Centerfield

Here's to You, Jackie Robinson

Today is Jackie Robinson's birthday. Y'all know I love baseball anyway, and when it comes to Jackie Robinson, well, it gets a little bit dusty. The Boston Globe's usually loathsome ( I have an empty cross and someone's gotta go up on it) Dan Shaugnessy turns in a great tribute:

"I think it's the most powerful moment in baseball history," said commissioner Bud Selig. "It's one of the most powerful moments in the 20th century. Jackie Robinson took on pressure that no one could conceive. What if he had failed?

"I wish I had the courage of Branch Rickey. When he signed Jackie in 1945, that was before Truman integrated the Army. It was before Brown vs. the Board of Education. It was before the Civil Rights legislation was enacted."

Hyperbole? No way. Here's what Martin Luther King Jr. said on the day Jackie Robinson was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame: "Back in the days when integration wasn't fashionable, he underwent the trauma and the humiliation of loneliness which comes from being a pilgrim walking the lonesome byways toward the high road of Freedom. He was a sit-inner before sit-ins, a freedom rider before freedom rides."

Read it all. Jackie Robinson is an American hero whose transcendent story can inspire us all, and teach us a wealth of lessons: about history; about character; about forbearance...rising to the occasion of the role life has placed before you.

Happy Birthday, Jackie. Jackie Lives? Indeed. In my heart, one among so very many. There's that dust again...

Great Speech by Mike Griffin, NASA Administrator

Acceptable and Real Reasons.

It is my contention that the products of our space program are today's cathedrals. The space program addresses the Real Reasons why humans do things.

Well, of course! Hasn't he built The Apollo Program Wonder in Civ? ;-)

Obama is Wrong

I like Barack Obama, I might even vote for him, but I don't like this:

The time for waiting in Iraq is over. The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close. And the need to bring this war to an end is here.

That is why today, I’m introducing the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 – consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President ignored.

Maybe this is an ideological debate and not set in stone, but I feel that Congress should approve wars and approve budgets for wars. I have a problem when politicians in Washington DC are setting timelines and capping troop levels for a conflict that they have little field knowledge of. Sure, they can hold hearings and gather information, but it isn't the same as being the Commander in Chief and having the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense at your side. The President should be running the war right or wrong... That is why we elected him.

I wonder if President Obama is going to allow Congress to have the ability to plan withdrawal dates and set troop level caps? Somehow I doubt it, and if he did I would question his leadership.

IMO, Senator Feingold is one of the few Democrats being a man on this issue by proposing to cut funding, an action that I oppose but believe is within the authority of Congress. To oppose the war and not support cutting its budget is nothing more than fence riding. If they aren't going to have the guts to do that, then I wish Congress would let the President and military leaders do their job.

Stubbornly Unashamed

Ann Althouse thinks those singing Barack Obama's praises ought to be ashamed. Thinks we're closet racists or something:

What accounts for amazement to the point of adoration at the fact that a man possesses excellent skill at something like note taking? Is it not that he can do it and he's black? You can laugh at Noah's nuggets of gratuitous adoration, but you ought also to look at them critically and think about the implications.

Silly me. All this time I thought that articles noticing Obama's virtues simply implied a comparison to folks like oh, let's say Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, George Bush," etc, etc.

But to be fair to myself, one can see how I might have mistakenly thought this, since it's demonstrably true that he seems more articulate and thoughtful (for starters) than many of the folks on that list.

Still, since Althouse has shown that we're probably racist to admire his virtues, let's all go out back and flog ourselves.

UPDATE: Now I remember what this tastes like....sour grapes. Back in the Celtics long-buried glory days, they beat the up-and-coming Pistons in the conference finals 4 games to 3, and the pivotal moment was Larry Bird's Game 5 last second steal of a careless Isaiah Thomas inbounds pass followed by the feed to DJ for the winning bucket. Sorry Pistons.

Subsequently (IIRC and I many not, after the series ended), Thomas angrily claimed that if Larry Bird wasn't white, he'd be just another player no one paid much attention to. With the shoe on the other foot, Althouse is channeling Isaiah's sour grapes, and they taste just as sour now as Isaiah's did then.

Paying the Price

Right in my hometown, socially conservative Episcopalians are paying the price for their divergent views:

ATTLEBORO -- In a service overflowing with tears, hugs, and evocations of historic persecution of Christians, members of All Saints Anglican Church of Attleboro held their last service yesterday in their North Main Street building and bowed to orders from the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts that they vacate the premises.

"I never meant us to be at this time and place," said the Rev. Lance Giuffrida , his voice cracking as he addressed about 160 worship ers who filled the sanctuary nearly to capacity. "I didn't do anything differently than when you called me" to the church's pulpit in 2001.

Since then, however, differences between traditionalists and liberalizers in Episcopal Church of the USA have deepened and hardened, underscored by their disagreement on homosexuality and gay marriage, according to adherents of both trends.

It seems a shame that it had to come to this. But irreconcilable differences are irreconcilable differences. The Episcopal Church drew up the rules so that any given church and its associated assets are not the property of the parishoners that support it, but rather the property of the Episcopal Church as an organization. As far as doctrine goes, the offical view is Our Way or the Highway. And these particular folks seem to accept that they don't have recourse. I have heard it suggested that some other parishes facing similar circumstances elsewhere in the country may be responding differently.

The whole story is worth reading, and I'll be interested to see what sort of sustainability these new Anglicans have. Notice that the Episcopal Church is going to install a new priest and that some folks plan to stick with them. Will the now steadfast adherents who oppose the official church view remain so as they pass time as gypsies in need of a nest egg? That's a tough row to hoe.

Some Nice Work in Iraq Under the New Rules?

Some good work here.

The fact that Iraqi and Coalition forces are stopping an apparent extremist Shia militia is a nice change, and suggestive that rule changes are already in place.

Secession?

A current Civil War reading binge made this Secession argument interesting to me. The central question is, under what circumstances is secession from a government (especially from a democratic govt) justified? Is it ever? Lincoln clearly thought, never for a democracy. Of course, he was also afraid of the effect on the world of the by far freest government at the time being (repeatedly?) split, a factor that applies less today.

Fukuyama Blames It All on Libruls

I've grown tired of reading articles that assume that Islamofascism is largely a result of Western action. But I didn't expect to see Fukuyama in the same intellectual column as people blaming Islamic extremism on Western adventurism. The phenomenon strikes me as an odd and arrogant sort of Imperialism, a notion that all events are caused largely here in the U.S. or Western Europe.

I'm even more dismayed to see Fukuyama effectively out there with the extremists in trying to blame 9/11 on the damned libruls (with about as much evidence, I might add).

The radical Islamist ideology that has motivated terror attacks over the past decade must be seen in large measure as a manifestation of modern identity politics rather than of traditional Muslim culture.

That's right, because we know Osama bin Laden and most of Al'Qaeda grew up in democracies. Oh, wait. Or maybe he feels identity politics are available to Afghans and Saudis without getting their heads chopped off.

Does he think there was no extreme Islamism before the democracies appeared on the scene? In fact, violent Islamism goes back well over a millenium. They even had violent and quasi-suicidal actors way back then, so long before that evil identity politics appeared.

Let's take a look at an easier hypothesis: violent Islamism has long been a minority part of Muslim culture, just like in Christian culture. Since the end of Imperialism after WWII, many despots ruling in the Middle East have both provoked, via their despotism, and allied with Islamofascists via propaganda and money to serve their interests. Hizbullah serves Syria's interests by turning Lebanon into a catspaw target for Israeli attack and giving the regime a place to send Syrian unhappy and rebellious. So much likelier, I think; we don't need to believe everything in the world is conducted from thousands of miles away in America and Europe.

Except, wait, not enough blame for liberals in this scenario. I'd better start over.

Traditional Friday Open Thread

Just because it's, well, traditional.

Shouldn't Senior Citizens Pay More, Not Less?

After all, y'all have most of the cash.

It's bad enough you've got us going on these benefits you know perfectly well will've been reduced by the time we get them, and all too often vote for politicians who just run up OUR tab.

The excuse the AARP gave to push the idea was that, well, all you elderly folk are on tiny fixed incomes. The reality, though, is more like most of you being on big fixed incomes. Such hardship! This year only a tenth of the elderly are in poverty. If the American elderly are poor, then what's next - Bushes and Gateses talking about how they need financial help?

...and there was much rejoicing!

The Boston Globe is reporting:

WASHINGTON --Senator John F. Kerry plans to announce today that he will not run in the 2008 presidential race, and will instead remain in Congress and seek reelection to his Senate seat next year, according to senior Democratic officials.

I think the main reason he's bailing is that he's afraid he'll lose his senate seat if he runs for President. From that standpoint, I almost wish he'd run for Prez again just long enough to make it possible that we here in MA could rid ourselves of him as well.

Brainstorm: Is it Time to Rationalize the Primary Process?

I was listening to a radio news story on the early entrants into 2008 presidential contest, and was interested to hear a comment from a guest who suggested that the expected compression of the primary schedule is very likely to accentuate (exacerbate?) the importance of raising lots of money very fast.

I know that several states are investigating changes to the date on which each holds its primary. California is jealous that the contest is too often decided by the time they vote. Just about every state bitches that New Hampshire has outsized importance. And so on and so on.

The result? More primaries sooner. A compressed schedule. Once upon a time an underdog could pound the stump and raise dough as he or she went, hoping to get more later as time passed. If that keeps changing, if the schedule keeps compressing, it seems plausible that it would get harder and harder for underdogs to get out of the gate (let alone win, place, or show) and easier for big money to control the anointing of the final candidates. Call it "big money as gatekeeper" or maybe the "hegemony of the douche and the turd."

Wouldn't it be nice if the states got together and came up with a stable rotating calendar that spread things out over a reasonable time frame? Encouraging the development of grass roots support? And preserving the possibility of a candidate growing momentum by crafting a message and a platform at least partly in response to what they learned while campaigning?

Each state could get a chance to cast votes in a prominent position once every 3 or 4 elections. Maybe it'll never happen, for whatever reason (entrenched interests?) but it seems like a decent idea to me. Go easy on the slamming, I'm just trying to start a brainstorm. When it comes to ways of limiting the power of big money and powerful lobbies, this seems to be on the less objectionable side, at least at a glance. Whaddaya think?

Hail Mary Time

Jonathan Rauch weighs in on the surge as A Bad Idea That's Worth a Try:

Think of the Bush plan, then, not primarily as a military escalation, a change in tactics, or a reconstruction effort, but first and foremost as a gun to the head of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's Iraqi government. "You talk like a unity government," the U.S. is telling Maliki, "but now we are putting 21,500 men on the ground to see that you act like one."

In the past, the Iraqi government has blocked American forces from confronting Shiite militants. This time, according to U.S. military planners, there will be no such constraints. Americans will treat Shiite militants as toughly as they do the Sunnis -- and, more to the point, the U.S. will expect Iraq's Shiite-dominated police and army to cooperate.

And if they don't? Well, the plan has some fairly obvious flaws. One is that the gun at Maliki's temple targets the United States, too. America's sole leverage is the implicit threat to leave if the Iraqi government does not make good on its commitments. For U.S. forces to leave is, of course, exactly what Shiite militants and their Iranian allies want. They hope to send the United States packing and then get on with the business of ethnically cleansing Baghdad and setting up a Shiastan in southern Iraq. That could set off a full-blown civil war, but it is one that the Shiite militants, with their numerical majority and support from Tehran, think they could win.

And so they are well positioned to wait out what they can reasonably expect will be America's last attempt at military pacification. They are also well positioned to undermine and exhaust it.

Read it all. Rauch comes as close to any in voicing my concerns. I hope the surge works, I have serious doubts that it will, I worry about the many folks in Iraq whose interests barely overlap with ours, and if the surge doesn't help much, I don't see what our great options are from there. Some folks have suggested we have no choice but to accept a long-term presence there. But that doesn't address the sticky matter of how we'll deal with the government we've established there, and what they want to do. If they decide it's time for us to go, and tell us so, do we just tell them we were kidding, they can't tell us what to do?

Sacrifice Bone Connected to the Culture Bone?

Instapundit hipped me to this version of the speech Americans deserve to hear:

The State of the Union is a disaster. I did my best, but I made mistakes, and my best wasn’t good enough. We went to war without building up our army, and now, I am trying to make up for that.

But that is not the disaster. The disaster is that you, Congress and the American people, do not care to fight. Faced with a fundamental challenge to our own security, to everything we believe in, to the world order to peace and security for which we and our parents fought so hard for so many years, you now want to pretend like none of these threats are real. You want to surrender to the evil I have been telling you about. An evil that, unchecked, can consume large parts of the world and threatens to usher in a dark age.

Meanwhile, in other news, the percent of students who are obsessed with wealth and material possessions is much higher than in past generations:

Indeed, researchers say materialism is an obsession that cuts across socio-economic lines for American youth.

"Our kids have absorbed the cultural values of more, easy, fast and fun," says David Walsh, a psychologist who heads the National Institute on Media and the Family in Minneapolis. He's also author of the new book, "NO: Why Kids -- of All Ages -- Need to Hear It and Ways Parents Can Say It."

As his book's title suggests, he believes parents have played an integral role in encouraging their children's materialism. His research found that, when adjusted for inflation, parents are spending 500 percent more money on kids today than just one generation earlier.

"A lot of parents have developed an allergic reaction to their kids being unhappy," he says.

What is it folks say? Oh yeah. As you sow, so shall you reap. That's it.

Richardson: Me Too!

Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in, too.

The good:

A former UN ambassador, Energy Department secretary, and US representative, Richardson stressed his experience....at this country needs is bipartisanship and to bring back civility" in government, he said. "I've actually done what a lot of candidates give speeches on."

I like the combo of experience in Congress, as a governor, and with international diplomacy. Attractive resume.

The bad:

On Iraq, he advocates using diplomacy to broker an end to conflict by bringing together interested nations and persuading donor countries to help rebuild the country's infrastructure. He said US troops should be redeployed by the end of the year to Afghanistan and other regions in the Persian Gulf.

...and a pony, too! I don't much like the sound of that. Does he have a donor list handy, BTW? How short is it? What are these "interested" nations interested in?

The ugly:

"As an underdog and governor of a small, Western state, I will not have the money that other candidates will have."

No money is a problem. And he's not an especially good-looking guy. He may be able to overcome his far too prominent double chin, but people don't tend to like that. Should it matter? Nope. Will it? Possibly. If you think facial appeal and personal appearance doesn't matter, hunt down a copy of the Kennedy-Nixon debate.

McCain Loses straw poll in Home State!!!

Check out today's Arizona Republic article on the recent "straw poll" among Arizona Republicans where John McCain finished "fourth". A good, brief look at the breathless and thoughtless journalism (not this article but other coverage about the poll) that comes out in the run up to the primaries. Maybe we should developed Fantasy leagues for national politics.

UPDATE: A more scientific follow up tells a different story

Hillary: "I'm In"

From Hillary's revamped site:

I'm in. And I'm in to win.

Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.

And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

In other words, vote for me in the Democratic primary because I really, really do not like George W. Bush.

As Hillary has moved toward the center preparing a run for President in the past years, I have worked at trying not to cringe everytime I see her face. To some extent she has won me over, and whether or not I will vote for her in the end, I do believe that she would make a good President.

That been said, I was hoping for something a little more inspiring than this from a DLC'er. However, this works better.

She sure looks Presidential sitting on that counch in front of that white french door. Where Obama beats her on personality and charisma, she may have him on looking Presidential. That is saying a lot since a woman has never been the leader of the free world before.

Islam And Toleration

I see some common misunderstandings about Islamic history that I think are worth clearing up, especially concerning religious tolerance, the nature of early Muslim empire and success, how said empire decayed, and comparisons between Christian and Islamic Reformations.

Some commenters have looked at the Protestant Reformation, looked at contemporary successes of extreme Islamism, and wondered when the corresponding Islamic Reformation will be. But Christians were extremists, killing for their faith left and right (see the utterly horrid Thirty Years' War), after the Reformation. Really, I think, people are asking when we'll see Islamic religious toleration. But, in fact, that long predated wide Christian toleration, which didn't appear until the 18th century.

The real story is that, in general, contrary to Christian progression, Muslim nations started more tolerant and became less tolerant as time went on. Early Islam and Islamic empires grew rapidly because, to most people living in that region, Islamic rule was more tolerant and offered better choices than their previous rulers - mostly the Byzantine Empire, which compelled its subjects to abide by a truly Talibanesque form of Christianity. Early Christians created and have hung on to (Pope Benedict wants us to still hang on to it) to a myth of conversion entirely by the sword, but it doesn't seem to have been like that.

This tolerance, unmatched anywhere at the time, made early Islamic culture extremely successful. That's why we use Arabic words to refer to "algebra"and "zero" - because they wrote the books that Christian scholars read to pick up those ideas. They also invented postgraduate university degrees. Muslim nations dominated Mediterranean trade because they allowed certain immigrants that then had ties far away; interestingly, certain trading classes deliberately exchanged kids from far away to compete with that advantage.

As time went on, the early Islamic Empire fragmented more and more, starting between Sunni and Shi'a. After a few centuries, fanatic Berbers started to make inroads on conquering some of those fragments, and using power over those fragments to dominate or conquer others. Once the fanatics came to power, that, of course, started the first round of tolerant Islam and culture downhill. They stopped inventing things, had fewer and worse schools, traded less and less, and had less and less turf.

The Ottomans stepped into this vacuum. It was a replay of the dissolution of the Byzantines. They won because they were tolerant, and stayed on top because they evolved inherently tolerant habits that encouraged good rule. They were on top until democratic powers evolved better rules, during the 18th and 19th centuries.

As the Ottoman Empire failed, due to newspapers bolstering nationalism, and a wide perception within the Empire of Ottoman weakness compared to Western Europe, the subject peoples revolted. Although they were individually free from empire, they were generally individually worse-led than under the Ottomans. Liberalism suffered everywhere in the old areas of Ottoman rule except Turkey, though even Turkey still is only beginning to reach full modern human rights standards and become competitive with the modern democracies.

Many Arab nations are having problems now because they offer worse and even less liberal rule than many of their predecessors ruling the same regions - and said predecessors were only liberal by Medieval standards, not a high post to leap.

Tolerant strands and traditions of Islam are still powerful, and indeed have gathered strength. They're particularly strong in the tolerant democracies, where goons like the Taliban or el'Sadr can't bash so many heads in. Here and in other tolerant environments, tolerant Muslims vastly outnumber extremists. Indeed, though we can't conduct good polls of most of the Middle East, the repeated strength of moderation in Iraqi polls is a good sign that said dynamic might extend to the rest of the Muslim populations still under oppression, if their voices were free to speak, despite the propaganda.

I happen to believe the Bush Administration was right about needing to reliberalize the region to end the collaboration between its bad rulers and terror.

Some Interesting Reading: Some interesting background material (see The Caliphate), an essay on Muslim tolerance, and an review of a book on a group of traders in the Caliphate.

Conference Championship Weekend Open Thread

...crab 'em if you got 'em.

Football, missiles, weather, The noodge as a campaign victory act, your aunt's bunion, it's all good.

I'll start. The sports guy has managed to nicely echo my thoughts on how the Patriots have become the evil empire.

One month until pitchers and catchers report. Walmart has put out the vegetable seeds. The w-2 is in the mail, and the bathing suit catalogs can't be far behind. We can coast into spring at this point. Remember, by the time you feel like you need a short sleeve shirt, they'll be all gone. This is OOOOOur country....

China: Look What We Can Do!

China: Look What We Can Do!

China last week successfully used a missile to destroy an orbiting satellite, U.S. government officials told CNN on Thursday....According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above Earth....The test took place on January 11....Aviation Week and Space Technology first reported the test: "Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat (anti-satellite) system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center."...A U.S. official...said that U.S. "space tracking sensors" confirmed that the satellite is no longer in orbit and that the collision produced "hundreds of pieces of debris," that also are being tracked.

Why did China do this? Why does a dog lick his....

6 Things Partisans Say?

I don't know if this is eerie, scary, funny, demoralizing or what. But just go read this article about the 6 most annoying things kids say and how to respond responsibly. Then tell me they don't cover a scarily large portion of the common political whines we see.

Good Start to Surge

So far the surge and al'Maliki's role are looking good.

Kos Snaps

Kos is lashing out at his readers. This can only make me smile:

Not that it's any surprise, but every time I write about a contested Democratic primary, there will always be a number of people who aren't happy that I don't worship at the altar of their favorite candidate. Anything but blind worship is considered disrespect. And while there are some that I do disrespect (Biden and Kucinich come to mind), I generally like and respect the rest of the field...

In 2004, the "most annoying supporters" prize went, I'm sad to say, to the Dean crowd. In 2006, the Hackett brigades were insufferable. Remember? Only Hackett was "electable" because Brown was "too liberal" and blah blah blah blah? Senator Sherrod Brown showed just how irrational (in addition to insufferable) that crowd was. The runner-up prize went to the Christine Cegelis supporters, who, despite all their kvetching, couldn't help their candidate win in a ridiculously low turnout primary. It's as if they were so busy crying about the injustices suffered by their candidate that they forgot to turn out and vote.

In 2008, the prize for "most annoying" is a close race between the "Talk about Gore running even though he's said he's not running!" crowd and the "Why is everyone always dumping on John Edwards?" crew.

Really, all the whining does neither you, nor your favorite guy any favors. It does the opposite -- it turns people off from your guy. I painfully saw this happen with Howard Dean. Once you become a self-styled ambassador for your guy, your behavior rubs off (for better or for worse) on the person you are promoting.

For the best laughs check out the comment section.

One must not forget who made one what he is today. It seems that on his way to the mainstream, Markos has realized what the rest of us have known for a while... His readers are annoying.

Interesting Flavor Combo

A few days ago, I happened to have a need for bananas, and only had frozen ones, so I thought desperately of things to add, and only came up with Nutella. It was pretty good.

Let me tell you, I was pretty behind the curve. First the Profesora mentioned seeing the combo mentioned in blog she was reading. Then came the above google search, with all sorts of returns. I'll have to try at least the Chimichanga.

Hillary Shifts?

I heard Hillary on public radio this morning saying that after talking to officials in Iraq (Al-Maliki, others too, I think), she is unconvinced that they are willing or prepared to step up, and so she's opposing the troop increase and favoring a phased redeployment.

I don't follow HC closely, so I don't how well this compares with her other recent statements. Absent info on that, I'm inclined to view this as a tack left to shadow Obama, who faced off with McCain on tv this sunday and yesterday announced he's definitely toeing the waters for a prez bid.

I'm inclined to agree with whoever thinks this was only a matter of time.

How To Solve Afghanistan's Drug Problem

What she said.

Obama Explores

Barack Obama filed papers to explore a run for the Presidency this morning.

The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place. Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people. Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing health care bills, the pensions you've lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids. Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged.

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

McCain/Obama on Iraq

In a preview of what could be the 2008 Presidential Debate season, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama debated Iraq on Face the Nation this weekend. IMO, the debate exposed how Democrats could be making a political mistake by opposing the troop surge, and showed why Obama should be hoping that Republicans nominate someone other than McCain. I thought three issues were brought up that were very telling.

1. Constraining Bush

Senator Obama talked about how Congress is looking at various alternatives to constrain Bush from the "wrong headed" path of increasing troop levels. I think this is a political mistake for him and his Democratic colleagues. Although Americans are skeptical of the troop surge and Bush's polling is at an all time low, the Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief. Do Americans really want a war run by committee as the Vice President pointed out this weekend? Do they want Congress to intervene and stop Bush from implementing his plan? I think that remains to be seen, but my gut feeling is that regardless of what they think of him, Americans want the President to make decisions about the war. Opposing him at the Congressional level by taking legislative action may give him the political capital he needs to in fact do what it is he is proposing in Iraq.

2. Seeing it Through

I think Democrats who voted for the war and are now proposing phased withdrawals, and not an alternative to actually win in Iraq, look weak and stupid. IMO, Senator McCain and Senator Graham are taking responsibility for their vote for the war, regardless of whether it was the right thing to do or not, and advocating that we see it through to a conclusion that is best for the security of Iraqis as well as the American people. Although Obama is less burdened by this albatross, because he was opposed to the war from the beginning, I don't think that Americans want a President that will simply withdraw from Iraq without consideration of the consequences. Was the election a referendum on Bush's handling of the war? Sure it was. Does that mean Americans want to withdraw from Iraq before the job is completed? Ask Ned Lamont what he thinks about that.

3. A Positive Alternative

The second issue is a good introduction of the third issue, which IMO won Bush a second term over Senator Kerry... The Democrats simply don't have a positive alternative that will result in anything other than a region that is more hostile than it already is, and a stronger Iran and Syria. Like it or not, the rhetoric from the administration asking those who oppose the troop surge to propose something different is very effective. The talk about what Iraq will become if American troops leave is non-existent from those who are proposing that as an alternative solution, and the argument from pro-surge advocates that the result would be devastating is pretty strong. Furthermore, any identification of a political solution, as opposed to a military solution, is vague at best. Where the troop surge option is pretty clear in its details although those proposing it admit it may not work, nobody really knows what a political solution would look like or if it is even a possibility.

I like Senator Obama a lot. I hope he is the nominee of his party and I believe his message of "hope" is important. I do not believe that his lack of experience is as big an issue as the current administration's lack of competence. However, he gave a strong example on Face the Nation of why the American people still trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to national security and foreign policy. I hate to say it, but next to the Senator from Arizona, Obama looked like an amateur.

Big, Huge, All-Economic-Blogosphere New Deal Argument

There's a huge, long, tangled economic argument in progress. It started with George Will grumbling (surprise, surprise) about the minimum wage rise. He moved into snarking about New Deal economics, and that's where it's stayed. Daniel Gross and Brad Delong each grumbled back. DeLong wrote that "A normal person would not argue that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression." Since that's actually a widely-disputed point in economics, the result was a free-for-all.

I've got no idea whether it did, not being an economist. But here are posts by a bunch who definitely do have ideas about it are arguing about it. And here are some counterwaves, from still more people definitely with opinions. And still another wave; will this argument ever end?

I made the mistake of being nice and trying to unfold the threads a bit to make it easier for you to understand. It took me 1 - 1 1/2 hours. OK, that's it - from now on, I'm just pointing you to spots from which the rest of the skein can unravel. No more Mr. Nice Guy!

Open Football Thread

Indy won the game I watched today, sigh. Not that this was too unpectable, since both Colts and Ravens have great D, but the Colts also have great O, and the Ravens merely good O. Great game, though.

Did anybody watch Saints / Iggles?

Giuliani and Gingrich on Iraq Infrastructure

The former Mayor and Speaker of the House team up in the Wall Street Journal to co-author an op-ed on Iraq:

The American mission in Iraq must succeed. Our goal--promoting a stable, accountable democracy in the heart of the Middle East--cannot be achieved by purely military means.

Iraqis need to establish a civil society. Without the support of mediating civic and social associations--the informal ties that bind us together--no government can long remain stable, and no cohesive nation can be maintained. To establish a civil society, Iraqis must rebuild their basic infrastructure. Iraqis must take control of their destiny by rebuilding houses, stores, schools, roads, highways, mosques and churches...

The week before Christmas, the Pentagon asked Congress to approve a supplemental $100 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the estimated $500 billion spent to date. The administration should direct a small percent of that amount to create an Iraqi Citizen Job Corps, along the lines of FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression...

Today, Iraq has almost 200 state-owned factories that have been abandoned by the governing authorities since the outbreak of war in 2003... Mr. Brinkley believes that under Department of Defense leadership, at least 10 of these facilities could be re-opened almost immediately, putting more than 10,000 Iraqis to work within weeks. This should be done without delay--and it is only the beginning...

One word of caution: The program should be overseen by the U.S. military, not private contractors, to avoid unnecessary delays in deployment or accusations of cronyism in the bidding process... After the program has been started and becomes successful, it can be transferred to a civilian authority within the Iraqi government.

Interesting points, but what they don't discuss is what we are going to take troops away from in order for them to take part in buidling infrastructure such as a jobs program.

Also interesting that two potential 2008 opponents are writing an op-ed together. Hmmm... What if a Giuliani-Gingrich ticket were to be formed before the Republican primary process took place? What if Giuliani sees Gingrich as a way to garner Conservative grass roots support and avoid questions about his stance on social issues? I'm just saying, nobody is as popular with the true red Republican primary voters as the former Speaker of the House, although a vote for him to be the Republican nominee would be a waste. Deep down Newt is smart enough to know that he doesn't have a chance on his own. What if they had the opportunity to vote for him and not waste their vote?

What's Wrong In Iraq, and a Better Plan For Fixing It: The Militias (UPDATED)

Since roughly a year after the invasion, I've been saddened to watch as militias grew stronger and militia-related violence has grown slowly worse and worse. A year after the invasion is when the US patched up a mutual nonviolence treaty with al-Sadr, the chief of the biggest and most dangerous militia. Since then, al'Sadr's and other violent militias have been largely umolested so long as they confine their attacks to Iraqis. Coalition forces have, as a matter of deliberate strategy, left confrontation of violence and ethnic cleansing entirely to Iraqi forces (sorry, river), to be undertaken once they were sufficiently numerous and trained.

I've felt all along that that was a mistake, because I feared the Iraqi forces were going to be too weak for large-scale confrontation with violent militias for years, and thus Iraq would be largely vulnerable to ethnic cleansing and every other kind of violence for those years. Many provinces have turned out fine, but the results in Baghdad and a few other spots have turned out even worse than I expected. Both the current Iraqi government and its predecessor have al'Sadr and other Shi'a militias as political partners, and thus faced political problems if they cracked down. That meant hardly any cracking down at all on Shi'a militias like al'Sadr's.

Baghdad (though not so much the rest of Iraq) has gotten violent enough that Iraq has become a place to run away from. Iraq was briefly a destination, for returning Iraqis, but now they're leaving again, due to security concerns. This is just one of several reasons I'm glad to see a plan being developed for what will have to include action against militias.

So why have the militias become so big? Well, though they do give themselves some political and religious cover, it looks to me like the biggest reasons militia operate with increasing force are the same underlying reason as unchecked bullies anywhere else in the world: because they can, and because it's fun and profitable (especially notice the complaints about the oh-so-religious al'Sadr spending money on parties). And, not joining can bring a perceived threat to family. If our FBI wasn't going after crooks, the Mafia would've ruled our streets for decades (centuries?). Just like they do in Baghdad.

It looks me as though their growth pattern (within Baghdad, note!) has been mostly been slow and continuous. Certainly, their impact in terms of the Baghdad violent death rates (sad how the militias don't send numerical updates in to stats agencies) shows a mostly continuous slow rise, with scattered, temporary spikes, since the invasion of Iraq.

I don't think the death data support the early-96 sudden al'Qaeda / insurgent provocation theory suggested by the President. We do see a slight spike, but that's all. Another reason I think the President got it wrong was that shortly after the Samarra bombing, I read this interesting post which said order had been restored.

The President's other statements on causation make more sense, though restrictions on our troops for targeting violent militias seem like a more of a clear problem than inability to patrol every major streetcorner:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

We never tried securing Baghdad with just the rule change. That's important, because it leads to my plan.

So if I'm carping about the President's plan, what's my plan? Well, the most important element actually is the same: change the rules to make reducing the most dangerous militias a goal to be planned for and executed. The differences are that fewer additional troops would be needed (could be wrong, since I'm not a military planner), and that instead of tying up resources patrolling Baghdad, the Coalition would devote its efforts to getting al'Sadr and other dangerous militias off the streets (no doubt some patrolling would be involved, but I'd expect more raids on our terms and fewer waits in streets for things to happen). And there'd be far less need to worry about exposure to bad cops and soldiers, of whom there are no shortage in Baghdad. It'd still be risky - just IMHO less risky than the surge and faster. Note that the high incidence of bad cops in Baghdad rather mirrors the high incidence of bad cops in spots like Medellin, Columbia, where power on the street has rested with gangs; one key to my plan is that I firmly believe that cracking down gangs in Baghdad will lead to reductions in Iraqi police and army corruption. Then we can go back to handing things over.

Bill Roggio seem to be thinking along similar lines. And the surge operation has started well - contrary to my fears, al'Maliki agreed to serious attacks on Shia mlitias, though rumors of the operation already starting seem not to be true.

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hanson also feels that the rules of engagement have been the biggest problem in Iraq, including "...the pass given the militias...". In fact, I'm amazed to agree with this much of a Hanson essay. Except, of course, for his sillinesses about Carter and the straw men about the war opposition, especially about how we're all just wusses today compared to the past. As I've noted before, antiwar sentiment was much stronger in the 1930s.

Friday open thread

The floor is open but, today, I especially encourage the sharing of a good joke.

US Embassy in Greece Attacked

Rocket Fired at US Embassy in Greece

No injuries. Minimal damage. Militant left group Revolutionary Struggle said to have claimed responsibility.

Bush Speech Reaction

I'm working on a longer post on Iraqi security topics, but here's one for just quick thoughts from the gut. Mine:

I think this plan is better than what we have now, because it will involve confronting militias/gangs like al'Sadr's for a change. But I think we're going in 'stupid,' and that the plan has no more than a 50% chance of success. That feeling was rather bolstered by the fact that the al'Qaeda sparking theory given seems like only a very partial explainer of events to me, as I'll explain in my longer post.

I'll lead with a question I wanted to ask Bush: what will our troops' orders be to do when they see Iraqi police or military they're patrolling with engage in corruption or ethnic cleansing, as they do in Baghdad every day? There is cooperation between Iraqi police and the people they're supposed to be getting after, the militias.

For that reason, we can also rely on many of the Baghdad police we'll be patrolling to report plans and even be on the other side in fights against militias. Battles will be fought, to a disturbing degree, on militia terms. Betrayals might come even from al'Maliki himself, since he clearly has understandings with al'Sadr.

This arrangement will tie our troops down patrolling instead of fighting militias.

UPDATE: toned down, and a link added, at the Profesora's suggestion.

Posted by Jon Kay at 10:35 PM | Comments (23)

Big Centrist Amen for Brother Samuelson

Where's a guy with the seeds to tell us something that many of us would prefer not to hear, but really need to hear? Why right here:

Entitled Selfishness

They [politicans expressing support for fiscal responsbiliity] are not serious, because few Americans -- particularly prospective baby-boom retirees -- want them to be. There is a consensus against candor, because there is no constituency for candor. It's no secret that the 65-and-over population will double by 2030 (to almost 72 million, or 20 percent of the total population), but hardly anyone wants to face the implications...

...In 2005, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the main programs for the elderly) cost $1.034 trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than two-fifths of the total federal budget. These programs are projected to equal about three-quarters of the budget by 2030, if it remains constant as a share of national income.... [emphasis BK]

...Social Security and Medicare benefits must be cut to keep down overall costs. Yes, some taxes will be raised and some other spending cut. But much of the adjustment should come from increasing eligibility ages (ultimately to 70) and curbing payments to wealthier retirees. Americans live longer and are healthier. They can work longer and save more for retirement...

...Opportunities for gradual change have been squandered....

...We have managed to take successful programs -- Social Security and Medicare -- and turn them into huge problems by our self-centered inattention. Baby boomers seem eager to "reinvent retirement" in all ways except those that might threaten their pocketbooks.

That about covers it. But go ahead and read every word. Preach it, brother! And oh, it's a chain letter. Pass it along. This religion must include proseltyzing. We need 51% in the choir. The slogan? You can pay now or you can pay later.

2008 Update

Romney banked a butt load of money at a recent fundraiser/gala. The report is around $6.5 Million. This dwarfs what McCain and Giuliani raised at their kick-off events. I am telling you, Romney is the more articulate and telegenic version of George W. Bush in 2008, which is why I don't think he will be the nominee. Where primary voters ignored their suspicions about Bush in 2000, I don't think they will do so with Romney in 2008. I think with McCain or Giuliani or possibly one of many conservative Republican Governors considering the race, at least they know where they stand.

Tom Curry discusses the possibility of McCain-Lieberman in 2008. Someone ought to tell him that we brought that idea up here at Centerfield years ago. I say why the hell not? McCain-Lieberman are but a mirror image of each other on many issues these days, and something tells me Republicans would be supportive just because of Lieberman's loyalty to the war effort and the fact that he stuck it to the Democratic establishment. This also, BTW, would make McCain eligible for the Unity '08 nomination of a bipartisan ticket.

Is anybody else a little bummed that the Joe Biden effort is pretty much DOA? I don't see a scenario where I would vote for Biden over McCain or Giuliani, but I like him and think he is smarter then most in Washington on foreign policy related issues.

Does anybody think Giuliani will in the end not run for President because of the revelations outlined in the campaign blue print that was discovered left behind in a mid-western hotel room? The finding of the lost book isn't that big of a deal in my estimation... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Rudy's failed marriages, his relationship with Bernard Kerik, and his current client list will be scrutinized on the road to the Republican nomination. However, Rudy is still America's Mayor and he may not want to lose that luster by running for President. Furthermore, he has in the past chosen not to run for higher office to avoid personal scrutiny, why would he choose to do it now?

Championship Open Thread

I wonder if it's just too long after the season, like the announcers are speculating.

Euro Search Engine Trouble

Euro Search Engine Trouble

If you haven't heard of the Euro search effort yet, well, France and Germany were trying produce a competitor to Google. Germany just pulled out of the project due to sticker shock and disagreements on strategy (the change of German govt might've affected this, too). (associated slashdot thread)

This is also the first time I've read of the project financial projections of 1-2 billion Euros.

When I first read about it, my feeling was (1) there's already a Google, but competition's good, but (2) it's unlikely to beat private competition because there's already intense competition and lots of brains there. IMHO, public R&D funding should be spent on things private industry is bad at.

I think the billion-Euro projected pricetag says I wasn't skeptical enough. I'm too lazy to look it up, but no way did Google initial funding exceed $10M. I'm not sure how I COULD spend $1B on a search engine project. Having put together 2-3 startup spreadsheets, I'm quite sure I could develop it and run it for 3 years on under $10M. And since software gets worse and riskier the more people are involved, my project would probably be better, too, and certainly likelier to not end in failure.

The billions of Euros would be better on research at European universities.

A Surge With a Purpose

Senator Lindsey Graham gave a passionate defense for the troop surge in Iraq this weekend on Meet the Press. I think you have to see it in person to appreciate it, but the text is below the fold.

I have really struggled with the idea of a troop surge, probably because although I know that it is the right thing to do, I don't have the heart for it. However, I don't see how we leave Iraq in an acceptable way without sending in more troops to implement the clear and hold strategy that Senator McCain has been discussing for so many months, and I do agree that leaving a war torn Iraq ripe for the taking by its hostile neighbors only means decades of conflict.

I think those that say that Iraq needs to be left up to the security of Iraqi police forces and a political solution are ignoring the fact that Iraqi police forces for the most part are the problem, and that political solutions to violent civil disagreement rarely happen without military force.

However, I have lost faith in this administration. A few too many unkept promises has left me weary. A case to go to war that turned out to be false, after so many of us gave our support based on its premise, has left me skeptical. Senator Graham brings up General Grant in regards to General Casey's replacement. If Petraeus is to truly reach that high standard than his President needs to act like Lincoln, and not Johnson. He needs to stand his ground, be straight forward with the American people about the difficulty of the struggle which he is committing us to, and not play politics with troop levels. Lets just say I am not holding my breathe, but good men have asked me to hear him out and I plan to do just that.

What do I mean by not playing politics with troop levels? As General Brent Scrowcroft pointed out on This Week there has to be a purpose, specific reasons why we are sending more troops, a determination of how we are going to define success, and some sort of idea about how long we are going to keep asking men and women in uniform to extend their tours of duty. This is exactly the doctrine that Colin Powell and the first President Bush acted upon in the first Gulf War, and it is exactly what has been missing since the invasion of Baghdad.

Senator Graham on Meet the Press:

I respect General Casey and Abizaid, but the strategy they’ve come up with for the last two years has not worked. Iraq is not more stable than it was when they took over two years ago. Sectarian violence in Baghdad has gotten worse. I’ve been there five times. The first time I went there we went rug shopping. The last time I went we were in a tank. It is clear to me, I think Joe Biden and every other American including the president, now is a time for change. If we don’t change now, we’re going to lose Iraq. And if you come up with a new policy, do you let the same people who implemented the old policy come up with a new idea? I don’t think so. Petraeus, to me, I hope is Bush’s Grant...

We’ve had a clear hold-and-build strategy. We could clear but we could never hold. We never had enough troops to begin with. For two years I’ve asked these generals, “Do we have enough troops?” “Yeah, we’re fine.” “Is the Army OK?” “The Army is fine.” A month or two ago, we found out the Army is broken, and they agreed that General Shinseki was right.

Now’s the time to start over. If we don’t start over and do what we should’ve done in the beginning—have enough people to win this war, have the Powell Doctrine implemented—we will pay a heavy price. So I support a surge in troops with a purpose, co-joining with the Iraqi military and political leadership to control this country. You can not have a democracy where you got militias stronger than the central government. You can not, not have a democracy where the people don’t have faith in their central government to take care of them. American forces going into Baghdad co-joined with Iraqi forces and a new political model is our best chance for victory. It may not work.

But this idea that nobody has called for withdrawal is folly on the Democratic side. John Edwards says pull out 40,000 troops now. Reid and Pelosi sent a letter to the president: “End this war, start redeploying in four to six months.” These Democratic proposals are, to me, a formula for defeat. They’re nothing more than just a political way to get out of Iraq, and it will come back to haunt us for years, and they never talked one minute in that letter what happens to Iraq when we leave. Is our national interest—security interest compromised with a failed state in Iraq, and does withdrawing lead to a failed state? Somebody needs to talk about that...

In all honesty, we are not winning. And if you’re not winning, you’re losing. And now’s the time to come up with a strategy to win. The reason President Bush is going to do this, because he understands that we have to win in Iraq. The reason Senator McCain and Lindsey Graham and a few others are supporting this when 14 percent of the public supports us and 80-something percent is against us is we’re thinking about the consequences of a failed state in Iraq. That’s more important than 2008. We cannot let this country go into the abyss. Now is the last chance and the only chance we have left to get this right.

Dead Horse time again

Now that healthcare reform is back on the radar screen, its time again to post regarding the never-ending pursuit of affordable healthcare. Now by "affordable" I mean what the "system" can afford. Today, we look to the UK as an example of what the system can't afford. The BBC reports on a recent report regarding hospital costs, efficiency , etc. The article focuses on national healthcare budget deficits and a related report regarding hospitals put out by the Institute for Public Policy Research, a "progressive" think tank in the UK. The report is summarized here. and can been viewed in its totality via a pdf download (and I'm sure you'll all want dive deeply into this 44 page report).

A few highlights:

Patients who are kept in hospital longer than necessary are using 13,000 extra NHS beds every year...the cost of excess hospital stays is around £975m per year and that on average most hospitals are using more than 60 beds to keep patients in longer than they need to.

So here's a progressive group saying the health system needs to "kick people out of the hospital" sooner. Hmmm, sounds like the evil managed care that we so despise in America. To further explain the problem, the report also notes

the availability of beds, regardless of medical needs, leads to longer than necessary hospital stays.

In my position as a medical director in a large managed care company we've definitely seen the same phenomenon "If you build them (hospital beds), they will come".

If you dive deeper into the report you'll see other key points such as 1) specialty services must be more regionalized for better outcomes. If you do it more often you'll be better at it. 2) greater access to "enhanced" primary care is needed at the local level 3) patients need more integrated care 4) comprehensive management of chronic illnesses is a major challenge for the system in the future.

Now remember, this is a country that has "fixed" its access/uninsured problem. And they still end up discussing the same issues we're struggling with in the US. A key line in the BBC article together with one buried deep in the ippr report sum up to problem.

The NHS ended the financial year 2005-06 more than £500m overdrawn.

AND

The pot of money for healthcare will always be limited.

Third Parties and Presidential Elections

I’m somewhat encouraged by the responses to my last post over at The Moderate Voice and at Centerfield . Typically such posts are met with the inevitable “voting for third party candidates is a waste of time” or “third party candidates are a bunch of self-absorbed loons who only serve to spoil elections”, but that wasn’t the case with my last post. Yet the prospects of a third party candidate posing a significant threat to the two major parties any time in the near future don’t look so good. About nine months ago, I posted an article over at The Centrist Coalition in which I lamented over the current state of third parties in the United States. In order to assess the relative strengths of the top 4 or 5 third parties at the federal level, I provided the results of the last four presidential elections, citing the electoral vote count, popular vote count, and percentage of popular vote attained by those candidates who received at least 0.1% of the popular vote in each of those elections. Here were the results:

2004 Presidential Election

Candidate............Party......Elect Vote....Pop Vote....% Pop Vote
George W. Bush.....Republican......286......62,040,610........50.7
John Kerry.........Democratic......251......59,028,111........48.3
Ralph Nader........Independent.......0.........463,653.........0.4
Michael Badnarik...Libertarian.......0.........397,265.........0.3
Michael Peroutka...Constitution......0.........144,498.........0.1
David Cobb.........Green.............0.........119,859.........0.1

2000 Presidential Election

Candidate............Party......Elect Vote....Pop Vote....% Pop Vote
George W. Bush.....Republican......271......50,460,110........47.9
Al Gore............Democratic......266......51,033,926........48.4
Ralph Nader........Green ............0.......2,883,105.........2.7
Pat Buchanan.......Reform............0.........449,225.........0.4
Harry Browne.......Libertarian.......0.........384,516.........0.4
Howard Phillips....Constitution......0..........98,022.........0.1
John Hagelin.......Natural Law.......0..........83,702.........0.1

1996 Presidential Election

Candidate............Party......Elect Vote....Pop Vote....% Pop Vote
Bill Clinton.......Democratic......379......47,400,125........49.2
Bob Dole...........Republican......159......39,198,755........40.7
Ross Perot.........Reform............0.......8,085,402.........8.4
Ralph Nader........Green.............0.........685,485.........0.7
Harry Browne.......Libertarian.......0.........485,798.........0.5
Howard Phillips....Taxpayers.........0.........184,820.........0.2
John Hagelin.......Natural Law.......0.........113,670.........0.1

1992 Presidential Election

Candidate............Party......Elect Vote....Pop Vote....% Pop Vote
Bill Clinton.......Democratic......370......44,909,806........43.0
George H. W. Bush..Republican......168......39,104,550........37.4
Ross Perot.........Independent.......0......19,743,821........18.9
Andre Marrou.......Libertarian.......0.........290,087.........0.3
Bo Gritz...........Populist..........0.........106,152.........0.1

These results demonstrate three important trends:

1) the relative stability of the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution/Taxpayers parties over the last three election cycles,

2) the relative decline of the Reform Party (which rose to power with the candidacy of Ross Perot and collapsed after his abandonment of the Reform Party movement), and

3) increased partisan voting over the course of the last four presidential elections--in other words--the proportion of people choosing to vote for either the Democratic or Republican parties has grown while the proportion of people choosing to vote for third parties has decreased (roughly 20% of voters voted for a third party candidate in 1992; in 2004, this number shrunk to roughly 1%).

That last statistic shows just how much ground third parties have lost in the last sixteen years. Roughly a third of registered voters are neither Democrats nor Republicans, and yet, in the last presidential election, 99% of voters voted for one of the two major parties. 99% percent of voters felt compelled to cast their vote for either John Kerry or George W. Bush—two of the worst presidential candidates in recent memory.

Here’s hoping that the American electorate’s standards improve by November 4, 2008.

Disclaimer: This post was cross-posted at (and tables more legible at) The Coming Realignment.

Why Did The Civil War Happen?

Yes, that's a dumb question - everybody knows that it was because of the increasing tension over slavery, and indeed several Founders predicted it or at least feared it was inevitable. And the spark is fairly clear, too - Lincoln's election.

What's rather less clear is how Lincoln's election came to be the moment where the gas caught on fire, and the Great Southern Rebellion was on. But I believe Megan McCardle's recent observation - Jane's Law - sheds light on this.

The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

The South had a fragment of a party in the 1860 race - the Southern half of the Democratic Party. Clearly, it lost to Lincoln; they were "out."

Instead of "are insane," I like to say "are paranoid," because I feel that gets better at the dynamics of the situation, and ties in with observations about paranoia in modern and ancient politics.

What sort of thing do people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome talk about? Fears about how his election was illegitimate, Bush is the new Hitler, or about how's he's secretly run by Cheney or a Neocon conspiracy. Anti-Clintonites loved to talk about how Clinton's election was illegitimate, how he shot people left and right, was raping women left and right, etc.. It was the same sort of thing with every President in my lifetime (OK, well, They Were Right about Nixon). It was the the same with every President I've read a bio of, too (10-15ish), except Washington, because everybody revered him.

Back to 1860, now. Most Southerners considered themselves to be part of the United States until Lincoln was elected. After that, the southernmost states moved to leave ASAP. To most Georgians and most Texans, and most people in between, it almost didn't matter what Lincoln said or tried to offer, or about constitutional or practical limits on his power (especially in view of the fact that the Supreme Court was clearly pro-slavery). There was apparently no thinking about such issues - and that's been the puzzle, at least to me. Jane's Law seems to explain this.

Interestingly, from early in the campaign, virtually all Southern (and Northern Democratic) newspapers talked about as factually and levelheadedly about Lincoln as Democratic newspapers have done talking about Bush, or how conservative newspapers covered the Clintons. Southerners only saw inflammatory, often made-up quotes that would sell papers. Lincoln's conciliatory statements toward the South got little coverage. He was represented as a foolish hothead ready to commit violence, ignore Southern difficulties, and declare war to end slavery.

When he was elected, the South behaved exactly like partisan Democrats in 2000, and were paranoid and unwilling to think about dealing with Lincoln. They started the Civil War, attacking Fort Sumter, because they felt Lincoln would do that anyway. No, it didn't make sense. Fear of leaders has always been a big weakness in democracies. Athens regularly exiled its ex-leaders, especially the best ones.

Why Lincoln? No earlier elected President had ever run on an antislavery plank, much less made that the major issue of his campaign. Imagine being elected President only to find that about 40% of the America has run away JUST because you've won.

A centrist position on friday open threads

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

I'll spark the first one:

Well, done, BCS. Nominate these guys for the "committee decisions hall of fame." There's only one question to ask:.

If Ohio State loses to Florida, how is Boise State not the national champion by common sense acclaim?

Only by the rule of law as set by an idiot council. One too concerned with making the various entrenched powers happy and not concerned enough with establishing a process that guarantees crowning a champ that's legitimate in the eyes of sports fans. Sports fans, you ask? Those would be the folks that make the whole ball of wax gather, and the only ones without a seat at the council table.

Here's hoping OSU doesn't pull the BCS's fat arses out of the fire. Everybody grab a fricken' pitch fork!

A Centrist Position on Climate Change

Seems when it comes to climate change, it's a "yer fer us er yer agin us" world. Not so, say centrists. Maybe we can stop the spitting and attempt to remain cool. Hat tip to to Marginal Revolution for hipping me to Jonathan Adler's amplification of a nice NYT article on a green centrism by Andrew Revkin:

A third stance is now emerging, espoused by many experts who challenge both poles of the debate.

They agree that accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases probably pose a momentous environmental challenge, but say the appropriate response is more akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging.

“Climate change presents a very real risk,” said Carl Wunsch, a climate and oceans expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “It seems worth a very large premium to insure ourselves against the most catastrophic scenarios. Denying the risk seems utterly stupid. Claiming we can calculate the probabilities with any degree of skill seems equally stupid.”

Many in this camp seek a policy of reducing vulnerability to all climate extremes while building public support for a sustained shift to nonpolluting energy sources.

What is it they say? Oh yeah. Read the whole thing. There's plenty of room between Pangloss and Chicken Little.

May I have your attention ladies and gentlemen? In tonight's performance, the role of the clown to the left of me will be played by Chicken Little, and the role of the joker on the right will be played by Pangloss.

The 2008 Presidential Race Has Begun

On November 4, 2008, the American people will go to the polls to elect the 44th president of the United States. A lot of things can change in the next 22 months. The list of candidates who have already formed exploratory committees and/or filed with the FEC will shrink significantly before the year is through while some of the most heavily touted candidates have yet to have announced their candidacies. Issues that seem all-consuming now may fade in importance while issues that have yet to appear on the political radar may surface unexpectedly and pick up steam by the time election day arrives. But one thing seems certain…

The 2008 presidential race has already begun.

I can still remember be told in elementary school that America is great because anyone can grow up to become president one day. It’s a myth, of course. The presidency is bought and sold, just like any other high-profile political office in this country, and to be considered an even remotely viable candidate, one must have either:

1) a huge personal fortune,
2) deep political connections in order to secure donors, or
3) both.

Meanwhile, independents and third party candidates have virtually no chance of winning due in part to the propensity of the electoral college’s “winner take all” awarding of electors favoring a two-party system (Duverger’s law), but also due in part to:

1) the fact that the two major parties have enacted Ballot Access laws that make it more difficult for independent and third party candidates to get on the ballot in each states,
2) the fact that presidential debates that are controlled by the “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates, a twelve member organization that is made up exclusively of Democrats and Republicans who determine the criteria are used to decide which candidates are invited to the debates (predictably, since the CPD took over the debates in 1988, no independent or third party candidates has been invited with the sole exception of Perot in 1992), and
3) the tendency of the media and the political establishment of using the tired "wasted vote" scare tactic in order to convince Americans to vote for one undesirable political party for the sole purpose of preventing the other undesirable political party from achieving power.

Well, in my never-ending (and likely futile) quest to break the grip of the two major parties on all levers of political power in this country, I’ve taken it upon myself to make it known wherever and whenever I can the political alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans. Independent and third party candidates can no longer afford to wait until ten months before the election to kick off their campaigns. The time for these candidates to gain publicity is before the two major parties establish the front runners for their respective presidential nominations.

Thus, during the next 22 months, I plan to keep track of not only the front runners for the presidential nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties but also for the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties, since these are the three largest third parties in this country and stand a reasonable chance of attaining ballot access in enough states to theoretically attain the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. These lists will be subject to constant revision and won’t likely sort themselves out until after Labor Day of this year.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Official Candidates (have filed with FEC):
- Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina (campaign website)
- Former Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska (campaign website)
- Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio (campaign website)
- Former Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa (campaign website)

Other Candidates:
- Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
- Retired General Wesley Clark of Arkansas
- Senator Hillary Clinton of New York
- Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut
- Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts
- Senator Barack Obama of Illinois
- Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico
- Reverend Al Sharpton of New York

REPUBLICAN PARTY
Official Candidates (have filed with FEC):
- Businessman John H. Cox of Illinois (campaign website)
- Hewlett Packard Marketer Michael Charles Smith of Oregon (campaign website)

Other Candidates:
- Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas (exploratory committee)
- Former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia
- Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York (exploratory committee)
- Representative Duncan Hunter of California
- Senator John McCain of Arizona (exploratory committee)
- Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (exploratory committee)
- Former Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin
- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia
- Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
- Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas
- Former Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma
- Former Governor George Pataki of New York
- Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado

LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Official Candidates (have filed with FEC):
- Medical Marijuana Activist Steve Kubby of California (campaign website)
- Physics Professor George Phillies of Massachusetts (campaign website)

Other Candidates:
- Writer & Activist Christine Smith of Colorado (campaign website)
- Comedian & Activist Doug Stanhope of Arizona (campaign website)
- Activist Lance Brown of California (campaign website)
- Activist Milnes of New Jersey (campaign website)

GREEN PARTY
Pursuing Candidacy:
- Activist Nan Garrett of Georgia (campaign website)
- Deputy Mayor of New Paltz, NY Rebecca Rotzler of New York
- Activist Kat Swift of Texas (campaign website)

CONSTITUTION PARTY
Pursuing Candidacy:
- Minuteman Project Founder James Gilchrist of California

Disclaimer: This post has been cross-posted over at The Coming Realignment. The candidacy information above was obtained from wikipedia as well as individual campaign websites and exploratory committees. The ordering of the candidates above should not be interpreted to mean that I favor one candidate over another, nor should the links to campaign websites be interpreted to mean that I endorse the political views espoused by those candidates or found on their websites. If you feel that any of the information above is incorrect or that additional candidates warrant mentioning, please contact me at nicrivera2002@yahoo.com.

Interesting Article on Indian Geopolitics

Indians talking about India's rise are often at pains to note high corruption levels as an important asterisk to it. After all, corruption kept India's economy from growing at the sort of rate it should have during the Cold War, drastically slowing poverty reduction. I'd say, though, that the era of globalizaton seems to have finally opened Indian leaders' eyes to the limits of socialism and the need to keep up, though, and that they've given a good kickstart to the process of reducing corruption.

Or maybe it's just that India's finally gotten beyond the distrustful legacy of Imperialism. Whatever the reason, I'd say India's about 15 years into its cycle of reform. Which means there's still a LONG way to go, but I don't see it stopping soon.

With that asterisk, alot of this seems good to me. I don't often agree with this much of a Weekly Standard article.

Get Used to the "...but..."

Mary Landrieu: "I know people don't like to pay taxes, but..."

Bush and the new democratic majority are already "sparring." No surprise there. I can smell the frictious burn of nothing much getting done from here.

And yes Mary, there is a big deficit. God yes. We know. Granted. But here's the challenge to democrats. Once, just once, could one of you folks acknowledge that people don't like to pay higher taxes and then NOT start the next sentence with "but." Just once. Is that too much to ask?

Here's the thing, for me. Is the latest democratic majority the one that's going to finally convince me to give up on them? I have a blue collar background. I am from a liberal state. I have a graduate degree. My sympathies have historically lain with the democrats and the interest groups they represent. Yet today, as my own state, Massachusetts, is beginning a democratic uber-majority including a re-taken governor's office, I am drawn to wondering if there's much of anything on their agenda that I can stomach. Feelin' queasy.

I just can't get on board with anything that sounds like a hopeful ambitious plan to make things better by using government wisdom to redistribute more tax dollars to downtrodden oppressed pet groups A, B, and C. New entitlements are not the answer, and every ambitious plan a democrat supports seems to involve another. IMO, hope ought to triumph over experience only on very rare occasions.

Obama's Past

The Washington Post reports that Barack Obama's candor regarding past drug use he wrote about in his first book "Dreams from My Father," could be used against him if he were to run for President. The riveting headline reads "Obama's Past Could Be and Issue." I want to thank the Post for pointing out the ridiculously obvious.

This is why people don't vote. Furthermore, it is simply unimaginitive reporting. The story isn't that Obama snorted coke during a time when he was questioning his identity, in my view, but rather that Obama has been honest about his past for over three years, the book has been on the bestseller list on numerous occassions, and he still is catching like wildfire. There is a lesson there for those interested in running for office.

For the record, I am a little over sensitive on this issue, especially in regards to this particular book. I to strayed from the path a bit in college after the death of my own father, struggling to figure out who I was. Years later, I found Obama's book very comforting and insightful, reading it in about a weeks time traveling to work on the DC metro. It meant a lot to me. The fact that we are even talking about the possibility of it being used in a political campaign is exactly the same reason that Obama's message is the right one at the right time.

I agree with Senator Dick Durbin:

"I think it will be received as refreshing... If you compare similar books, many of us in the political business tend to have selective memories."

Which is exactly why people think that most politicians are full of s&*t, and exactly why Obama is catching on.

The wisdom of not occupying in Iraq in 1991

A common meme spreading around the zeitgeist is the wisdom behind the elder Bush's decision to end the Gulf War at the Kuwait border in 1991. The specific references are too numerous to list, but it would probably be helpful to list some of the things that would have happened had the elder Bush gone to Baghdad so we can know what exactly we should be thankful for.

Shiite cynicism inspired by our having cajoled them into revolt and then abandoning them would have turned 60% of the population against us.

Sleeper cells of Fedayeen Saddam would have laid dormant, waiting for us oust the regime and then be ready to create all sorts of mayhem.

Likewise for Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Every time we accidentally hurt an innocent Iraqi while taking necessary action against one of the above, al Jazeera would have been there to beam the image across the Arab/Muslim world, inspiring jihadis from around the world to converge on Iraq.

All in all, we must acknowledge the elder Bush's wisdom in sparing us all these calamities.

Open Football Thread

Happy New Year!

Have at it! My jeers and cheers so far below:

Texas ended its season winning the Alamo Bowl. Barely, and way too closely. In fact, I gave up early on the Alamo Bowl, because it looked like Texas was about to be behind 21-3, with virtually no defensive work atall. Fortunately, the Profesora suggested I check the score later, at which point the defense had decided maybe they should do something about stopping Iowa's O.

I'm glad Defensive Coordinator Gene Chizik is on his way out, even if on his way up to a full coaching position.

He came in in a cloud of great stats, but has not performed up to expectations. The Longhorn D is terrible this year. It hasn't been able to stop hardly anybody.

Most years, we've seen the perennial excellent D talent serve as leaders for the rest of the D to excel as well; this year, I feel like the headliners have had less help from the rest of the D. The tackles have been strictly mediocre, decidedly subpar for Texas.

I bear Chizik no ill will. Sometimes even the greatest players and coaches struggle in bad personal circumstances. But he isn't working out here.

On the other side, I'm happy to say that I like the Eagles for a change. I used to grumble, because, well, for a team 1800 miles away from Austin, we sure see alot of them; they seem to have perennially overly good deals for distribution. Between their drafting of a great 'Horn defensive back, and some coaching changes on the O side, I now enjoy watching their games. Their distribution deals are probably still unfair, but at least I enjoy the games now....