, or will the wider population that doesn't mind cars also buy in? People voting on mass transit systems should know how much extra time they'll have to spend taking them. I'm not suggesting that we give up on having busses - they're essential for the poor and those who can't drive, this is more about systems intended to serve a sizeable percentage of the public.

Once again, the big thing I'm trying to get across here is that most drive because it takes alot less time. This is borne out by the fact that people do take public transit in cities like NYC or Boston where driving is slow.

(Disclaimer: I was big on pushing this idea on computer networks, too - maybe I'm just obsessed).

UPDATE: Pat noted an important factor that I forgot to mention: economic impracticality of large-scale mass transit outside dense regions of cities. You cannot realistically hope to have an NYC level of public transit without that kind of density. Even with that density, though, it can be hard to get major usage unless the time penalty for using it is small.

141 Years Ago today: The Death of Abe Lincoln.

I was reminded of this when I was meandering the front page at Red State.

What caught my eye the most was the accolades the poster gave Lincoln when he called him the greatest Republican ever.

Lincoln was a great president who endured more vilification than almost any president and arguably more than Hoover and surely more than George Bush.

His presidency had ramifications that affect the social and political fabric of this country to this day and arguably for still a long time to come. It was a presidency of pain, anger, blood, division, war, progress and the boiling point of quiet tensions that had been brewing since the founding of the country.

He will always be remembered as one of our most pivotal presidents of all time.

I doubt many people have a negative opinion of Abe Lincoln. Some may, who knows.

But, the greatest Republican of all time? I beg to differ.

I say this because he's not a modern Republican. Lincoln is not a neat fit into our current paradigm nor is any Democrat of the same era. Suffice it to say, even if he looked good on TV, Lincoln would never win the GOP nomination today, nor would his opponents win the Democratic nomination. To say otherwise is to gloss over the evolution of our two major political parties over the past 150 years and completely ignore what these parties were and what they are.

The GOP was borne out of the defunct Whig Party which was the liberal party. This opposition was the natural opposition against the very conservative Democratic Party.

By, liberal ofcourse, I mean reform and classical liberal. By this classical definition, the current GOP is economically "liberal" and socially conservative and the Dems are economically "conservative" and socially liberal.

The liberal Republican Party at its founding was the Northern party where industry was booming. Like today, it was the party of business in the form of high protectionist tariffs and supporting industrialization and favoring growth by supporting the needs of the investment
class. But it was also the engine of social progress in terms of race, creed, gender and other bases of discrimination. In doing so, they felt the need to over ride state's rights on such issues and were seen as the more Federalist Party.

The Democrats, like today, were more supportive of the needs workers...back then in the areas of agriculture and general merchants in particular...the economic base of the South. They supported legislation that protected workers and farmers. It was also the party of smaller government and state's rights since the South was very protective of its social way of life. The Dems were wary social change and wanted the social structure to remain as it was since the founders.

This paradigm would throw current coalitions into fits. So, strangley, though I wish him no ill will, those of us who long for that hard to find combo of social liberalism/moderation, smaller government and fiscal conservatism (by the current definition), we can thank one of our greatest presidents for starting a chain of events that has made that combo non-existent in a major party.

PS, I'm not blaming Lincoln, so don't go there! hahaha

The Law of the Instrument

A re-run thread from last election season, as it certainly seems appropriate:

We've all heard them--those cynical maxims of insight that help distill experience into simple "laws" for dealing with reality. The classic example is Murphy's Law. "If anything can go wrong, it will." And of course, there's O'Toole's Corollary to Murphy's Law. "Murphy was an optimist."

Then there's Abraham Kaplan's Law of the Instrument, often mistakenly attributed to Mark Twain. "Give a small boy a hammer and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding." This is also often stated as "If you give a child a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Accountants see all problems as solvable by accounting methods, lawyers use legal means to address them, doctors view everything as organic systems that can be sliced or medicated, etc. And that leads me to Tully's Corollary to the Law of the Instrument.

"When you really want to drive a nail, everything starts to look like a hammer." It doesn't matter if it's a rock or a wrench, a blender or a board or a baguette, if you really want to drive that nail, you'll try anything that comes to hand.

At no time is this more evident than during election season.

Swearing

Oaths, that is. A newly-elected Florida village councilman is refusing to take his oath of office because it requires him to swear to support and defend the government of the United States.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution, and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida against all enemies, domestic or foreign, and that I will bear true faith, loyalty and allegiance to the same and that I am entitled to hold office under the Constitution and that I will faithfully perform all the duties of the office of Councilmember of the Village of Tequesta on which I am about to enter so help me God."

No oath, no office.

Good Thread on Why Not to be Terrorified of Terrorists

There was a good slashdot thread on terrorism a few of days ago, about an article on cheapness of biowarfare development equipment.

It pointed out many limitations that WMD-using terrorists have to live with. In addition to those, since I personally have run a highly distributed startup that went into the ground, I understand that highly distributed terrorist groups face many challenges too. You can get lots of talk and support that way, but little direct action unless you send somebody to get in their face to make something happen (exactly what it took to get 9/11).

Coup Plotters?

More Retired Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Later in the day, another retired general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.

Friday morning open thread (EARLY), Can I get a witness for Spring!

Spring is here! OK so Sunny and 80's would be summer anywhere else, but you still gotta love it. DC gets a lot of press for the cherry blossums, but for my money the blossoming palo verde's are just as beautiful (and all over the state, too!). Check if out. So what's great about spring in your neck of the woods?

The Moose on the Modern TR

The Bull Moose answers the critics on McCain's recent tacking toward the right:

The truth is that John McCain has always been a conservative. The Senator's political mentors were Goldwater and Reagan. He is a hawk who advocated rogue state rollback and Clinton's intervention in the Balkans when then Governor Bush was against nation-building. He voted against spending bills and the Medicare drug bill because he supports limited government. McCain is a strong supporter of private accounts in Social Security. He is a pro-lifer who only endorses choice when it is related to private school selection.

And... John McCain believes that we need strong action against global warming. He joined with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform. He courageously denounced and did something about torture. At the same time that liberals complained about McCain speaking at Falwell's Liberty University (keep in mind that the Senator reconciled with the Vietnamese who imprisoned and tortured him), our modern T.R. was working with Ted Kennedy to make our immigration laws more reasonable taking on the restrictionist right. Although he has supported a state ban, he opposes a federal constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.

Can McCain's critics cite a politician alive or dead who similarly defies the turgid categories of the left and the right? Who are the other brave souls in either party who consistently put country before party? America is looking for leaders who defy the conventional categories.

I don't have much to add, but had been posting on this lately and thought the Moose's commentary was interesting. The only people who seem to be barking at the moon over McCain's recent activities are those who probably were not going to vote for him anyway, it seems. The Senator's base continues to be behind him, the only question is whether or not he can convince enough conservatives that he is the best chance to keep the White House.

If you are interested, McCain's Straight Talk America PAC has revamped their web site. I think we can end the speculation over whether or not the Senator is running. He obviously is a candidate.

Oh, and BTW, today McCain "traveled" to the first caucus state. In the biggest corn state of them all he refused to change his position on ethanol subsidies, which he opposes. And... told conservatives that his opposition to the FMA stands. I don't always agree with him, but this is a man.

Let's do it right this time. Intel on Iran: Years Away from Nukes.

As the regulars here know, our views on Iraq differ and even those differing views can differ greatly in terms of nuance with those more strident partisans who hold the same opinion.

Whether it's about alumminum tubes with ionized coating, yellow cake from Niger, meetings in Prague, who said what and when and all the other errants facts that will never meld into a clear consensus opinion, one can argue that the due skepticsim from the media and public was very weak in the build up to the Iraqi invasion.

Had we been more skeptical, would it have changed anything? Who knows. I, however, strongly believe that had it been done in a more thorough manner, there'd have been much less of the bickering that continues to this day.

For that reason alone, I certainly hope we, as a government and a country are morwe willing to scowl a bit and scratch our collective chins when we hear anything that may precipitate public opinion and media tone toward acquiescence in the discussion of an invasion or strike against Iran. If Iraq taught us anything, it's that such an endeavor shouldn't be done in a manner that leads to dispute over what's true and when we knew or should have known it.

Several months ago, I was reading part an article (cannot remember where...but it was a moderate site that I reached thru links that started here) that included parts of a subscription only intel brief that only went to particular groups of connected people. The writer of the article stressed how fortunate he was to know someone who had access to this weekly brief and that his readers shouldn't bother asking how they can subscribe or if he could post more of them. He only posts excerpts from time to time and with permission.

The one is question was about Iran. The short of it was:

Bad situation, uncertain future, danger somewhat exagerrated, invasion-horrible idea and undoable, strikes equally horrible idea since they could only push us and Iran into a self-fulfilled prophecy and vindicate any acceleration of weapons production by Iran due to an overt threat...not to mention vindicating the argument of many nations that the best defense against aggression is to have a nuclear weapon. Plus, no strike would effectively eliminate any ability of Iran to do what the West fears. It would however, intensify national resolve and push moderates to a hard-line stance with their leaders. Finally, all credible intel suggests that, at the current pace, this ability to create a nuclear weapon is AT LEAST five years away if not and probably much further away.

My post from 4/10 on the Hearsh/Iran Thread a few days ago:

"...we're getting into something where only some of the intelligence is being highlighted. I've read articles that show that many in the intel community urge that Iran is still at least five years away from being able to build a weapon...if it was even going to.

I'd hate to see this adminstration, once again, get into this routine of picking and emphasizing certain points of view while ignoring others"

Well, I'm encouraged to see this point of view expressed in the national media http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041300897.html

"Iran remains years away from obtaining the materials and technology necessary for a nuclear weapon despite its announcement this week that it has begun enriching uranium, several top U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday."

Kenneth Brill, the head of the newly created National Counterproliferation Center, said the U.S. assessment on the timeframe of Iran's weapons development was sufficiently broad that it does not need to be modified.

This is why I previously stated that I felt Hearsh was picking one specfic contingency from a laundry list of "what if's". I didn't like that.

It's the first major mention of it I've seen. Now, those already favoring such an attack or those who more apt to take any "we have no choice" rhetoric concerning Iran at face value should take pause and consider. I already see eery parallels to Iraq in the sense that I do feel intel was not weighted properly in Iraq. I believe strong voices in the intel community we're prescribing a much more cautious and measured appoach to Iraq than the administration led on. This is where gripes of "cherry-picking intel" come from...not to mention anger and skepticism at excuses like "the intel was bad and we need to address that".

Plenty of good intel that turned out to to be true was readily available, while greater weight was given to intel that many experts in that community felt, at the time, was not credible and should not have over-riden better intel that turned out to be true.

from the article:

"The nation's No. 2 intelligence official, Gen. Michael Hayden, said the Iran intelligence has benefited from the lessons-learned exercises on estimates about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

I hope so. We need wisdom...now more than ever

South Park Wins Peabody

South Park Wins Peabody Award

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Comedy Central's "South Park" won its first Peabody Award on Wednesday, winning praise from judges as TV's boldest, most politically incorrect satirical series.

...

The George Foster Peabody Awards, for broadcasting excellence in both news and entertainment, are given annually by the University of Georgia. Thirty-two awards will be handed out June 5 in New York, hosted by two-time recipient Jon Stewart, who anchors Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

"South Park" was praised as a show that "pushes all the buttons, turns up the heat and shatters every taboo," Peabody Awards Director Horace Newcomb said. "Through that process of offending it reminds us of the need for being tolerant."

Meanwhile, Comedy Central network wussed out last night 4/12/06, refusing to allow South Park to show an image of the prophet Muhammed. They were promptly whomped for it when SP followed up its "comedy central refuses to allow us to show an image of mohammed" message by displaying images of Bin Laden and Zawahiri crapping on an American flag. Which is apparently fine with Comedy Central..... Mohammed, just standing there respectfully like the prophet of Allah is no good, but Bin laden crapping on the flag is just fun free speech.

But It all got me to wondering. If images of Muhammed are not allowed, how is it that anyone knows what he's supposed to look like some thousands of years later? Is there a secret society of muslim heretics who have kept his pictures in secret? Presumedly, no good muslim could know what Muhammed looks like. So there's no way they could complain about an image of Mohammed unless they know what he looks like. Hasn't "ce n'est pas une pipe" been translated into arabic yet?

And what if South Park had written the show so that they were going to incorporate a character called "Not Muhammed" who had important knowledge about the message of allah, and he was dressed in a robe and wore a turban and had a long beard, but the name on the front of his robe said "NOT muhammed" quite clearly. What would be the ruling on this? Comedy Central? Muslim clerics, can we get a judgement?

Oh, and sorry for the absurdist rant, folks. Frankly, I'm out of options here.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Happiness is working for yourself

The job may be long on hours and short on pay. But working for yourself will make you much happier than those employed by others, according to research.

People who run their own businesses have such flexibility and independence that they enjoy far greater job satisfaction, experts claim.

The downside?

The self-employed work longer hours for lower wages than their wage-slave counterparts.

To which I would add, they have real cheapskate hard-driving SOB's for bosses as well.

"American Conservative" grades Bush's National Security Strategy: "flunks".

In the annals of weekly current events magazines and far away from polemics on talk radio and TV, the political and civic-minded person can find thoughtful critique and praise of our leaders in DC. Though these writers and thinkers are, by no means, proposing to side with the opposition, they deserve their due attention when above partisan double-standards and give "politically inconvenent" assesments of political leaders that they are normally inclined to support.

In the current issue of the American Conservative, John Laughland says:

"Taken at face value as an actual blueprint for policy, President Bush's new National Security Strategy, which appeared last month, FLUNKS. It fails because it disregards the first principle of strategy: the imperative of balancing means and ends."

He continues saying that this new document, a general repeat of the 2002 version, is "chockfull of declarations, exhortations and gaseous generalities...almost entirely devoid of facts, never bothers consider how we got into this mess in the first place or how we're going to pay for the Long War"

These most basic observations seem almost out of place in our current political environment where it seems few people feel compelled to fairly criticize anyone who isn't part of the opposition.

It's a shame our political discourse is usually that boring. When "who" matters more than "what", we as citizens lose because it's far too easy for us to get insulated by reaffirming facts and shielded from inconvenient facts.

One of the main reasons I enjoy blogging almost exclusively here at Centerfield is that I'm constantly seeing different points of view and humbly consider all of them in shaping my opinion. I feel no need to see things a certain way because I've no emotional investment in doing so.

This makes Laughland's critique all the more admirable.

He does point out good things in the Strategy including funding for humanitarian efforts in Africa for cleaner drinking water, the Millenium Challenge Corp., not to mention efforts to reduce malaria worldwide.

Laugland points out, however, that funding for these noble efforts "equals the amount we're pouring into that rathole known as Iraq every two weeks."

In fact, says Laughland, there's no mention of any costs of any of these military operations nor their effects on the debt and deficits.

He also complains that, given Bush's admission of our addiction, there'd be some mention of plans to deal with that in this document...not a word.

Status and planning for the Armed Forces in this "Long War" he constantly refers to? Not a peep. Laughland insists these omissions matter. Fiscal shortfalls for these operations:

"suggest that American Power is limited-but that's the one thing that the Bush Administration's strategists will not admit: doing so would oblige them to curb the president's outsized ambitions."

He sites a 1930's quote of Lord Rutherford:

"When we're out of money, it's time to think".

He then gripes that it seems easier for these strategists "to pretend that the supply of money is endless, thereby obviating the need for thinking altogether"

In closing he cites the centrsal defect: An unwillingness to deal with the world as it is, rather than how they would like it to be by displaying "a troubling inclination to evade reality by asserting a capacity to tranform it".

Bold words. Sounds like a liberal! Or does he?? I think not. to me it just sounds like scathing critique from a troubled and concerned writer....troubled and concerned not only for the complaints he's just stated, but also for the fact that he's compelled to do this to a Man and a Party that he'd much rather write postively about.

That says a lot.

National Instant Check System

Database at Center of Immigration Reform

Immigration expert Kevin Jernegan, who wrote a report last year on the pilot program for the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, called such a system central to immigration reform. Under a 1986 federal law, employers can be punished for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, but very few are penalized.

Here's a roundup on recent immigration polling for those who want to seperate political pontification from actual public sentiment. The public's number one perceived effective strategy? Instituting tough penalties for businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

That's the key right there. We actually have laws to punish employers, but they are only rarely enforced. In the past, whenever the INS has attempted to enforce those laws against employers, phones ring in Washington and Congresscritters from both sides of the aisle start beating the hell out of the INS for "harrassing legitimate businesses." So the INS goes back to "other priorities" rather than watch their funding evaporate in committee. And their existing funding gets channeled away from employer enforcement.

The overall public consensus is NOT to punish those illegal aliens already here, but to enforce existing laws against employers to reduce the demand, and tighten up the borders to stop the flood. For those already here, the public consensus is to find ways to assimilate them and make them legitimate. Make them jump through some hoops and pay some price for their actions, yes. Brand them as felons and boot them out, no.

My question: If "instant check" is a good idea for gun purchases, why is it a bad idea for employers hiring illegal aliens?

The "Consensus" on Global Warming

Explained by a top climate research scientist.

Climate of Fear

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

The Glass House

In light of the current immigration demonstrations, I thought it would be instructive to see how Mexico handles their immigrants, both legal and illegal. Fortunately someone else has already done the heavy lifting.

Mexico's glass house
How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.

Disgruntled Republicans

I know how George Conway feels. With the exception of the never voting for Democrats part, I agree with the following:

I'm disgruntled, too, and I'm going to get it all of my chest this morning: I've never voted for a Democrat in a general election in my life, and I don't expect to anytime soon, but it's been impossible for me over the past couple of years to get enthused about the Republican party. I voted for President Bush twice, and contributed to his campaign twice, but held my nose when I did it the second time. I don't consider myself a Republican any longer. Thanks to this Administration and the Republicans in Congress, the Republican Party today is the party of pork-barrel spending, Congressional corruption — and, I know folks on this web site don't want to hear it, but deep down they know it's true — foreign and military policy incompetence. Frankly, speaking of incompetence, I think this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century. The good news about it, as far as I'm concerned, is that it's almost over.

Chirac Waves White Flag

France scraps youth job law

French President Jacques Chirac bowed to weeks of angry protests on Monday and scrapped a youth job law in a climb-down that undermined his prime minister and handed victory to opponents of the law.

Lieberman Threatens Dems

Ron reports:

Speaking before the Windsor Democratic Town Committee on Sunday, US Senator Joe Lieberman (D) would not rule out making an independent or third party run for re-election if he loses the Democratic nomination to wealthy businessman and peace activist Ned Lamont. "Will I always be a member of the Democratic Party? I hope there's not a primary. I'm confident, if there is one, I'll win it -- but I'm not gonna rule out any other option for now because I feel so strongly that I can do better for the State of Connecticut for the next six years in the United States Senate that I want to give all the voters a chance to make that decision on Election Day in November ... But I want to do it as a Democrat because I believe in the Democratic Party, so really the choice is up to my fellow Democrats," said Lieberman.

To the Connecticut Democrats:

Nominate Ned Lamont.

Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please...

Picture this:

Joe 2008 - Independent for America

Update:

Swing State Project reports:

[I]ndependent candidates have to submit petitions by August 9th, 2006. It just so happens that the Connecticut primary is on August 8th. In other words, if Joe loses the primary, in order to run as an independent in the general, he'd have to file petitions the very next day.

This is all but a literal impossibility. Joe would have to collect petitions while still running in the Dem primary. Can you imagine such a spectacle? It would be beyond unheard of for a sitting senator to do such a thing. The only real way Lieberman could run as an indie would be if he abandoned the Democratic Party (save your jokes) well in advance of the primary.

Either Lieberman knew this and isn't serious, didn't know it, or knew it and is taking it very seriously! Here's to the latter. Start collecting those signatures, Joe!

Cover The Democrats, Marry A Republican

Coverage of the lovely Campbell Brown's wedding to CPA spokeman Dan Senor. Some of you may recall that I snapped a photo of her at the Democratic Convention.

What's that about liberal bias?

NYT OP ED by B. Bartlett on Budget crisis: "the elephant in the room"

Bruce Bartlett, author of the new Bush-critique book "Imposter", as many know, is a former Reagan guy and lifelong Republican who has had little good to say about W Bush. A fiscal conservative more than anything else, he has found himself at odds of late with the conservative think tank he worked for and finally parted ways when he published his new book. This was preceded by increasing critical writing about the current adminstration.

He currently has an op ed in the Sunday New York Times about the looming budgetary crisis and he voices his displeasure that this very real problem has become so common in conversation that it has degraded into somewhat of an empty threat.

"Both Republicans and Democrats have avoided dealing with this elephant because to seriously do so would require confronting a very unpleasant reality — that only massive spending cuts or tax increases can prevent a financial crisis. Each party fears being pilloried by the other if it dares to even hint at the necessity of benefit cuts and tax increases.

Consequently, both parties proceed with the delusion that relatively modest, and politically painless, fiscal adjustments can keep the government running."

He then proceeds to lay the partisan basics on the table:

"Democrats like to believe that the Bush tax cuts are all that is standing in the way of every policy they would like to see enacted. But even if all those tax cuts disappeared tomorrow, the money that would come in would provide only a drop in the bucket of what is needed to deal with looming fiscal problems. It would cover maybe a tenth of the spending that is already in the pipeline.

Republicans have their own delusions. To hear them talk, all we need to do to fix the budget is get rid of pork-barrel spending — perhaps by giving the president line-item veto power....But...this, too, would provide only a drop in the bucket. Getting rid of all pork-barrel projects in the federal budget would reduce spending by only $29 billion this year (a trivial amount in a $2.5 trillion budget). Moreover... the president doesn’t need a line-item veto to cut pork from the budget. He could, if he wanted, cancel 95 percent of earmarks today, because they are not actually line items in the budget. They are Congressional suggestions that he may ignore at will."

He says if it were up to him, the budget would be half the size it is today. Bold words!

The reality he says is that simple realistic options for cutting spending or raising taxes aren't going to solve the problem. He mentions the influencial obstacle, AARP, to making cuts in spending for the elderly. He concludes by saying that he knows DC all to well and knows what reforms and cuts are attainable and which ones are not. He pushes policy people from the Left and Right to get creative and come up with innovative that will appeal to politicians who are simply too queasy about making the draconian cuts that they deep down know are needed.

He also warns of the day when financial markets finally wake up and notice the deficit. As bad as it would be, it may pressure DC into finally doing meaningful budget reform.

As for me, I agree with Mr. Bartlett to certain point. I'm all for shrinking the budget down. However, GOP creditionals shine thru when he talks about cuts. Why, OH, WHY do Republicans NEVER look to sacred budgetary cows like defense for savings? I don't know how these guys can stand there with a straight face and pick on everything social-related but never a word of skepticism toward our massive defense budget. The war on drugs is another budgetary drain in excess of 70 billion annually.

I would look everywhere. Yes, mandatory entitlement spending is crowding out discretionary spending and something must be done but let's be fair and sacrifice everywhere. The thing that often worries me is that, like a heroine addict in violent withdrawl as his body adjusts, the economy could slow down slip into recession if the budget shrinks too much fast since it must readjust to operating without the government infusing as much money. It's not a deterrent, just a concern.

But still, in the end, Bartlett is right and we can add him to the list of experts calling for budget sanity and being ignored.

Nuking Iran

This sounds like a bad idea to me.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface.

Being the first to use nuclear weaspons would be a disaster, in my view. It would make the likelihood of a revenge WMD attack on American soil so much higher. Could we really be confident that Pakistan's government would survive the "fallout," and if not, would we have to pre-emptively attack Pakistan as well to destroy its nukes?

I don't like the idea of allowing Iran to attain nuclear weapons. But I don't know if we can stop them without doing something that would have worse consequences.

The church and immigration

Martin Luther King, the Southern Christian Leadship Council... some of the familiar names at the heart of the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's. The "Black Church" was at the center of the movement. Some "White churches" found themselves in oppostion to that movement. How could Christians so profoundly disagree?

Today, we see similar patterns with the immigration question. This article from the Arizona Republic points out the efforts of Latino evangelical churces to encourage public outcry.

As many as 30 to 40 percent of the marchers in Phoenix were evangelical Christian Latinos and pastors, organizers said. Some churches sent entire congregations. Others passed out fliers after Sunday services or promoted the rally from behind the pulpit or on Spanish-language Christian radio stations, among them Radio Manantial (91.1 FM) and KASA-AM (1540).

Hmmm, that doesn't fit what we "know" about evangelicals! And if we look deeper we see surprisingly diverse viewpoints regarding the issue among Christians. Here's an editorial from Christianity Today, a conservative Christian monthly magazine.

Any policy that treats her the same way we treat drug smugglers and foreign terrorists is foolish. Any policy that makes it harder for Maria to come here, temporarily or permanently, is a policy that says that courage, industry, and faith no longer matter.

The Catholic Church has played a key role in opposing legislation to restrict immigration and rallying protesters.
"As we've been able to reach more and more people, they're waking up to the ills of the proposals made to date and seeing the need to be vocal about the kinds of reforms that would be more acceptable," said Mark D. Franken, executive director of migration and refugee services for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

As an evangelical Christian and centrist I find this intriguing on several levels: 1)It once again forces us to re-examine the "politics" of the Evangelicals 2) It reaffirms the continued influence of the Church in core political issues across the political spectrum 3) It suggests a rift among social conservatives on this and many other issues 4) It challenges the Church look at Christian values that extend beyond our borders.

Exciting times, indeed.

Google Update

It looks like the Googlebot came by again, and got a different error in trying to get to this page. If you're interested,

I put into the sitemap

http://centristcoalition.com/blog/

and somehow it transformed that into

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog.html

which is a page that does not exist.

I've now updated it to refer to

http://www.centristcoalition.com/index.html

which is the actual home page of this blog.

The Googlebot probably won't come around for another week, but I hope then, this problem will be fixed.

Clean air is bad, too!

Forget pollution, it's the clean air heating up the planet. Just in time for our global warming versus global dimming debate, European researchers are reporting that the solar dimming in the 1950s-70s kept warming in check, while the environmental protection actions taken by developed nations around the world in the 1970s and 80s have made the air clearer, allowing more of the sun's heat through and making the planet hotter. From the article:

"There is always this argument that maybe the whole temperature rise wasn't due to greenhouse warming but due to solar variations," he told the BBC News website.

"During the solar dimming we had really no temperature rise. And only when the solar dimming disappeared could we really see what is going on in terms of the greenhouse effect, and that is only starting in the 1980s."

My advice? Use more hair spray if you want to avoid the oncoming train of global warming.

Update: Bob Carter has a provocative piece in the UK's Telegraph on global warming as a political phenomenon. A choice quote:

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike.

Friday Open Thread

So I'm a few hours early. Sue me.

Islamic Reformation: How's It Going?

Midtopia has a post on the conflicts within Islam. There may be a few voices for reformation, but it seems to me the initiative within Islam is with the counter-reformation--the attempt to purge modern accretions. For instance, there was a recent ruling by Egypt's Grant Mufti, the top authority, banning statues, even though which are not and have never been idols, reversing an earlier ruling which permitted them. There is now concern that Islamists might target pre-Islamic statues (e.g. the Sphinx).

Info on MA Health Plan Costs Now Trickling Out

You'd have though this would have been carefully considered and the info made very public before the plan got this far. But take an overwhelmingly democratic legislature and add in a governor who's a presidential aspirant lacking a feather in his cap, and what do you get?

When Governor Mitt Romney dramatically proposed a universal health insurance plan a year ago, a key element was providing low-cost, pared-down coverage for about $200 a month.

But in the end, legislators were unwilling to adopt some of the measures that the governor and insurers had counted on to lower premiums, and lawmakers and an insurance executive said in interviews yesterday that they expect average premiums under the bill passed this week will be about $325 a month for individuals and as much as twice that for families.

...

The state will pay the entire premium for individuals and families who earn less than 100 percent of the poverty level and will subsidize premiums for those who earn between 100 and 300 percent of the federal poverty level; 300 percent is about $30,000 for a single person and $50,000 for a family of three.

But the amount of those subsidies has not been determined, and the higher the premiums of health plans, the more the state will have to chip in to keep plans affordable.

Read the whole thing. Looks like there are a lot of unknowns. So apparently we're on the cusp of actually doing this, and there are no reports on the expected price tag for this in the state budget. A little quick math. If we pay the entire premium for 50k residents, that's $195 million right there.

To say nothing of the question of affordability for people more than 300% above the poverty level. If individual coverage is $325, then we can expect family coverage to be $400–500, at a guess. So it seems as though the state is mandating that if you make $45,000 per year and are the single earner in a family with a kid or two, you must find a way to come up with $4800-6000 per year for health insurance. I wonder if these people are mailing Mitt their thank-you notes yet.

Hillary, Carville Praise Romney Plan

A woman bites dog story. Hillary Clinton and James Carville have positive things to say about the Massachusetts health plan. In truth, the heavy lifting was done by the Democratic Massachusetts legislature, but they're not running for president.

I find much of the negative reaction in a prior post to be excessively libertarian and focused on abstract principles. We are in this together, and just as we can democratically elect to take on the obligation to pay taxes, we can democratically take on the obligation to support a health care system.

What shall we do with these people?

We have millions of them. Should they be given full citizen rights? Is it politically feasible to make such a sweeping change? This issue is tearing the Republican Party apart. And I’m not so sure the Democrats are as monolithic on the issue as some suggest.

And beyond the legal and economic questions are the cultural issues. Would we not see a wholesale change in our American culture? Yes, we are an immigrant nation but this is an entirely different situation altogether. What would America be if they became a full active participant in our way of life?

These are vexing issues and I see how they boil the blood and divide the nation. States are divided, churches are divided. Men have taken up arms.

How did we survive such a time in America a century and a half ago?

Global Dimming

Global Dimming, if real, is likely to be a bigger and faster effect than global warming. It is a diminishment of solar radiation reaching the ground. It affects a very large amount of energy - probably a 4%ish change in distribution all heat gotten from the sun over three decades (10% in the US). Even the highest warming numbers in bk's link suggest that greenhouse gas - driven changes are only a hundredth as intense as global dimming.

If I understood this paper correctly, it appears to mostly be due to clouds getting optically denser.

The Beeb ran a special on the subject, in which, of course, they found an expert predicting doom and gloom. He thought that clouds forming around atmospheric pollution are reflecting most of the energy back out into space. Well, of course, it's clear he's largely wrong, since we're seeing very slow warming, not a rushing-toward-ice-age cooling (global temp would've fallen 12 degrees). Since my personal observation of no ice age (even up in upstate NY) conflicts with that theory (loss of even a few % of total solar energy probably would have that effect over a few decades). The article suggests that, well, maybe temperature rises PRECISELY balance losses from dimming. Given the disparity in magnitudes of observed and projected temp rises vs dimming effects, let's just say I'll need some extraordinary proof to buy that one.

It does seem to be true that more clouds do seem to be formed - the linked paper says most places see more cloudy days. My personal theory is that the dimming comes from the clouds being thicker and darker, and that the energy is diverted into the atmosphere, possibly translating into more energetic weather, like the possible increase in hurricane intensity that we're seeing.

Many of the measures contemplated to reduce greenhouse gas growth rates should also help with the pollution the clouds are forming around. Carbon sequestration won't, but ULEVs, industrial / power plant output filters, and nuclear plants will. Greenhouse gas credits might also help, to the extent that that parallelism exists. Remember, this is much more worth worrying about than that wimpy global warming stuff (nyah, nyah, bk!).

UPDATE: Yeah, all my speculation has going for it is a lack of obvious CONTRARY evidence that I can think of. I was already aware that we only have reliable hurricane data for ONE cycle (debates using old data make me remember the assembled timeline for the Galveston storm that included the instruments blowing out - obviously, the tech for observing high winds accurately wasn't there).

A Great American

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of Booker T. Washington, a profoundly great American. Born a slave, he created largely from scratch a major university, Tuskegee, which opened the doors of education to so many who had been deprived for so long.

A few strong quotes of his, from the always informative Booker Rising blog:

What we should do in all our schools is to turn out fewer job seekers and more job-makers. Anyone can seek a job, but it requires a person of rare ability to create a job.

I do not believe in waiting for the heaven of the future. If we imitate the life of Christ as nearly as possible, heaven will come about more and more right here on Earth.

In the sight of God there is no color line, and we want to cultivate a spirit that will make us forget that there is such a line anyway.

He Said It

In the past I've posted links to and excerpts from Ron Bailey's skeptical views on climate change. As I feel that I try to be an honest broker, I'd like to point it that he just said this:

The question of how much danger the trend toward higher average global temperatures poses is still open, but that the earth's temperature is going up is not.

There's still plenty to talk about, and still plenty to be skeptical about. No worries there.

Alternative Energy Round Up

A veritable cornocopia of info on alternative energy has been rounded up over at winds of change. Hat tip to instapundit.

Read there. Talk here. The thing that sounds weirdest to me is the story that ethanol plants are switching from oil to coal for production energy. This makes me wonder why they don't use _ethanol_.

Random Notes

Depending on your state, you're either running out of time to change your registration to vote cross-party in the primaries, or your time has passed. Time to look at your local elections, check out the candidates, and make a decision. Remember that your vote in the primary may well count for more than your vote in the general election. The choice you have then depends on the choice you make now.

Someone to remember.

Massachusetts makes health insurance mandatory, with fines and penalties for those who don't obtain insurance. Said Governor Romney:

"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance, and cars are a lot less expensive than people."

Will someone please explain to Governor Romney why that's a Really Bad Analogy?

Mickey Kaus of Slate has some thoughts on the ever-changing immigration bill that still isn't. Larry Kudlow of NRO and CNBC has some thoughts on the economics. Kudlow seems to skirt around the costs, while touting the benefits. Pointers to solid research on both upside and downside of the illiegal immigrant cost equation are welcome.

More studios skip screenings for critics with their new releases, figuring that no reviews are better than bad reviews.

Oliver Stone whines that people have the gall to mock celebrities when celebrities pontificate on politics in public. (It's called "free speech," Ollie, you raving loonie.)

China really really hates the idea of free speech, by the way.

Moron of the day.

Relating to absolutely nothing.

And in other news:

GIRLS GONE WILD RELEASED BACK INTO CIVILIZATION

DELAY TO PURSUE CORRUPTION IN PRIVATE SECTOR

Morality-Based Political Test. Very interesting.

Many of you have probably heard of http://www.politicalcompass.org/

From what I've see, it's pretty good. But I think the test they have over at http://www.moral-politics.com is better. I find its results to be more accurate.

In light of people discussing different ideas about a centrist party or centrist coalition with certain candidates being the core of a new platform, I though this test would be useful in showing people how different one's political views can be when the antiquated "Left-Right" paradigm is abandoned.

This one, like Political Compass, functions on a 2 axis system.

The vertical score is Moral Rules (fiscal views). It's reflects one's moral views in terms of economics and fiscal philosophy. To translate into Left/Right terms, the bottom is "Far Right" and the top is "Far Left" or, in other words, Libertarian vs. Anti-Libertarian (populist, collectivist??). Anyhing below the center has a negative number score, anything above it has a positive number score.

The horizontal score is Moral Order (social views). It reflects one's moral views on social issues in terms of degrees of "Non-Conformance" (Left/Libertarian) and "Conformance" (Right/Social Conservative). I suspect that views of the geopolitics are included in this score by some of the questions. To the right of center has a positve score and indicates for conformity to social order (social conservative). To the left of center has a negative score and indictaes less conformity (social liberal).

It also reflects general scores for countries, parties, religions and presidents.

My score wasd negative 2 on Moral Order (social) and negative 3 on Moral Rules (economic). Seen this way, we see lots of overlap between peoples scores of different parities on different philosophical areas of policy.

Take the test and report your score. Have fun.

Breaking News--DeLay bails out!

MSNBC's Chris Matthews is reporting that Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader, won't seek re-election and will announce his withdrawal from his congressional race on Tuesday.

I keep trying to think of any way this could be BAD news for America. I'm not coming up with anything. :-)

UPDATE: TIME confirms....

Meet Us In Manhattan!

We have news!

The Centrist Coalition is meeting in New York. That's right, we're getting together in real, physical space. We will be meeting in Manhattan on Saturday, May 6. People are flying in from all around the country for this kick-off meeting. If you would like to attend, please e-mail me at cf at centrist coalition dot com.

We don't have an agenda or detailed schedule yet, but we do have a meeting place. The plan is simply to get together and see what happens.

Hello, Bayh

Chris Cillizza on the Indiana senator.

"We've got to be somewhere between 'cut and run'...and mindlessly staying the course," Bayh said during an interview with several Washington Post journalists in mid-February. "You've got to have a sensible middle ground."
That's Evan Bayh in a nutshell -- advocating the "sensible middle ground."

McCain's Rebuttal

Last week I expressed unhappiness with the Senator from Arizona over his recent vote to extend a tax cut he previously voted against. Since that post the Senator has met with the Reverend Jerry Fallwell, a man he once referred to as agent of intolerance, and promised that if the courts ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional than he would support an amendment to the Consitution that he previously opposed. The criticism from his opponents on the right and left is that McCain is flip-flopping for the purpose of winning his party's nomination.

This week Seantor McCain responded to his critics on Meet the Press and out of respect for the man and his service to this country, I am posting them below the fold. My two cents follows, of course:

On voting to extend the tax cuts:

First of all, on the tax cuts. I do not believe in tax increases. Now, it was a gimmick that was—that the tax cuts were temporary and then had to be made permanent. The tax cuts are now there and voting to revoke them would have been to—not to extend them would have meant a tax increase. I’ve never voted for a tax increase in my life...

But the economy had adjusted, the tax cuts were there, and if it would have been—and that’s the way it was designed. It would’ve been tantamount to a tax increase. And that’s, and that’s a fact. And I’ve never voted for a tax increase in my life with the exception of supporting a tax...

No. I do things because I think they’re right. I mean, and obviously you—if people are free to judge however they want to. As regards to Reverend Falwell, which is the major thrust of your comments, I met with Reverend Falwell, he came to see me in Washington. We, we agreed to disagree on certain issues and we agreed to move forward. I believe that speaking at Liberty University is no different from speaking at the New College or Ohio State University, all of which I’m speaking—I speak at a lot of colleges and universities. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to do so, to talk to young Americans and talk to them about the obligations and the privileges of freedom.

On meeting with Falwell:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think that Jerry Falwell’s ideas are now good for the Republican Party?

SEN. McCAIN: I believe that the Christ—quote, “Christian right,” has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason is, is because they’re so active, and their, and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party. I don’t have to agree with everything they stand for, nor do I have to agree with everything that’s on the liberal side of the Republican Party. If we have to agree on every issue, we’re not a Republican Party. I believe in open and honest debate. Was I unhappy in, in, in the year 2000 that I lost the primary and there were some attacks on me that I thought was unfair? Of course. Do I—should I get over it? Should I serve—can I serve the people of Arizona best by looking back in anger or moving forward?

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?

SEN. McCAIN: No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain to you his views on this program when you have him on.

MR. RUSSERT: After September 11th, let me show you what...

SEN. McCAIN: Go ahead. Yeah.

On his record:

I think most people will judge my record exactly for what it is, where I take positions that I stand, that I stand for and I believe in. Whether it be climate change, whether it be torture, or whether it be a number of other issues with which I am—immigration. I, I don’t think that my position on immigration is exactly pleasing to the far right base. I will continue to take positions that I believe in and I stand for. And I recognize that a lot of my credibility is based on that, and I think most Americans will judge me by my entire record.

MR. RUSSERT: ...Reverend Falwell had to say. “What we saw on [September 11th], as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. ... I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”

SEN. McCAIN: You’ll have to...

MR. RUSSERT: Are you embracing that?

SEN. McCAIN: I am speaking at the, at the graduation of his, his university. I’m not embracing all of the tenets that are expressed at the new college in New York City, nor other liberal universities and institutions that I have spoke at. For example, I don’t agree with the Ivy League colleges barring recruiters—military recruiters from their campuses, but I still speak there.

On the Federal Marriage Amendment:

MR. RUSSERT: Reverend Falwell said that you had expressed a willingness to support a federal marriage amendment, which would define a union between a man and a woman. Is that true?

SEN. McCAIN: Reverend Falwell was asked again about that, and he clarified it; my position has always been that I will vote against a constitutional amendment, which will come before the Senate on, on this issue, because I think the states should decide. That’s the essence of federalism. In my state of Arizona, we have a ballot initiative on this issue, which I am supporting. And so—but if the courts, if the, if through the court process, they say that that’s not constitutional, then I would support a constitutional amendment.

I disagree with the Senator on extending the tax cuts and the Federal Marriage Amendment, but at least he didn't dance around the issue. He gave reasons for his actions and they were logically sound. I think he was at his best answering the question about his meeting with Falwell. As President, John McCain will be the leader of the Republican Party, and he simply will be unable to govern effectively if he cannot work with certain factions. He will need them just as much as they will need him.

That been said, the personal struggle between who John McCain is and who he needs to be to win his party's nomination is evident. He has to skate on thin ice for over two years in order win, which will be a very difficult thing to do, especially with a political base as jumpy as the right wing of the Republican Party.

History of Israel

The nature of the founding of Israel, and the treatment therein by Jews of Arabs, is one of the more contentious issues facing our country (and the West generally) as we deal with the morass of problems which is the Middle East. Were the Jews essentially invaders into a foreign land, to which they had no claim more recent than biblical times? Are the Palestinian refugees entitled to our sympathy because they or their parents or grandparents were forcibly evicted in 1948, or was that expulsion voluntary or urged by Arabs, not Israel, because the Arab world was unwilling to accept any Jewish state in the region, no matter what? On these questions the morality of our Middle East policies depend.

My sympathies generally extend to Israel not so much for their historical claims, however, but from a comparison of the culture and values held by Israel (a Western nation) and the Arab governments in the area. Israel has the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and general equality of women. Arabia has sharia law, state-mandated religion (the penalty for exercising any other religion being death), "honor killings" which are often winked at by the authorities, and forced subjugation of women. Even if the entire population of Israel had been airlifted and dropped there in 1948 out of the blue, I would not condemn the several generations of Israelis who have lived there since to be subject to Arab Muslim rule as practiced in its neighbors today.

However, the histories I have seen give substantial support to the Israeli presence in the region. The Wikipedia article appears accurate and impartial, but not terribly thorough. Most of the rational histories I have found are by Israeli partisans, though they seem well-documented. I have not found any comprehensive, footnoted history or timetable from a strong Palestinian perspective. If anyone knows of such, please post a link in the comments.

A very brief historical analysis is below the fold.

This site, which obviously has a strongly pro-Israeli perspective, has links to many entries covering the history of the area, and the continued Jewish presence in it, pretty much from biblical times. It includes a summary history of the crucial and much-disputed era from 1920-1948. This article describes the beginning of the Palestinian refugee problem and includes choice quotes in which Arab leaders in the 1960s accepted much responsibility for the refugee problem, such as the King of Jordan in 1960, who said:

Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner.... they have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal.

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes ....

Most of the histories I have found thus far indicate that many if not most Palestinians left their homes in 1948 in response to Arab pleas for them to move out of the way so that they could more easily slaughter the Jews in the war of 1948. I have yet to find a pro-Palestinian rational take on this history to see the best historical case which can be made for them. If anybody knows of one, please link it in the comments section.

The one thing that is clear from reading all this is that there is no 100% objective right answer. The imposition, beginning in the early 1900s, of Western-style nation-states on the Middle East, with its fractious history and plotting sheiks helped continue chaos in the entire region, although it hardly brought chaos to a peaceful land of milk and honey. It also distorted historical pictures of who lived where. Most figures I've seen suggest that in the area now called Israel, there was a very substantial Jewish population, possibly a majority, in the early 1900s, which ended only as a result of Arab immigration to the area, which was beginning to fare much better economically than the Arab Muslim parts of the region.

I think the evidence shows that the Zionists did not begin the process of the creation of Israel (around the turn of the 20th century) by forcibly evicting mass numbers of Arabs, or demanding by force land to which they had no recent historical claim. The existing Palestinian refugees stem from the war of 1948. I think many in the West who give sympathy to the Palestinians do so because of a belief that the Palestinians were forced by Israel from their land at that time. What I've read so far suggests two things in that vein. First, the Arabs living in the area in 1948 had hardly been there for centuries, but rather at most about 40 or 50 years (in those kind of large numbers), and they moved to the region because of the economic expansion brought about by the Jewish settlers. Second, I think the Arab attack in 1948 was not legitimate. Many compromise proposals for partitioning Palestine were put forth, and the Arab nations in the area rejected all those which allowed for a nation of Jews living anywhere in the middle east. I think their rejections were based on pan-Arab nationalism, their own equivalent of the Monroe doctrine, rather than on any other factor. If the 1948 war was illegitimate, and the Palestinian refugees arose primarily because of that act of Arab aggression, then there is little cause to blame Israel for the continued suffering of those Arabs.

Another Health Care post

In my never-ending responsibility to remind Centrists that Health Care reform won't go away, here are a few friendly links. Note the common threads of budget deficits, physician unrest, rising drug costs, etc Here we see that deficits are rising while the public frustration grows with bureacratic burdens. Here we see that drug costs are a big part of the growing deficits. Here we see how the parties are far apart in how to fix the system. There just seem to be so many issues to deal with.

Oh, and I hear the Americans are having similar problems

You Don't Hear From the Moderate Islamists Because They're Boring

One often sees grumbles about "Well, why don't the moderate islamists complain about the extremists?" The answer, of course, is that there are plenty of centrist Islamists who DO complain about the extremists. We don't see them because they're boring.

Can you imagine the following scene playing on NBC News?

An Jordanian immigrant family is at dinner.

"Dad, can I have some ice cream? And what are terrorists?"

"Terrorists are bad men who blow people up. No ice cream until you finish your peas."

The only time you see moderate Islamists on TV or newspapers is when they specifically engage in angry lecture series or publish angry books. Well, you know how riled up we centrists are always getting...maybe not.

Going beyond people who need eyeballs to support themselves, it' pretty easy to find Muslim bloggers coming out against terrorists.

Ethnic Hatred

Becky at Preemptive Karma has a quite interesting post about a friend of hers who is a survivor of the genocide in Rwanda. I would not be shocked if Iraq headed in that direction once American troops disengage, given reports of civilians fleeing ethnically mixed areas.

2006 Hurricane season v2

I didn't warn the public about what was going to happen during the 2005 hurricane season. I had the data set, but I just didn't know how to embed the graph in a web site. Not that anyone would have paid any attention, but it would have salved my conscious. I don't want to make the same mistake in 2006.

Here is the graph I have been trying to post, for about a year. (Click on it to enlarge) I have added the 2005 data point to it. It shows tropical storm activity since the late 1800's for the North Atlantic. The data is from the Hurricane Alley web site but is also available at wunderground.com.
(When a storm's winds reaches 39 mph it is called a tropical storm, it receives a name and may go on to form a Hurricane) When you look at the graph, it is pretty obvious that something is going on. (UPDATE: I HAVE MADE A SIGNIGICANT ERROR IN MY CALCULATIONS. I ACCIDENTLY INCLUDED TROPICAL DEPRESSIONS IN THE GRAPH. AGAIN THE GRAPH INCLUDES TROPICAL DEPRESSIONS, TROPICAL STORMS AND HURRICANES.)

When you also look at the graph of atmospheric Co2 levels it hard not to draw a correlation.

Here is another CO2 graph with the Ice core data overlaid.

Last September, Science magazine published an article on “Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment”

In it they stated that

“We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.”

From that article:
Here is a graph of intensities

And here also is a graph of ocean temperatures for the last 30 years.

IMHO, what is occurring is that man's activity has caused an extreme exacerbation of normal climatic variation.

Added factors to this already intense amount of hurricane activity is a La Niña that has formed in the Pacific and the start of a new sun spot cycle .

I do not fully understand the impact of La Niña on hurricane activity, but two separate predictions have indicated that the east coast is going to be more at risk this year (in addition to continued activity in the Gulf of Mexico).
AccuWeather
hurricanealley

For a previous post on hurricane predictions and their distortions click here

Note to the general public: I've done my part. Please take appropriate action to prevent your butt from being photographed by the MSM, as you scream for rescue atop of your flooded home.

Update: For an article by real climatologist on the link between climate change and hurricanes click on this link