Centerfield

Friday Open Thread

Why not? Bwahaha!

Katrina Anniversary

Below the fold is the text of my Katrina anniversary post over at Stubborn Facts (go over there to see some pictures I took after the storm at a shelter in Baton Rouge). In addition to this message, I'd like to take a personal moment to thank everybody at Centerfield for the support you gave me during and after Hurricane Katrina. Although I wasn't able to convince all of you to stop bickering about the politics while rescues were still going on, many of you did. A special thanks to Brian (whom I have lately and only temporarily been angry at), who was particularly supportive in that thread. Please remember that many, many thousands of people are still suffering from the effects of that disaster. Whatever the cause, whomever is to blame, the reality is that there are thousands of people who still need help and support. Please remember that in the political bickering.

Today is, of course, the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind people of the scope of this disaster. It emptied a major American city for months, destroying large swaths of it. It killed over 1,000 people and washed to sea just about everything south of I-10 in Mississippi and Alabama. Parts of Louisiana more than 100 miles north of New Orleans were without power for weeks, even as residents in those areas housed evacuated family members and their friends with no place else to go. Close to a million people were displaced from their homes for months, and many even longer than that.

Shortly after the storm, I found myself touring several shelters in the Baton Rouge area. I visited first hand with people who had fled their homes with little or nothing. The people rescued from rooftops by helicopter usually lacked even a shirt on their back when they arrived at the shelter. The picture just above shows the entire worldly possessions left to one small family

One woman's legs were swollen to huge size by the ordeal of trekking through chest-deep mucky water trying to get to the Superdome. Her husband would be dead now had it not been for samaritans who took the description of the pills he needed and broke into a shuttered pharmacy to get more for him.

Another woman was in tears, of joy, because her 14-year-old son had just been located in Houston. She hadn't seen or heard from him since the storm, and didn't know if he was alive or dead. My friend held the woman's 2-month-old in her arms as she frantically put everything she now owned into 4 little boxes and some plastic grocery bags before they took her to the airport to be flown to Houston to join the boy.

I saw a teenage boy, maybe 17 or 18, who was completely shell-shocked. He couldn't say a word to anybody, he just stared ahead with a blank expression on his face. The nuns tried to soothe him as best they could, as of course did his family, but he was too far gone at that point to be reached.

My visit to the shelter was not, in the end, depressing. The overwhelming majority of the people there were finding ways to cope, finding ways to live with each other in such desparate, cramped quarters. The little kids were being little kids, running around playing with each other... until, their parents said, night came and their nightmares began.

Despite the tragedy, I left with a feeling of hope. Life is the greatest of all God's blessings. As long as there is life, there is hope. No matter how bad the things which have happened to us are, much worse things have happened to others.

So my Katrina anniversary wish for all of you is to go and love life, your family, and your friends. However little you may have, be glad of it. And thank you for sharing some small part of your life here with us.

UPDATE: I almost forgot something very important. To all the people of this wonderful country, who have given so much of their time and money and hope and energy to the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, THANK YOU! You have been amazingly supportive and generous to us. You took us into your homes and communities, you sent us food and clothing, you gave us comfort and hope when we need it most. From the deepest bottom of our hearts, thank you.

Atheist headcount: 0.4% < atheists < 13.6%

In a recent thread, a question arose as to what fraction of Americans are atheists. Well, I found a relevant page over at a site I've previously cited on religious demographics:

US Religious demographics: The Big Picture

According to this, a total of 14.1% of Americans does not identify as being affiliated with any religious group or view. Only 0.4% will confess to being atheists, while 0.5% prefers to be viewed as agnostic, and the rest of the 14.1% aint talkin'. Presumedly some portion of those not talking aside from confessing their "no religion" status are indeed atheists, at least by default.

So I think it's fair to say that between 0.4% and 0.4+13.2=13.6% of Americans are atheists. Not sure how stable such numbers have been over time. But I think it's reasonable to assume (at least for the sake of estimating) that only those willing to confess to actually being atheists is "militant" about atheism while the rest of the "no religion" group is more casual or private. (Or granted, possibly more paranoid). Anyway, the data suggests, at least to me, that the percent of Americans who are militant, agressive atheists is pretty fricken small.

I'm open to other data which suggests otherwise. But in the meantime, I think this data is informative in relation to the question of whether it makes sense to be more concerned about militant atheism on the left than militant theism on the right. And that's ALL I'm saying, that's it's useful and informative, not that it's conclusive or that it suggests anything about the right. The simple fact is that the data suggests that there aren't very many atheists in America, at least not militant ones.

But as I believe I've already implied, there is some confounding in the data due to the prospect of let's call 'em "stealth" atheists.

Personally, I'm not too worried about where "militant atheists" might take our culture, and I take that view in large part because, as I'm stressing here, there don't seem to be very many of 'em.

Redstate on Chafee

Redstate is raking Lincoln Chafee over the coals for saying he would oppose putting Osama Bin Laden to death. I happen to think, whether you agree with him or not, that this is an incredibly principled stance for a politician to take. Furthermore, I wasn't in the room, I guess, when support for the death penalty became a Republican principle.

I am against the death penalty, and unlike certain Senators from Massachusetts who abandon their principles in order to run for President, I oppose it even for the really bad guys. I don't understand how you oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, make an exception for terrorists, and then look at yourself in the mirror every morning. However, my personal viewpoint isn't the point, we can argue the merits of the death penalty at a later date.

It is pretty easy to sit in the blogosphere on the left and right, or even in the center, and chastise those who dare to be independent or not follow the crowd. All Lincoln Chafee has shown me is that standing up for what he believes in is more important to him than keeping his job. That, my friends, is leadership.

Harris waves Freak Flag; GOP Hero Status Revoked

Rep. Harris: Church-state separation 'a lie"

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."

The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage.

Harris made the comments -- which she clarified Saturday -- in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.

Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers."

So apparently God tells each and every one of us who to vote for, it's just that some of us don't know it. Maybe Harris will drop out to run as VP on a ticket with Roy Moore. What a pleasing development that would be...

Can You Say No to Christmas Creep?

The Buffalo News reports that the unstoppable wave of Christmas retailing, having breached the Thanksgiving barrier some years back, has now swamped Halloween and even Labor Day:

If it's August, it must be Christmas

This means we'll have to have our centrist pre-Christmas thread earlier of course. That's the one where we decorate our Festivus pole with warnings about chestnuts and evergreens, the reliable partisan debates and regularly repeated button pushers.

The forecast calls for the echoes of the "war on Christmas" theme to increase in volume no later than November 1st. War on Christmas would make a GREAT Halloween costume, wouldn't it? Just deocrate yourself in a few branches, and hang little liberals with axes from each branch.

I'm ready to lose my patience all ready. It's enough to make THIS centrist defect permanently to Festivus, which seems to be our only hope. After all, it does begin with the airing of grievances. That's my rule. Every year, first christmas story I see after July 4 opens the floor for the airing of grievances.

Part of Wal-Mart's Good Side

Since I'm a centrist, I think Wal-Mart has good sides and bad sides. Here's one of the better bits.

Key quote:

Wal-Mart might well be single-handedly responsible for bringing about 38,000 people out of poverty in China each month, about 460,000 per year.

Redstate on McCain

Redstate contributor Streiff calls John McCain an embarrassment and points out specific times where Secretary Rumsfeld and George W. Bush said words like "hard journey," "difficult work", and "long" or "hard slog" regarding Iraq. In pointing out bullet point quotes from the President and the Secretary, Streiff proves McCain's point without actually knowing it.

If I were as petty as some on the left, I could continuously quote the President, Vice President Cheney, or Secretary Rumsfeld as they viewed the Iraq situation through rose colored glasses. The "insurgency is in its last throws" anyone?

This is the problem. The administration speaks in well prepared talking points, depending on the situation they are addressing and what the polls say at the time. They never have provided a broad vision for the future and stuck to it. A prime example is the fact that the case for war has changed more times than I can count on one hand since the initial invasion.

I don't think John McCain's point was that the President nor anybody else in the administration never used those words. Rather, in my view he is arguing that the American people were not adequately prepared for the war because first, the case for war was false, second, the message has been inconsistent, and third, at times the administration has used political stunts like "Mission Accomplished" to fool us into thinking things are simply better than they are on the ground.

The fact is that the President of the United States has never had an honest conversation about why we are there, why we are staying, and what it is going to cost us. A majority of the American people oppose a timeline in poll after poll. John McCain feels that they would also support the overall effort if someone in charge were to do a little straight talk. He is right. Furthermore, as someone who paid the price in Vietnam, I think he understands this issue just as much as or even more so than anyone else.

One can only conclude that Streiff doesn't get it, or thinks that the American people are so stupid to question what they know in their heart because sometime along the way the President told them Iraq was going to be a long haul. I think most people are intelligent enough to know a mixed message when they see it.

With Us or Against Us

The nutroots are giving Nicco Mele the black ball over his decision to join the McCain bandwagon. Seriously, these people choose their friends based upon political beliefs. How pathetic is that? I'm all for including everyone in the debate, but this type of you are with us or against attitude is exactly why Americans are so apathetic about politics. The Kos vision of a liberal utopia where everyone agrees with him is just plain sick.

The Moose knocks it out of the park on this one:

One would think that Nicco's explanation would win the accolades of progressives who supposedly shared his desire to clean up the campaign finance system. But no, these so called liberal and open minded commissars are convening a nutroot inquisition for his alleged apostasy.

It has become increasingly clear to the Moose that a Stalinist mindset has come to dominate the lefty blogosphere. They are the party of the small minds and the pup tent.

The bottom line is that most Americans probably see politics as does Nicco. They are not ideologues but rather hybrids of the left, right and center.

Only THIS is the real deal Friday Open Thread

Say no to rogue open threads appearing willynilly on random weekdays. Accept no substitutes.

All topics open. As a conversation starter, for seeding or ignoring as you wish, an interesting quote I ran across the other day. As you read it, my question is this. If you tend to agree, does that make you an elitist or a pragmatist?

We must assume that the members of a public will not anticipate a problem much before its crisis has become obvious, nor stay with the problem long after its crisis is past. They will not know the antecedent events, will not have seen the issue as it developed, will not have thought out or willed a program, and will not be able to predict the consequences of acting on that program.

We must assume as a theoretically fixed premise of popular government that normally men as members of a public will not be well informed, continuously interested, nonpartisan, creative or executive. We must assume that a public is inexpert in its curiosity, intermittent, that it discerns only gross distinctions, is slow to be aroused and quickly diverted; that, since it acts by aligning itself, it personalizes whatever it considers, and is interested only when events have been melodramatized as a conflict.

The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece.

Again, let me stress this quote is for discussing or ignoring at your whim. It's the real deal Friday open thread, and we're open for bidness.

Israel v Hizbullah: Monday Morning QBs Here

Of course, I've been doing my bloggerly duty and grumbling about the war since it started, notably its framing against Lebanon as a whole and that it didn't hold Hizbullah's biggest supporters accountable.

There's a lot of unhappiness inside Israel about the course of the late war. Trent Telenko makes the case and the links for a hollow IDF. I'd say this is the inevitable result of the same kind of impossible, foolish, and racist orders as took the US military to that status after Vietnam. Or, perhaps, like Western Democratic militaries after WWI? WWI was a clearly just cause, but many impossible orders were given.

One of the grumbles referenced above and Bobby's comments at the end of the Chamberlain thread combined to make me wonder: what's the right way to fight a counterinsurgency? Somebody on Centerfield once said something about a well-accepted book to read? What is it, what, roughly, does it say?

This bit made me wonder. He's grumbling about nontraining in tanks and talking about tanks being the primary tool in the operation against a terrorist group. Am I wrong to feel the battalion commander's the wrong one here? Or maybe really the wrong one is whomever ordered lots of tanks into Lebanon? My knowledge of these things is pretty limited, but tanks were designed for front-line warfare. Wouldn't they have done better with mostly Humvees, maybe two tanks just to have some small arty (or would personal missile launchers do better?), personal armor, and everybody taking the antiterrorist course he disparaged? Is it just me or do we have a case of tank-worship here? Or, more generally, an attitude that war hasn't changed since he was a kid and Israeli tanks were winning all the wars.

On the other hand...

It's become de rigueur to talk about how massive, terrible, and massively terrible the influence of religion in politics has become, and utterly absurd conspiracy theories about "American theocracy" and so on have been rudely intruding into the mainstream since President Bush's election. This article, reviewing a slew of books on the subject that run the gamut from eyebrow-raising crazy to full-on batshit insane, offers a very refreshing dose of reality. There's no single, handy-dandy soundbite to quote here, but go read the whole thing, it's very good.

McCain '08 Full Steam Ahead

From Ron at Politics1:

US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) unveiled two surprising campaign recruiting wins this week. The first was the news that former Cabinet-rank US Trade Representative and current Deputy US Secretary of State Bob Zoellick will leave the Bush Administration next year to go to work for McCain's campaign. Zoellick will work on foreign and trade policy issues. Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. (R) -- a McCain supporter and close Zoellick friend -- was reportedly responsible for recruiting Zoellick. The Hotline reports the most surprising recruit is Nicco Mele, who will work on developing the new McCain campaign website. Mele was the chief webmaster who developed Howard Dean's official internet sites for his 2004 White House run. Mike Connell of New Media Communications -- who developed the Bush websites in in 2000 and 2004 -- also committed to McCain. Looks like McCain is going to make a serious net effort for 2008.

Nicco Mele, the architect of Dean for America, is obviously the big surprise, but it looks like McCain is going to make the run of his life. That's good. This is his last shot.

Nicco on McCain before the announcement that he was joining his team:

"A lot of people are asking me about John McCain. When I worked for Common Cause, I worked on the McCain-Feingold bill and worked closely with Sen. John McCain’s office. After Sen. McCain lost the Republican primary in 2000, I traveled with him as part of a group of campaign finance reform staffers as we criss-crossed the country working to secure support for the McCain-Feingold bill. I have long admired Sen. McCain’s work on campaign finance reform and his independent streak... While I currently don’t know what role I’d like to have in 2008, if Sen. McCain runs I hope to be helpful. This is a personal decision for me based on my own first-hand experience. I like Sen. McCain - I think he should be president!

This is relevant because I believe it is similar to the opinion that many other Democrats and Independents have in regards to Senator McCain. If Republicans nominate him, and as I said yesterday I don't think that is out of the realm of possibilities, he could win by a landslide.

Rampant Open Thread

There's no escaping it.

If You Use The Constitution, They Can't Complain

My views on the current illegality of the NSA warrantless survelliance program are well-established. I think the program needs to be squared with FISA and Congress. However, I've also gone on record as opposing the ruling by Judge Taylor that strikes the whole program down as unconstitutional. My main problems with the ruling are that it goes too far, not providing any legal remedy to square the program with the Constitution, and that the ruling is pure sloppy jurisprudence. Ann Althouse has written a brilliant op-ed in the New York Times (pause for irony), that makes a solid case against the ruling.

Her piece has gotten a lot of heat, from commenters at her own blog, and from commenters at The Volokh Conspiracy. Keep in mind, that she's not defending the DOJ's argument (I don't know her actual views on the program's legality-she never says), but rather criticizing the judge for not providing a clear constitutional response:

Immensely difficult matters of First and Fourth Amendment law, separation of powers, and the relationship between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force are disposed of in short sections that jump from assorted quotations of old cases to conclusory assertions of illegality. Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington, told The Times that the section on the Fourth Amendment is “just a few pages of general ruminations ... much of it incomplete and some of it simply incorrect.”

For those who approve of the outcome , the judge’s opinion is counterproductive. It will be harder to defend upon appeal than a more careful decision. It suggests that there are no good legal arguments against the program, just petulance and outrage and antipathy toward President Bush. It helps those who have been arguing for years about result-oriented, activist judges.

Laypeople consuming early news reports may well have thought, “What a courageous judge!” and “It’s a good thing someone finally said that the president is not above the law.” Look at that juicy quotation from Judge Taylor’s ruling: “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”

But this is sheer sophistry. The potential for the president to abuse his power has nothing to do with kings and heredity. (How much power do hereditary kings have these days, anyway?) And, indeed, the president is not claiming he has powers outside of the Constitution. He isn’t arguing that he’s above the law. He’s making an aggressive argument about the scope of his power under the law.

The President isn't asserting that he's above the law, rather he's asserting that he has inherent authority in wartime to do these things. The argument is a serious one. It's totally wrong, and at war with the Constitution, but it deserves to be approached, and it must be correctly attacked. The problem is, the whole affair has the appearance of an unelected judge, who just happens to be a liberal, who just happens to have been appointed by a Democratic President, and confirmed by a Democratic Senate, overriding the decision of a popularly elected Republican President, in a time of war, based on her own opinion. It looks like she just hid the argument under the robe, and laid down the result she wanted. This is a parody of what right-wingers complain about with so-called "activist judges." It looks like she's a rogue judge trying to attack Bush.

These apppearances matter, because they undermine the trust that the Judiciary has. It only emboldens the partisans. It's not just about how it looks though. Judicial opinions need to be solid, in order to hold up on appeal, and establish good precedent. As critics of the program know, this is about more than just this program. The underlying argument needs to be struck down. This is about more than Bush. It seems like Taylor forgot that. Her point about "hereditary kings" is ironic, because judges themselves are just as suspectible to monarchical tendencies as the Executive, being that they're unelected.

The point to all this is the question of why we should defer to unelected judges in these matters, over the elected Executive. We do, because the Constitution says we do. We do because of judicial review, and airtight legal arguments, based on clear Constitutional support, and not what could be interpreted to be simple Bush-bashing. There is a clear case to be made that this program is illegal, and that Bush exceeded his authority. It needs to made clearly, to withstand scrutiny. That way, Bush supporters can't complain about activist judges, or anti-Bush Democrats, or East-Coast lawyers running the war, or election year stunts, or the usual pro-Bush blather over this. All that won;t matter. If you use the Constitution, they can't complain.

Well, at least now they're being honest

Some of them, that is - and "they" being proponents for homosexual marriage:

[A] distinguished group of scholars, civic leaders, and LGBT activists has grasped the full implications of a retreat from the conjugal conception of marriage--and has publicly embraced those implications ... [by] explicitly endors[ing] relationships consisting of multiple ([i.e.] more than two) sexual partners, and have even argued that justice requires both state recognition and universal acceptance of such relationships. Their statement, "Beyond Gay Marriage," was released recently as a full-page ad in the New York Times[;] ... the statement's mission is "to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." The statement lists several examples of such relationships, among them "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner"--that is, polygamy and polyamory. But this is mild compared to what follows: [to] demand for the legal recognition of "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The language is breathtaking ... [and] [n]o reference is made to the child's interests or welfare under such an arrangement--only to the fulfillment of adult desires by suitable "creations."

Put simply, the logic of "Beyond Gay Marriage" would result in the abolition of marriage as we know it. The authors tellingly write: ["]Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.["]

I've said before, I have no objection to same-sex marriage if it can be justified under a principle which does not open the door to polygamy and the redefining out of practical existence of marriage. These people not only argue by inference that no such principle exists, but that they would reject it anyway. If that logic becomes mainstream -- and I hope I am not deluding myself by presuming that it is not mainstream, insofar as I think that most of those who argue for same-sex marriage do so because they share my belief in the sanctity of marriage and wish to join the institution, vs. these folks who hate the institution and want to tear it down -- that will be the final nail in the coffin so far as I'm concerned.

At very least, one would think that would suffice to silence those who don't like the slippery slope argument, or at least to force them to explain why they think the slippery slope is inapplicable -- but I doubt that it will.

Gaze Into the McCain Mirror

McCain Criticizes Bush Admin's War PR Approach

Republican Sen. John McCain, a staunch defender of the Iraq war, on Tuesday faulted the Bush administration for misleading Americans into believing the conflict would be "some kind of day at the beach."

The potential 2008 presidential candidate, who a day earlier had rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. forces, said the administration had failed to make clear the challenges facing the military.

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required," McCain said. "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

...

McCain said that talk "has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking."

McCain gets an "amen, brother" from me, although I'm certain mileage will vary. Can we find quotes suggesting the admin was aware of how hard this was going to be? Sure. Did they ask us to make deep and serious sacrifices and to remain patient? Probably, in one way or another at on time or another.

But did they bang on those drums? My impression is that they did not. I agree with McCain's take. It grieves me too. The interesting part will be finding out where such statements leave McCain. I don't see these views as collecting him many votes from democrats should he make it that far, and the heresy component of them is likely to bring out all the "McCain's a RINO" true believers, especially come primary time. Godspeed, John.

UPDATE I might well be wrong. Time is plumping McCain's statements. And notice that they are doing it in an issue with Hillary on the cover. Click through and you'll see the match-up Time wants to see: Hillary battles the straight-shooter express. This would be a fabulous match-up from Time's point of view, because they'll get to re-purpose/re-hash a lot of old content about McCain and the Clintons. My guess is that the cover photo of Hillary is not the same one her opponents will use. I may desktop the time cover so I can compare later.

He's Back

The Bull Moose returns and all is well in the world.

Some blogs you read periodically, some you read regularly, I read the Bull Moose religiously. He’s a social conservative that leans Democrats and I am a social liberal who leans Republican, but we both graze in that field called the vital center… You know, the one where most of the American people are.

I may not always agree with him, but when it comes to foreign policy the Moose and I are in step with one another. As our shared hero, Theodore Roosevelt, once said: ”carry a big stick.”

The Moose returns with this zinger of a post. He writes:

Of course, while the Moose was in repose, a “cease-fire” was reached in the Middle East. No way around it, this cessation of hostilities was a severe setback for Israel and America. Is Rumsfeld running Israel’s defense policy, as well?

The truth is that Israel did not employ all her might, particularly on the ground. While the Bush Administration admirably gave Israel the green light, the Olmert government held back. Yet, Israel’s restraint neither won plaudits from vaunted “world opinion” nor did it win the war. Lesson learned.

I can’t blame the government in Lebanon for wanting to end the fighting, but it is in the satisfaction of short term desires that we lose sight of long term goals. With the UN struggling to disarm Hezbollah, one wonders what it is exactly that we accomplished. Furthermore, I fear we legitimized the “Party of God” by giving them something that no terrorist organization should have, a place at the the table. Is the cease fire nothing more than the calm before the storm? I hope and pray that it isn’t. Lord knows enough have died.

To end on a good note, I welcome back the Bull Moose. The blogosphere needs him!

Why Munich?

One particularly infamous historical moment is Munich in 1938, where Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier allowed Hitler to dictate terms on partitioning Czechoslovakia in exchange for "peace for our time".

I've been rereading Churchill's The Gathering Storm; one very interesting angle I don't remember reading in history texts is that Chamberlain's action was deeply popular, even though it abandoned a country whom France had pledged to defend. That's rather more disturbing, IMHO, than one politician making a stupid decision.

Democracies have historically mostly been resistant to appeasement as a policy. It might be because bullies have been a staple of life as long as people have been around, or it might be because democracy is a conscious departure from rule of bullies. But we have records of politicians with policies of standing up to bullies and tyrants being elected as far back as Themistocles and his stand against the vast Persian Empire. In our own history, it would be hard to count how many repetitions of and allusions to Jefferson's talk about the tree of liberty needing to be regularly fertilized by blood have shown up in Presidential addresses, again, given by politicians whose policies at least mostly approved by the people.

A theory that's occurred to me is that the difference was because of stupid Western military decisions in WWI. Churchill, in his multivolume work on WWI, argues that millions of Western military deaths in WWI accomplished little, because they were used up charging well-dug, machine-gun-defended trenches in ways that the generals had prior evidence wouldn't work. Because general European war hadn't happened for a long time previous, most Allied generals insisted on using the same kinds of tactics they had succeeded with in various colonies against technologically inferior militaries. It's bad enough to see your neighbor's son die when the cause is just, and casualties are low. It's quite another to see, say, all the men of a neighboring family die, "stupidly" charging entrenched machine-gun nests before mobile armor (much less bulletproof vests) is invented.

It was just like here after Vietnam (thanks to the Profesora for the simile), war and military affairs were widely discredited amongst the population, except worse. It's probably no coincidence that the years after WWI were the Communist high tide in Western politics, and that even worse failures helped bring Lenin to power midwar.

Interestingly, Churchill's personal failures in WWI - Gallipoli - were way up there in motivating distrust. And one aspect of those failures was a failure to see that escalation in a spot where machine guns were emplaced would fail. It was ironic, since he did see the pattern on the Western Front, and for that reason was a patron in power to the tank, which could go over/through trenches and wasn't vulnerable to machine gun fire; IMHO it ultimately won the war.

It costs too much and it doesn't work very well

In business you can sell based on "a great price" or "great service". Based on a recent survey from the Commonwealth Fund, the American Healthcare system does poorly at both. The report, Public Views on Shaping the Future of the U.S. Health System (pdf warning) comes from data gathered by telephone survey of a random and representative sample of 1,023 US adults. The report paints a fairly clear picture of what the US public wants in a healthcare system. As important, the survey illuminates serious problems with the system. Key highlights:

*Nearly two of five adults (38%) reported serious problems paying for their own or their family's medical care.

*Half of middle income ($35,000 - $49,000) and lower income (less than $35,000 annually) families said they have had serious problems paying for care in the past two years (the median US household income is $44,000)

* One third of adults with annual income between $50,000 and $74,999 reported serious problems in paying for care

*Nearly half (46%) of Americans with income less then $35,000 said they had serious problems with paperwork

* 42 percent of all adults reported experiencing either inefficient care, poorly coordinated care, or unsafe care in the past two years.

And so what should we do about it?

*Nearly one third (30%) believe the system needs to be completely rebuilt and another 46 percent think the system requires fundamental change.

* More Republicans (35%) than Democrats (11%) see a need for only minor changes, but large majorities of both parties call for fundamental change or complete rebuilding

Interesting that Americans seemed to be more worried about Healthcare and the need for wholesale change than:

- Immigration (52% [per a Pew survey])

- Gay marriage (56% opposition [per another Pew poll in July 2006])

- Belief that human activity is leading to global warning ( 41% [ again Pew here])

And it seems we hear a lot more about immigration, gay marraige, global warning etc from our candidates. Tough nut to crack but it seems most of us want it cracked (and that we're easily distracted by other issues).

Whassup with the First AP Poll?

Have they stopped thinking?

The only team in the top five ranking that's likely to end there is West VA and Auburn (much I hate to admit it, the Horns are probably in rebuilding mode this year; I bet we lose 2).

And whassup with Notre Dame????????? It's been merely occasionally good, never great, throughout my entire lifetime. Did people think, well, they only lost 3 last year, maybe they're great again?

Ohio State at least is a really good team, but they're only going to stay in the top five until they lose in Austin in the second game of the season. I don't see them beating even a rebuilding Texas.

Friday Again?

Then this must be an open thread....

John McCain: The Real Deal

I have written positive things about many of the possible 2008 contenders, but have always maintained that I will more than likely support Senator John McCain or Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the primaries. I love Giuliani's executive experience, something we haven't had in the White House for a long time, but I am also excited by John McCain's fire:

"I would start by vetoing spending bills. There is just too much pork-barrel spending and we must become fiscally responsible. I would work more closely with our military allies. We need their support in the struggle that is ahead. I would speak every two weeks to the American people. You need to know what is happening -- about the war and the many serious issues we face. I would make sure we don’t torture prisoners. I would close Guantanamo Bay... I don’t like [farm] subsidies. I am a free-trader, and I believe subsidies do damage, especially to undeveloped countries. And while I support ethanol for its greenhouse effects, I do not support ethanol subsidies."

It doesn't get any more straighter than that. He said this in Iowa, BTW, the biggest farm state of them all.

Hat-tip to Ron.

Joe Ahead by 12

Okay, two polls in a week... Joe was up by 5 or 6 and now up by 12. I think reality is smacking Ned Lamont in the face.

I see this as good and bad for the Democrats. In the short term it may be bad because as the party establishment has turn coated on Joe, who two weeks ago was the right guy for the job, they now look like they are supporting a loser. On the other hand, if Lamont continues to do poorly in the polls, it may give the D's room to stop focusing on Connecticut, letting the cards fall where they may, and focus on other races. Republicans are definitely hoping for a barn burner that will siphon Democratic resources away from WA, NJ, MN, MI, MO, PA, OH, TN, and MD. Things have gotten interesting with surprising Republican challenges in WA, MI, and NJ (all races within 5-10 points), Santorum closing the gap in PA, Ford/Corker dead even in TN, and if Kweisi Mfume wins the Democratic primary in MD, this is going to be a fun election year.

I have to say, from a centrist perspective, Simon was right. Joe losing the primary but winning big in the general election sure makes the nutroots look insignificant, even more so than if Joe would have barely won.

Colbert Moment for Senator Allen

I didn't know that "macaca" referred to a genus of monkeys until today. In other words, I was previously ignorant to the fact. Previously I've heard my other use the word in a sense that roughly transmitted "a mixed bag of not very useful stuff." I bring this up as my intro to the following story about peculiar remarks made by Virginia Senator George Allen which have gotten under some folks' skin.

Senator denies remark was racist

Sidarth was filming Allen, a standard campaign practice that opponents often use for research purposes, as the senator campaigned throughout the state for a second term. He captured Allen's comments on camera, and the Webb campaign provided a link to the video in its e-mail.

"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is," said Allen, who at times pointed directly at the camera. "He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great."

After suggesting Webb has not visited many parts of the state as well as criticizing his opponent for meeting with "a bunch of Hollywood movie moguls," the senator turned back to the camera and addressed Sidarth.

"Let's give a welcome to Macaca, here," Allen said. "Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

Racist? IMO, nope. Ignorant? Most likely. Insensitive? Probably. Ill-advised? Time will tell. Welcome to the show, kid. Remember, "if you win a couple of cy youngs, fungus on your shower tongs is colorful. Until then, it's just disgusting..."

Heller Beats Club for Growth

Ready to wake up with a smile?

The Club for Growth lost in Nevada last night when Secretary of State Dean Heller defeated winger-favored Sharon Angle.

CFG spent $1 Million in the last two weeks only to lose. How Kos of them.

Where To Get Yer War Coverage

Life's been keeping me busy lately, but I want to remind you where you can get your good war coverage: Totten for the war, and The Truth Laid Bear's special linking service to regional blogs for politics. That seems to be it. Oh, and Totten is relying on his readers for financial support rather than newspapers; maybe that's why he's got the only non-sucky war coverage; but that does mean he needs our support.

I've been having trouble finding other coverage of any sort that goes beyond exploiting blood, tears, and propaganda for one side or the other.

Is there some other good place to look? Let us know!

I Like What He Hates

Prof. Bainbridge expounds at length on John McCain's unsuitability to be the GOp presidential nominee. He makes many points. But at least one of them makes me MORE likely to support the guy:

He views himself, I believe, as a kind of modern-day Robin Hood, a defender of the downtrodden and tormentor of the bullying special interests, which is endearing and unquestionably a big part of his broad political appeal, but often leads to populist and parasitic economic policy conclusions like higher taxes on the rich and attacks on "huge oil profits." He wants to be the caped crusader against corruption. The buzzword for the McCain Straight Talk Express in 2008 will be reform: "I want to reform education, reform Medicare and Social Security, reform lobbying and campaigns. Reform immigration. Reform. Reform. Reform."

An optimistic guy unafraid to try something new. God forbid!

Prof. B goes on to quote/channel a fellow named Russell Kirk who sounds for all the world like our beloved Pat HMV:

Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical: moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial; and if innovation is undertaken in a spirit of presumption and enthusiasm, probably it will be disastrous.

Fair enough, but how do you tell the difference between wholly unwarranted presumption and the need to act with some expedience in response to the people? I dunno. And what's wrong with enthusiasm? Aught we not to vote for John McCain because he's not dour enough? I confess I find that this impulse is among conservatism's least becoming. But then you all knew that.

Attempt to Remain Cool

This fine Time piece by Amanda Ripley suggests that we thnk more deeply and critically about terrorism and risk:

Our triumph last week was muted because it was also a test--a test of our understanding of terrorism. Do we continue to react reflexively to each new scheme, regardless of the probability of the threat and the feasibility of preventing it? Or do we have an honest discussion about risk and the costs of safety? After the discovery of the liquid-bomb plot, does it make sense to funnel billions more dollars into new machines that can detect liquid explosives, even though the past three sizable attacks pulled off by Islamic terrorists in major metropolises have been on trains in Madrid, London and Bombay? Banning cologne from planes and testing bottles of baby formula for explosives may make us feel proactive, but are we being smarter? "We can't just radically shift our strategy every time there's an event," Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), tells TIME. "The key is balance and constantly looking at the entire landscape."

Makes sense to me.

In a world where every successful antiterrorism operation serves only to highlight another vulnerability, trying to stop the next attack can seem like an exercise in futility. But that's exactly the point. Terrorists can't be deterred forever. Dealing effectively with the threat posed by al-Qaeda requires a more sober and rational approach than we have pursued over the past five years, one that involves figuring out how much we are truly willing to change our way of life to reduce the risk of another 9/11. Until that calculation is made, terrorists will continue to succeed even when they fail.

Amen, sister. I declare the entire article well worth the read.

UPDATE: Ronald Bailey with some numbers and thoughts on the probability of mortality due to terrorism: Don't Be Terrorized

More bad news regarding affordable health insurance

WARNING!! This post has nothing to do with Joe Lieberman.

Anyway, one solution "out there" for small employers is purchasing pools. In theory a small employer (i.e. less than 50) will have too much risk for an underwriter. Therefore, such employers can't afford the exorbitant cost of health care for their employees.... BRIGHT IDEA What if we pool the employees of several small companies? Modern Healthcare reports (subscription required) the demise of just such a purchasing pool, Pacific Health Advantage, in California.

The program at one point had 10 health plans participating, while its membership peaked at 9,000 employers with 147,000 employees in 2002. Officials blamed the closure on decisions by the last three plans -- Kaiser Permanente, Health Net and Blue Shield of California -- to withdraw from the program due to financial losses.

I doubt all of those 147,000 (previous) members are now without health insurance but I suspect a sizeable chunk is.

Solutions anyone? Who will pay? And why can't anyone get national political traction regarding health care for the uninsured?

Joe Rolling in the Dough

It looks as if Joe will be able to jump in his vault like Scrooge McDuck and swim in his campaign contributions. There goes the theory that political donors are going to turn off the spigot. Howard Fineman went as far as to suggest that Joe's independent run would fold up within weeks after they realized the financial resources were dry. That simply is not going to be the case.

Note to Kos nation: Na, na, na, na, na, na!

Setting the record straight about Joe Lieberman

Among all the widely believed misinformation about Joe Lieberman, one of the damaging to him is the notion that he supports not just the Bush administration's pursuit of the war in Iraq, but also its methods of that pursuit. Among the latest examples of those accepting this perception is the usually sensible Andrew Sullivan here and here.

The truth is that Lieberman has criticised Bush's methods of pursuit of the Iraq. As early as July of 2003, Lieberman wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post

The opportunity to build a more stable and democratic Iraq, made possible by our stunning military victory, is now in jeopardy. We're seeing surprisingly fierce resistance to coalition forces and to our efforts to remake the country. But another kind of resistance is proving nearly as dangerous to our long-term security: the [George W. Bush] administration's stubborn refusal to change course and build a safer postwar Iraq in partnership with the world.

More famous is Lieberman's attacks on Democrats for criticising the pursuit of the war, most notably in this speech. In particular, the caricature of Lieberman focuses on the statement about undermining presidential credibility. However, such analysis ignores the rest of the speech:

With the consequences of victory or defeat in Iraq so large for our future safety, and liberty; and with the lives of 160,000 Americans in uniform on the line there everyday, it is urgent that all of us who want to complete our mission successfully and do not favor an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal put the national goals we hold in common ahead of the party labels that too often divide us.

It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war.

It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush Administration. This group would meet regularly...

What Lieberman needs to do is to rediscover how to articulate his opposition to Bush's particular strategy. Yes, back in 2003, there were no widespread calls to withdraw, and yes, withdrawal is a greater domestic threat to a decent outcome in Iraq than staying the course, because staying the course at least offers the chance of pursuing our objectives with a different strategy at a later time. However, setting the record straight could undermine one of the cases against him, if only he were willing to make a point of doing so.

Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5%

Reality reasserts itself in Connecticut.

In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs). A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

...Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

...Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

I think Althouse sums it up right: "Ha ha ha ha ha. Joementum!" I hope you had a good night before, Ned, because it's going to be an unpleasent morning after.

Will Sports Always Exist?

Will sports always exist, or will they give way entirely in time to video games, possibly including sports simulations?

Free-range cat herd guided thread

The cats may discuss amongst themselves baseball, whether Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, football, this poll that shows how stable moderates are on abortion, the weather, nominations to the points we're tired of making hall of fame, or whatever else blows up their fur.

UPDATE: new topic added: Bill Richardson insists moderates must choose between giant douche and turd sandwich nominated in primaries, giant turd and douche sandwich options unamerican.

Mommy, Where Do Centrists Come from?

Many have hypothesized that the Lieberman defeat is bad news for centrists. Perhaps. In some ways. But maybe only in he short term, or even not all all. After all, if in the aftermath event A there are more centrists/independents/unaffiliateds than were were the day before, that just might be a good thing, right?

So with a hat tip to Tully, I'd like to point out that we have at least one confirmed bail, by Brendan Loy:

I am no longer a Democrat.

I’ve been calling myself a Democrat since I was ten years old, when I marched around the schoolyard in fifth grade chanting “Jerry Brown! Jerry Brown!” and, later, played the part of Bill Clinton in a sixth-grade mock debate. At the age of 13, I threw my hands up in dismay when the GOP took over Congress. When I turned 18, I registered without hesitation as a Democrat. I proudly cast my ballot for Al Gore in 2000, and — somewhat less proudly — for John Kerry in 2004. In recent years, I’ve seen the “base” of the Democratic Party drifting away from sense and sanity, and at the same time, I’ve felt my own ideological compass pulled somewhat to the right by world events. Yet I remain profoundly uncomfortable with the Republican Party for a variety of reasons, and I’ve never much liked the idea of being an “independent,” considering it — with all due respect to those who wear the label proudly — something of a cop-out in many cases.

So Mommy, where do centrists come from, if not from moments like this by people like Brendan? I can't yet claim Brendan as a centrist, but obviously he's in the target audience of people who seem passionate about politics yet feel alienated by both of the established parties and unattracted by any of the fringier groups.

I hope our visitors will help traffic this theme. While ex-democrats are invited today, the next time something like this happens to alienate a republican, we'll send invitations that way. It's quite possible that any act by one of the two major parties that that irritates the moderates within its ranks is not a disappointment for centrists, but rather an opportunity to swell our ranks.

That Tribe Guy's a Smart Feller

I think that Harvard's constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe is is a pretty smart guy. Quibbles notwithstanding, I'm glad he took to the time to point out that presidential signing statements are neither a new development nor by themselves an illegal usurpation of power.

THE FINAL REPORT of the American Bar Association Task Force opposing presidential ``signing statements" barks up a constitutionally barren tree. It's not the statements that are the true source of constitutional difficulty. On the contrary, signing statements, which a president can issue to indicate the way he intends to direct his administration to construe ambiguous statutes, are informative and constitutionally unobjectionable. So too are many signing statements signaling a president's intention not to enforce a particular provision that he deems constitutionally offensive in an otherwise unobjectionable omnibus measure that he's not prepared to veto.

Statements of the latter character have been issued by prior presidents of both political parties without protest from critics in Congress or elsewhere, and wisely so, for it seems to me a serious mistake to maintain that a president's only legitimate options are either to veto an entire bill or to sign it and then enforce it in its entirety regardless of his good-faith views as to constitutional infirmities, either of some part of the bill or of some set of possible applications.

This is a point often missed by those in a rush to screechingly condemn every act by President Bush that appears objectionable at a glance. I'm glad that an intelligent and prominent figure like Tribe has taken the time to do so. Quibbles in a separate post.

If An Insight Falls in the Woods..

...and there's no one there to decipher it, then why bother?

That Tribe guy is sure a smart feller, but he needs either an ungelded editor, or he needs to care a little bit more about whether his audience can get his message. As a previous post of mine suggests, I enjoyed Tribe's Boston Globe editorial on Presidential signing statements. At least what I could digest.

Bear with me here. If you bother to write an expository essay, then you're trying to communicate something you care about, right? And if the Boston Globe is publishing it, then you're trying to communicate with the Globe's readers, right? So unless you just don't give a crap about whether your readers understand what you think, you try to avoid...

A sentence in the ballpark of 124 words long:

On the related matter of presidential signing statements that tout the ``unitary executive" theory in particular, what seems crucial to recognize is that the concept that would limit congressional oversight of the president, as it is bandied about both by Bush in his signing statements and by many of his critics, is too amorphous to represent a useful organizing principle for assessing the undoubtedly dangerous and inflated views of unilateral presidential power that have characterized much of what this administration has done -- with respect to the Guantanamo detention camps, the treatment of detainees in the ``war on terror," the NSA's once-secret program of warrantless electronic surveillance in defiance of FISA and in purported reliance on the Authorization to Use Military Force, and much else.

And if you want to avoid a 124 word sentence, then I'm going to assume that you should probably look askance at a sentence in the 136-word ballpark too:

Finally, insofar as President Bush has exercised his powers to engage in surreptitious electronic surveillance without court-issued warrants in violation of FISA, on the basis of an implausibly broad construction of his inherent Article II powers and a reading of the Authorization to Use Military Force that was rightly repudiated in a slightly different context by the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, the ``fix" reportedly negotiated between the White House and Senator Arlen Specter, in which the legality of the NSA program of warrantless surveillance would be submitted for adjudication on the basis of a one-sided presentation to the FISA court by the executive branch, is as transparently phony and futile as is the suggestion of a congressionally enacted vehicle to confer standing on someone to obtain a judicial ruling on the legality of this president's signing statements.

Now I've read worse sentences. These ones I cite do have a certain syrup even though I maintain that they don't quite pour. [Gertrude Stein] But as a critical thinker about both politics and communication, I'd like to point something out to the long-winded, wordy, and careless composers among my fellow travelers. If you care about transmitting the ideas you hold dear, don't craft them to be intricate baroque parades in which the recollection of the subject has long decayed by the time the predicate has arrived. Remember, to your readers, a period is a blessing. And if you are sure such a flaw is incorrigble on your own, get thee to an editor.

The effect of the CT primary this fall

An interesting analysis of the CT race from Thought Theater.

Hat tip: Dan DiRito

The New Face of the People Powered Movement?

Kos calls on Senate leaders to strip Lieberman of his committee assignments. One wonders if he understands politics at all. It seems to me that the minority party, who is a handful of seats away from the Senate majority, would take a neutral position on the Connecticut race with the goal of keeping Lieberman's vote in their caucus WHEN he is elected as an independent. I understand that his shoot from the hip style gets him fifteen minutes on Meet the Press and Nightline, but geesh, take a breath and consider the bigger picture why don't ya'?

This is the new face of the the people powered movement? That is interesting. They look like the purdiest, wealthy, white, conservative Republican family I ever did see. Then again, Ned only became a liberal to run against Joe. It seems that a true people powered movement would look more like this. Speaking of that, after last night, isn't it time to get more serious about Unity '08?

On another note, Ned commented on those bloggers he knows nothing about, hours before the polls closed:

"There were these guys on the netroots — guys on the Internet — that sort of took a look and said, 'Look, I don't know a lot about Ned Lamont, but I know a lot about Lieberman, so go hear what Lamont has to say, he'll be up at Naples pizza at 5 p.m. this evening,' and all of a sudden we had not 25 people but 125 people, and that was the beginning of something."

A good day for the GOP, but probably not so great for Centrists

I disagree with one half of Mathew's tag team of posts - I think today can be regarded as an across-the-board victory for the GOP on every front. The loathsome McKinney is gone, Lamont beat Lieberman by the narrowest of margins (I did, after all, say yesterday that "it seems to me that the best possible outcome ... would be for Lamont to win the primary and then go down to a crushing defeat by an independent Lieberman"), and I don't see the ejection of Schwarz in nearly so negative a light as does Mathew (in 2004, the only government spending Schwartz wanted to cut was on defense, while increasing taxes, supported the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold framework, supported affirmative action, among various other positions I would strongly disagree with. None of this is apostasy most foul, none of it is sufficient grounds for the sort of visceral attacks on Schwartz that have been lavished on Lieberman by his fellow liberals, but it at the very least suffices to justify not losing sleep over his eviction. I welcome people like Schwartz in the party, but I don't see it as troublesome that they don't win a primary). If you see a downside for Republicans in these results, have at it in the comments.

All-in-all, a good day for Republicans, but one that has largely shown - as Pat has pointed out - that centrists do themselves no favors by refusing to dirty their hands with the primaries.

Schwarz Loses, Republicans Lose Big

Centrist GOP Congressman Joe Schwarz, a former member of the CIA and Vietnam War Veteran, lost to social conservative activist, former minister and State Representative Tim Walberg, by 55-45%. Walberg was supported by the Club for Growth for everything else except political parties. Schwarz was supported by John McCain, President Bush and most of the Republican establishment. This is just dumb, there is no other way to put it, and for myself, as a centrist Republican, it is depressing. Joe Schwarz is an honorable man with an honorable record of service to his country. At a time when we are at war and our security is threatened, his experience was greatly needed. Redstate/Club for Growth nation has arrived, and Democrats are quietly snickering. A majority of Americans who don't identify with liberalism or conservatism, are further left in the dust.

Joe Loses, Democrats Lose Big

Ned Lamont declares victory with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson standing directly behind him. (Note: Most African American districts voted for Joe according to CNN.) This is the image of the national Democratic Party.

Because Joe got 48% of the vote, his independent candidacy is ensured. He all but announced it tonight. I am willing to bet that with half of all Connecticut Democrats voting for him, he gets support from most of his establishment friends, further deepening the wounds within the party of FDR. Kos nation has arrived and Republicans are quietly snickering.

I welcome Joe's candidacy, and welcome him amongst those of us who feel left out by either of the two political parties. Why should a majority of Connecticut voters be denied the candidate of their choice due to a fringe left-wing element within the electorate that would rather vote for an unqualified billionaire because of his stance on one issue? For those who would claim Joe should "play by the rules" of partisan politics, I say screw the rules of partisan politics. They make America weaker.

George Bush is not a conservative

That's not me talking. That's no less an official, card-carrying conservative than Rush Limbaugh. In an interview with Redstate, Limbaugh said:

"The Republican Congress has a problem. It is working without the presence of an elected conservative leader. George W. Bush is conservative but he is not a conservative. He's Republican, but he's not a conservative. He is not leading the conservative movement."

Discuss amongst yourselves. Don't expect to find me debating the issue in the comments, as I don't expect any minds to be changed by this, no matter how accurate it is. I do suggest that you focus on what the President has actually spent political capital on, not just things (like, say, Schiavo) that he paid some easy lip service to but did very little to further in terms of actual policy changes.

Primary day

Chris Bowers.

[N]o matter what happens later today, Wednesday will be the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years. If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive.

Enfranchisement

Writing earlier this week, Jon noted that a Judge's "hand[ing] over the new Texas redistricting scheme ... [gave him his] Congressional vote back. I'm once again in Lloyd Doggett's district," and commenting on Mathew's post, Cavalier829 observed that Scott would "do exactly the same thing to Lamont etc. that you wouldn't have done to you. I.e. disenfranchisement."

When did the right to vote, the franchise, and having the vote, become identified with a particular candidate - i.e. the one you voted for - winning? How is anyone enfranchised or disenfranchised by what happens in the Connecticut primary tommorow? How does being in one Congressman or another's district dilute your right to vote unless you think your right to vote is a right to prevail?

It's not over yet in CT

Dems are teetering on the edge of the abyss, but have not yet jumped:

The day before Connecticut's Democratic primary, a new Quinnipiac poll finds Senator Lieberman has cut the lead of his Greenwich millionaire and anti-war challenger from 13 percent to 6 percent ... Finally reversing his challenger's momentum, Senator Lieberman now trails 45 percent to 51 percent among likely Democratic primary voters.

I think opinion polls are worth less than the paper they're printed on, which in the case of an internet publication is as close to zero as a finite number can get, but they do drive news cycles, and news cycles can change minds; a voter who thinks it's all over by a landslide has less motivation to brave inclement weather to get to the polls than a voter who thinks it's too close to call.

While addmittedly, the partisan in me is almost choking with laughter at the prospect of Lamont winning, which will directly and indirectly be an incalculable plus for the GOP, the moderate in me sees this fratricidal stupidity in CT with weary familiarity - the Club for Growth's been trying to pull this stuff on moderate Republicans for some time. Worse yet, the whole paradigm of being a moderate - in seeing the good points in the other side's position, in being willing to seek compromise with the other side, relies on the premise that the other side isn't completely nuts. It presumes that the other side has good points. Take all the moderates out of the Democratic party, and you essentially damage the moderates in the GOP, and then you're left with even more polarization.

I Got My Vote Back!

The judges handed over the new Texas redistricting scheme (shorter version not behind registration wall), and I have my Congressional vote back. I'm once again in Lloyd Doggett's district. Thanks, judges! No thanks, Texas Republicans!

The Supreme Court only objected to one particular district far away, but because it was pretty much fractal, its neighbors had to be completely redrawn, too. The Court was nice enough to draw them rationally. Only South Austin was defractalized into Doggett's district; central and NW Austin are still divided and downright fractal in parts.

Lieberman Playing by the Rules

I was reading this today and was inspired to make a simple point that bothers me about Lieberman's independent run, if loses the primary in Connecticut. Maybe this is wasted space, but I think it is important that we use this forum to point out the painfully obvious sometimes in order to balance some of the crap that comes from bloggers both on the left and the right.

If I hear one more liberal blogger say that Joe Lieberman should "play by the rules" or "respect the democratic process" and dropout of the race when he loses the primary, I am going to go nuts. The "rules" and part of the "democratic process" in Connecticut says that any individual, if he or she collect the required signatures, can be placed on the ballot as an independent candidate for the general election. By doing what the laws says in clear black and white language, the Senator is in fact "playing by the rules" and "respecting the democratic process."

Although, trust me, I am moved by Kos's continued insistence that he would support Lieberman if he were to win the primary and Joe should do the same for Lamont, it is meaningless. Furthermore, as Kos points out on a regular basis in an attempt to show us that he isn't just another special interest, he doesn't vote in Connecticut. For the sake of constructive dialogue, I beg liberal bloggers to quit blatantly insulting our intelligence by using an argument that is not only clearly wrong, but completely and utterly asinine.

On another note, my buddy Markos who a couple of weeks ago swore he was going to the mattresses and staying away from public appearances to keep the focus off of himself and more on organizing, is going on Hardball this evening to disucss the Lamont/Lieberman race. There seems to be a blurry line between what Kos says and what Kos does, sort of like the candidates he endorses. I can't wait to see what Chris Matthews, the best in the business IMO, has in store for him.

More on the U-Wisconsin conspiracy theorist

Earlier this week, Marc and I each commented on the issues surrounding U-Wisconsin's willingness to allow a 9/11 conspiracy theorist to teach that theory as part of an "introduction to Islam" course (a curriculum decision that was taken, it must be said, after students had already signed up for the class).

UW now appear to be self-conciously setting the stage for the most dignified climb-down that can at this late hour be mustered.

According to the Chicago Tribune, UW Provost Patrick Farrell warned Barrett "to stop seeking publicity for his views," and:

to stop associating himself with UW-Madison when he advocates his views. Otherwise, Farrell wrote in the July 20 letter, he would reconsider his decision to allow Barrett to teach a course on Islam this fall. "In summary, if you continue to identify yourself with UW-Madison in your personal political messages or illustrate an inability to control your interest in publicity for your ideas, I would lose confidence [in you]," [wrote Farrell]. Barrett has appeared on national television shows and given dozens of interviews to discuss his theories and has been erroneously described as a professor rather than a part-time instructor ... Farrell scolded Barrett for identifying himself as a UW-Madison instructor in e-mails in which he challenged others to debate his theories. The provost said the challenges suggest "that you speak for the university -- precisely what I told you was inappropriate in that context."

Barrett's response to the Provost indicates that as far as Barrett is concerned, the Provost is simply wrong: "'I have not sought publicity,' Barrett wrote in an e-mail message to The AP." Let's be clear about that: the Provost told Barrett to stop seeking publicity for his views, clearly prompted by Barrett's actions since UW ignited this firestorm, and Barrett's response is to say that he doesn't share the Provost's view that he has done anything wrong. That hardly bespeaks a likelihood that Barrett will do anything to change his attitude or moderate his actions. Moreover, as I noted in my previous post, Barret is utterly committed to his belief; he "belives that his conspiracy theory is utterly integral and inseparable from the course he intends to teach: '[e]ither we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or there is precious little to talk about." The combination of zealotry and a lack of belief of past impropriety make it highly unlikely Barrett is going to start doing anything different, and one really has to doubt that Farrell seriously belives that he will - which really leaves the inescapable conclusion that UW is setting the stage to fire Barrett by giving him a hurdle he will fail to clear.

Incidentally, the story also notes that:

[Farrell's earlier] decision [not to fire Barrett] has sparked a major backlash against UW-Madison, with 61 state lawmakers denouncing the move. The Ozaukee County Board voted Wednesday to cut funding to next year's UW Extension program by $8,247 -- the amount Barrett will earn for the course -- in a symbolic protest that could spread to other counties.

Nice idea!

Hard to predict indirect effects

Bobby has a truly first-rate post over at Stubborn Facts this morning on: Indirect Effects: Understanding Limits, Responsibility, Counterinsurgency, and Iraq. It covers a lot of ground, including the Sen. Clinton - Sec. Rumsfeld exchange we discussed here yesterday. Here's the opening paragraph... but only to entice you to read the whole thing:

In Robert Jervis's most excellent book, System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life, the legendary Columbia professor details everything you need to know about international relations. It's a fantastic book (an original on my Hall of Fame Reading List), and makes some excellent points that are often missed by political spin doctors, including: that actions undertaken to accomplish stated objectives will lead to unintended effects that cannot always be predicted (implicit in this is the understanding that one can never predict everything that will occur from a single action); that our actions influence the system and transform the parameters, and can subsequently lead to changing behavior on the part of others (or even ourselves); and that our behavior is always influenced-- at least in part-- by the behavior of others. Simple points? Perhaps, but I would argue that most politicians and bloggers alike fail to appreciate these eternal truths. Thus, for example, FDR's alliance with Stalin's Soviet Union was strategically necessary to win World War II, but that doesn't keep contemporary historians from criticizing him for making a deal with the devil. Similarly, Zbigniew Brzezinski's decision to arm the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Army was the right move (just as the Reagan Administration was wise to continue and expand the policy), but that doesn't keep modern critics from arguing that it was the single event responsible for creating the so-called "blowback" to 9/11.

Hillary Lays Into Rumsfeld

Anyone that thinks that Hillary Clinton doesn't understand the politics of the Iraq War in relation to the Democratic Party, and isn't capable of winning over the left while not veering too far from the center, ought to read her questions for Secretary Rumsfeld at a Senate hearing today:

"Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are... We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq...

When our constituents ask for evidence that your policy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful, you don't leave us with much to talk about...

We hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders and frankly the record of incompetence in executing you are presiding over a failed policy... Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?"

Obviously this is for political show, but IMO Don Rumsfeld is the most frustrating of Bush adminstration officials, and to see Hill rip into him wins her some points in my book. I think she is representing the anger of most of the American people over the war. Furthermore, it is a smart political move. It doesn't matter what Rumsfeld's response was, although ABC should have at least reported it, it doesn't even matter if Clinton's questions were justified. What matters is that she effectively used the bully pulpit in a way that will get positive attention from both primary and general election voters.

Lamont Pulling Away

This is starting to look like a no contest victory for Lamont. Polls have steadily moved in his favor and now this this death nail by Quinnipiac showing a 54-41 lead. Furthermore, with these type of poll numbers one must wonder if Lieberman's run as an independent will cease to exist. I am betting there will be pressure from those who campaigned for him in the primary to get out of the race if he loses, for the sake of party unity.

The only poll that matters is the one on election day, yadda yadda, but IMO it doesn't say much for the state of a political party when the word of a former President can't save a former Vice Presidential nominee. In the short term the ground swell of opposition to the Iraq War may help Democrats in 2006, in the long term the nutroots will cost the party of FDR the White House in 2008. Republicans should be kicking themselves for not running one of Connecticut's centrists such as Nancy Johnson, Rob Simmons, or Chris Shays.

If I were Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, or Mark Warner, I'd be wondering what this means for my 2008 prospects. If I were Al Gore, Russ Feingold, or John Edwards, I'd be feeling pretty confident right about now that my move to the left was the right thing to do to win the Democratic nomination. If I am a centrist or the average American, I would continue to question what the incentive is for supporting either of the two political parties.

UPDATE:

And even after all of this, Ned Lamont is smart enough to see the Daily Kos crowd for what they are and run away as fast as he can:

"Lamont brushed past reporters Wednesday night in Bridgeport, saying: 'I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them.'"

It is funny how your tune can change once you realize you are a candidate for the U.S. Senate, and the likely winner of the Democratic primary. Weren't those bloggers you know nothing about in your campaign commercials, Ned?

Another Friday Open Thread!

Once again brought to you by TimeWarp™ technology!

Or my inability or unwillingness to abide by the calendar. Your mileage may vary.

Another view on the conspiracy theorist

Respectfully, I think Marc's post below about the 9/11 conspiracy theorist teaching at UW misses the point, and does so by so wide a margin that I feel compelled to reply in a full front page post rather than just in the comments.

While I don't disagree with Marc's view that "academics should not be fired because the private beliefs they hold as long as they don't spill over into the classroom," the problem here is, firstly, that this man's views are spilling over into the classroom, but worse yet, secondly, he is utterly unqualified to teach that material, and thirdly, proposes to teach it in a class where it is utterly non-germane to the subject.

It should first be said that it is Ann Althouse who deserves the credit for really sounding the alarm on this issue, and - seemingly raised to an uncharacteristic level of ire - she has been providing excellent coverage on her blog ever since - not least because it is her employer which is doing grave damage to its reputation over it. Posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

I must begin by clarifying the actual situation, as neither Marc nor the New York Times does so. "Kevin Barrett" is a founding member of the Muslim Jewish Christian Alliance for 9/11 truth, a group composed of "endorsers and supporters [who] have different views about the probable level of US government complicity in 9/11" - that is, that the uniting theme is that while some members may think the government planned it while others may think the government simply let it happen, all believe that the United States Government was to one extent or another "complicit" in the murder of two thousand, nine hundred and seventy six Americans.

As Marc says, the mere fact that someone holds such an "out there" opinion does not per se disable them from teaching a class (although in this case, it might raise legitimate questions about their mental stability and intellectual acuity which would be disabling), any more than the fact that I don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed JFK would disable me from teaching a class on, say, astrophysics. As Marc also adds, it is "a little different when you talk about liberal arts/humanities because, given the politicization of the social sciencies and humanities" - ergo, while my views on JFK's assasination might not disable me from teaching securities law, it might disable me from teaching a class about the Kennedy Administration, or anything with a direct connection to the assasination, where my views can reasonably be expected to at least color, and may well infect, the subject material.

However: what if I were hired to teach a class on securities law, and announced that I intended to make a discussion of my views on the JFK assasination an integral part of the class? What if I taught that class, making clear my view that anyone who believes the Warren Commission report is a moron, and then had an exam question "explain why the Warren Commission report is a pack of lies"? Is that teaching or forced indoctrination (don't think that this is an extreme example, by the way: in An Army of Davids, Glenn Reynolds recounts an article by David Horowitz, wherein Horowitz reports that a criminology professor at U-NorColorado set the following required exam question in a mid-term three years ago: "Explain why President Bush is a war criminal") . Remember, this isn't a public forum - students are paying the University to be taught by someone - not necessarily me - about securities law, not to hear someone wittering about their favorite conspiaracy theory. They may well be interested in that subject, they may even share my views - but that does not make it appropriate for me to do so.

This is precisely what Barrett intends to do. Barrett was hired to teach a course on "Introduction to Islam" this Fall at University of Wisconsin. In early July, Althouse noted a report which interviewed Barrett. Barrett - who is no doubt thoroughly enjoying all the attention, and probably even thinks the publicity lends his idea credibility - believes that "the Bush Administration planned and executed the attacks on the World Trade Center." Barrett, who has as much background in engineering or physics as does Mickey Mouse, believes that "'The physics of those collapses clearly could not have resulted from plane crashes and jet fuel fires with office materials,' [because] jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, and says recent tests on melted steel from the building prove his theory that it was wired to collapse, by the Government." This nonsense has been thoroughly, repeatedly and conclusively rebutted ever since 9/11, and they will not be dignified in this post by discussion as to their "substance" (and I use the term under protest). And as I said above, it is not a problem that this loon believes this stuff; the problem is that this tripe:

is now part of the curriculum for [the] Introduction to Islam class Barrett will teach this Fall at the UW. [Barrett] says 14 of the 16 weeks will have nothing to do with politics, but in the remaining two weeks, he will cover what he calls the "so-called war on terror."

In other words, Barrett fails Marc's standard: the problem is not whether Barrett should be restrained from teaching, in the abstract, for believing this nonsense; the problem is precisely that he intends to teach it, in a coercive environment, to a captive audience.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle "questioned whether someone with 'this total irrational idea' should be teaching students at UW," and that is correct, in my view. It could be argued that Barrett could simply be instructed not to teach the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but can he be trusted? If you have to ask a professor not to teach that material in this class, do they have sufficiently sound judgement as to be trustworthy in the first place? No. Barrett's demonstrable commitment to his beliefs makes his firing a necessity. He has the zealot's desire to spread his views, and there can surely be no doubt that if he teaches, he will find a way, overtly or otherwise, to subvert the classroom. He belives that his conspiracy theory is utterly integral and inseparable from the course he intends to teach: "[e]ither we discuss the compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, or there is precious little to talk about." If Barrett cannot separate his theory from the course, he should be separated from his position of authority.

Nor is there any mileage in the position that this simply falls into the "marketplace of ideas." Barrett will (perhaps I should say "is currently slated to") teach a course on Islam, not 9/11 conspiracy theories. For the marketplace of ideas defense to work, students must have a choice and sufficient information to make a choice. Here, they do not: students signed up to (and paid for) a course on Islam before Barrett was assigned, and thus had a reasonable expectation that they would be taught about Islam by someone qualified to do so. If those students have a sound perception of American prof-dom, they might also reasonably expect that their professor would have a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker, but they would assume that the professor would get over that and still be able to teach, especially in a subject of this nature. If students arriving in a couple of weeks are now given the choice to do Barrett's course or a course with someone else that does not include the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense, then the marketplace of ideas functions, and frankly, that is probably now the most honorable way out for all concerned. Questions of academic freedom are avoided, the students get what they wanted and paid for, and Barrett can lecture to an empty room.

Of course, UW was put in a difficult position by this chain of events. It is fairly obvious - to me, at least - that if they'd inadvertently hired an anti-semite who was intended to teach that the Jews caused 9/11, the college would have fired him instantly, either out of an innate sense of decency, or at least, under the pressure of the withering bad publicity they would receive from the liberal media establishment, which would conduct the predictable witchhunt. (If you are sceptical of this, as Althouse is, consider the astonishing lengths the media have gone to in order to demonize Mel Gibson in the last few days - and that's just an actor making a couple of drunken remarks! Imagine how they'd react to someone important who was going to be indoctrinating students with the blessing of UW!) But with Barrett, they had a problem, not least because there was little media pressure: while someone with views out of step with the liberal media would face immediate castigation, Barrett is a liberal, liberals are presently consumed by an overriding, no-holds-barred hatred for George W. Bush, and because (the liberal) Barrett wants to teach something that will put George W. Bush in a bad light, this becomes a matter of "academic freedom" in the eyes of the (liberal) media and the (liberal) Univerisity authorities. It's not so much, I suspect, that UW agrees with Barrett, it's just that they don't disagree with him enough to do anything about it. Ironically enough, this is a gift to all those who want to malign liberals as America-haters and to portray the academy as a hotbed of left-wing lunacy." As UW grad student Patrick Michelson put it, "by granting him the privilege to teach at the UW, the university has legitimized his baseless allegations. Worse, it has done a great disservice to its students, the community at large, and the memory of those who were murdered on that horrible day."

UW made an error hiring Barrett, and compounded that error into a mistake by lacking the spine to rectify it. Now they have talked themselves into the proposition that they are defending academic freedom, which leaves it unclear what the way out is, but very clear that it is the students who stand to lose the most.

Biometric Vending Machine v0.1

I was in the Chez Bob collective consciousness that kept the UCSD CS dept grad student lounge stocked. Well-stocked, too - for a campus in a city, UCSD has surprisingly few cheap / late-opening places to eat near it, probably because it was more profitable to cater to the non-student population.

But it was the Stone Age then - we just used the honor system for payments (dishonor system in one or two annoying cases). Anyway, here's the latest and greatest.

Academic Freedom or License to be Obnoxious?

Here is a NYT articleabout an instructor at the University of Wisconsin who is also a conspiracy nut about 9/11, claiming that the attack was a government conspiracy. Some members of the Wisconsin legislature want him fired. He claims that he does not opine on this while teaching. The article discusses several other instances of academics professing controversial positions, including Ward Churchill ("9/11 victims are little Eichmans") and an engineering professor at Northwestern that says he agrees with Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust.

I think it's an interesting issue about how far academic freedom goes. The Holocause denier raises an interesting issue because typically the left defends academic freedom for those espousing left-wing views. Would they be similarly disposed to defend a right-winger?

My own opinion is tha