Centerfield

Some Intolerance of Obesity Intolerance

A disturbing number of people seem obsessed with obesity, saying things are just getting worse and worse, and that our kids are all getting fatter and fatter. In the US, this idea seems particularly prevalent in baby boomers living around LA, though it continues to be adopted by too many people globally and in every generation. It's an excuse for telling other people how to run their lives, after all, and that sort of thing is never unpopular.

More disturbing is that ani-obesity is also the AMA party line. Remember, for every person who is obese and has serious medical problems as a result, there are plenty who don't.

This notion that obesity is getting worse this seems strange to me. I'm in my late 30s, and seen a generation or three. Each one seemed less obese and more fit to me. The most obese of all, of course, was the one that's voiced the most intolance and grumbles the most about obese kids.

When I was a kid, my friends and I didn't work out or get all much exercise compared to today. Very few tummies were taut. There were exercise programs, but they were ill-considered; the running program was so severe few could handle it. Plus, I and many other kids had limited activities because of asthma problems we now have good, cheap drugs for.

The first stage was broad exercise programs that really work. That's huge. I see plenty of non-thin kids, but few with flabby tummies. And I think it's staying fit that's the big difference-maker for health, more than not weighing much or being fashionably thin.

Today, I'm seeing a higher and higher percentage of kids clearly into serious exercise, and seriously muscled in a way that was very rare when I was a kid.

There is a some widely-circulated evidence that obesity is getting worse. The statement is that obesity levels are higher today than in the '70s. But the test they use to decide who's obese has changed rather decidedly since then. Therefore, this fails as evidence. It disturbs me that big groups like the WHO, who have tons of evidentially trained people, have failed to notice that detail.

Oh, and let's face it, the evidence that HFCS is contributing noticeably to obesity isn't even close to there yet. You need to show actual results, not just potential mechanisms. Me? Yeah, I hate HFCS, too, but let's be honest on what this is about. Most HFCS hatred is actually because we wish for better, oh yeah, better cookies and soda. That'll help reduce obesity so much. Hmm. And the correct target of that hatred should be Congress and ADM, for subsidizing corn and lobbying for the subsidies, respectively. Note that Congress, unlike greed, can be lobbied (tell 'em you want your sugar cookies made of sugar!).

Appropriate societal action on obesity is to warn people of the medical dangers, especially people with conditions truly statistically linked to obesity (not just by fashion). Action and statements beyond that amount to intolerance just as bad as any other kind that falls short of shooting people.

And I have a message for all those anti-obese out there. I accuse you of having fun telling all us fatties how bad we are. You know that's not allowed!

Disclaimer: I'm very nearly obese under official standards, since I have a stocky frame, and spend alot of time biking.

Give Sadr the Treatment

What he said.,

Interesting reading by Omar Fadhil of Baghdad bloggers Iraq the Model.

High al-Sadr Deputy Killed by Iraqi Troops

Much better! Maybe there's some hope after all.

But I fear the raid's commander will be disciplined for carrying out wisdom and justice for a change. Notice that this seems to've been done as part of a particular investigation rather than an effort against al Sadr. And notice that the politicians who run the Iraqi Army have so far shown no interest in cracking down on al'Sadr's activities.

The headline, of course, was mostly wrong: it was Iraqi troops taking the initiative on this, the US troops were merely advisors;

All Your Open Threads is Belong to Us!

Friday. End of the year. End of Saddam.

Pick one, or make one up. It's Open Thread Friday!

Differences Between Tolkien's World and Ours (Back From Blogbreak)

Watching Lord of the Rings DVDs over Christmas inspired me to write this post (we finally broke down and got a DVD player). Tolkien in effect created a very detailed world to back his linguistic inventions and novels.

That world had some major diffences from ours. It strikes me as the world of a chess player. The greatest era of Middle-Earth was the first one, when all sorts of major, now-killed-off, pieces were in the game.

Maybe the biggest difference is that the equivalent of angels are present in the flesh in Middle-Earth and affecting events big-time. Sauron ruled big turf, and Saruman and then Gandalf were running the resistance against him.

Hierarchy was much more real than our world - The people running Middle-Earth really did have more ability (though not necessarily morality) than their followers.

Presumably because Tolkien was more of a language scholar than a historian or economist, in his world, monarchy outprospers democracy. There appears to be just one instance of freedom, the democratic Shire, which was given freedom to choose its own rules by a succession of Kings over a thousand years ago. In our world, freedom outprospers monarchy. We'd see The Shire put the rest of Middle-Earth in the technological, cultural, and economic shade.

After all, Gondor's biggest advantage comes from having been settled by Numenoreans thousands of years before. In our world (fortunately), you can't just sit on an advantage like that. Nope - you need continued innovation, baby.

That's not to say that Tolkien was a monarchist fool - LOTR is a great novel for freedom. A middle-class and lower-class hobbit collaborated to have as much effect as the top people in his book, and Aragorn might've been so effective partially because he spent decades as not much more than a wanderer. They had much more effect than the (out-of-their-depth) kings in office at the start of the novel. As a side-effect that they didn't really expect, perhaps, they even ended the top parts of those hierarchies.

I feel about ready to bug the hapless Web again for another while, bwahaha. The break was really needed, though.

Reagan/Ford '80

Newsweek has reprinted it's July 1980 article on how the Reagan/Ford ticket became a possibilty and then fell apart at the Republican National Convention in Detroit. Literally, men like Henry Kissinger, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Edwin Meese, and Alan Greenspan tried to make history and re-create the Presidency as we now know it:

In retrospect, the entire scheme seemed domed from the start, and the wonder was that it went as far as it did. A handful of men were attempting nothing less than a behind-the-scenes restructuring of the Presidency in a matter of hours. The pressure was intense, and some of the negotiators on both sides may have felt a personal stake in the outcome. What prolonged the negotiations, and gave the prospect of a Reagan-Ford ticket a life of its own, was mainly the Hamlet-like indecision of Jerry Ford, so tempted by a possible return to power and a Republican restoration that he repeatedly entertained further consideration of a plan that, almost in the same breath, he repeatedly dismissed as unworkable. In the end, the man who best knew the Presidency and the Vice Presidency succumbed to a reality he had sensed all along.

Some loyal Republicans thought Reagan naive to believe that Ford could be comfortable in a subsidiary role—in the campaign or the government. Both men must have known that any bargain struck in Detroit would be unenforceable in Washington. If a Reagan-Ford ticket had been created and elected, it might have splintered authority in the White House and led to even greater rivalry and friction than normally exist in any Administration. It was a "dream ticket" that threatened a political morass and a constitutional nightmare.

It's really good stuff, especially if you are into political theatrics. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

2008 Update

What is the week between Christmas and New Year's without Presidential Campaign news?

Mike Huckabee shocked insiders by bringing $500,000 dollars at a gala for his PAC, Hope for America. I have long felt that Huckabee was the Conservative that could beat McCain/Guiliani in the Republican primaries, not Mitt "I am whoever you want me to be" Romney. His story about how losing weight saved his life, his successful tenure as a Conservative Republican from Arkansas, the fact that he is from the deep red south, and recent press coverage about his effort to provide refuge to Katrina victims all add up to a possible surprising dark horse candidacy. Mike Huckabee is a more polished, likeable, and intelligent version of George W. Bush IMO, which explains why I can't see myself voting for him. How a few years can change one's opinion, I know.

John Edwards is in, and will be making his announcement Thursday from Ward 9 in New Orleans, the hardest hit area during the Katrina disaster. Once could argue that Edwards is making politics out of a tragedy, but I have to admit that I find his efforts to put the spotlight on the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged impressive. I am an independent as far as 2008 goes, and my vote is up for discussion and negotiation. Although I prefer Giuliani/McCain or Obama I have to admit that I am keeping an intrigued eye on the former North Carolina Senator. IMO, he is bringing attention to issues that are too often ignored by the political establishment. My only hesitation is that he may only offer routine, band-aid solutions like rasing the minimum wage and stopping trade agreements where new, innovative ideas are needed.

Gerald Ford, RIP

A good man who, ultimately, was in a thankless position.

Share your thoughts.

Iowa poll

Yeah, I know it is early to get sucked into the horse-race coverage, but I can't resist posting these early Iowa poll results:

Democrats
John Edwards 22%
Barack Obama 22%
Tom Vilsack 12%
Undecided 11%
Hillary Clinton 10%
Al Gore 7%
John Kerry 5%

Republicans
John McCain 27%
Rudy Giuliani 26%
Undecided 22%
Mitt Romney 9%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Condi Rice 4%

Whatever happens, the choice should be better than we had in 2004.

Open Thread of Unabashed Cheer

Here's wishing a very merry (and warm and safe and loving) Christmas to all of our friends who celebrate it, and to all the ones they hold dear. And a happy holidays to alternative practitioners and to abstainers whether they like it or not :-) .

And hopes and prayers and good wishes to all of our countrymen who find themselves in harm's way because our nation called upon them. You honor us with your service, and we honor you for it. With love and gratitude, here's hoping that today, and December 25th, and all of the new year finds you safe. Stay strong.

Here's a special shout out to all of our regulars, whether they be posters, regular commenters, or lurkers. And of course to our pals over at Stubborn Facts. And on behalf of all the centerfielders, I even want to send the warmest of wishes to all the occasional drivers-by of both the left and the right, who help to remind us that we MUST be on the right track.

I expect a lot of us will begin dropping off the radar screen for the next week, if they haven't already. Thanks everyone out there for trying so hard to keep me honest.

Only Republicans Gerrymander

According to Politics 1:

New Mexico Democrats have had enough of losing close fights to Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R), so they're ready to take a page from Tom DeLay's playbook. According to Roll Call, State Senator Jerry Ortiz y Pino (D) plans to introduce a bill that would redraw the state's congressional districts before the 2008 election. The plan would significantly increase the number of Hispanic and Native American voters in exchange for shifting a large GOP agricultural community into CD-2. Dems currently control the NM House and Senate. Governor Bill Richardson (D) said he'd be "willing to consider" the proposal ...

Yeah right.

Al-Sadr Smells the Parliamentary Coffee Brewing

Radical Iraqi Cleric Al-Sadr in Cease-fire Talks

Until the walkout, al-Sadr's faction had been an integral part of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's governing coalition. Cabinet ministers and legislators who belong to al-Sadr's movement called the boycott after al-Maliki met with President Bush in Jordan three weeks ago. Al-Sadr's militia and its offshoots have been increasingly blamed for sectarian attacks.

As violence rages across Baghdad and much of Iraq, a new coalition taking shape among Shiites, Kurds and one Sunni party is seen as a last-ditch effort to form a government across sectarian divisions that have split the country. While al-Sadr's movement would not be part of this coalition, such an alliance -- which reportedly is supported by the Bush administration -- might pressure the radical cleric to soften his stance.

In Thursday's meeting, the group wants to assure al-Sistani that the new coalition would not break apart the Shiite bloc, said officials from several Shiite parties. Potential members of the coalition said they have been negotiating for two weeks, and now want the blessing of al-Sistani, whose word many Shiites consider binding.

The plot is thickening. On the one hand, if the two-faced viper Al-Sadr can help clamp down the violence, it may be worth letting him keep his seat at the table, at least for now. OTOH, if he is going to go back and forth, effecting cease-fires when the rest of the governing coalition threatens to freeze him out, and then slowly ramping things back up while pretending he can't completely control his folks, then maybe the sooner he loses his seat the better.

One thing is for sure, Al-Sadr better not forget to give his bodyguards generous holiday bonuses.

OTOH, Maybe Making Stakeholders is a GOOD Idea

Remember, just because Hillary has endorsed it doesn't mean it's a bad idea:

An Oil Trust for Iraq

An oil trust would give many Iraqis additional incentive to stick. As Christopher Hitchens suggests, we want Iraqis to

Give Federalism a Chance.

I know, it's not as catchy at Lennon, but still. Anything that gives Iraqis looking for a better egg basket a reason to pause is a good thing.

Really? Tigers Don't Change Their Stripes?

Really? Tigers Don't Change Their Stripes? Not even if you're nice, and ask them to join the process and become stakeholders?

File this one under "no sh!t."

Pentagon: Al-Sadr more dangerous than al Qaeda in Iraq

Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army has replaced al Qaeda in Iraq as "the most dangerous accelerant" of the sectarian violence plaguing Iraq for nearly a year, according to a Pentagon report.

Attacks by Iraqi insurgents and sectarian militias jumped 22 percent from mid-August to mid-November, and Iraqi civilians suffered the bulk of casualties, according to the quarterly report released on Monday.

Who else remembers being skeptical when we chose not to squish these guys? Sure hindsight is 20-20, but lots of folks had foresight on this one. Some council or committee thought too hard about this one, and we talked ourselves into something stupid. We should have listened to Stechen Thyme.

Hillary Regrets Vote for Iraq War

Hillary now openly claims that she would not have voted for the war had she known then what she knows now. Don't get me wrong, I personally feel this is the right position and it is my own, but I am sort of wondering what took her so long. What she is basically saying is that John Edwards was right a year ago when he stated the same thing and that Barack Obama was right in opposing the war before it began. Who appears to be the smartest of the three, and who appears to be the slowest in arriving at the same conclusion?

This move exposes Hill's biggest weakness. Had her husband done it, he would have done it with grace and made it look like it was his idea before anybody else thought of it. Hillary just looks like she will do anything to win the Democratic nomination.

Keating Considering, Warner Reconsidering

Ron is posting a lot of 2008 drama this morning.

Apparently Governor Warner is sending out Christmas cards to New Hampshire voters and reconsidering. I bet with Bayh out he is seeing a hole in the DLC crowd that can be filled, and is waiting to see if Obama runs. If he doesn't, then John Edwards automatically becomes the anti-Hillary and leaves some room for more to enter the race. What this news does do is tarnish Warner's Boy Scout image a bit, as people will doubt that his original exit had anything to do with family, although I truly believe that it did.

Also, former Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating is considering the race because he feels there aren't enough Ronald Reagan Republicans running. I did a campaign swing with this guy once. He doesn't have the name ID or the money yet, but is charasmatic, articulate, smart, and polished enough to raise it fast, especially if the anti-McCain/Giualiani crowd get desperate. Another leg up Keating would have on potential candidates is that he, like Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, is from the deep red south that has become the base of the Republican Party. The social conservatives may have found their man. Keating is not without baggage, as he was passed over to be Bush's Attorney General due to a bit of financial scandal in the Sooner state, but then again either is Giuliani or McCain.

Finally, Governor's Napolitano (AZ), Bredeson (TN), Sebelius (KS), and Schweitzer (MT), all centrist all from red states, jointly said they are out of the running in 2008. IMO, if you include Warner (if he isn't the nominee), Obama (if he isn't the nominee), Evan Bayh, and maybe Bill Richardson, if one of these names aren't number two on the ticket than the Democratic nominee is a moron.

UPDATE:

On another note, the media giveth and has begun to taketh away from Obamamania. Apparently the junior Senator purchased a slice of land from a political contributor who is now in some legal hot water, giving the appearance of wrong doing but not actually breaking any campaign finance law. Obama's response:

"There's no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. 'Boneheaded' would be accurate... There's no doubt I should have seen some red flags in terms of me purchasing a piece of property from him."

Obama now has given political contributions, around $11,000, from the individual in question to charity. This just goes to what Brian has been arguing. The fact that a lame attempt to accuse Obama of scandal has arisen at a lightning speed pace can only mean his potential candidacy is for real.

Barack's Bipartisan Accomplishment

To those who say that Barack Obama hasn't accomplished anything:

Legislation authored by U.S. Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) that will help keep weapons like shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles out of terrorists' hands has passed Congress and will soon be signed into law by the President. Lugar and Obama authored the legislation (S. 2566) and included provisions of the bill as part of H.R. 6060, which was approved by the Congress early Saturday morning.

The Lugar-Obama initiative expands U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department's ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction.

Somehow I think in an age of extreme partisanship, you are going to see a lot of bills co-sponsored by the junior Senator from Illinois and centrist leaning Republicans. That my friends is how you are successful in today's political environment. It would seem to me that after the current administration is out of office, a President that is capable of building coalitions would be a good thing. I'm just saying.

Bayh Not Running for President

Today centrist favorite and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh announced he would not seek the Presidency, just two weeks after he formed an exploratory committee, supposedly because of Obamamania. Bayh joins former Virginia Governor Mark Warner in shocking centrist supporters by not running. Anyone see the strength of an Obama/Bayh or an Obama/Warner ticket? An articulate, smart, attractive nominee along with a well-spoken, accomplished, well-qualified centrist Democrat from a Republican state. It sounds like a winner to me and just what the Democrats may need in order to beat McCain or Giuliani.

In other news, Edwards is in. IMO, the former Vice Presidential nominee may be as big a threat to Obama as Hillary is, and vice versa.

Of course it is early, but here are the big 5 states as I see them today for the Democratic front runners:

IOWA

1. Vilsack
2. Obama
3. Edwards
4. Clinton

NEW HAMPSHIRE

1. Clinton (tie)
1. Obama
3. Edwards

SOUTH CAROLINA

1. Edwards
1. Obama (tie)
3. Clinton

NEVADA

1. Edwards
2. Clinton
3. Obama

MICHIGAN

1. Obama
1. Clinton (tie)
1. Edwards (tie)

Things could be very interesting for the Democrats if all three candidates maintain financial support and do not drop out early.

Friday open thread

What is on your mind?

Government At Its Most Dull-Witted

U.S. Mint Forbids Melting Coins

The U.S. Mint has implemented a law against melting down pennies and nickels which, at current metal prices, could be worth more as metal than as currency.

...

We are taking this action because the nation needs its coinage for commerce," said Director Ed Moy in a statement. "We don't want to see our pennies and nickels melted down so a few individuals can take advantage of the American taxpayer. Replacing these coins would be an enormous cost to taxpayers."

The new regulations authorize a fine of up to $10,000, or imprisonment of up to five years, or both, against violators.

Earth to cementheads. We don't need pennies anymore. They're a nuisance. We could easily live without nickels, too. The fact that these coins have more worth as metal than as currency should be a HUGE CLUE. It's time folks. Let's say "Goodnight, Gracie" to pennies and nickels, save the government a lot of money, and save us a lot of time. There's no reason we can't continue to have prices given to the penny and simply round final costs to the nearest dime when cash is transacted. When exchanges are electronic, it doesn't even matter!

Obamamania-Catch the Wave

Obamamania is picking up steam.

Barack Hussein Obama drew the kind of political frenzy that is commonplace in New Hampshire in the final month before the nation's first presidential primary.

In this case, it happened more than a year in advance for a man who hasn't even decided whether he's running.

...

He drew 1,500 Democrats to a state Democratic Party fundraiser and several hundred more at a signing in Portsmouth for his new book, "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream." Organizers of both events had to turn away many others. State party officials said 150 members of the media signed up to cover Obama's speech, representing news organizations as far off as Australia and Japan.

Doubts and outright poo-pooing skepticism are bound to ensue, but the phenomenon is real. Obama is a phenomenon. There's a thirst, even a mania to be in the presence of this guy and whatever it is he's selling. I expect much of the criticism to center on his lack of experience and the lack of detailed substance to his sales pitch.

But this doesn't seem to bother his supporters a single bit, and I don't think he's going to have a bit of trouble rose-gardening right over it. He's selling a tone and an attitude, and he seems to know intuitively that details are the turds in the punch bowl. He can talk about how a decision-making process ought to unfold and suggest that now is not the time for specifics. And people will buy it.

IMO, he's going to be very hard to beat. Plenty of time for him to stumble, of course. But so far I haven't seen much stumbling. He's SOOOOO much more quick-thinking yet thoughtful and comfortable and charismatic and assured than a GW Bush, an Al Gore, or a John Kerry that it isn't even close.

And while I think that McCain and Guliani have a fair amount of charismatic appeal, and even Romney, none of them is in Obama's class.

Pollster on Dem's 2008 Prospects

Here's an interesting post on the dems 2008 prospects from pollster.com.

What's interesting about them is the evidence of very high negatives for Hillary, and the suggestion that people don't seem to have any specific ideas that come to mind on Obama. But they like him. A lot! The other interesting thing is that the polls suggest that Gore and Kerry are non-starters who ought not waste their time. Or ours. Especially Kerry. Who else isn't surprised that Lurch is going to be the last one to see the clue lamp flashing?

Invoking Reagan

Mitt Romney is at the head of the cast of GOP hopefuls who are busy invoking Ronald Reagan, the ghost of GOP successes past. Reagan sure provides a cheerier vision that the specter of GWB, who's considered the ghost of failure present.

In these early days of the 2008 presidential campaign, when politicians still are exploring the notion of a run and trying to fill out their political profiles, candidates are trying to glom on to a little of the luster from the Reagan glory days.

They seem to be trying to out-Reagan one another.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says his party "must return to the common sense Reagan Republican ideals of fighting for hardworking Americans."

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback offers himself as "a full-scale Ronald Reagan conservative."

Arizona Sen. John McCain, tells crowds that Reagan offered precisely the kind of leadership needed by the Republican Party today. "We can do it again if we lead and inspire as he did," he exhorts.

I noticed this a few weeks back in coverage of a recent Romney campaign speech. (That's what it was, folks. He's running.) The game Romney wants to play is "I'm more like Ronald Reagan than you are. Romney better be careful. I can't help but think that John McCain is sharpening his Lloyd Bentsen line. If it comes to a debate and Romney talks too much about Ronald Reagan, expect McCain to give him the old "I knew Ronald Reagan...."

If Romney gets viscerally tagged with being a pale imitation, a mere pretender, he'll go down in a heap.

Governor Flip Flopper

All of a sudden people are remembering that Mitt Romney was once a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican:

“I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party,” the candidate (Romney) added, “and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts. …”

So how will all of this impact Romney’s presidential aspirations? Political pundit Andrew Sullivan recently told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that the GOP’s evangelical Christian base won’t abide Romney’s pro-gay stances, particularly if he tries to defend them now. But if Romney backs off his support for LGBT rights, which he clearly appears to be doing, it opens him up for, at minimum, scrutiny and, at most, attack. After all, gay rights is not the only social issue on which Romney has made an abrupt change of heart. He used to be pro-choice.

As someone who use to admire Romney before his blatant pandering to the right wing of the Republican Party, I think this is funnier than hell. Either way, Mitt is screwed.

What really gets to you is Romney is brilliant. An out of the box thinker in some areas who saved the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and gets some credit for being a better than average Republican Governor in a Democratic state. Now, he is just the guy who really, really wants to be President, no matter what he has to say to do it. How hard they fall.

If I were a GOP spinmeister...

I would say that when Republican Members of Congress break the law (Delay, Foley, Cunningham, and Ney) they resign and leave office in discrace. When Democrat Members of Congress break the law they get re-elected:

Tonight Bill Jefferson wins in Louisiana.

Oh and remember when House Democrat Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel said he knew nothing about Mark Foley's emails? Well, maybe not.

If I were an Independent spinmeister I would say: see, I told you both parties were corrupt.

The Committee on Iraq

ABC News reports:

Leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee held a press conference to float the idea that committee leaders from both parties with a hand in Iraq policy should be meeting. And on a regular basis.

How many committees on Iraq must we have before somebody makes a damn decision? Geesh!

Maybe it is just me, but has John McCain's stock skyrocketed for anyone else this week? I just get the impression that there is one politician in Washington D.C. who is saying what he thinks and proposing bold action toward victory, while the rest of them are walking on egg shells, forming committees, accepting defeat, and doing everything possible to aovid making a decision while more and more of our troops are being killed.

We need decisive leadership now! I am so utterly sick, tired, and bored with the game playing. It's like they don't understand or care that lives are at stake.

The Iraqi Militia Lifetime Employment Act of 2006

That's what I'm calling the Iraq Study Group recommendations. They would just lead to further non-containment of Iraqi militia and continue increases in violence. The problems posed by the militia are well-documented in the excellent first part of the report, notably including plenty of ethnic cleansing, but the report's recommendations on fixes would just allow them to continue getting worse.

The fundamental trouble is the report blames political and diplomatic problems rather than a lack of enforcement on militia increases. Though they do give themselves some political cover, it looks to me like the biggest reasons militia operate with increasing force are the same underlying reasona as unchecked bullies anywhere else in the world: because they can, and because it's fun and profitable.

Right now, the US is making no direct effort to bring the biggest, most blatant, and most dangerous militia, Sadr's, down to size. In fact, US troops are really only trying to take down militias that attack US troops (mostly Sunnis - Sadr is a Shi'ite). What would happen to US domestic order if the FBI decided to just make a deal where the Mafia agreed not to shoot at the FBI if the FBI stopped shooting at and indicting Mafiosos? That's precisely the deal we've made with Sadr. You'd expect exactly what we've seen in Iraq: ever-increasing violence in increasingly gang-laden cities, and, after a couple of years, politicians making protection deals.

The theory appears to have been that Iraqis could eventually deal with militia threats themselves. The reality has been effective inaction, probably because of the security threat militias pose to politicians.

Let's take a look at the report's approach to security and what we should do with our army:

RECOMMENDATION 43: Military priorities in Iraq must change, with the highest priority given to the training, equipping, advising, and support mission and to counterterrorism.

That set of priorities is unlikely to ever let us curtail the militia because it doesn't matter how good or plentiful the Iraqi troops are, the militias will stay ugly and near power. The Prime Minister of Iraq appears to have made deals with the worst militia, al-Sadr's, probably to avoid being shot. That has to include promises not to take action against them. Therefore, additional measures are needed to stop the escalating violence. And the same dynamic is likely to apply to his successors, just as few of his predecessors did much about the militia.

To my mind, getting the militia under control is the only fatal problem our occupation faces in Iraq. It's definitely the reason violence and ethnic cleansing are escalating, and democracy in threat. I'm not hostile to taking action on some of the recommendations, but if I'd done the report, I'd just have one recommendation:

JON'S ONE AND ONLY RECOMMENDATION: Stop making deals with the militias and fight them! We must fight Sadr and other militias on our own initiative, and on our own plan, using Coalition troops. The Iraqi government is unlikely to do that of its own accord, since many Iraqi politicians depend on militias to not be shot. We have enough troops there to do this right now, given appropriate planning. We don't have to get every militiaman - just forcing Sadr and his force structure off the streets and into hiding would be a big advance.

UPDATE: I notice that Iraqi politicians are trying to form a new government that doesn't depend on militias. So maybe there's some hope. Maybe. But notice: dealing with the militias is easy for us, with a huge army, and no security threat to our politicians, but hard and risky (fatal?) for them. Any militia-free government will have to live in terror. Shouldn't we help them more with this problem that's easy for us and so hard for them?

McCain slams Baker-Hamilton

John McCain is the latest to join in the criticism that Baker-Hamilton is little more than vacuous tautology. McCain adds "dangerous" to that list:

"There's only one thing worse than an overstressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps," said Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee. "We saw that in 1973. And I believe that this [Baker-Hamilton] is a recipe that will lead to, sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq" ... Observed Mr. McCain [about Iran]: "I don't believe that a peace conference with people who are dedicated to your extinction has much short-term gain."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat and a staunch supporter of the war, commended the group for some of the choices it made, but said most of its recommendations are no different from "the policies that we have been following." And some recommendations, he said, seemed unrealistic. "I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq," Mr. Lieberman told the group's co-chairmen, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, yesterday. "They are, after all, supporting Hezbollah, which gathers people in the square in Beirut to shout, 'Death to America.' "

Friday open thread

It has been relatively quiet around here lately. There must be something that you need to get off your chest.

Iraq Study Group Report thread

Here is the full report. I have not had time to read the whole report yet, but I note this from the Executive Summary:

Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.

The axis of evil just got worse

First, sponsorship of terrorism; then developing nuclear capability. But now Iran has gone too far. Check it out!

Great Cartoon

Hat Time to Andrew Sullivan for unearthing this youtube clip, narrated by Orson Welles. It's a cartoon about the river of freedom. Well worth it to watch.

Leaves me wondering again why we have to rely on cartoons for anything approaching political insight, but there it is.

Senators Hagel and Lieberman Discuss Iraq

This morning, Republican Chuck Hagel and [Independent] Democrat Joseph Lieberman were on Face the Nation to share some of their views on Iraq. In what may be the clearest example of the fact that opinions on Iraq transcend party lines, we have the Republican advocating withdrawal and urging that we involve Iran and Syria, and we have the Democrat opposing withdrawal and urging against involving Iran and Syria. Both politely disagree with one another, even as they seemingly advocate the positions of the other party.

Partial transcript below:

HAGEL: Well--ah--yes, after almost four years of being in Iraq, and you can define the current . . . state of play as civil war, chaos, crisis, anarchy, serious--you take your pick. We can dance on the pinhead of technicality and definition, but that fact is we have a very deep problem in Iraq. The fact is we continue to nibble around the edges. Ah, the fact is, it is going to require a political settlement . . . WITHIN Iraq by the Iraqi people as well as including its neighbors--Iran, Syria, and all the other neighbors.

Now, we can continue to send memos and kid ourselves, but that's--that's a fact of life. Ah, and the casualties that we have taken, and the problem that we have. It doesn't get better, Bob. It gets worse. Every day it gets worse.

The president has, it seems to me, one opportunity left here, and he can use the Baker-Hamilton--ah--memorandum that will be presented to him next week. It's not a plan, not a policy. It'll be a set of recommendations. And do something with that now. He is going to HAVE to change strategy. Timelines, of course, ARE involved here. Ahh, and that's what I'm talking about partly when I say "nibbling around the edges." People go, "Oh, we don't want timelines." Well, OF COURSE you have to have timelines. One of the principle failures we have had in Iraq is a result of not only not having enough troops--overpowering force structure, as Colin Powell once said--but no exit strategy. Timelines are part of all that.

Ah, Maliki says "June of next year we'll be prepared to take over." It's not in our ability nor within our purview to say, "Well, we're not sure that's--that's true or not." It's up to the Iraqis. The future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis--not by the Americans . . .

SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) Well . . .

HAGEL: (interrupting) There will be no military solution to this.

SCHIEFFER: Even Mr. Maliki--I mean--Mr. Hadley--excuse me--said this morning that that seems like an ambitious--ah--goal for--for Mr. Maliki to say, "We're ready to take over in June." Do--do you think that is doable?

HAGEL: I don't know if it is doable, but--but it's almost irrelevant, Bob. THAT'S my point here. What--what IS relevant is a political settlement within Iraq by the Iraqi people . . . the forces there in Iraq that will HAVE to include Iran. I mean, let's look at another fact that this administration seems to be surprised by. The entire senior structure of the Iraqi so-called unity government on the Shia side is very close to the Iranians. Why? Because they were all exiled in Iran during Saddam Hussein's time. Of course they're part of--of that structure. Of course they're close to Iran. That necessarily isn't all bad because a settlement is going to require include Iran. I think Iran has more influence in Iraq today than any country. Ah, I think that's just a--a fact. Now we have got . . .

SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) So we have to talk . . .

HAGEL: (interrupting) We have to have a reality check here. And memos being leaked and all of that--that's interesting Shakespearian drama, but bottom line is, if for no other reason, we need a policy worthy of the young men and women serving Iraq today. And we don't have one.

SCHIEFFER: Alright, well, let me--ah--Is--is Iraq winnable in the sense we think of winning, Senator Lieberman?

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, I believe it is. And I think, Bob, part of our problem is that there's too much talk here in this country about the--ah--the inability to succeed in Iraq and too little talk about the consequences of failure, which I believe would be disastrous to us. I mean, this--there's--this is a War on Terrorism we're involved in. Iraq is a battlefield in it. It's a--it's a conflict between freedom and totalitarianism--between moderation and extremism.

And Chuck and I have a disagreement here. I ah--look--on the question of Iran, I believe that America is a mighty enough nation that we should never fear to talk to anyone. But--but anyone who believes that Iran and Syria really want to help us to succeed in Iraq--ah--I think is just missing the reality. Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are FLAMING the fire. They are the extremists. They are supporting terrorists in Iraq, in Lebanon and, of course, in the Palestinian areas.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Hagel is shaking his head.

HAGEL: No, that’s not the point. Of course the Iranians and Syrians are not going to come to our assistance. Of course not. But they are going to respond in their own self-interest. All nations respond in their own self-interests. Tallyrand once said that nations don’t have friends. They have interests. He was right. Ahh, it’s not in the interest of Iran or Syria or Jordan or any of Middle East country to have a failed state--ah--that would be a complete mess for the Middle East. Why did the Iranians help us in Afghanistan? Why did they cooperate with us in Afghanistan on intelligence matters and other issues? Because they didn't want a failed state next to them, which comes with all the problems. They didn't want--ah--her--heroin moving in--into their borders.

What we're not getting here is we're noting getting a full and comprehensive wide-lens appreciation of interest. And the other fact is--there will be no peace in the Middle East--which we haven't talked about--specifically the core problem--and that's Isr--the Israeili-Palestinian . . .

SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) Let me just quickly ask Senator Lieberman. Are you talking about--when you talk about it is winnable--putting more troops in there, Senator?

LIEBERMAN: I--I think that in the Baker-Hamilton report--even in the Rumsfeld report, what everybody agrees on is that the one think that is working is embedding more American forces within the Iraqi security forces. Yes, in the end, there has to be an Iraqi political settlement, but they can't doing it without security. And they can't achieve security if we begin to withdraw. That's a signal to everybody I've talked to that the sectarian violence will get worse and the government will collapse. . .

SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) YOU (to Lieberman) don't want to see withdraw. YOU (to Hagel) do.

LIEBERMAN: I want--in fact, I think the best--I think withdrawal is a statement of weakness. And it will send to the Iranians the signal that we are negotiating out of FEAR. That's the last thing that we want to happen.

HAGEL: Well . . .

SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) I just--We have no more time, Senator (to Hagel), but I hear you saying we have to withdraw.

HAGEL: But--of course we--of course we have to withdraw. I mean, the president has said that . . .

SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) Thank you very much.

[Admin note: Comment section closed due to repeated and excessive comment spam. Please police your threads, and close comments after a week or so to prevent spam propagation.]

2008 preference poll

I'm interested in who, if anyone, people are pulling for at this early date. Here is a non-exclusive list; write-ins are welcome.

- John McCain
- Hillary Clinton
- Rudy Giuliani
- Barack Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Evan Bayh
- Newt Gingrich
- John Edwards
- Joe Biden
- Al Gore
- John Kerry
- Wes Clark
- Bill Richardson
- George Pataki
- Tom Vilsack

On the Republican side, I'm partial to (1) McCain and (2) Giuliani. On Democratic side, I like (1) Biden and (2) Obama (although inexperienced, I think that he has the potential to spark a JFK-type enthusiasm). You?

Feel the Pain

GOP wants law to define when fetuses feel pain

To my knowledge, we don't currently have any technology that allows us to objectively measure the amount of physical pain that anyone else is feeling.

It's a problem. And it's one that definitions written by politicians isn't going to solve. Pro-lifers don't really know when or how much pain a fetus feels. Neither do pro-choicers. They just want to fill in the blanks with their particular emotional and moral biases. Caveat emptor in this debate.

Friday Hot Stove Open Thread

MLB's winter meetings are coming up, so I'm interested in talking hot baseball rumors. But it's all good....f'ball, baseball, good-looking gifts, people losing their minds, the prospects in your local real estate market, what you hope santa leaves under the tree.

If you wanna talk ball, tell us about your team's rumors and hopes for 2007.

UPDATE: Here's the best place to access the latest rumors being floated in each market's papers. It's funny to see how many different places are saying "maybe we'll get this guy!"

If I were Barry Zito, I'd be pretty psyched. He should be able to get 15+ million per year if JD Drew can get 14 and assorted journeyman stiff starters can get 8 to 10 mil or even more. Especially with the Rangers, Mets, Cubs, and I'm guessing the Yankees in the bidding. There have been ZERO rumors about the Yankees being interested in Zito, which gives me good reason to think they'll try to pounce. That's traditionally how they do it if they can get away with it...they blabber about Clemens, Pettitte, and Gil Meche, and then BAM!