Centerfield

Iraq Mistake Thread

What mistakes do you think we made in Iraq? Of course, there was no shortage, really, since it was run by a huge organization of people. But what got your goats in particular?

Here's my list.

Fixed:

The early attempt to keep the existing Iraqi Army I was glad to see was seen to be a failure. Using a counter-democratic army was part of how Hitler hacked the German constitution. Not only would Iraq have been vulnerable to coups, but autocratic armies generally have extortionate and repressive relationships with their peoples. Officers of the old army surely would've expected to continue that relationship, and I think would've been rather more troublesome in their trusted positions than they were when rebelling the way it turned out.

Letting Sunni-land and Fallujah go uncontrolled a long time. Delaying Sunni-land after the initial invasion seemed like a good idea, because it let us face one enemy at a time. But each should've been finished in short order afterward. Rebellions should've been addressed with more force much faster.

Not Fixed:

Torture

IMHO Worst, effect-wise: Allowing militia to survive and even doing deals with them. Huge mistake, because, in exchange for speeding up operations against rebels and terrorists a month or two, it hurt the rule of law for years. Why??????

Posted by Jon Kay at 10:41 PM | Comments (9)

Friday open thread

Better late than never.

Fox, Henhouse

An acquaintance of mine ran for Secretary of State of Georgia this year. (He lost in the primary. Goodbye $100.) The SoS job is not just a step towards putting yourself in the governor's mansion; after the national elections of 2000 and 2004, more people realize it's a critical position in its own right. Democratic group ActBlue is even promoting a national Secretary of State Project to, in their words, "protect the election"

Without starting a partisan food-fight over which side commits more voter fraud, can we agree it's a bit banana-republic-like to put an elected official in charge of overseeing elections?

Clean elections are never a partisan issue.

(And don't get me started on electronic voting machines with no paper trail. Arghh.)

P.S. Inspired by Taboo, I hereby challenge Centerfielders to discuss in comments without using the words "Florida," "Chicago" "Harris," "Kennedy," or "cemetery." Have at it.

Technically speaking...

Always shrill Atrios takes note of Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Well, technically speaking, we did invade Iraq.

UPDATE: apparently a little clarification is needed. I am NOT proposing that habeas corpus be suspended for all American citizens because we invaded Iraq. Nor am I arguing that we must give foreign terrorists on foreign battlegrounds all constitutional rights of an American citizen. I just thought it was mildly amusing.

Bwahaha!

Some people have too much time on their hands (long PDF of graphic novel).

George Allen Could Still Win

I don't care how many times Senator George Allen said the "n" on the football field in college, I don't care what religion his mother was, what awful words he was taught growing up, or whether or not he knew about his Jewish heritage. We are all a product of our environments. We all at one time in our life or another, don't know any better. Being born and raised in a small all-white town, I should know.

I am not defending racism, I am just saying there are two kinds: (1) The intentional kind that comes from hate, and (2) the unintentional kind that comes from an attempt at humor by someone who has never known anything that doesn't look like them. One is not less evil than the other, I am just saying it is reality. Yes folks, there are two Americas in more ways than one. The other America is the one that liberals continuously fail to understand and the Democratic party ignores. Ya' know, those white guys with confederate flags on their pick-up trucks that Howard Dean was talking about.

I have a theory. I don't believe George Allen is a racist or at least the intentional kind; but rather, I believe he is still the same guy that played college football. He is still passing off jokes with his buddies because he doesn't know any better. His problem is that he needs to grow up. He was my Senator for two years, and I have seen the man in action through various professional rolls that I have been a part of. He is not a hateful person; however, he is a jackass, an empty suit, a smiling face who will say or do anything to hold public office because he doesn't have the intellectual substance to back it up. I don't need to prove it to you, the Senator proved his intellectual capacity when he used the word "makaka" and insinuated that his mother wasn't Jewish because she ate "pork sandwiches." What I saw last week was a grown man talk like an uneducated eighteen year old absent the high fives with his all-white group of friends, not a member of the Klu Klux Klan ready to burn crosses.

Here is what pisses me off most of all... George Allen could still win. I see a scenario where the actions of liberals eager to label the Senator a racist, thinking it will mean a win for his opponent in Virginia, riles up Allen's loyal rural white Republican base in Southern and Western Virginia, and bird brain escapes by the hair of his chin. Take, for instance, the fact that they pointed out Allen had the confederate flag in his Governor's office - yeah, along with every other Governor south of the Mason-Dixon line until the early to mid nineties.

The fact that the Senator said the "n" word on the football field in college, or flies the confederate flag is not the danger, he is too much of a political animal to propose or support any idea that is outside the mainstream. The danger, rather, is that he will win by avoiding a debate on the issues. Allen's opponent is the very well qualified former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb who, among other things, was dead on about the Iraq War before one bomb was dropped. Webb, by all accounts is a substantive centrist-leaning Democratic, the kind that has recently been successful in Virginia. However, Mark Warner and Governor Tim Kaine won, not because of their last name or their telegenic good looks, but because they won the debate of ideas both as mainstream, pro-business Democrats in a red state.

If liberals keep up the attack on Allen's stupid remarks, rather that debating his stance on the Iraq War, deficits, Congressional incompetence, etc. Jim Webb may be remembered as the man who could have been a Senator. That, in this Republican's opinion, would be a shame.

Get Out the Booze

Binge drinking appears to be positively correlated with income.

In unrelated news, I just got my hands on some promising-looking pumpkin ale.

Oliver Says Democrats Should Lose

Although Democrat blogger Oliver Willis has gotten way too liberal for my taste over the years, I have always agreed with him that the Democratic Party fails to provide voters with an alternative to Republicans. He recently wrote:

For the sake of the Democratic party, the party's long-term viability, and America's long term existence I sort of hope the Democrats lose this November. A win this Fall would be an endorsement of the party's ridiculously idiotic posture and would reward its sniveling cowardice with power. A Democratic win would put a rubber stamp on the feckless leadership and push the party to keep it going into 2008, where we would lose yet again for the third time out of the last four elections.

The Democratic Party apparently has no clue. It seems to believe that 1994-present is just a temporal hiccup, and all they have to do is wait for the Republicans to self-destruct and naturally inherit the earth and the congress. The party is like the child who refuses to learn its lesson, even though the results of 2000, 2002, and 2004 show us that simply wishing is not a good enough strategy for winning...

The strategy of "hoping" has led to losing, why would it be any different this year? The President is one of the most unpopular in history, while the GOP-dominated congress is at all-time lows. Yet, the Democrats are not benefiting from this. Like the Kerry campaign not capitalizing on a President with middling approval ratings, Democrats are not presenting themselves as the alternative to the Republican brand. People are tired of Brand GOP but Brand Democrat isn't even handing out free samples. You can't blame the consumer for not choosing you if aren't getting in their faces, can you? No.

The Democrats don't deserve to win this election or the next one until they begin to show that they are willing to fight for it. They need to show that they want to fight hard and aren't just going to sit back and relax. They need to show that they believe in their guts on the issues we hold dear (Defending America, Improving America, Uniting America) and aren't so damn scared that Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh might say something mean about them, and choose to be so damn vanilla nobody gives a damn. America needs a strong Democratic party, but aren't getting it. In the absence of that, Republicans will rule. Because for all their innate evil, racism, classism and cronyism - their is no denying Republicans lust for the role of leaders while Democrats barely seem to want to show up.

Do better, damn it.

Bill Clinton: Still the Man

My respect for a man who I loathed while he was in office continues to grow.

While the UN, in its painfully slow bureaucratic way, was holding the infamous Hugo Chavez meting, Bill Clinton was hosting a star studded gala for his Global Initiative and getting some of the richest people in the world to donate millions to good causes. He sort of did what the UN is supposed to do, but effectively.

Yesterday, he had this incredibly reasonable comment regarding the Lieberman/Lamont race:

I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate. I'm interested in getting one of these houses back, because that's the only way, I think, we can move away from the philosophical and political and economic direction the country has taken in the last five years. So I'm doing what I can to help the Democrats win the House and the Senate or both.

The Kossites, not understanding what they have in Clinton, continue to state the ridiculous lie that Lieberman will caucus with the Republicans to get back at Democrats.

I have to admit, I miss Bubba. There was a lot of political crap that went on while he was in office, and I doubted his sincerity on more than one occasion, but he brought an intellectual capacity to politics that I think we are lacking today. Maybe it is me, but the debate was a helluva lot more fun when President Clinton was in office.

Open For Business

The Profesora's been out of town, so I've been playing alot of Civ, watching alot of old Babylon-5 tapes (yes, tapes), and keeping up with the blogs alot. Of course, I just burned my hand making pizza.

Grauniad Blog Comment on Darfur, Sigh

This is pretty despicable. Alot of UK Guardian blog commenters seem to feel that because Bush and Blair are working to discourage the Darfur Genocide that they must be against discouraging it.

Genocide remains evil no matter who's for it or who's against it.

It's not all partisan bashing, of course, there are some thoughtful comments.

That second Grauniad link is actually a post by Instapundit, who wrote a followup Grauniad post about it

In the 80's, I bet if the South African government should've just convinced Reagan to come loudly against them, there would've been few protests, no divestiture, and they might still be in power.

Good thing they didn't think of that!

Good for Nancy Pelosi

"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had speaking at the United Nations. In doing so, in the manner in which he characterized the President, he demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela. I think Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern-day Simon Bolivar, but all he is is an everyday thug."

Hey, I could get used to this Speaker Pelosi idea... Good for her for not joining in the chorus of those at the extreme fringe of the Democratic party.

UPDATE:

The Charlie Rangel quote:

"Don't come to the United States and think, because we have problems with our president, that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our chief of state...

It should be clear to all heads of government that criticism of Bush administration policies, either domestic or foreign, does not entitle them to attack the president personally. George Bush is the president of the United States and represents the entire country. Any demeaning public attack against him is viewed by Republicans and Democrats, and all Americans, as an attack on all of us."

Kudos to him as well, as Tully pointed out in the comment section.

Chavez, in Rangel's district, after his visit to the UN:

"He walks like this cowboy John Wayne... He doesn't have the slightest idea of politics. He got where he is because he is the son of his father. He was an alcoholic, an ex-alcoholic. He's a sick man, full of complexes, but very dangerous now because he has a lot of power."

He has cooked his own goose.

Armegeddon coming!

Thanks to the close working relationship Hugo Chavez has with the Almighty, we learned yesterday where Satan lies.

"Right here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of...the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.”

And it must be noted that although Satan is seriously at work in the world , Venezuela still feels its safe to sell the great Satan oil and at a great price

Thankfully, Mr Chavez kept his shoe on.

Don't Count Your Chickens

Chuck Todd has an interesting article on the '06 elections and more specifically the recent GOP up-tick:

Republican strategists fret that their base won't be fired up about winning this year, and if their midterm base turnout is down just a few percentage points from their '02 levels, then Democrats could win a slew of close races. And those results would make the national landscape look like a Democratic tsunami.

Still, there's something about this bump that feels temporary. First, Democrats' hard-core attacks on Bush and the GOP have only been airing for about a week. The national surveys gauging Bush's job-approval rating won't reflect the cumulative effect of those ads for another couple of weeks.

And then there's history. It's striking how many great Septembers the eventual losing party has had over the years. In September of '96, Democrats appeared on their way to winning back the House. And in September of '98, Republicans appeared to be the party with momentum thanks to the Democrats' inability to talk about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

In September of '02 and '04, Democrats appeared to be doing better than expected given the climate at the time. In fact, a number of positive pro-Democratic polls covering Southern Senate races were released in September in both of those cycles.

But then came October -- the month when voters' views begin to solidify. In each case, the party that started riding high in September began to unravel in October.

I for the first time find myself not caring. Usually, no matter how disgusted I am with the conservative leadership of the GOP, I still hold out in the end and hope they stay in power, but not this year. I don't fear Nancy Pelosi, but I am not exactly going to be pumping my fists to see ole' stone face take the Speaker's gavel. FYI, my mood has turned increasingly sour since all of the moderate Republicans that I voted for in the Washington primary yesterday got trounced by conservatives who are more interested in single issues like gay marriage or property rights than they are about good government or sound public policy.

That been said, there is still no real good reason to vote Democrat other than the utterly uninspiring leadership of the GOP. Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reed are presenting good ideas, Hillary is pushing the thought provoking American Dream Initiative, and Barack Obama is looking down right presidential in Africa and Iowa, but these are all individuals that the average Democrat is pissed at because they will not support a timeline in Iraq and/or they campaigned for Joe Lieberman in the primary. There is no sign that the party of JFK and FDR is buying into anything substantive other than the Bush hating mantra and the reality is that if American voters have to choose between George W. Bush and Ned Lamont, Karl Rove is going to win every time.

The '06 elections may be the most depressing of my lifetime. What we are faced with is a Democratic Congress because Republicans have been so awful at governing lately or a Republican Congress because Democrats are too angry at Bush to present a comprehensive message to the American people. Eventually, for the good of the country, we have to start making our leaders actually earn the positions of power they strive for. The consequences are a divided nation and an increase in meaningless partisan bickering that will result in regression rather than progression.

Thai coup (v2)

I was going to blog about the important ongoing blogger breast situation. But that's been upstaged by events.

There's been a coup in Thailand. Importantly, Thai Commander-in-Chief Sondhi has apparently been at least partially endorsed by Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej as Interim PM. The game for a coup is to get a king's support, or it's out, so apparently all coup supporters bear yellow ribbons, which are a sign of support for the monarchy in Thailand.

Coups seem to be all too frequent in Thailand; the Profesora was caught in one several years ago. I think she said all that happened to visitors was a length airport shutdown.

How well are the people being served if the army is always finding excuses to choose governments?

Several blogs are providing good coverage. They include Bangkok Pundit, Metroblog Bangkok Newley Purnell, and purpose-created 19SEP (check out today's date!).

I hope Prime Minister Thaksin can put down the coup.

This is the second version of this post. The first version had far fewer details and especially fewer links.

UPDATE: News about the King's endorsement is as yet unconfirmed by local blogs, so take that one with some salt.

UPDATE 2: Robert Mayer wrote:

it appears that they only have control over Bangkok where Thaksin is hugely unpopular. Forces loyal to Thaksin are currently meeting outside of Bangkok in order to plan their next move. What it will be is uncertain.

UPDATE 3: The big excuse against Thaksin appears to be his corruption (which is real). Well, military governments are far more corrupt, generally, than democratic ones. Corruption is definitely up in Pakistan since its coup; the excuse was - shock - corruption. Supporting a coup because of corruption is shooting your foot to spite your face. The voters have to judge on his corruption.

The US government is corrupt, too. A huge percentage of homeland security and military spending go to the guys with the best lobbyists. Over time, the dynamics of democracy tend to reduce corruption, but it takes patience at the ballot box, and it never goes away.

My Children...

...may acquire religion, as their prayers have been partially answered.

California Farmers Plow Spinach Under

Colin Powell's Stand

Help me out here, and I mean that sincerely. Explain to me the administration's point of view on the torture issue, because honestly, I don't see it as anything more than a PR move to keep terror and not the Iraq war in the headlines. When Secretary Powell says:

"If you just look at how we are perceived in the world and the kind of criticism we have taken over Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions... whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."

Is that even in doubt? If we re-interpret or modify the intent of the Geneva Conventions, why wouldn't our enemies do the same? And what does that mean for our men and women in uniform?

As a Republican and a strict constructionist, should not the President of the United States support implementing the original intent of the Geneva Conventions? And if there is really a problem with interpreting what the agreement means shouldn't that involve a discussion with all of those who made it? Furthermore, what does interpreting or modifying the Geneva Conventions allow the United States to do and why specifically do we need to do it?

When droves of military leaders and those who have had direct experience with torture, i.e. Senator John McCain, tell me that it is an ineffective method, I tend to take their word over those who have never spent a day in uniform.

Isn't there something to the argument that torture is immoral? Aren't we supposed to be the good guys?

No more apologies

Anne Applebaum.

Western politicians, writers, thinkers and speakers should stop apologizing -- and start uniting. . .

[N]othing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously? . . .

[I]f stray comments by Western leaders -- not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and values -- are going to inspire regular violence, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too.

Amen.

Islamofascism and Greeley, CO

In case you didn't know about the uncanny debt Islamofascism owes Greeley, Colorado, here's a good article about it.

Of course, the problem wasn't so much in Greeley, CO as it was in Sayyid Qutb, who can be argued to be its spiritual father.

Interestingly, Greeley can also take credit for the idea of editing movies to remove the bits you don't like. The idea first showed up in a cautionary tale by a great Greeley-based SF writer, and now has become a business plan of several companies, including two in Utah, and one in Greeley - Family Shield Technologies. One such firm has been sued successfully by movie makers as a violation of their copyrights.

Oh, and the article notes dryly that:

You'd think that the father of Islamism had exposed himself to an early version of Studio 54 or even Plato's Retreat. But no: the club he joined was run by the church, and what he is describing, here, is a chapel hop in Greeley, Colorado. And Greeley, Colorado, in 1949, was dry.

Any Austin resident can tell you that conservatives get bored, too. In fact, I'd say it's easier to get in sexual trouble if you allow youself fewer alternatives. Of course, the real problem is that Qutb was scared to death of girl cooties.

Oh, and he's as wrong as can be, of course, on the Iraq War. He neglects to notice any but the WMD-right-now reason for the war, and theocracy polls badly in Iraq.

Amit Varma also has some comments, notably that there are plenty of moderate Muslims.

The President's Press Conference

It's hard to believe that the same man gave Monday's speech and today's press conference. Monday's speech was positive, well-thought-out, and straightforward.

Bush in today's press conference struck me as sullen and disingenuous.

Some points he made that disturbed me particularly:

[on interrogation] the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program,

I can't see any interrogator who uses primarily positive reinforcement having to worry about this. Many do because in their experience they get answers they can trust alot better. And no need to bother Congress to pass a clarifying law. No, interrogations aren't about to be stopped; the only issue here is the standards under they're carried out.

... when an al Qaeda operative is calling into the United States or out of the country, we need to know who they're calling, why they're calling, and what they're planning. ...

Severe spin here. He already has authority to intercept communications without warrants both internationally and domestically among terror suspects (the latter from the Patriot Act). The NSA's wider wiretap and phone record work goes rather farther. Why doesn't he defend what he's actually asking for?

We have a duty, we have a duty to work together to give our folks on the front line the tools necessary to protect America.

Is treating captives badly really necessary to protect America? Why?

The President's sullenness and spin suggest to me a man who knows he's wrong on these. He's never overjoyed by press conferences, but I feel he's noticeably less sullen and straighter with truth when defending things like the invasion of Iraq and US performance there and in Afghanistan.

Did his sullenness strike anybody else as well?

Good News for Republicans, Bad News for America

Joe Gandelman reports on a bit of good news for the GOP. The you can't trust the Democrats on national security message is working yet again, and Congressional Republicans have closed the gap to three points, 37-34%. I say, what about the other 27%?

Almost a third of the American electorate isn't afraid of Nancy Pelosi, but isn't exactly going to be doing cart wheels if whe takes the Speaker's gavel. They look at both sides, sigh loudly, and shake their heads. More than likely they are decididing between which evil to choose from. A third of likely voters, not including those who aren't likely because they walked away a long time ago, will be unhappy with the election outcome regardless of who wins.

I think the meat of Zogby's analysis appears in his last paragraph:

Regardless of the late GOP surge, Congress continues to be viewed negatively by the vast majority of voters. Just 19% of those polled had a favorable impression of Congress’s performance on the job—a number that cut across party and geographic lines.

Analysis:

Both parties suck.

Open thread

This one is authorized.

Instapundit's original summary article on 9/11

As he says, (annoyingly?) close to how it's played out.

Republicans Afraid to Get Kinky

If there is anything in politics right now that is exciting, it is the possibility of Governor Kinky Friedman. What was once thought to be a joke is now getting serious and Texas Republicans are starting to worry. The state GOP points out on their website that a former country music singer smoked pot and *gasp* had sex with women, and I emphasize the use of the letters "en" rather than "an." The current Guv, the telegenic but unsubstantive Rick Perry, is doing his best to label the Kinkster a typical politician and using the we can't trust an entertainer with the serious problems line. I don't know, but it seems to me that a guy nicknamed Kinky is anything but typical. In the spirit of the great Sam Houston, Friedman is a Texas original.

Look, I am not telling Texans how to vote, and I certainly understand experience is important; however, in a state where the Governor wields little executive power maybe a colorful figure head that represents the frustration voters have with the current two party system isn't such a bad thing.

Kinky's campaign gets it right when they say:

Texans are the most independent people in America, and if we're going to be inspired, the inspiration will come from someone unafraid to deal in new ideas and honest answers, an independent leader who lets the people call the plays instead of dancing to the tune of the money men.

That kind of leader is never going to look or sound like a politician. He won't steer by image polls, speak in hollow phrases approved by focus groups, or show up in hand-tailored suits.

Not only Texans, but Americans. One must wonder, on a day she is being remembered, if a free spirit like Ann Richards doesn't look down on Kinky Friedman and smirk even just a little bit.

Equal opportunities

Says the blogometer:

Al Wynn (D) is "up four points, 50%-46.12%" on [the nutroots-backed] attorney Donna Edwards with 92.40% reporting. Matt Stoller at MyDD, however, is not ready to give up: "This primary isn't over. And if Al Wynn hadn't cheated, he would be giving a concession speech right now. ... First of all, there's a lot to be counted, and there are possible legal challenges depending on what happens. ... Second of all, don't trust the numbers that are out. They aren't real." Stoller has emails from voters claiming their vote was suppressed and he doesn't believe incompetence is to blame: "I want to first address the 'oh this wasn't stolen it was incompetence' line. If you steal an election, you first figure out how to make it look like incompetence so that you don't go to jail. If possible, you design incompetence into the operation so that there's no way to tell who would have won had the voting operation gone off smoothly."

So, as it turns out, it's not Republicans that the nutroots hate, it's losing.

Translation: if you beat a nutroots candidate, even if it's in a primary election, you will be treated as the enemy, and ergo, must have cheated in order to win.

Upshot: henceforth, Republicans should no longer take the deranged rants about "stolen elections" personally - true to say, it's more about an innate need of the left to explain how they cold possibly have lost ("but we're correct and they're evil! They're THE ENEMY! How could we possibly lose if they didn't steal it? Good always triumphs over evil, and since we are good and THE ENEMY are evil, therefore if we lost, the deck must be rigged! There's no other explanation!") than it is about us.

She Was a Woman

Former Texas Governor Ann Richards is dead:

Richards rose to the governorship with a come-from-behind victory over millionaire cowboy Clayton Williams in 1990. She cracked a half-century male grip on the governor's mansion and celebrated by holding up a T-shirt that showed the state Capitol and read: "A woman's place is in the dome."

In four years as governor, Richards championed what she called the "New Texas," appointing more women and more minorities to state posts than any of her predecessors.

She appointed the first black University of Texas regent; the first crime victim to join the state Criminal Justice Board; the first disabled person to serve on the human services board; and the first teacher to lead the State Board of Education. Under Richards, the fabled Texas Rangers pinned stars on their first black and female officers.

She polished Texas' image, courted movie producers, championed the North American Free Trade Agreement, oversaw an expansion of the state prison system, and presided over rising student achievement scores and plunging dropout rates.

I loved Ann Richards from her quick humor, to her sharp tongue, to her willingness to call it as she sees it. I was just getting interested in politics, frequently seen in a Jerry Brown for President t-shirt (hey, I was sixteen), when the "year of the woman" 1992 Democratic Convention took place. What impressed me most about Richards is that she just seemed so different from anyone else on the stage. She was a true trailblazer and as a pro-growth, pro-trade, pro-choice Democrat, she was a true centrist. God will be getting an earful, no doubt.

Linkfest

• Former President Clinton meets with liberal bloggers.
• Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman from Florida, wants Nancy Pelosi to be the next Speaker of the House.
• "The real story behind the Armitage story"

This is a wildcat open thread, and an invitation to provide links to items that you found interesting today.

Small victory

Chafee beats back conservative challenger

This may not be a "Crashing the Gate" development for centrists, but it doesn't suck.

Travelling From JFK On 9/11

The good news is that it was completely safe terror-wise. We've secured victory on that front; I heard an estimate last night on BookTV that the Act-Of-Terror death rate runs about 1/500,000. Therefore, my chance of death by falling was much higher (OK, I'm particularly bad about that).

The fare I'd paid was pretty low, probably discounted for the day? There were unfilled seats, but only a few. But JetBlue was full up every other time I took them.

Maybe a bigger lack was of planes. On the way in via JFK, I was thinking (OK, stupidly) there sure are alot of planes here.

This time, I was thinking, boy, not many planes here. It was probably just the minimal involved in serving scheduled flights. They must've diverted repairs and reserve planes elsewhere.

I had to produce ID papers, everything vaguely metallic, and my shoes, to the govt. ALL bags were searched.

When I was a kid, I used to read lots of articles about and stories set in WWII. There was a word in one that I didn't understand, checkpoint. When I asked what it meant, my parents said,

"That's a place where the government stops you and asks for government-issued identification papers. They don't have those in free countries."

Sigh.

And isn't a search that improves counter-terror risk so little, but rather clearly makes us more vulnerable to TSA corruption, an unreasonable search?

Similarly, how much safety are we buying from the clearly heightened levels of pilferage of stuff in baggage since the TSA got involved (unreasonable seizure or just theft?).

No, it's not Nazi Germany by a long shot. But these are real infringements on liberty. And how much higher would the real risk ratio be without that? Surely well under 1/250,000, more likely under 1/400,000.

I'm not suggesting we should just deny that terrorists exist or give up on counter-terror efforts. Nor am I saying tighter controls weren't appropriate before the real scope of the problem and real numbers of attacks that get through could be seen.

No, I'm saying that the ceaselessness, strength, and cleverness of our counter-terror efforts seem to be, by the numbers, strong enough to permit safe travel without an infringement in liberty.

9/11, Five Years Later: We Will Never Forget

Five years ago today, terrorists launched an unprovoked attack on America, killing nearly 3,000 people, and declaring war on the United States. On that day, heroes gave their lives to save lives. On that day, America mourned. On that day, the reality of global terror engaged the world. In the days that followed, America rose to confront its enemies, and defend freedom. America was united. Politics didn't matter. Parties didn't matter. On this day five years later, let us continue to honor those heroes who gave their lives, and those who continue to fight for us. Let us vow to never lose sight of their sacrifice, nor the threat that we face from global terror. Let us strive to commit ourselves to that unity of purpose.

Slacker's Open Thread

Since you slackers didn't get it up first!

It's all good.

What is a Docudrama?

OK, so Clinton and many key Dems have major beef with a new 9/11 docudrama coming on ABC next week, that shows certain scenes that slam the Clintons' handling of terrorism pre -9/11. They say it's inaccurate, and pure fiction. The word on the street is that many things in the movie don't square with the facts, and that the movie paints an inaccurate picture. Clinton wants the film pulled. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that those scenes are factually suspect, and that people might get the wrong impression. Let us also acknowledge the undisputed reality that both the Clinton and Bush Administrations missed opportunities to prevent 9/11, and that Clinton didn't do nearly enough to get bin Laden. The thing is, I'm against pulling movies. The whole thing smacks of censorship.

When conservatives bullied CBS into pulling that Reagan biopic a few years back, it was wrong. When conservatives tried to boycott the DaVinci Code, it was wrong. After all, Fahrenheit 9/11 was pure lies, and I didn't support banning that either. Granted, Moore's film was overtly partisan, openly biased, and blatantly political, but it did make some demonstrably false claims.

Don't misunderstand me. This movie does concern me a bit, as it does makes cliams that are at least suspect, and the justifications are weak. They do pose some questions though: Should docudramas, that are based on historical record, strive for historical accuracy? Does it matter that certain things are clearly false? After all, it's not like ABC's simply trying to entertain here-- there's a clear moral purpose at work.

All that said, at the end of the day, I really don't care. I oppose banning films. I say let people choose to watch it, and let them make up their minds. Present opposing sides if you must. Heck, it's just a movie.

NFL Open Thread

Nobody wants to talk Tony Blair or socialized medicine, so screw it!

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!

Opening night: Dolphins/Steelers

What are your predictions for the year?

Government Health Care: Is Arnold Wrong?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is using the veto pin to stop a bill that would create a new layer of bureaucracy in the Golden State and provide health insurance to all Californians. In doing so he provides a good reason:

Socialized medicine is not the solution to our state's health care problems. This bill would require an extraordinary redirection of public and private funding by creating a vast new bureaucracy to take over health insurance and medical care for Californians – a serious and expensive mistake.

Such a program would cost the state billions and lead to significant new taxes on individuals and businesses, without solving the critical issue of affordability. I won't jeopardize the economy of our state for such a purpose.

And a not so good reason:

I want to see a new paradigm that addresses affordability, shared responsibility and the promotion of healthy living.

Single payer, government-run health care does none of this. Yet it would reduce a person's ability to choose his or her own physician, make people wait longer for treatment and raise the cost of that treatment.

I am surprised the Austrian-born citizen didn't throw in some references to communism and over bearing nationalist governments, and given his experience I think he is one of the few who would be justified in doing so. That been said, I am less moved by the single-payer, equals government run, equals lower quality argument than I once was. Yes, there are examples of government run systems that the United States shouldn't adopt, but does that mean that we can't do it right and shouldn't even approach the subject?

I was in the majority when Hillary-care came out, but as I grow older and actually learn what it was all about, I am not so sure it would have been such a terrible idea. Hillary-care as far as I know it was nationalized, but used different competitive pools that were regulated by the government and covered all Americans. For instance, if you were a retired veteran you would be included in that pool; if you were an employee of a small business with over a 100 people you would be in that pool, etc., etc. The pools would then provide health insurance sort of like the system that many corporations and labor unions use today.

Was Hillary-care perfect? Probably not, and I am not even saying it was preferable. However, as I have more experience using private health care and as I take into account my time on Capitol Hill during the Medicare bill debate, I see many cracks in the system that are getting larger and am turned off by big insurance companies who seem less concerned about filling them.

Furthermore, as someone WHO IS concerned about social justice, I more and more have a problem with a system where the difference between rich and poor seems to be widening. I do not fear the market, but facts are facts, where the rich get a steak the poor get a Big Mac. Shouldn't the level of health care one receives be based on their health and not their income, and can we honestly say that is what occurs in the United States today? Sometimes it is appropriate for government to step in.

Blair to Step Down

In my opinion Britain is losing it's best. Tony Blair is the ultimate centrist, first known for revamping an archaic socialist Labour Party and introducing free market ideas and reforms to Britain’s government services. For years his popularity numbers were above 70, until the Prime Minister supported the invasion of Iraq. Say what you want about that decision, right or wrong, I have always believed that Tony Blair had a strong grasp on the issue and handled himself in the right way. When intelligence turned out to be false, he admitted it and apologized. If you want an example of how to articulate a war strategy, compared to our President's lame attempts, IMO you need not look further than 10 Downing Street. Seeing Blair and Bush side by side explaining policy decisions to the media was at times a tad embarrassing.

In the heat of making his decision to step down within a year, Mr. Blair had a screaming match with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who has been a silent partner of a growing faction within the Labour Party calling for Blair's resignation. Funny thing is that Brown will more than likely take Blair's post without a vote of the people. How convenient for him. For those who have said that they prefer European national elections compared to the American Electoral College, I say pack your frigging bags.

The Labour Party fools forget who put them on the map or where they were before Tony Blair. My prediction is that the modern and more centrist Conservative Party, under the leadership of the telegenic David Cameron, clean house in the next national election.

God bless Tony Blair. In the tradition of Winston Churchill he stood with the United States of America when nobody else would, even when it wasn't politically expedient.

The Bush Gitmo Speech Unofficial Open Thread

OK, so what're your thoughts? Fire away.

The Risk Pool

Malcolm Gladwell, best-selling author of The Tipping Point and Blink, is my favorite type of writer -- the kind that challenges and changes my assumptions.

His article in last week's New Yorker focused on a simple concept called the "dependency ratio": the number of people in a company who are not of working age compared to the number of people who are. Applied at the country level, it helps explain why Ireland became the "Celtic Tiger" (lifting restrictions on contraception helped change the ratio, which in 2005 became 1 dependent for every 2.2 people of working age) and why sub-Saharan Africa remains shackled in poverty (for decades, the ratio has been 1:1).

At the company level, the "dependency ratio", combined with the American system of company-paid pensions, helps explain why our steel industry fell prey foreign competition and why GM can not compete on a level playing field with Toyota:

Technology led to great advances in productivity, so that when the bulge of workers hired in the middle of the century retired and began drawing pensions, there was no one replacing them in the workforce. General Motors today makes more cars and trucks than it did in the early nineteen-sixties, but it does so with about a third of the employees. In 1962, G.M. had four hundred and sixty-four thousand U.S. employees and was paying benefits to forty thousand retirees and their spouses, for a dependency ratio of one pensioner to 11.6 employees. Last year, it had a hundred and forty-one thousand workers and paid benefits to four hundred and fifty-three thousand retirees, for a dependency ratio of 3.2 to 1.

Looking at General Motors and the old-line steel companies in demographic terms substantially changes the way we understand their problems. It is a commonplace assumption, for instance, that they were undone by overly generous union contracts. But, when dependency ratios start getting up into the 3-to-1 to 7-to-1 range, the issue is not so much what you are paying each dependent as how many dependents you are paying...

A second common assumption is that fading industrial giants like G.M. and Bethlehem are victims of their own managerial incompetence. In various ways, they undoubtedly are. But, with respect to the staggering burden of benefit obligations, what got them in trouble isn’t what they did wrong; it is what they did right. They got in trouble in the nineteen-nineties because they were around in the nineteen-fifties—and survived to pay for the retirement of the workers they hired forty years ago. They got in trouble because they innovated, and became more efficient in their use of labor.

Read the whole thing, as they say. If you like Gladwell's work, go to the New Yorker's webpage and search for Gladwell. You could spend the morning reading his articles, and maybe inspire Gladwell to explore the topic of workplace productivity.

Bush hatred reaches new heights

George Bush assassinated. Art or wishful thinking?

Rumsfeld: What Mathew Said

The subject of Mathew's Friday blogpost and thread has been burning under my skin. I'd only heard the brief and always untrustworthy press reports of what Rumsfeld had said in his speech.

Since then, Rumsfeld has written up similar remarks in the LA Times I read them, and am alot more disturbed. Because, you know, I'm with the Munich analogy thing. But Rumsfeld's version was just wrong. Though he said he'd considered his remarks carefully, it was thoughtless. It mischaracterized opposition to the war and rubbed salt in concerning what I and many other liberal hawks feel are bad Administration behavior about indefinite incarcertation and torture.

You may remember that I've been supported Rumsfeld on everything except his deeply disturbing disinterest in curbing torture. This statement, of course, is not as disturbing to me as the torture issue. But it's the first really politically clueless thing I've seen him get in on in this Administration. I mean, for example, I disagreed with his "New Europe" tag, but it was basically harmless, and in line with Republican-French relations literally for centuries.

Like so many other people on Mathew's thread, I'm very grateful for term limits.

There's a game I like to play, Tropico, where you try to rule a Caribbean island as long as Castro, and also during the Cold War, especially a challenging variant where you stay 50 years by popular election (very hard). Even in the several-hour timeframe of the game, it's easy to neglect the constant attention to improving people's lives, to keeping people happy, and to coast on what one's done already. Are Rumsfeld and other Administration officials taking things for granted?

This one's for Max

Would you have "faith" in a fundamentalist doctor?

So did Maxtrue challenge me in the Atheist string. Well son of a gun, I've found a place(s) to work out Max's challenge. This WaPo article describes a growing number of "faith-based practices".

Proponents say the practices allow doctors to avoid conflicts with patients who want services the practitioners find objectionable, as well as to provide care that conforms with many patients' own values. The approach, they say, provides an alternative to mainstream medicine's reliance on drugs and devices that, they argue, carry side effects and negatively affect couples' relationships.

"I want to practice my faith," said John T. Bruchalski, the obstetrician-gynecologist who started Tepeyac. "I'm not interested in pushing it on other people. But this allows me to practice medicine without having to do something that I wouldn't see as positive or healthy."

And surprise, surprise we can find a few doubters

"Welcome to the era of balkanized medicine," said R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. "We've had this for years with religious hospitals. What's happening now is it's drifting down to the level of individual practitioners and small group practices. It essentially creates a parallel world of medicine."

Interesting comparison to religious hospitals. Both sides seem to forget that religious hospitals weren't developed to proselytize nor care only for "the flock" but out of desire to serve (i.e. to follow Jesus's ministry to care for the sick). Many inner cities were historically only served by religious orders. Maybe everyone needs to read the ninth chapter of John's gospel over again.

Iraq and Munich: Good Potential Analogy or Bad Analogy to Nothing?

Speaking of the Munich thing, I'm having a knock-down dragout fight with Rob Farley (Guns) of the liberal blog Lawyers, Guns, and Money. The opening skirmish is here, and the subsequent set battle thread is here.

I think Churchill was right about Munich, and think Iraq looked to have the potential to become a much worse threat if not stopped, just as Nazi Germany did, because Saddam clearly felt himself to be at war with the Coalition, and might well have thought he could get away with nuclear terrorism. Rob thinks Iraq was no threat to us, never no ways, and thinks Churchill was clueless about that Munich thing.

This seems appropriate for Sept. 1, the day WWII broke out. Enjoy!

Mr. President, Just Stop

Liz Mair at GOP Progress, a Redstate-ish like forum for moderate or small "l' libertarian Republicans, makes some good points regarding the Bush/Rumsfeld rhetoric machine on Iraq:

Bush and Rumsfeld may be dead-on in characterizing the seriousness of the opposition we face. They are of course right to note that those who oppose their methods aren't offering anything better (or indeed, anything at all) and in those circumstances, it is dumb to just oppose the Administration policy on principle.

But going this route of starting off with simple references to Al Qaeda, and then when that doesn't do the job, referring increasingly to terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists (more blunt), and then when that doesn't work, switching to Islamo-fascists, and then when even that fails to produce a spike in support for the Administration's policies or Republican candidates, to go the whole hog and talk about Nazis and Communists, is just really politically stupid...

Please, guys, just quit it. Make the case by explaining things in detail instead of just relying on emotionally charged verbiage and the usual string of soundbytes. There are reasons why we need to stay in Iraq. There are reasons why we need to try to combat terrorists and their ideology wherever it may be found. You can make the case, though it will be harder than what you're doing right now.

As I was sitting on the Seattle ferry last weekend with my my wife, a die-hard Bush loyalist, she turned to me and said: "you know, it is getting to the point where I am just sick of Bush." I think that sentiment is stronger this week with the Iraq PR campaign that provides little more than what has been offered in the past except for the suped up rhetoric. The President is no longer helping himself. The "us against them" message - them meaning the cut and runecrats, terrorists, Islamic fundamentalists, Islamo-fascists, the Nazis, etc. - lost it's thunder months ago. Karl needs to come up with something new.