Cliche

The Terrorists are Winning

2007-02-01T13:02:00.000-05:00

We have nothing to fear, but fear itself

Don't Piss off the Whiffenpoofs

2007-01-10T15:36:00.000-05:00

More bad news from the San Franciscan values department. Now, it seems that an unruly gang of Bay area a cappella fans ambushed a Yale singing group to punish them for their sub-par performance of the 'Star Spangled Banner.' I kid you not. The victims, from a group called Baker's Dozen, will likely turn to New Haven's muscle, the Whiffenpoofs, to get a little revenge.

Here's the blurb from AFP:

Members of the a cappella Baker's Dozen were performing at a party in San Francisco at the new year when their rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" apparently sparked taunts and threats from fellow partygoers.

As the group left the house, they were attacked by dozens of assailants, suffering scrapes, black eyes and concussions, said Connecticut's News Channel 8.

San Francisco Values

2007-01-06T15:26:00.000-05:00

If this is what Bill O'Reilly means by San Francisco values when he talks about Nancy Pelosi, then I'm with him. Those San Franciscans are a surly bunch! Today's NYT chronicles a new urban phenomenon called "parking rage."

Burdened with one of the densest downtowns in the country and a Californian love for moving vehicles, San Franciscans have been shocked in recent months by crimes related to finding places to park, including an attack in September in which a young man was killed trying to defend a spot he had found.

Parking control officers...say abuse is common, often frightening and, occasionally, humiliating. In November, an officer was spat on, another was punched through the window of his Geo Metro, and an irate illegal parker smashed the windshield of another officer’s golf-cart-like vehicle.
“Just driving down the street, you get yelled at,” said Lawanna Preston, staff director for Local 790 of the Service Employees International Union, which represents parking control officers.
The officers are city employees but not in the Police Department.
“They can’t even eat lunch with that uniform on, because people approach them and curse at them,” Ms. Preston said.

It's just a matter of time before Nancy Pelosi takes her gavel and pounds the living crap out of some poor, unsuspecting DC parking officer. At least that's what Fox News must have been thinking when they chose their caption for the image of Pelosi taking control of the House.

Save the Blog!

2007-01-04T06:29:00.000-05:00

It's January, which means it's time to resolve to do things for self-betterment (and then abandon those things in February). I, for one, will try to breathe some life into our lonely blog. I'll start by pointing out two interesting op-ed's in today's Washington Post.

From the political left (but not wanting it to seem that way), Barack Obama makes the case for a non-partisan ethics commission to police Congress. From the political right, George Will makes the case for abolishing the minimum wage. The piece presents some interesting data about the percentage of workers in the work force on the federal minimum and raises questions about whether raising the minimum would really improve their welfare. I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion (or his jabs about the New Deal), but the piece is worth a read.

'Truthiness' picked as word of the year

2006-12-09T11:39:00.000-05:00

This is funny.

A Little Decorum, Please

2006-10-25T14:45:00.000-04:00

Our fine blog has been a little sleepy lately. To rev things up for the coming election, I thought I'd post a follow-up to some posts that we made about a month ago.

The New York Times is reporting that Venezuela will be defeated in its attempts to gain election to the UN Security Council. It seems that Hugo Chavez's hysterical rant about George Bush has cost his country dearly. Behind the scenes, many delegates have privately conceded that Chavez's speech raised concerns about the country's ability to commit to the norms of diplomatic discourse at the UN. While Venezuela was an early favorite to win the seat, now Guatemala is the likely winner.

There's a lesson here for Bush's domestic opponents, too. Hysteria about the incompetence in the Bush administration doesn't help solve many problems. Aside from making us feel a little better, which is definitely worth something, all of the shrill hand-wringing doesn't really get us anywhere. If the Dems take over the House and/or the Senate, the Chicken-Little schtick will hopefully come to an end.

He's a Jackass, but he's OUR Jackass

2006-09-22T10:49:00.000-04:00

Good for the Democrats for denouncing Hugo Chavez and his outrageous remarks at the UN. Referring to Bush's earlier visit to the UN, Chavez lectured the General Assembly that, "the devil came here yesterday...and it smells of sulfur still today."

I'm not sure how I'd feel about such remarks if they came from a leader who presided over a country with a pristine record of democratic freedom and human rights. Indeed, maybe there's something about the political norms in such countries that muzzles such language from its representatives in diplomatic exchange. But Chavez's Venezuela has witnessed significant setbacks in democratization and a poor human rights record. As Nancy Pelosi correctly pointed out, "He is an everyday thug."

Are you kidding me?!!

2006-09-18T14:14:00.000-04:00

This is the look on my face when I look at real estate prices in DC. Actually, this is Claudio Paulo Pinto, who has the useful ability to pop his eyeballs out of their sockets. Wouldn't it be great to be able to do this during a negotiation with a car dealer?

Withdrawing from Iraq

2006-09-13T09:32:00.000-04:00

The New Republic's Lawrence Kaplan makes one of the more cogent arguments I have seen about the pitfalls of withdrawal from Iraq. One of the interesting arguments he presents is that self-proclaimed liberals who advocate withdrawal are hypocrites. He puts it more nicely than that, but that's his basic point. In the context of foreign policy, liberals believe that values other than simple security interests should govern affairs with other states (values about human rights, promotion of democracy, just war theory, promotion of social welfare, etc.). Withdrawal from Iraq before Iraqi forces are prepared to provide domestic security and before the Iraqi government is fully functional would be an abandonment of those liberal principles.

Here's the beginning of Kaplan's article:

Of all the lines of argument President Bush has used to rally the public behind the war in Iraq, few have elicited more howls of derision than his latest. "If you think it's bad now," he said at a recent press conference, "imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself." To which a headline in The Washington Post offered this typical response: "bush's new argument: it could be worse."

Whatever its political uses, Bush's new argument happens to be true. Yet the moral cost of abandoning a country we have turned inside-out seems not to have made the slightest impression on opinion-makers. To the extent that ethical considerations factor into the debate at all, it's usually in favor of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Mostly, though, the debate over leaving has been conducted in the sterile language of geopolitics, credibility, and "misallocated" resources.

This heartlessness of the withdrawal argument responds to multiple needs that are largely unrelated to Iraq. It comforts the sensibilities of opinion-makers who have a distaste for this administration's foreign policy and so don't seem to feel much stake in its human consequences. It testifies to the consistency of those who, having opposed sending U.S. forces to Iraq in the first place, see nothing problematic about pulling them out today. And it offers assurance that, but for the bungled U.S. occupation, Iraq can only be better off. No one has espoused this last view more vigorously than Democratic Representative John Murtha. His summary of the situation in Iraq amounts to this: We are the problem.

Facts on the ground suggest Murtha has things exactly backward.

Remembering 9/11

2006-09-11T21:25:00.000-04:00

On the fifth anniversary of 9/11, watch this documentary called Loose Change if you have time. It certainly raises a lot of questions. Also, this debate between the filmmakers and the editors of popular mechanics is entertaining.

Crazy Talk

2006-08-29T16:26:00.000-04:00

Every once in awhile, Rumsfeld reaches back and really reaches for the stars with some crazy, gunslinger talk. Today was one of those days.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces ''a new type of fascism'' and likened critics of the Bush administration's war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930s.
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from ''moral or intellectual confusion'' about what threatens the nation's security. His remarks amounted to one of his most pointed defenses of President Bush' war policies and was among his toughest attacks on Bush's critics.
Speaking to several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failure to confront Hitler. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was ''a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.''
''I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,'' he said.

I just love when he talks crazy.

Duke Lacrosse is Evil

2006-08-25T14:29:00.000-04:00

This is a long, but interesting summary of the evidence in the Duke lacrosse rape case. Troubling, perhaps, that there is this much information available for public consumption prior to jury selection, but I am glad for the potential of a pre-trial conviction of these idiots in the court of public opinion. Clearly something terrible happened to that woman when the only people around were a bunch of over-testosteroned frat boys. Like many others, I worry that the accuser, and not the monsters she named, will end up on trial.

Boys, Don't Marry A Career Woman

2006-08-24T13:59:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), I did not see the original Forbes piece. I think what Jack Shafer misses in his critique of a Forbes article on higher divorce rates among career gals is the question "So what?" Of course women who are not financially, socially or familially dependent on their spouses may be less likely to stick around when the going gets tough. Higher divorce rates among the two-career set may or may not be bad for the kids, but is it really so bad for anyone else? Also, I didn't see anything in this response about whether the rates go down in families where the woman has a career and the man does not.

Texas Brings Us Something Much, Much Better

2006-08-24T09:43:00.000-04:00

We have to hope that eventually the American entrepreneurial spirit will be used for something more creative than American Idol. Maybe deep-fried fuel is a start.

Can You Imagine?

2006-08-23T11:54:00.000-04:00

Can you imagine if more than half a million Americans were killed over the last 15 years when terrorists used liquid explosives to blow up planes? Wow, that would be truly awful. Fortunately, the actual number is zero.

Over the last 15 years, about half a million people have, in fact, been killed in the US in auto accidents. This past year was the deadliest year ever on American roads. So, while we're banning shampoo on airline flights, ask yourself, "What's so horrible about the cost of a life lost due to terrorism that isn't considered to be so bad if the life is lost in an auto wreck?"

Mel Gibson, Champion of the Jews

2006-08-23T10:10:00.000-04:00

Listen to this very funny clip of Denis Leary and Lenny Clarke helping out in the Red Sox booth, all at Mel Gibson's expense.

Is he really just dumb?

2006-08-23T09:20:00.000-04:00

The shorthand critique of political leaders we disagree with is that they're unable to think clearly. That is, they're stupid. If they could only understand the logical connections between facts, we tell ourselves, they'd be able to see things the way we see them. Usually, though, disagreements in politics arise from differing sets of priorities, assumptions about the world, and values. From these differing starting points, non-stupid people can arrive at very different policy positions.

But after absorbing the latest on Bush's news conference, I think he may just be stupid after all. Plus, he enjoys fart jokes.

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Cruise last in 'best friend' poll

2006-08-21T10:33:00.000-04:00

Yet another example that Britons have more common sense than Americans. They have cleverly placed Tom Cruise last in 'best friend' poll.

My dad retires!

2006-08-18T20:35:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone - my dad retired and the local newspaper had a really nice article about him -check out the Flint Journal for the first time!

Lamont is not McGovern

2006-08-17T13:13:00.000-04:00

The whole public discussion about whether Ned Lamont's victory means that Democrats have embraced McGovernism should be recast. I have argued that candidates like Lamont will likely strengthen public perceptions that Democrats aren't serious about security policy because they offer little detail about how to handle existing threats to the US. His support of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq is not a policy that enhances US security. All the same, despite Lamont's strong anti-war stance, it would be unfair to characterize him as a McGovern Democrat.

Peter Beinart writes a useful column in The New Republic that provides a clear presentation of why Lamont ain't no McGovern. It's helpful to grasp the difference because the comparison to McGovern is a rhetorically powerful way to debunk the Lamont's of the world. It isn't a fair comparison, though.

The problem with Lamont (and other Democratic candidates like him) is that they offer no coherent set of ideas for how to advance US foreign interests and protect US security. They can tell you what is wrong with current policies, but offer no alternative. While that's a problem, at least Lamont-type candidates don't seem to subscribe to McGovern's rejection of cold war liberalism. For Beinart, that's the good and the bad news about Lamont.

For today's Democratic Party, that is both good and bad news. Fortunately, unlike the McGovernites, Lamont and most of his high-profile supporters don't articulate a broadly dovish worldview. Unfortunately, they don't articulate much of a worldview at all. Netroots activists call this a strength, saying that what binds them is not ideology but partisanship. But, without ideological content, partisan loyalty is vacuous if not amoral--the mere pursuit of power. In their netroots manifesto, Crashing the Gates, über-bloggers Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong offer reams of suggestions for how Democrats can control Washington but say virtually nothing about what it means to be a Democrat. They fetishize the conservative movement's organizational success since the 1970s without realizing that it was ideological coherence, achieved in the 1950s, which made that success possible.

It is the absence of such a worldview that allows Lamont to wax hawkish about North Korea while urging near-immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And that allowed congressional Democrats to demagogue the Dubai ports deal, even as they criticized the Bush administration for alienating Arab public opinion. Lamont's critics are wrong: Ideologically, he is not Carl Maxey, and his supporters are not mostly McGovernites. The greater danger is that he is Jimmy Carter or Michael Dukakis, and his supporters are like the Democrats who wandered in the post-Vietnam, pre-Clinton intellectual wilderness: able to describe the conservative vision they abhor but not the liberal alternative they propose

Sports and Morality

2006-08-15T12:59:00.000-04:00

The moral dilemma that reared its ugly head in a Little League championship game has become quite a national news story. ESPN.com has picked it up now.

Just to get it on the record, I would have instructed my pitcher to issue the intentional walk. The main goal in athletic competition is to try to win. Remove that goal and there is no competition. It's the competition, and the inevitable winning and losing that results, that instills desirable values in all of us. We do not educate our children to win at any cost, but to compete as best they can within the rules. If, as manager, my kids had done that in each and every inning of the season, who would I be to undercut that effort in a key moment in a championship game? The word 'fair' means, "in accordance with rules or standards." Intentional walks are permitted by the rules in baseball. So, how can issuing one ever be considered unfair?

Morality Test

2006-08-14T13:38:00.000-04:00

Rick Reilly, the lead columnist for Sports Illustrated, describes an interesting moral dilemma that emerged in a Little League baseball game. Here's the situation,

In a nine- and 10-year-old PONY league championship game in Bountiful, Utah, the Yankees lead the Red Sox by one run. The Sox are up in the bottom of the last inning, two outs, a runner on third. At the plate is the Sox' best hitter, a kid named Jordan. On deck is the Sox' worst hitter, a kid named Romney. He's a scrawny cancer survivor who has to take human growth hormone and has a shunt in his brain.

So, you're the coach: Do you intentionally walk the star hitter so you can face the kid who can barely swing?

Not so easy, is it?

Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain

2006-08-11T09:52:00.000-04:00

For a brief, somewhat scary moment, I thought Charles Krauthammer's column today was going to synch completely with what I was saying yesterday about Lieberman's victory. I do agree with a lot of what he says. But, he concludes his column in predictable fashion, which is where we part ways. For Krauthammer, US foreign policy goals are best advanced by heavy reliance on military strength and willingness to use the military to achieve goals. For most of the serious threats the US faces, I tend to disagree with that.

The Guns Of August

2006-08-10T16:04:00.000-04:00

Today has been one of those days when I can't stop myself from checking the headlines. The foiled terrorist plot in Britain plus the rumors of a cease-fire in Lebanon are both big items.

Now that I've run into Richard Holbrooke's op-ed in the Washington Post, I've been scared straight. No more Internet news for me, thank you.

Holbrooke, the seasoned diplomat who helped negotiate the Dayton Accords and served as the US ambassador to the UN under Clinton, thinks there's good reason to worry about a world war. Here's his opening paragraph:

Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency. A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay. Turkey is talking openly of invading northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists based there. Syria could easily get pulled into the war in southern Lebanon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under pressure from jihadists to support Hezbollah, even though the governments in Cairo and Riyadh hate that organization. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of giving shelter to al-Qaeda and the Taliban; there is constant fighting on both sides of that border. NATO's own war in Afghanistan is not going well. India talks of taking punitive action against Pakistan for allegedly being behind the Bombay bombings. Uzbekistan is a repressive dictatorship with a growing Islamic resistance.

If you, too, would like to induce a self-moratorium on Internet news, read on.

More on taking security seriously

2006-08-10T12:35:00.000-04:00

With today's headlines about the foiled terrorist plot in Britain, I have security on my mind.

The New Republic also has an article that discusses how Lieberman's defeat may be bad for the Democrats in the long term. Here's the key excerpt:

The Lieberman-Lamont primary is a study, writ small, in what has ailed the Democratic Party over the last few decades. Simply put, Democratic presidential primary electorates continue to be dominated by an upscale, socially (and culturally) liberal elite. Democrats must first win the approval of this elite before they can compete in the general election. It's a trap that no Democrat other than Bill Clinton has found a way to escape, and Lamont's victory shows why.
In a quick and dirty analysis of the difference between the Lamont and Lieberman voters based on income, education, and other demographic data from across Connecticut, Ken Strasma of Strategic Telemetry found that Lamont's strongest support came from areas with high housing values, voters with college or graduate degrees, and parents with children in private schools. Lieberman's votes, in contrast, came from the cities, renters, blue-collar and service-sector workers, and those receiving Social Security benefits.

There is nothing wrong with upscale liberals or downscale renters; a vote is a vote. The problem for the Democrats is (and has been for more than a quarter century) that liberal elites are disproportionately powerful in primaries--where they turn out in much higher numbers--and in the operations of the party itself. In presidential campaigns, these voters have nominated a succession of losers, including George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry....

For the Democrats, the influence of the upscale left has increased the party's vulnerability to charges that it is weak on threats to the nation's security and that its candidates are far from mainstream on social issues. Although the public has lost faith in President Bush and the GOP on a wide range of issues, the GOP continues to hold one trump card: terrorism. A May 10 New York Times/CBS News poll showed voters preferring Republicans to Democrats on terrorism by a margin of 40-35 percent. A more telling finding was in an Associated Press/Ipsos survey released July 14. It found that voters may not be thrilled with the way Republicans in Congress are dealing with terrorism (54 percent unfavorable, 43 favorable), but they are downright hostile to the Democrats' approach (62 percent negative, 33 positive).

What's more, terrorism is a "threshold" issue for a substantial number of swing voters, and its salience can be raised simply by stressing the potential dangers as Election Day approaches. The threat of terrorist attack has the power to crowd out such subjects favorable to the Democrats as the economy, education, health care and Social Security. Whenever national defense is a key issue, it hurts Democrats.

In the wake of today's headlines, public opinion polls about the Democrats' ability to handle terrorism and national security are crucial for understanding how quickly the political tide could turn.

Sure, perhaps too much is being made of the Connecticut primary. But perceptions of Democratic incompetence on security are not illusory. Public opinion on these issues has been remarkably consistent for decades. While the Dems can capitalize on public outrage at the travesty in Iraq by demanding a complete withdrawal, I wonder if the party will be tatooed with the "soft on security" curse for another three decades if it forfeits the opportunity to articulate a serious strategy for security.

Kiss Off

2006-08-10T10:21:00.000-04:00

I couldn't resist following up on Auntie M's post about the division between Rice and Bush. The NYT has a piece on this, too. Although, it soft-pedals the internal dispute somewhat.

Here's the interesting thing. Auntie M's post refers to an Insight Magazine article. I didn't know this until I read the NYT article, but that magazine is published by the right-wing publishers of the Washington Times. It seem that they are eager to shine light on the spat as part of a larger effort to pressure Rice out of office. Here's the key excerpt on this from the NYT's article.

Ms. Rice has been sharply criticized by some conservatives for pushing Israel too far to end its military operations in Lebanon. “Dump Condi: Foreign policy conservatives charge State Dept. has hijacked Bush agenda,” read the headline July 25 in an online version of Insight Magazine, published by The Washington Times.

Seriously, Security is Important

2006-08-10T10:06:00.000-04:00

There has been much rejoicing about Joe Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary. Lieberman's endorsement of the unwarranted attack on Iraq made him a lightning rod of vitriol from the political left. However, Ned Lamont's single-issue campaign that beat the drum again and again for immediate US withdrawal may bring back an old problem for the Democrats--the perception that they're soft on security.

In an interesting article on this very topic, Slate's Editor, Jacob Weisberg writes,

Lieberman's opponents are not entirely wrong about the war. The invasion of Iraq was, in ways that have since become hard to dispute, a terrible mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be dismantled, we had no plan for occupying the country, and our troops remain there only to prevent the civil war we unleashed from turning into a bigger and more horrific civil war. Just about everyone now agrees that the sooner we find a way to withdraw, the better for us and for the Iraqis. The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.

The larger global issue of Islamic fanaticism does pose serious security problems for the US and many, many other countries. The potential consequences of an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq (governmental collapse, a larger civil war with participation from Syria and/or Iran, mass civilian casualties bordering on genocide, etc.) cannot possibly help solve the larger problems posed by Islamic fanaticism.

Candidates like Ned Lamont appear to have a winning strategy with their single-issue mantra about withdrawing from Iraq. In the long term, though, Democratic credibility on security issues may be undermined.

Condi and Bush spat over Israel's green light

2006-08-09T15:52:00.000-04:00

Now isn't this interesting. Condi is getting nowhere negotiating a cease fire and the Idiot-In-Chief thinks a bombs-away foreign policy is a nifty idea. But they are getting nervous that Israel hasn't rolled over Hezbollah yet. Kind of reminds you what we face in Iraq. Once you go in there is no easy way to get out. The US military is no longer so feared in the Middle East and now it's Israel's turn to suffer a loss of prestige. Read more about this here:
Insight

Mideast Unity in the Classroom

2006-07-31T09:35:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post has a wonderful story about two professors that work at CIDCM (the research center at the University of Maryland where I work). Edy Kaufman and Manuel Hassassian have been team teaching a course on the Arab-Israeli conflict for more than 10 years now. Kaufman is Israeli, Hassassian is Palestinian. After the horrible news coming out of Lebanon yesterday, stories like this bring a tiny bit of hope. I had the pleasure of working with Edy for a year when we co-directed an honors program in international studies back in the mid-1990s.

Also, a sidenote, if you look carefully you'll notice that the classroom photos are taken in the same room that once held the SMABL draft.

Hitler or Coulter?

2006-07-27T15:44:00.000-04:00

See if you can guess which evil, fascistic, craven, hysterical paranoid was responsible for each liberal-bashing gem. It's fun! Hitler v. Coulter Test

YouTube - George Bush letterman video

2006-07-27T11:50:00.000-04:00

YouTube - George Bush letterman video

Yes its our top ten favorite moments

BBC NEWS | Americas | Leading US senator rebukes Bush

2006-07-27T10:29:00.000-04:00

BBC NEWS Americas Leading US senator rebukes Bush It's gratifying to see a stronger response to the signing statement disgrace. It's even more gratifying to see it coming from his own party. The Republicans control every tiny corner of the federal government and President Rove still isn't satisfied that the laws are conservative enough.

Fun with Religious Fanaticism

2006-07-26T16:12:00.000-04:00

I was reading the post that MB put up the other day (the one about Hillary Clinton being the surprise prediction of some religious zealot for President in 2008).

Fanatic writings from religious zealots can be so much fun if you take the time to replace just a couple of words with words that you like better. Just for fun, I replaced 'God' with 'King Kong', 'prolife' with 'banana', 'abortion(s)' with 'banana smashing', and 'get an abortion' with 'smash a banana'. Wow, you'd be surprised at how the edginess of fanatic writing gets a little silly as a result.

Here's a sample:

King Kong has an interesting plan for the future of banana politics.

For years well-meaning political activists have tried to change the political landscape in order to end banana smashing or to reduce the number of banana smashings. However, to a great extent, they have failed. Banana smashing is currently (2004) so thoroughly legal that a woman can smash a banana for any reason and even a minor can smash a banana without parental consent. Some people hope that banana smashing will become illegal again through a change to the Supreme Court or through a change in the laws. But King Kong's thoughts are not our thoughts, and his ways are not our ways.

King Kong will change the hearts and minds of most people to realize that banana smashing is a serious sin against King Kong and to reject banana smashing. The courts and the legislatures will follow the hearts and minds of the people. The courts and the legislatures will decide to make banana smashing illegal, but only after people realize that banana smashing is evil. But many supporters of banana smashing will not want to give up the sin of banana smashing and the power that they get from it. It is for these hard-hearted supporters of banana smashing that King Kong is setting an unusual trap.

In 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton will be elected President of the United States.

Now, all things being equal, she would not be King Kong's first choice for president. She has many faults. She is not very religious. She was involved in some scandals during her husband Bill Clinton's administration. And she calls banana smashing a right. However, King Kong will allow her to become President of the United States for one particular reason….

Hilarious

2006-07-26T15:57:00.000-04:00

Wouldn't this be absolutely hilarious? Sadly, I'm not sure this would be a worse way to decide foreign policy than our current system.

The Next Prolife President of the United States

2006-07-26T15:48:00.000-04:00

The Next Prolife President of the United States Who did you guess? John McCain? Ralph Reed? Rick Santorum? Nope. OK, consider the source and maybe discount heavily, but don't dismiss this out of hand.

Trade Me Right F*%ing Now

2006-07-24T16:08:00.000-04:00

The only thing worse than A-Rod playing for the Phillies would be A-Rod playing for the Sox. And we thought Terrell Owens was bad.

Yanksfan vs Soxfan: Unconfirmed Report: Yanks Trade A-Rod

Bush The Imbecile

2006-07-18T11:05:00.000-04:00

It gets worse and worse. I have been saying exactly what this blogger writes for five years now. Yet, even though I have know he is a moron, Bush's remarks into an open mike at the G8 are shocking to me. He does talk like a third grader. Shame on Tony Blair for following this clown into Iraq.
The Blog | Cenk Uygur: The Ugly Truth: Our President is an Imbecile | The Huffington Post

A-Rod Shipped Back To Manufacturer To Fix Mechanical Flaw In Swing | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

2006-07-18T08:05:00.000-04:00

A-Rod Shipped Back To Manufacturer To Fix Mechanical Flaw In Swing

What Does Israel Want?

2006-07-17T23:22:00.000-04:00

What Does Israel Want?
Good coverage of the situation in Lebanon can be found at: electroniclebanon.net
Also check out this one:
NY Times: Arab leaders to blame, fair game for assassination

Newt for president

2006-07-14T15:57:00.000-04:00

Just a follow-up to one of our many wonderful, after-dinner conversations in Vancouver. The New Republic has a story about Newt Gingrich and the 2008 election. They, like me, believe Gingrich will be a strong contender from the GOP. The article is worth a read because of a humorous vignette about Gingrich locked in the monkey cage at a zoo feeding fistfuls of mealworms to monkeys. I kid you not. (If you want my password to TNR, email me.) Here's the punchline quote.

That's right, Newt Gingrich is running for president. Granted, he's not yet an official candidate, and, if you ask him whether he's running, he--like virtually everyone eyeing the White House this early in the process--will deny it. But, as soon as that denial leaves his lips, Gingrich, unlike other presidential candidates, will not-so-subtly undercut it--inviting you, for instance, to ask him again in August, when he'll be in Iowa glad-handing at the state fair. Because, as Gingrich himself seems to realize, the notion that he is running for president is, at least at first glance, unbelievable.

Architectural Salvage

2006-07-13T19:38:00.000-04:00

I am not sure if any of you have ever checked out your local architectural salvage "stores" but they are cool, cool. I can't wait to check out the places here in DC.

Bruins fire coach Mike Sullivan - Boston.com

2006-06-28T11:49:00.000-04:00

Well it's a start.

Bruins fire coach Mike Sullivan - Boston.com

Bruins fire coach Mike Sullivan

Be Scared. Be Very Scared

2006-06-20T08:16:00.000-04:00

This new book confirms our suspicions about an incompetent, incurious president being controlled by his veep.

'The One Percent Doctrine,' by Ron Suskind - The New York Times - Book Review - New York Times

Yankees Suck! Yankees Suck!

2006-06-19T20:18:00.000-04:00

As a local Nats Fan we don't have much to cheer about - but two out of three against the Yankees - woop woop! Wang gives it up gives it up big time!

Colbert Report

2006-06-19T08:05:00.000-04:00

Scroll down to Colbert interviewing a Georgia congressman who has introduced a bill on the Ten Commandments. Colbert asks him to name them. You can guess what happens. The video is priceless.
Crooks and Liars

Dems Outsmarted Again

2006-06-16T12:30:00.000-04:00

At the risk of an overly long post, take a look at the core items in the resolution that passed the House today regarding Iraq. Any Dems that voted against this, especially the ones facing tight elections in November, will deeply regret it. (The full text of legislation is here. The roll call vote is here.

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

If I were running a Republican campaign against an embattled Democratic incumbent, I'd make my candidate say this, "If you need any evidence suggesting Democrats aren't serious about security, consider my opponent's views on the war in Iraq. He/She refused to endorse a House resolution to congratulate the new Prime Minister in Iraq. In the same resolution, he/she endorsed setting an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of our troops, even if the mission in Iraq was incomplete. On top of that, he/she couldn't even support a resolution that stated our collective resolve to prevail in the war on terror! Is this the kind of leader you want making serious security policy in the future?"

I wonder if most Democrats should have abstained from voting (voting "present", for example) and then hit the campaign trail to explain to voters why such a moronic resolution did not warrant serious discussion.

You have to hand it to the White House political operatives (Rove et al). They cleaned the floor with the Dems once again.

Video for YearlyKos Convention

2006-06-14T10:39:00.000-04:00

A fifteen year old produced this video. Enjoy.
YouTube - YEARLYKOS Con :Ep. 2: Peace Takes Courage

Great Video

2006-06-14T10:35:00.000-04:00

A fifteen year old blogger produced this video for the YearlyKos convention last weekend. It is better than the high-priced media consultant's efforts because it is not afraid to speak the truth.

YouTube - YEARLYKOS Con :Ep. 2: Peace Takes Courage

Don't Eat at Geno's

2006-06-09T14:43:00.000-04:00

Some people think Geno's Steaks has the best cheesesteaks in Philadelphia, but forget about it.

Philadelphia eatery issues English-only policy for ordering - The Boston Globe

Page 1

2006-06-06T15:13:00.000-04:00

If you are one of those long time angry at the owner bruins fan this site is for you. lots of great Jeremy Jacobs talk. There is also a lot of links to other espn pages about really bad owners.

Enjoy

Dave B
Page 1

My Thoughts Exactly

2006-06-06T11:23:00.000-04:00

Albert Pujols, on pace to break Barry Bonds' single-season home run record, tore a muscle in his side trying to reach for a pop foul. Yeah, that's totally natural. People routinely tear their own oblique muscles in half reaching for things. As a fan of baseball, I'm concerned that the steroid era is far from over. Why do baseball journalists pretend that it is? This is a nice article about why baseball journalists are ill-equipped for covering controversy in their own sport.

Soldier, Filmmaker

2006-06-02T12:40:00.000-04:00

The TriBeca Film Festival's winning documentary is the 90-minute result of 800 minutes of film shot by three American soldiers in Iraq and 200 minutes of film shot by American director Deborah Scranton of the soldiers' families. We have become sadly used to all of this - the pictures, the stories, the immediacy. Will we be able to tell the difference between this and, say, "Three Kings", "Gunner Palace" or "Courage Under Fire"?

Chicken and egg question answered

2006-05-27T10:58:00.000-04:00

The age old question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" has been answered. Click here to find out.
Here's another interesting one. Invisibility cloaks, like the one in Harry Potter could become a reality within five years.
Finally, Grumpy man on a bus becomes star of the internet. Check out the 'Bus Uncle' on youtube.com

"This is not resolved! This is not resolved! I face pressure. You face pressure. Why did you provoke me?" - Bus Uncle

International Federation of Competitive Eating - IFOCE

2006-05-25T12:15:00.000-04:00

International Federation of Competitive Eating - IFOCE:
"Hamburger: Big Daddy Burger
9 pound cheeseburger/ Plaza Hotel Casino
27 minutes, 0 seconds/ Jan. 21, 2006
Sonya Thomas"

I seem to remember some kind of burger eating challenge between the Hewitts. What ever happen with that? Check out some of these amazing world records. 8.4 pounds of baked beans in 2 min 47 sec (insert joke here)
HA HA HA

Cheap Nation-Building in Iraq

2006-05-24T15:15:00.000-04:00

The NYT is running an interesting series of articles on security problems in Iraq. Since finding a solution to the building civil violence depends on solving the security problems, these articles offer a lot of helpful detail.

The first installment in the series tries to shed some light on how initial events in the war's aftermath planted the seeds for future failure. The person tasked with training the new Iraq police force (a former US Army general) wanted to apply lessons learned from previous conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo. That lesson, that training involved mobilization of many US personnel to the area, was discarded by Bush administration officials. Those officials claim that the CIA advised them that the existing Iraqi force, Saddam's force, would be well-equipped for taking over law enforcement. The CIA denies ever offering that assessment.

The rest, as we know, is history. The article's description of early efforts to train Iraqi police officers is breathtaking. The sheer bureaucratic chaos in early 2003 speaks volumes about the level of unpreparedness.

The article points to a tangible consequence of trying to change the regime in Iraq on the cheap. Despite relevant (and recent) evidence to the contrary, the Bush administration kidded themselves that this particular aspect of nation-building (training of law enforcement) would require little investment.

In the meantime, it will now be more difficult to pull off successful training of law enforcement personnel. Hopefully, the US doesn't continue to cut corners on this important effort.

The Big House is getting BIGGER

2006-05-23T16:08:00.000-04:00

Wow - luxury boxes are coming to the Big House. I guess the plan for expansion was pretty controversial - but it is rare to find a sporting venue that doesn't have them now right? If they would only allow us peasants a little more booty room on the benches I would be thrilled.

Regents approve controversial Big House project by 5-3 vote - News

A New Tradition

2006-05-23T14:52:00.000-04:00

Every time the Red Sox pound the Yankees, I'm posting a happy picture from the game. Here are Willie, Manny, and Trot exchanging high-fives after surviving Keith Foulke's mini-meltdown.

Also, about the meaningless home run that A-Rod hit in the ninth, check out the little "Elias Says" box on the ESPN recap of the game.

News Fit to Print?

2006-05-23T13:31:00.000-04:00

Here's a news flash: Extraordinarily busy couples don't get to see each other that much. For readers who find themselves staggered by this insight, the following breakdown of how Bill and Hillary Clinton spend their time might be interesting:

Since the start of 2005, the Clintons have been together about 14 days a month on average, according to aides who reviewed the couple's schedules. Sometimes it is a full day of relaxing at home in Chappaqua; sometimes it is meeting up late at night. At their busiest, they saw each other on a single day, Valentine's Day, in February 2005 — a month when each was traveling a great deal. Last August, they saw each other at some point on 24 out of 31 days. Out of the last 73 weekends, they spent 51 together. The aides declined to provide the Clintons' private schedule.

Next week, the NYT will reveal that busy people don't play a lot of video games. Try not to fall out of your chair when you read that one.

Hillary Clinton's recent flirtations with the political right are probably far more consequential in terms of what to expect in the coming campaign. I think it's safe to say that the vacuous gossip isn't terribly helpful right now.

To be fair (especially since the NYT author is a former student), there is a tiny kernel in the article worth some consideration. This relates to a campaign strategy issue about the public face that candidate Clinton will attempt to paint on her relationship with her spouse. But can't we agree to hold off on thinking about this until after we have a few primaries under our belt?

Crooks and Liars

2006-05-23T12:01:00.000-04:00

Crooks and Liars

***Here is a hilarious cartoon of Bush delivering his lies courtesy of SNL.

BBC news interviews the wrong Guy

2006-05-18T19:15:00.000-04:00

Watch this video. Guy Coma thought he was going in for a job interview. Instead he was mistaken for an IT expert named Guy Kewney and interviewed live on air. BBC News 'wrong Guy' is revealed. I love this:
Mr Goma said his appearance was "very stressful" and wondered why the
questions were not related to the data support cleanser job he applied for.

Guardian Unlimited | Guardian Weekly | Kicking out against prejudice

2006-05-18T19:08:00.000-04:00

This is an interesting article about an Israeli Arab soccer player Kicking out against prejudice. He scored a big goal against Ireland to prevent them from going to the world cup.

Something is Going on in Florida

2006-05-18T16:17:00.000-04:00

Here's an entertaining article about alligators and how some crazy Louisianans have learned to co-exist with them. If anything, the article is worth a look because of this priceless passage:

So something clearly is going on in Florida. Yesterday, ... an alligator walked through the doggy door of a woman's house in Bradenton and went for her golden retriever. The woman grabbed a shotgun and blazed away. The alligator escaped with a flesh wound. The neighbors heard shots and called police, who promptly cited the woman for hunting without a license.

What is going on in Florida?

Cheating Students

2006-05-17T22:29:00.000-04:00

The NYT has an interesting story about how college students are using technological gadgetry to cheat. The article is full of examples of how enterprising students use everything from cell phones to iPods to commit academic fraud.

The underlying theme of the article seems to be that technology has served to grease the rails to Cheaterville. Between mounting pressures for grad school admission and the lure of easy A's through techno-cheating, students can't stop themselves from academic dishonesty.

Not that I'm a 'law and order' type of guy or anything, but I often wonder whether tougher sanctions for academic dishonesty would solve the problem. Consider the University of Virginia's 'single sanction' policy (a PDF document). If a student is found to commit academic dishonesty, the student is expelled automatically with no option to ever return. The most fascinating thing about Virginia's system is that students play a major role in enforcing it.

Makes you wonder whether Virginia is experiencing the same problems as other institutions...

Living on the streets after being evicted for livin' in sin

2006-05-17T20:41:00.000-04:00

I hope Brad Pitt isn't trying to talk Angelina Jolie into moving back to Missouri with him to raise their family. In Black Jack, Missouri this is a no no and cause for eviction. Read on people ....
CNN.com - Town won't let unmarried parents live together - May 17, 2006

I Know It's Wrong, But ...

2006-05-17T09:01:00.000-04:00

I love Russ Springer!! I know it's horrible to feel this way, but I'm not particularly excited for the sad day when Bonds surpasses Ruth and then Aaron. In the meantime, if Bonds has to endure some roughing up, then so be it.

Dwindling Hope in Iran

2006-05-17T08:51:00.000-04:00

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected the latest offer from the EU to give up its uranium enrichment program in exchange for assistance in building a light-water nuclear reactor. Such a reactor can be used for generating power for civilian purposes and cannot be relied on for producing fuel for weapons. It's not at all clear what can now be offered to Iran to induce its leadership to abandon their plans. That seems especially clear when Ahmadinejad says this in a public speech:

"They say they want to give us incentives! Do you think you are dealing with a four year old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?"

As my 1-year old son likes to say, "Uh ohhhh."

America The Fearful

2006-05-15T15:09:00.000-04:00

I hope the Grey Lady doesn't go after me for posting Bob Herbert's "Select" Op_Ed. I just think it's a shame that in these Orwellian times of the Bush regime that the NY Times is limiting access to their best and brightest voices. America needs to here what Bob Herbert is saying. I belive he is on point with his remarks. It really scares me that the quick polls over the last week show that the public is unconcerned that the the NSA can troll millions of domestic phone calls looking for links to Al Qaeda. Their attitude is that they are not terrorists and so have nothing to hide. What concerned voices need to point out to them is that such unchecked, secret spying on citizens with no oversite can lead to abuses whereby government can secretly spy on its perceived "enemies" like anti-war Quakers or government whistle blowers or reporters like Seymore Hershe and Dana Priest. People need to be reminded that a Republican president once had an enemies list made up of ordinary citizens. And given the lies and incompetence of the Bushies, do we really want to trust them with our private phone records?
Auntie m

The New York Times

May 15, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
America the Fearful
By BOB HERBERT

In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public's fear is this president's most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.

Mr. Bush wants ordinary Americans to remain in a perpetual state of fear — so terrified, in fact, that they will not object to the steady erosion of their rights and liberties, and will not notice the many ways in which their fear is being manipulated to feed an unconscionable expansion of presidential power.

If voters can be kept frightened enough of terrorism, they might even overlook the monumental incompetence of one of the worst administrations the nation has ever known.

Four marines drowned Thursday when their 60-ton tank rolled off a bridge and sank in a canal about 50 miles west of Baghdad. Three American soldiers in Iraq were killed by roadside bombs the same day. But those tragic and wholly unnecessary deaths were not the big news. The big news was the latest leak of yet another presidential power grab: the administration's collection of the telephone records of tens of millions of American citizens.

The Bush crowd, which gets together each morning to participate in a highly secret ritual of formalized ineptitude, is trying to get its creepy hands on all the telephone records of everybody in the entire country. It supposedly wants these records, which contain crucial documentation of calls for Chinese takeout in Terre Haute, Ind., and birthday greetings to Grandma in Talladega, Ala., to help in the search for Osama bin Laden.

Hey, the president has made it clear that when Al Qaeda is calling, he wants to be listening, and you never know where that lead may turn up.

The problem (besides the fact that the president has been as effective hunting bin Laden as Dick Cheney was in hunting quail) is that in its fearmongering and power-grabbing the Bush administration has trampled all over the Constitution, the democratic process and the hallowed American tradition of government checks and balances.

Short of having them taken away from us, there is probably no way to fully appreciate the wonder and the glory of our rights and liberties here in the United States, including the right to privacy.

The Constitution and the elaborate system of checks and balances were meant to protect us against the possibility of a clownish gang of small men and women amassing excessive power and behaving like tyrants or kings. But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Bush crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.

If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.

So we've kidnapped people and sent them off to be tortured in the extraordinary rendition program; and we've incarcerated people at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere without trial or even the right to know the charges against them; and we're allowing the C.I.A. to operate super-secret prisons where God-knows-what-all is going on; and we're listening in on the phone calls and reading the e-mail of innocent Americans without warrants; and on and on and on.

The Bushies will tell you that it is dangerous and even against the law to inquire into these nefarious activities. We just have to trust the king.

Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.

There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.

More Disconnected Thinking about SUVs

2006-05-14T14:06:00.000-04:00

The Editors at The New Republic have published another item on SUVs that reveals their oddly inchoherent disdain for these vehicles. This time, they write about a solution to US energy dependence that involves taxing purchases of SUVs. Here's how it works (in their words):

Wonks, in their pithiest mode, refer to the Hummer Tax as a "feebate" system. Under such a system, the government would either slap a tax or offer a rebate on newly purchased vehicles based on the vehicle's fuel-efficiency rating. For instance, a gas-guzzling SUV would carry a surcharge, which, in turn, would fund the rebate that is awarded to each buyer of fuel-efficient hybrids. Unlike the gas tax, which essentially penalizes people for decisions they have already made, a feebate would penalize--or reward--future decisions. An extra $10,000 on the sticker price of an Escalade actually stands a chance of deterring high-end shoppers, not to mention middle-class SUV buyers.

Knee-jerk liberals might find such a proposal attractive, but I think the idea is badly flawed. The tax punishes people who buy SUVs, not necessarily people who use the most fuel. The TNR editors concede this point at the end of the article, but lament that an increase in gas taxes would be politically implausible.

Agreed, but imposing a tax on SUV purchasers is misguided and unfair. Such a tax is the equivalent of taxing people who go to bars as a way to discourage smoking. Why single out SUV purchasers and not pickup truck purchasers? Or, why not tax anyone who doesn't buy a hybrid? Any such proposed tax would have the same problem, wouldn't they?

No More Deadwood?

2006-05-12T20:14:00.000-04:00

If you watch Deadwood you will be sorry to know HBO probably will not pick up the show after the upcoming 3rd season. What a drag - we know conservatives hated the show for its vulgarity - lets blame the demise on them - ok?

Candle Powered Hot Air Balloon

2006-05-12T12:18:00.000-04:00

Candle Powered Hot Air Balloon

So Far, So Good

2006-05-12T10:31:00.000-04:00

I know it's early, but I'm happy as a clam about the season so far. We've taken 3 of 4 from the Yankees, looking especially good winning the series down in their place. Randy Johnson leaves the mound amidst a chorus of boos, Damon goes 1 for 16, and A-Rod repeatedly failed in the clutch...again! Life is good.

Rivalry aside, I was horrified to see what happened to Matsui. Dan Shaugnessy is right. This is a huge blow to the Yankees. From the perspective of a Red Sox fan, Matsui is one of those guys you hate to see in that lineup. All of which means that he's really good. I'm already looking forward to the next series in a couple of weeks at Fenway!

Don't Think Meat, Just Lead!

2006-05-11T14:39:00.000-04:00

Bob Herbert's column in today's NYT argues that Democrats are thinking too much about the guiding set of philosophies and ideas that they should present to voters in upcoming elections. His point is that candidates will be successful as long as they exhibit strong leadership and decisiveness. Here's the key paragraph:

Why not try something new and liberating, like the truth? Forget the theorizing and strategizing. Tell the truth about what's happening now. Let the electorate know how much the Iraq war is really costing — in human treasure, loss of influence around the world, increases in gasoline prices and cold, hard cash. Tell the truth about the monstrous buildup of state power by the Bush crowd, which has undermined the freedom and privacy of innocent people here at home, and angered many conservatives.

I'm not convinced it's as simple as this for two reasons. First, I think most American already appreciate these things. Second, these things are the result of ideas and philosophies that the current leadership holds dear. The Iraq war--with all of its negative consequences--is the result of a philosophy that holds that democracy should be promoted around the world by using superior US military force. Honesty and strong leadership would certainly desirable. But what ideas do Democrats have for solving domestic and foreign problems?

Pro Athletes and Religion

2006-05-10T17:20:00.000-04:00

Salon has a fascinating article on the relationship between conservative religious organizations and professional sports. The article makes an argument that the relationship is mutually beneficial. Evangelical organizations recruit from a pool of well-known celebrities to be public faces for their groups. Sports executives welcome the appearance of virtuous behavior that an athlete's embrace of religion brings upon the whole organization. The relationship, however, leads to a variety of problems.

Food for Thought

2006-05-10T11:27:00.000-04:00

The NYT's has an interesting article about how the Democratic Party should redefine itself in preparation for the November elections. There appears to be a consensus that the past strategy of definining themselves in terms of whatever issue they think will motivate voters (abortion, prescription drugs, etc.) isn't working. The article discusses several alternatives.

Iraq and Civil War

2006-03-06T13:34:00.000-05:00

Larry Diamond writes a very thougtful essay on the prospects for civil war in Iraq in this week's TNR. Diamond, one of political science's foremost experts on democratization, has been a vocal critic of how things have proceeded in Iraq. Just consider the title of his recent book: Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq. The word' bungled' jumps right out, doesn't it?

The solution to preventing a full-blown 'ethnic conflagration,' according to Diamond is a political one. The international community should preside over a mediated process (by the likes of someone like Lakhdar Brahimi) that brings nearly all parties (excluding the far extremists) to the table.

The key, again according to Diamond, is the for the Bush administration to announce a timetable for troop withdrawals (very gradual, not immediate) based on tangible, although flexible, goals. Until that happens, the Sunni insurgency will remain emboldened. The big question, of course, is whether such goals can be articulated clearly.

Liberals and SUVs (pt. 2)

2006-01-16T22:14:00.000-05:00

The New Republic's Michelle Cottle begins her article on SUVs and safety with, "Another year, another study on how SUVs are the root of all evil." Since TNR has a reputation of measured analysis and careful writing, I was curious about how Cottle was going to demonstrate the point.

The study Cottle refers to reports that

"The potential safety advantage of SUVs resulting from their heavier weight seems to be offset by other factors, including the greater tendency of SUVs to roll over in a crash."

The study indicates that the additional weight of an average SUV reduces occupant injury by one third in collisions with regular cars. Certainly, that's a significant reduction. But, SUVs are more prone to rolling over. Undoubtedly, this is dangerous. Cottle reports that children are three times more likely to sustain an injury in a rollover crash.

But this evidence does not support the conclusion that SUVs are, compared to other vehicles, unsafe.

For this, you'd have to consult Malcolm Gladwell's 2004 article in the New Yorker. This article presents some nice data on car accident fatalities. For each vehicle type, the data indicate fatality rates for the driver and also others who died at the hands of the particular vehicle.

In ascending order, the average fatality rates (fatalities per million cars) for drivers are minivans (40), mid-size cars (67), SUVs (70), large cars (73), compact cars (84), sub-compact (110), and pickups (111). Of the seven classes, SUVs are third. Not evil, mind you, just third. For fatality rates for others, all of the mini-van and car types range in the 30s. Not surprisingly, since they are bigger vehicles, SUVs and pickups have higher rates (54 and 94, respectively). Remarkably, pickups are nearly twice as deadly for others as compared to SUVs.

With SUVs having a respectable driver safety record compared to compact cars, subcompacts, and pickups, it would be reasonable to expect that SUVs are no more or less safe than other vehicles overall. Checking the data in Gladwell's article, the total fatality rate for SUVs compared with all other vehicles is virtually identical (123 versus 120). Gladwell doesn't report these overall averages.

However, to reinforce his claim that SUVs are wildly dangerous, he does report the results of a road test comparing an SUV to a car. For the SUV, he chose a Chevy Trailblazer. For the car, he chose a Porsche Boxer. I kid you not. After extensive testing, our crack journalist found the Boxer to perform better.

I know I have only referred to a couple of isolated pieces of writing on this, but I hope I have at least conveyed my main point. The state of the evidence on SUV safety does not seem to support the shrill polemics waged by writers like Michelle Cottle.

Liberals and SUVs

2006-01-06T10:54:00.000-05:00

Many people with liberal political values have intense animus for SUVs and, often, the people that choose to drive them.

I've been especially curious about this for awhile because my wife and I are considering an SUV for our next vehicle purchase. The venomous protest we've received from many of our liberal friends and family has caught us by surprise.

Michelle Cottle from the New Republic has written an article discussing some new evidence suggesting safety problems with SUVs. She seems to conclude that SUVs are highly dangerous vehicles that put passengers at greater risk than they would if they drove other vehicles.

I don't see how the evidence leads her to that conclusion, which leads me to wonder whether this is one of those cases where someone has already reached their conclusion before carefully considering evidence.

Anyway, that's all I want to say for now. But in the future, I think I'd like to write more about this.

UN Observer Calls Iraq Election Valid

2005-12-29T08:03:00.000-05:00

The UN official who headed up the United Nations' election duties in Iraq has declared the election "transparent and credible." That message, however, doesn't seem to be getting through to thousands of Sunni demonstrators in Baghdad.

Undoubtedly, it's possible that Sunni claims are inflated. But even if they are, how can officials from the UN, other international institutions, the US government, and the Iraqi government convince those who are disgruntled with the results that the election was legitimate? To the extent possible, every effort will hopefully be made to air each serious grievance in an open manner. Perhaps this will help to quell dissatisfaction with the results.

Blanket assertions that the election was legitimate without serious investigations into alleged fraud will only serve to bolster Sunni and secularist suspicions, which will lead only to greater dissatisfaction with democratic processes.

Damon is a Yankee. So What?

2005-12-22T08:12:00.000-05:00

You know what? This picture doesn't bug me as much as I thought it might. In fact, the Yankees' signing of Johnny Damon might not even be a net loss for the Red Sox. Johnny Damon is a good outfielder and a pretty decent lead-off hitter. But, here's the thing. Damon finished last season with a ton of little injuries that really slowed him down. While 2004 was one of his very best offensive seasons, 2005 was a bit of a drop-off. Moreover, New York might not be a great fit for him. The large centerfield will expose his weak arm. Fan favorite Bernie Williams will be waiting in the wings when he experiences his first 0-12 slide. Plus, as Jim Caple points out, the Yankees frown on free spirits. If the Sox sign Torii Hunter, getting over the loss of Johnny D will be easy.

Disturbing News in the Iraqi Election Aftermath

2005-12-21T07:47:00.000-05:00

Some secular Shiite parties as well as Sunni parties are raising allegations of election fraud in the aftermath of the election. This is disturbing news. With former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi joining the ranks of those who are concerned about the election's legitimacy, the complaints do not seem limited to just a few fringe parties.

Many of the parties claiming fraud performed worse than expected in the election. It's difficult to assess what role this may have in fanning the flames of election discontent. From the Washington Post article on this,

Though the Shiites' slim majority in the outgoing parliament was expected to dwindle because of high Sunni Arab turnout Thursday, initial calculations showed the Shiite list winning overwhelmingly in 10 of Iraq's 18 provinces, including the most populous, Baghdad. A coalition of ethnic Kurdish parties swept the three northernmost provinces, where Kurds predominate.

And then this disturbing passage from a leader in an independent Sunni slate,

And Saleh Mutlak, who headed an independent Sunni slate, said: "I don't think there is any practical point for us for being in this National Assembly if things stay like this. "This election is completely false. It insults democracy everywhere. Everything was based on fraud, cheating, frightening people and using religion to frighten the people," he said. "It is terrorism more than democracy." Mutlak said he had expected his slate to capture 70 parliamentary seats, but he said it seemed likely to win fewer than 20, according to the preliminary results.

If attitudes like this are prevalent among many Sunnis, this election may not prove very momentous in taking the wind out of the sails of the insurgency.

Partial Results of Parliamentary Elections Released in Iraq

2005-12-19T16:09:00.000-05:00

Preliminary results of the Iraqi election are beginning to dribble in. From the Washington Post article,

The partial election results, which did not include Sunni-dominated areas of western Iraq, suggested that the Islamist Shiite alliance that dominates the current government had done well and could win an outright majority in the new assembly. In the Shiite southern heartland, the Shiite alliance also appears to have won a decisive victory.

While the improved Sunni turnout seems like a positive development, the concern now is how will the Sunnis respond if the Islamist Shiite alliance has an outright majority? The Sunni turnout appears to indicate an acceptance of the political process, but how robust is that acceptance in the wake of the very marginal powerful gained as a result?

Welcome back

2005-12-01T07:23:00.000-05:00

Nothing like the arrival of a new baby to the family to cut into the time-wasting efforts at blogging. I came up for a breath of air this morning to read the New Republic. Lawrence Kaplan has an article criticizing the Bush Administration's new strategy in Iraq, which surprised me because I didn't realize the administration was doing something new. Alas, they are. And, as it turns out, it's not really new. The administration announced a strategy of 'clear, hold, and build.' The strategy involves clearing towns and cities of insurgents, maintaining a troop presence to prevent a resurgence of insurgents, and committing to winning the hearts and minds of people in the community. Kaplan makes a convincing case for why that strategy won't work.

If the clear-and-hold strategy rings familiar, that's because it is. The concept was a signature of the Vietnam War, when it was employed to mixed effect during the latter years of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. Hence, the good news: U.S. forces will no longer be fighting World War II all over again in Iraq, employing conventional tactics and operations against an unconventional foe. In its decision to revive tactical and operational concepts that were tested and found wanting in Vietnam, however, the administration seems to have missed a few things. First, it's not so clear that what worked in Vietnam will work again in Iraq. Second, we lost the war in Vietnam.

The bottom line, according to Kaplan, is that the battle for hearts and minds was up for grabs in Vietnam. In Iraq, towns populated almost entirely by Sunnis are less likely to be won over, especially when Iraqi troops stationed in their towns are almost entirely Shiites.

It might be best to just focus on taking care of my baby.

My one question about the Libby Indictment

2005-10-28T16:40:00.000-04:00

Scooter Libby's indictment excluded violations of law regarding passing along classified information to people without proper clearances. He was also not indicted for the specific law about revealing the covert status of CIA operatives. As Fitzgerald explained today, the legal standard for proving those claims is too high. The indictment seems to acknowledge, though, that Libby knew which part of the CIA Valerie Plame worked in. As Josh Marshall notes, a passage on page 5 of the indictment states:

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

Here's my question. Wouldn't someone with Libby's background in national security affairs understand that this division of the CIA is located in the agency's Directorate of Operations? More to the point, wouldn't someone with Libby's background know that the agency's covert operatives work in this part of the agency? Isn't this sufficient to demonstrate that Libby had a reasonable expectation that Wilson was indeed covert?

As I consider that question, I guess I can see why knowing Plame's office is housed in the side of the CIA that involves covert operations does not necessarily imply that Plame was covert. I imagine there are many who work in that office that are not covert and that someone like Libby could always claim he thought she was one of them.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific explanation

2005-10-28T07:31:00.000-04:00

In the debate about whether intelligent design should be taught in schools, I find myself frustrated at times that media accounts often pit intelligent design as a competing theory with evolution. Scientific explanations have strict standards for what types of arguments qualify as a theory, for what implications of theories qualify as hypotheses, for what sorts of observations qualify as evidence, and for what sorts of tools can be used to interpret evidence. Intelligent design does not qualify as a scientific theory because it does not conform with these standards. When the National Academy of Sciences examined the Kansas State Department of Education's new science education curriculum, they concluded that the over-emphasis on supernatural phenomena doesn't qualify as scientific inquiry.

As a result, the association (along with the National Science Teachers Association) prohibited the state from using their science curriculum materials. This strikes me as significant because, as the Washington Post article points out, these associations have developed a set of standards that "serve as the foundation for science curricula in virtually every state in the nation." Apparently, the exception will now be Kansas.

What's happening with this?

2005-10-27T18:48:00.000-04:00

The Chicago White Sox won the World Series last night. Judging from Ozzie Guillen's passionate embrace (pictured left), it must have been a very happy moment. Since we're on the topic, all of this talk about the White Sox possibly being one of the best teams to have won the World Series is really just silly. You can rank recent World Series champs here and, of course, you're going to want to rank the 2004 winners as the very best.

Global Test

2005-10-26T08:02:00.000-04:00

Remember that moment during one of the 2004 Presidential Debates when Bush mocked Kerry for suggesting that the US shape its foreign policy to conform with international institutions and the interests of key allies? For some reason, that's one of the first things that pops into my head when I think of how the US was duped by a wayward foreign intelligence agency.

If reporting in La Repubblica is correct, it appears that those forged documents about the Iraqi acquisition of uranium originated within SISMI, Italy's own military intelligence agency. Kevin Drum's blog at the Washington Monthly has more on this.

Valerie Flamin'

2005-10-25T14:34:00.000-04:00

The scandal surrounding the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative seems to be hitting a boiling point today. First, the New York Times is reporting that Scooter Libby first learned about Valerie Plame from VP Dick Cheney, not journalists (as he alleged in his grand jury testimony). Libby's own notes from a conversation with the VP "weeks before her identity became public" contradict what he asserted to the grand jury.

In other events, the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica is publishing a series of articles this week about the source of the forged Niger documents. The gist of the story appears to suggest that the White House was duped by the Italian military intelligence agency SISMI, who had aggressively trumpeted the false story about Nigerian uranium. Disregarding advice from the CIA, the White House--eager to justify its case for war--accepted what the Italians offered as the absolute truth and, in doing so, based much of the case for war with Iraq on faulty intelligence. The American Prospect has a good recap of this end of the story.

Libby - Obsessed and Wrong

2005-10-23T09:47:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post has a fascinating background piece on Scooter Libby today. One of the things that jumps out of the article for me is Libby's obsession with nonconventional warfare and the proliferation of WMDs. This obsession is, apparently, what fueled his fierce enthusiasm for waging war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. For me, Libby's story illustrates the potential for colossal errors of judgment when one reaches a conclusion before allowing evidence to lead you to it.

Irony

2005-10-21T13:06:00.000-04:00

If Vice President Cheney had presidential ambitions, it's likely that he would have had less influence in the Bush Administration. In a short article over at MSNBC's 'First Read', the authors make note of the fact that Cheney is an atypical VP because he has no aspiration for the presidency. This has allowed Bush to grant him significantly more power in the administration than previous presidents have given to their VPs. The irony is hard to miss: Cheney's lack of interest in future presidential power actually led to having greater present power as a vice president.

Should Dems stop gloating about the Plame case?

2005-10-19T07:51:00.000-04:00

Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame matter stomps on values held dear by champions of liberalism. At least this is the argument advanced by Jacob Weisberg in today's Slate. One of the more interesting points in the article is that the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act is a flawed law. It's impossible to prove, he argues, whether a government official knowingly blows the cover on a covert agent. This is the problem in the current case because it isn't clear at all whether Rove and/or Libby knew that Plame was covert. Rather, Libby and Rove may simply have been guilty of ruthless bureaucratic politics. They wanted only to smear the CIA, the agency the White House wanted to pin the blame on for the WMD debacle.

Here's where I disagree with Weisberg's leniency, though. He says that Libby and Rove aren't so awful that they would compromise national security assets just to score political points. I'm not so sure about that. They had probably seen the memo--classified as secret--detailing Plame's role. Did they bother to check to be sure she wasn't an operative before blabbing to the press about her role? If not, why not? I think those might have been good questions for Fitzgerald to ask. OK, I'm rambling.

Not so tough, after all

2005-10-18T15:10:00.000-04:00

Granted, these are just rumors, but part of me would be disappointed if Cheney resigned before taking his beating.

BostonSportsGuy is Funny

2005-10-18T14:11:00.000-04:00

Oh, those poor Astros fans. They had their Red Sox moment last night when Albert Pujols ripped their hearts out. Only Bill Simmons could possibly capture how this must have felt for them.

The Very Bad Idea

2005-10-17T12:30:00.000-04:00

This would be even funnier if it weren't true, but it's still pretty funny. This is from Salon, so you might have to watch a short advertisement before you can see the cartoon.

Forgetful Judith Miller

2005-10-16T16:46:00.000-04:00

The New York Times has finally published the story about Judith Miller's exchanges with the source that leaked information about Valerie Plame. Unfortunately, the article doesn't help to clarify the story very much. The story explains that Miller had two exchanges with Scooter Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney. In her notes for each of those two meetings, she jotted down the name 'Valerie Flame' and 'Victoria Plame.' Strangely, Miller claims that Libby was not the source who provided that name on each of those occasions. Moreover, she doesn't recall who provided that name to her. Why, then, would she jot the name in her notes during the course of each meeting? The only explanations I can think of include: (1) she added the name later, but forgets why; (2) there was someone else at the meeting who provided the name; (3) Miller is lying to protect Libby. It seems to me that only (2) and (3) make sense.

Horrifying

2005-10-15T13:44:00.000-04:00

This is terrifying to me: A couple of years ago, somebody found a new species of fish in Maryland called a snakehead. Apparently, it is indigenous to China and Korea. Somebody brought one over and dropped it in a Maryland pond. It's a predatory fish and fishologists (or whatever) worry that they'll upset the food chain by devouring all of the local fish. But here's the terrifying part about this bizarre fish: it can jump up on land and squirm great distances to spread itself into other tributaries and ponds hundreds of yards away. Until this weekend, fishologists thought the population remained tiny. The Washington Post reported today that with all of our rain recently, thousands of them rose to the surface for local fisherman to catch easily. Consider this upsetting quote from a local fisherman, ""They're in there by the thousands. You could see them literally coming up along the banks. The ones we caught didn't even put a dent in them," said [Mark] Hammond, 43, an avid bass fisherman from Florida living here temporarily. "We would throw one in the cooler, two others would jump out and we'd have to chase them through the woods." Yes, you read that correctly, they were chasing fish through the woods. We've enjoyed Maryland so far, but we're moving.