Responsibility

Summary:
If we assume that Iraq cannot be stable anytime soon, are we still responsible for staying? Our government created this situation, therefore I believe that we should feel morally obligated to stay.

Let's assume for a moment that we cannot provide stability in Iraq (everyday it is harder and harder for me to deny this). Given this assumption, there are two possible choices. One is that since we cannot succeed, we should withdraw (a very popular sentiment). The other school of thought follows from Colin Powell's comment to President Bush before the invasion - "You break, you own it." Since it is very clear that we have broken it, what then is our moral responsibility? (Most people would dismiss this whole debate right now, since moral responsibility is rarely a factor when discussing international relations and foreign policy - but that is not the nature of this blog.)

The fact is that we decided as a nation to create regime change in Iraq. Therefore, I believe that we as a nation are responsible for the outcome. Just because Bush lead the charge, doesn't absolve the country of our collective burden. The war was tremendously popular at the time, and don't forget that these people voted for it. We can't use the excuse that the President lied to us, because there were enough people voicing doubt and not supporting the President that a well-informed person would know enough to not support the war.

I believe that in a democratic system, we all bear responsibility for the decisions and actions of the government and therefore collectively should have to redress any mistakes. The United States government (with limited support including Great Britain) created the unstable situation that now exists in Iraq. And despite increased troop levels, we are still unable to provide any security (this article shows that we are still facing the same problems we have had from the beginning - since we cannot control the Sunni insurgents, Shiite groups get tired of the bombings and decide to retaliate). Since we have caused this problem, aren't we in some way responsible for sticking it out?

I know that many in the Democratic party don't see it that way. I get the feeling that they are content to blame it on Bush - as if knowing that he caused the endless carnage makes it acceptable for us to bring our troops home. This is the easy and popular answer, I just don't think it is the moral answer.

A Real Post About Rwanda

Summary:
Rwanda's president is suppressing dissent in hopes of allowing the country to enact economic and government reforms and give it a chance to remain stable. This level of control though has the potential to spark future violence, which may be unavoidable anyway.

A little while ago I wrote a short piece about the current state of Rwanda. My information came from a small article about Paul Rusesabagina, the real life hero of Hotel Rwanda, and how he views the current government in Rwanda. Looking back, my post was pretty superficial because my understanding of the current situation was also superficial. But after reading this article in the New York Review of Books, I think I have a much better grasp of the situation.

My previous post wasn't actually wrong, but according to the article there is reason for optimism. It is true that the current president Paul Kagame, the former leader of the RPF, the Tutsi military force that took control of the country and ended the genocide, exercises strict control over the population and suppresses dissent. This is something Rusesabagina, a Hutu, opposes. There are some though who feel that this is necessary right now to prevent another genocide and give the country the chance to engage economic and government reforms. Kagame's goals are lofty, and he seems to have the support of some in the West.

The fact remains though that the majority of the country is Hutu. It remains to be seen then how the majority will respond to suppression of dissent. It could end up leading to future violence if the Hutu population feels like second class citizens. According to the article, the potential for future ethnic cleansing lies just below the surface. On top of that, we have seen many leaders in the past resort to authoritarianism as a so-called temporary measure, and then later refuse to give up control.

There look to be so many ways that Rwanda could go wrong and devolve into violence again. There is a long history of civil war in the country even before 1994, and it is a past that will be hard not to repeat. I know the international community wants to see it remain stable, but if it doesn't, I wonder if they will get any real support this time around.

Crashing the Gate

Summary:
I disagree with the foundation around which Crashing the Gate is based. Their binary view of the world, along with an inability to be objective, make it hard to take the book seriously.

I skimmed through Crashing the Gate because a friend lent it to me and wanted to know what I think about it. Overall, I have to say I completely disagree with their view of the world that makes the foundation for the book.

First of all, the authors portray a binary view of the world, where the only options are one or zero, right or wrong, liberal or conservative. In that view of the world, if you aren't far enough to the left, than you aren't really a Democrat. There is no middle ground. To them, groups like the DLC simply repackage Republican ideas, and people like Joe Lieberman are traitors.

It is obvious to anyone who knows me why I hate that mentality. I consider myself pretty moderate - especially on foreign policy - and I object to anyone who thinks I am a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. For things like abortion, the economy, and taxes, there is room in the middle that shouldn't be considered a capitulation or gutless compromise to Republicans.

Secondly, the authors tend towards the view that there is something inherent about being Republican that makes them more flawed and always wrong. In the Valerie Plame scandal, Joe Wilson was faultless; Cindy Sheehan is a brave mom, not a lunatic; and when Republicans run large deficits, they are irresponsible but Democrats do it because they have to. The fact that the authors show they are incapable of being objective is a tremendous flaw and makes it hard to take the book seriously.

In the end, the authors of the book seem to think that their movement, the netroots movement, will allow them to create a liberal party that doesn't have to be a big tent party. This is complete nonsense, and I think the recent elections show that. Many of the freshman Democrats are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, or foreign policy hawks. Any party is going to have to include people who don't always toe the party line. Although it helps the party win elections, this isn't the reason the party needs to include them. A big tent party is necessary because when people only listen to other people who think like them, it limits policy possibilities and can push people into bad decisions (think the Bush administration, especially post-Powell).

In the end, I dislike Daily Kos so much because it shows the same intolerance for other points of view as the Bush Administration does. For many of the far left, there was no good reason to support Chief Justice Roberts, and no reason to stay in Iraq. As long as this is the case, the far left and the far right will continue to yell past each other and never make any progress.

Insert Pig Analogy Here

Summary:
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.

Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...

Quagmire Anyone?

Summary:
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.

I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.

Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.

When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.

Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.

Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.

Grading the Presidents

Summary:
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?

I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').

His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:

"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.

"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.

"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.

As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.

Timetable

Summary:
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.

Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.

At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.

Pakistan's Moderates

Summary:
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.

I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.

New Format

By the way, I am trying a new format. I am including a summary at the beginning of my posts. This way, people know what my post will be about and can choose to read it or move to the next one. I think of it as mixing USA Today with the New York Times (don't worry, I don't really think I am as good as the Times, but I thought the comparison was somewhat apt since I am long winded and most frequently link to the Times).

Richardson at DL21C

Summary:
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.

On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).

Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.

I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.

Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.

So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.

Pelosi, Although Slow and Dangerous Behind the Wheel

As long as Democrats aren't successful, then I agree with Friedman ($) that Pelosi's resistance to Bush's war policy is actually constructive. Although I don't think Iraq is to blame for not having put the country back together yet (that blame lies with us, and people like Tom Vilsack are stupid for even suggesting otherwise), I do think it is useful for the Iraqi government to know that they need to make concessions soon because the Democrats won't allow an extended troop presence. But equally important is Friedman's point that we also need to hope that General Petraeus can make the surge successful. We need some form of stability in Iraq before we can leave. I can't stress this enough.

Let My Poultry Go

I don't know if my favorite vegan would be surprised to hear this or not, but I agree with every word of this opinion piece($). Here is a highlight for those of you who don't have TimesSelect:

Numerous studies have documented crated sows exhibiting behavior characteristic of humans with severe depression and mental illness. Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America's hog farms.

Basically, I think animals should be treated much better than they are; this is in their interest and in ours. To put animals in unsanitary situations where disease is rampant and combat this by injecting the animals with very high levels of antibiotics can't be good for consumers, and it certainly isn't good for the animals. Free range pork and free range chicken - or at least cage-free - should be the norm, not the expensive exception.

Why Chavez?

To continue on the foreign policy trend, I think the popularity of Hugo Chavez can teach us something important. This article talks about Chavez's appeal in terms of his message of South American empowerment. Although there are many flaws in his positions, he articulates an alternative to US policies that always ensure that South America remains dependent on us. Right now, Chavez is the only alternative for people who are sick of our pressure for policies that always benefit the US (despite Bush's push for ethanol while in Brazil, he is still unwilling to end protectionist tariffs on imported sugar cane-based ethanol). If we were honest about free trade and if our policies really were fair to all parties, demagogues like Chavez would have much less appeal.

Surprisingly, President Bush has moved a bit in the right direction with this change in agriculture subsidies. Hopefully the Democratic Congress will not cave into the giant Agribusiness lobby, but I am worried. In the meantime, even people who see through Chavez will continue to be drawn to his message of empowerment.

Pick a Side

I can't stress how important this debate is and I wish people really thought about it more. Do we want to use force or do we want to stress diplomacy to accomplish our foreign policy aims? As I see it, one cannot work without the other, although I think Bush is just learning this. The question though is which should we stress?

I think it is undeniable that in Iraq we should have stressed diplomacy, sanctions, and working with the international community. In fact, sometimes force and the threat of force only makes leaders of rogue states stronger. Unfortunately, in our dealings with Iran it seems like we haven't learned any of these lessons (for a really funny take on this, check out Kristof's column where he shows just how much bad decisions can hurt our cause - more so than espionage). Of the candidates on the left, I get the impression that Bill Richardson knows how to stress diplomacy while still showing that the US can use force.

The Purse Strings

I know I post a lot about education policy; quite often I talk about early intervention, improving middle schools, and rigor in high schools. The bottom line though is that none of it is really worth talking about if we don't change the way we allocate funds. The only way we can eliminate the achievement gap is by making a determined effort to support schools with the greatest need. This means giving more funding to New York City and Syracuse, and less to Long Island and the Hudson Valley.

The problem is that this isn't politically popular. As you can see in this article, the schools in the suburbs want to protect their own interests and are resistant to any decreases in funding. But if funding doesn't decrease in the areas that can afford it, there is little chance of significant increases to schools that need it - there is only so much room in the state budget.

Policy discussions are necessary, but the real action is in the budget. When programs aren't adequately funded, the policy cannot succeed. It is that simple. So don't expect any major improvements in achievement until serious funding changes are made.

In Sports, I Follow People

I don't usually write about sports, but I think I just realized something. The sports teams I follow - both now and as a kid - revolve around some person that excites me. As a kid, I liked the Detroit Tigers, New York Mets, St. Louis Cardinals, and Oakland Athletics. I used to be embarrassed about this apparent fickleness because I thought it meant I was a front runner. The reality is that only two of those teams actually won while I was a fan (the Tigers and Cards weren't good in the late 1980s). But the truth is that I liked those teams because of a player that thrilled me. For the Tigers it was Jack Morris, the Mets it was Ron Darling and Lenny Dykstra, it was Ozzie Smith on the Cardinals, and of course Mark McGwire on the A's.

The reason I realized this now is because I am finding myself rooting for the New York Islanders, a team I have long despised almost as much as the New Jersey Devils. I am rooting for them because they finally hired Ted Nolan. For those of you who don't know, Ted Nolan was the head coach of the Buffalo Sabres back in the mid 1990s. He won coach of the year in 1997, was fired / not given a contract extension for the following season, and hasn't coached since. I have long thought the reason he wasn't offered a job since then was racism - Ted Nolan is an American Indian and grew up on the Garden River First Nation Reserve.

The truth is that he and his boss, General Manager John Muckler didn't get along, nor did he get along with goalie Dominic Hasek. But for anyone who knows the NHL, they will agree that many coaches have bad reputations for not getting along with GMs and star players, but still get hired if they have had some success (Mike Keenan is the best example of this). Ted Nolan won coach of the year because his Sabres that year played well above anyone's expectations. In light of all this, I was never able to understand why he wasn't hired.

But after a long absence, Ted Nolan is back and I find myself doing the unthinkable, rooting for the Islanders (I think I might even root for them to make the playoffs over the Rangers). For those of you who are unconvinced, here is a recent interview I read.

Closing Schools

I feel like this is the part of No Child Left Behind that people don't talk about enough. When schools fail to perform, they are closed down and students are sent to other schools. While it makes sense that poor performing schools shouldn’t just be allowed to continue operating as usual, closing them isn’t having any effect either. A friend in Syracuse told me about one of their schools that closed down. In response, the city essentially sent the kids to another school with a different name; it is still plagued with the same problems. It appears that the schools in the NYC are having the same problems.

The fact is, closing the school and opening it under a new name doesn’t change what is causing poor performance. What we need to do is decide that we are truly serious about changing education results in low income areas. While there has been a lot of lip service given to this, too many groups are actually standing in the way of meaningful reforms. To my mind, one of the best things we can do is to pay teachers a premium to teach in these areas. Data shows that low income areas on average have teachers with less experience.

This makes perfect sense economically; if you are paid the same whether you teach in a school with a challenging education environment or less of a challenging environment, more often than not you will choose the easier environment. I think NYC Department of Education is trying to do this though a new focus on weighted student funding. The unions are of course opposing this, which is really unfortunate because the unions are so strong they can kill almost any proposal or evolution. But make no mistake, we need to make this decision or else we cannot actually deal with the achievement gap. We need to say that we are willing to spend a lot more money in low performing areas, and that includes paying teachers more to teach there.

Unions Protect the Worst

I don’t think I could either be classified as pro-union or anti-union (as a whole, I have been rejecting the idea of binary distinctions lately). I certainly recognize the roll unions have played in our history – the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safe working conditions – the list goes on. But at the same time, I recognize their significant flaws. Above all, their goal is to protect their workers, but in executing this they frequently rely on an adversarial, and unproductive, relationship with management, and worse spend much effort defending poor-performing workers.

When I was an undergraduate, I had a part-time job on campus driving some of the trades workers around campus to perform their duties. Almost all of the workers were excellent and competent. There was one, the electrician, who was notoriously slow, lazy, and adept at hiding and avoiding work. He refused to carry a radio so that he could not be found and dispatched to his next assignment – and in other ways ensured that he would have maximum time between tasks and thereby accomplishing a minimum. Every time management tried to confront him, he filed a grievance and the union defended him. In a small way, the campus would have functioned better if it could have fired the electrician and hired someone willing to work hard for the pay and generous benefits offered by the university.

I see teacher tenure in the same way. In K-12 I see no reason that tenure should exist – in academia I see that it is meant to protect professors and allow them to conduct research that may be unpopular. Teachers unions though protect tenure with all of their effort. In my mind, a system of teacher tenure only protects the low-performing teachers. As a product of public school, I can remember a few teachers who had either long since lost their ability to reach the students, or quite possibly didn’t have it in the first place. The school should have had the ability to fire these teachers if they weren’t effective. Instead, every year 25 students (more or less) had to suffer through a class with this teacher.

This is the fundamental problem I have with unions – their desire to protect the worst employees instead of the best. I am sure the logic is that by protecting the worst, they are protecting all – but I don’t see it that way. I have seen how employee moral can be affected by lazy employees who are never disciplined. What makes me really angry is that the unions want to increase their grab to cover charter schools as well. The idea behind charter schools is to make them closer to their private school counterparts, with more flexibility in curriculum and staff management (hiring and firing teachers, hours and responsibilities, etc). Forcing them to unionize only makes them more like public schools - cumbersome and slow to evolve.

Richardson for President?

So I finally checked out Bill Richardson's presidential exploratory webpage, since the media hasn't been feeding me too much about him. I have to say I am pretty excited by what I found out. He is a former ambassador to the UN, former head of the Department of Energy, and now two term governor. He seems to have plenty of experience as an executive, and has strong foreign policy and energy credentials, which right now go well together.

Also, I find his message pretty compelling. His foreign policy vision is sound - more diplomacy without backing off our military strength, renewed efforts to fight Al Qaeda and international terrorism, and of course energy independence. He has made two trips to Sudan for negotiations, met with Saddam before the war to negotiate prisoner releases, and met with the President of Mexico to discuss immigration issues.

Since we are talking about it, his immigration policy is pretty strong as well and he isn't afraid to use tough language about standards for any legal immigrants that are granted amnesty or let in as guest workers (although at times the language did seem a little too tough). I of course love his message of bipartisanship (which to me just means less animosity), but I am a sucker for that. And his healthcare and economy talking points seem to make sense. (Although anyone thinking he can replicate his economic success in New Mexico should take caution. I think it is much easier to attract businesses as a governor because when you lower taxes you can steal businesses from other states. I don't think that works as well on a national level.)

The one place where I do disagree with him though is on Iraq. I don't agree with the rhetoric about forcing Iraq to take control of their own security. It is a little ridiculous to expect a country to stop violence that we have created, and step into a vacuum with a military and police that we disbanded. The reason they haven't stepped up yet is because they lack the capability - pure and simple. As I see it, a significant troop draw-down in the near future will only lead to a much worse civil war between Sunnis and Shiites - and more power to Iran and / or Al Sadr in the end.

Overall though, I really do like Richardson. He seems very smart and thoughtful, which is important. Also, his policy recommendations seem realistic and progressive. And, even though I don't think experience is always the most important criteria, he does seem to the best qualified of the major contenders. My hope is that his message actually gets a real chance to be heard. This might not be possible though since Hillary, Obama, and even Edwards are talking over everyone else right now.

Stupid Presidents

Let's talk about Iran. I get angry every time I hear more news about the Administration's position. To me, the policy should be easy. The goal is to weaken their radical president. The best way to do that is to give no public indication that they are a strong nation while making every attempt to point out the country's weak economy. Our President though does the opposite, he talks about how much of a threat Iran is, and rarely mentions Ahmadinijad's poor leadership.

If I can say one thing about our President, it is that he is good at creating / inventing an enemy. He just made a statement that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq. Granted, this isn't something I contest. But his goal is to give the impression that if we fail in Iraq, it is because of Iran, not a poorly managed war. In the meantime, his actions are making Iran stronger, and giving them more influence in the region. Also, all this tough talk makes me worried that me might lead us into another war or even skirmish with Iran. And I am obviously not the only one since it seems like everyday the secretary of defense has to repeat that we are not going to attack Iran.

North Korea

I think this is very good news regarding North Korea. I don't know yet where most of the credit belongs (maybe with Secretary Rice?), although it looks like there were bilateral talks - interesting.

Sometimes I Am Wrong

Okay, so just after I finish bashing Hillary's position on the war, I read this ($), by David Brooks. Maybe I was wrong about her; her position does seem to be exactly how I would want a leader to have looked at the situation. Here are some highlights from the column:

If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they’d learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make.

The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections.

She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community “should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.” Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.

I have a feeling that my opinions on the candidates will be changing a lot over the next year or so.

Blizter v. Cheney

Wolf Blitzer had the following exchange in an interview with Vice President Cheney recently:

BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?

CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter...

CHENEY: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate...

CHENEY: I think you're out of line.

BLITZER: ...your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question.

CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.

BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.

Apparently, this whole interview was pretty contentious. But it is this last exchange that really struck me. I never really had a good feeling after the number of times I have seen Cheney confronted on this issue. It isn't that I don't see why people bring this up. The hope is that since Cheney obviously loves his daughter, he will want to defend her, and her lifestyle, against the ignorant comments coming from the far right.

Even though I understand that, I still don't think it is right the way to handle it. In my opinion, the fight to give same sex individuals and couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is fundamentally about respect for the individual and their choices and lifestyles. By thrusting Mary Cheney into the spotlight, in the hopes that a big name conservative will do battle with the religious right, is unfair to her, and I think goes against the spirit behind our goals. Instead, whether she gets involved should be her choice, just like who she chooses to share her life with should also be her choice. If she were to enter the arena, and do battle with far-right conservatives, we would all rally behind her. But since she seems to not want that battle, we should respect that and respect her privacy.

On the Primaries

There are some good articles on the main Democratic contenders for 2008. This one is pretty critical of Barak Obama, but at least it isn't talking about stupid electability issues like what his name rhymes with, whether president of Harvard Law Review is exactly the same as President of the United States, and his admitted drug usage. Basically it says he is running on a message of hope, without really talking about specific policy issues. I am in the process of reading his book; I'll see if he has actually outlined policies in that book.

Also, in this article, Hillary Clinton tried to defend her Iraq War vote by saying she wouldn't have supported it if she had the intelligence information she has now. This might fly with some people, but it doesn't work for me. We had all the information we needed to vote against the war. The weapons inspectors hadn't found anything, there was not a strong link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and we were still trying to secure Afghanistan when we launched the war in Iraq. On top of that, the vote didn't restrict Bush at all, so you can't say you didn't know Bush would go to war without coming back to Congress.

This is the thing about Hillary Clinton that doesn't sit right with me. She seems like she is always trying to have it both ways. Granted, she isn't the only one. John Kerry was like that too. But the fact is, she made a decision to support the war and she needs to account for that. Either she still thinks it was a good idea, or she doesn't and needs to take responsibility for that (which could be hard since she probably supported the war because it was popular - not because it was necessary).

All of this makes me wish they cover Bill Richardson's campaign more.

Trouble with Iran

The situation with Iran is scaring me. My first thought about Bush's decision to send two (now three) carrier groups to the waters near Iran was that it is a false sign of strength. It was impossible for me to think that we would actually attack Iran, since we can't send in ground troops, and they could respond by invading Iraq. But I am again realizing that Bush is capable of something this stupid. Here is a quote from a Newsweek article:

Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

Of course, the administration denies this - and hopefully this is untrue. My guess is that the administration is going to try to play up our failure as the result of Sunni insurgents battling Iranian puppets. Although both groups have some responsibility, in the end, the blame still rests on Bush. From the beginning, he tried to do this with too few troops, and only now has realized his blunder. The Sunni insurgency could have died before it go off the ground if we had fought the war right.

Black Hawk Down - Follow-Up

There is a really interesting article ($) on the current situation in Somalia. The article protrays the situation as urgent; this may be the only chance to unite the clans. Based on the article, I get the feeling that nationalism isn't likely to unite the country as much as the Muslim religion might. Unfortunately, it would he hard to get the country to ralley behind religion without also supporting the Muslim extremists that Etheopia and America oppose.

Do not think this is unimportant. If the Muslim extremists take hold of the government, it will create another potential training ground for terrorists (or at least something similar to the government in Sudan). This should be getting more attention.

In Case You Missed It

Some recent headlines:

Rehabilitating Robert Moses

[Editor's Note: Of course I disagree with his legacy of supporting highways over mass transportation, but I don't find this the worst part of his legacy because NYC's public transportation is still incredibly strong. No, the worst part is often overlooked - how some of his designs were meant to exclude the poor from certain public benefits.]

Editorial: Nicotine Manipulation Confirmed

Any doubts that the tobacco industry has surreptitiously raised the nicotine content of cigarettes should be laid to rest by a study from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. They confirmed last year's discovery of the nicotine increase by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and went on to identify how the tobacco companies designed their cigarettes to accomplish this.

Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

[I appoligize, the last two articles are now only offered on Times Select.]

State of the Union 2007

I have to post about Bush's State of the Union speech. I won't be able to sleep without getting a few things off my chest. Before I do though, I must disclose that I didn't actually get to watch the speech, but I read the full text of it.

Overall, I would like to congratulate President Bush on finally coming around on major issues that everyone has been talking about for years. He made a strong argument for decreasing our dependence on foreign oil (Thomas Friedman has been advocating that since just after the terrorist attacks if not before), said we need to make a serious push for a stable peace agreement between Israel and Palestine (something that almost every Middle East analyst has been arguing for since it is one of the main sources of discontent in the Middle East), and troop increases in Iraq (has been a McCain issue for years). Granted, I don't know if he will actually put the effort into them that is truly necessary, but at least mentioning them as important is a start.

Each of the issues I mentioned warrent a full post. It is frustrating to see a president who is so far behind the curve on policy issues. It is also alarming to realize that in each case he might be too late, especially in Iraq. My only wish is that our next president is able to analyze problems and recognize solutions without the need of hindsight.

The last thing that really angered me was the hidden lies and mistruths in the speech. I am no supporter of Hezbollah, but first of all, their war is with Israel, not America. Lumping them in with Al Qaeda is nonsense. A more accurate comparison would be to Hamas in Palestine. I fear that this comment will haunt Bush just like his "Axis of Evil" statement from a previous State of the Union. Also, I find it enraging that he blames Israels' attack on Lebanon on Hezbollah. He also manages to blame the violence in Iraq on one bombing from last fall, without recognizing all of the previous violence that we were not able to control. In fact, much in that section on the Middle East are either sugar-coatings or falsehoods.

I am so ready for a new leader.

The Middle Children

There was an excellent article in the NY Times about middle school education. I am thrilled that this is starting to get the attention it deserves, and I also like the experiments that many school districts are working on.

The two schools, in disparate corners of the nation’s largest school system, are part of a national effort to rethink middle school, driven by increasingly well-documented slumps in learning among early adolescents as well as middle school crime rates and stubborn high school dropout rates.

The schools share the premise that the way to reverse years of abysmal middle school performance is to get rid of middle schools entirely. But they represent opposite poles in the sharp debate over whether 11- through 13-year-olds are better off pushed toward adulthood or coddled a little longer.

I like the logic behind each approach, but they can't both be right. Maybe the answer than is to blend the two - to have one grand school, K-12 where middle schoolers can be pushed to think about their future, while also allowing them to fall back into a safe environment if they need to (this idea might sound brilliant - or the opposite - but in fact there are plenty of pratical obstacles that come to mind).

The following quote though, if true, seems to be crux of the problem:

“One middle school student is like three high school students in terms of their behavioral needs and the issues you’re confronted with,” said Fred Walsh, principal of the School for International Studies in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn.

If that is the problem, than maybe it isn't about which group of students they are housed with.

Still, some middle school experts argue that school reconfiguration is a costly distraction from what adolescents really need: smaller classes, an engaging curriculum, personalized attention and well-prepared teachers.

I don't really have any answers on this one, except that this issue needs to continue getting more attention. As I have said before, there have been some great ideas in terms of improving elementary and high school education, but middle schools have getting ignored. What should be apparent is that the job of high schools is that much harder if the kids regress in middle school. I think it is long overdue that the middle children... I mean children in our middle schools, get more attention.

Lessons Learned

Yesterday I talked about what we can do in Iraq now. At the same time though, I think we need to reflect on what we did and see if what happened changes our world view at all. The fact is that our goal of regime change and a stable democracy were not realized. Before the invasion there were plenty of voices that said we should not go into Iraq because either the Iraqis don't want democracy or are incapable of it. Since there is no democracy, we need to think about whether those voices were right.

First, let's look at the argument that Iraq is too diverse a country and therefore is incapable of democracy. This is something that my idealistic nature won't let me believe. But I also think there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it. India is the world’s largest democracy and has more ethnic and religious groups than Iraq. Turkey is also very diverse and democratic. Its main groups include Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds - although having similar religious groups as Iraq doesn't mean it is a perfect comparison. Lastly, Lebanon with both Shiite and Sunni Muslims alongside Christians and Druse is a developing democracy.

I readily admit that the above mentioned countries have all faced violence and turmoil in dealing with their diversity (not the least of which includes a decade-long civil war in Lebanon and Turkey's act of genocide against its Armenian population). But I think most people feel hopeful about the chances for long-term stability for each of those countries.

So if democracy is possible, but isn’t working, does that mean that it was bound to fail because there wasn’t the structure in place for democracy to succeed? This argument rests on a direct comparison between the American Revolution; we created a democracy after ridding ourselves of the iron-fist of Britain because we were already practicing democracy. I don’t completely buy that argument either. Call me a neo-conservative, but I think every group of people is ready for a democracy if you can convince them that it will make their lives better.

This is where we made our mistake in Iraq. Their lives are actually worse under a representative government that respects the rule of law than it was under a power-hungry, delusional dictator. This has been the case from the beginning. Our operation / occupation was done in a way that prevented Iraqis from seeing how much better their lives could be. From early looting to suicide bombs and escalating religious violence, they were never given the stability they were promised.

I know this doesn’t sound like a grand conclusion. Everyone knows that we completely botched the mission (everyone except our President). But I think it is very important not to use that to fall into the logic that democracies don’t work in other countries. I am fearful that our troubles in Iraq will lead us towards isolationism. Our foreign policy needs to be a faith in the just cause of human dignity (and therefore the need for representative government) mixed with humility (which is where I diverge from neo-conservatives) about our ability and how far limited resources will go.

On Iraq

There have been so many articles about Iraq recently, and each time I see one, I want to respond to it. But there are too many to make it worth it. But I do want to add my voice to many that have already spoken.

Of course, all of the debate right now is focused on Bush's (and McCain's) proposed troop increase. Although I think we should try it, I fear that the troop increase is way too late to do any good. The violence between sunnis and shiites seems beyond anyone's control. But, the fact is that we have caused this situation and we need to do everything we can to get it under control, which means supporting a troop increase as a last ditch effort.

I don't really see the merits to the arguments from those opposing the troop increase (or the people like Bob Herbert who call for a full withdrawal). The situation in Iraq has become dire (actually, it has been dire for a very long time), and let me say this again - we are to blame. A report form the UN says that more than 34,000 Iraqis died last year. That many Iraqis were not dying under Saddam during the late 1990s or early 2000s. We are responsible for the significant decrease in quality of life in that country.

I have seen a number of Democrats try to blame the Iraqi government for this. I cannot support that. While I am sure the current leadership is unwilling to confront Shiite militants, it remains that the blame lies with us. Blaming Iraqis for something they didn't ask for is only a convenient position to take that allows certain Democrats to feel no guilt in calling for a troop withdrawal knowing that the country will become even more violent once we leave.

The only argument I do see having some merit is that some of the militarization is caused by our presence. True, there is significant anti-Americanism in Iraq. This creates a certain paradox in our involvement there. Our presence is keeping the violence to a lower level than it would be if we left, but at the same time, it is causing some of the violence.

In the end, we have to decide which will cause more hardship and violence on the Iraqi people, our presence or our absence. I am still in the camp that our presence is saving more lives right now. Based on what I know, most of the violence is a power struggle / retribution between Shiites and Sunnis. It is not a nationalist resistance to our occupation. If it was the latter, I would be on board callling for a withdrawal. Since it isn't, I say let's send some more troops and hope that we can help calm the violence.

Understanding People

Do we need any more proof that President Bush and his foreign policy team are idiots? They have treated Ahmadinejad's aggression as a serious threat, thereby propelling a weak nation and weak president into the international spotlight. As this article shows, President Ahmadinejad has little power over foreign policy in his country and the people who do are frustrated with his antics. If Bush had any understanding about how to deal with people, he would ignore this lunatics ranting, make him look weak, and deal with the real people of power in that country. There is far more to being president than most candidates realize. Understanding, judging, and affecting the behavior of people is one of them. It has been clear for a long time that this administration in completely inept at this.

Obama for President

I have noticed recently that there seems to be a divide in how people think about the merits of Barak Obama’s candidacy for President. I don’t think this is exactly the case, but I have noticed many middle-aged people who feel that Obama isn’t experienced enough yet to be President. I get the feeling though that many people in my generation are so excited by his presence and message that we are willing to overlook his inexperience.

I definitely fall into that latter group. Barak Obama’s inexperience doesn’t really bother me. In some ways, I think he is similar to John F. Kennedy, who also was young and lacked experience. (Although Kennedy had served one full term in the Senate, where Obama only has two years under his belt and will only have four by the time he would take office as president.) In Kennedy’s case, the country was ready for a change – for someone with youth and a different message. He also showed that the country was ready for an Irish-Catholic to be president.

But to me, it isn’t that the message is more important than the inexperience, I don’t actually think experience is as important as people make it out to be. The two factors I look to when selecting a presidential candidate are character and intellect (I find that our current president lacks both). Intellect is important for obvious reasons. A president has to understand complex problems and make the best decision possible. Character of course can be a vague term, but there are certain things I look for. The most important is humility – a president has to have the ability to know when they made a mistake, accept it, and make changes accordingly and they have to do it quickly. As a comparison, our current president has waited until overwhelming evidence has shown that he made a mistake before attempting plotting a new course.

I am reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and I find that he has both of these characteristics. He is obviously very smart. As important though, he shows that he understands the complexity of decisions and has the humility to know that he won’t always make the right ones. He believes in dialogue and his message of bipartisanship comes across as sincere.

In the end, I want someone in our nation’s highest office that wants to hear what the other side is saying with the understanding that they might have valid points. For eight years we have seen what someone who is resolute and unbending can do to our country. Now, lets see what the opposite will bring us.

Censure

I am tempted to write a long raving post about President Bush and his abuse of signing statements. I could talk about opening US Mail without a warrent or the appalling addition to the anti-torture legislation that was passed almost unanimously by Congress. But I just don't have the energy or the desire to get that riled up. If you aren't disgusted by it, then you aren't very well informed. It's too bad Congress doesn't have the will to do anything about it. I have heard people say there is little they can do - that is bunk. They could censure him - that would send a clear message.

Judgement Day

Tomorrow we find out whether Mark McGwire will go to the Baseball Hall of Fame on his first ballot. Based on what we have been hearing, he will be overwhelmingly denied. But there have been a number of good articles lately. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

From Jayson Stark at ESPN:

It was baseball that allowed all of this to happen. In a sport with no rules, no testing and no punishment for using the hottest substances of the day, this was no tiny problem, involving a few obvious home run trotters. This was the culture inside the game, just as amphetamines were part of the culture in the '60s and '70s and '80s (and beyond).

[Edit]

And now here it is, Hall of Fame election time -- and cleaning up this glop is supposed to be our problem? Sorry, the only way to be consistent about this generation is to apply the Gaylord Perry standard -- and evaluate what the sport allowed to go down on the field. Either the '90s happened or they didn't. And we all saw them happen.

We saw hitters on steroids face pitchers on steroids, as hundreds of players all around them used the same stuff, looking for the same edge. But we've never heard most of their names. So I feel more comfortable voting for players like McGwire than I do trying to pick and choose who did what, and when, and why.

From Thomas Boswell:

From a distance, baseball's problem is a comedy of its own making. The game's punishment -- massive confusion about the meaning of its sacred statistics and suspicion surrounding its stars -- seems to suit the crime perfectly. The game reaped what it sowed. However, to more than a thousand of my writing colleagues who still have their Cooperstown ballots, this is no joke. They study, debate and take their votes seriously. I feel bad for them. Any vote on McGwire (583 career homers) now or on Sosa (588 homers) in a few years seems inherently flawed.

One response is to throw up your hands and say, "Let 'em all into Cooperstown." Just ignore the steroid era. Since the sport itself, as well as an adoring media, were complicit, give everybody clemency. For me, that's no answer. Imperfect justice is better than no justice at all. Every juiced ballplayer knew he was cheating.

And my favorite (mostly because of how snarky it is towards the press - a group that ignores its complicity in all of this), Bill Simmons:

Normally, I enjoy the week the Baseball Hall of Fame inductees are announced. Not this year. With Mark McGwire's inclusion on the 2007 ballot, we have officially entered the Let's Blackball the Potential-Steroids-Guy Era.

Some writers won't vote for McGwire because he probably used steroids -- keep in mind there's never been proof that he did, other than a visible bottle of andro and those 135 pounds of muscle he added from 1990 to 2002 -- which would be fine if they weren't so pious about it. Not content with simply dismissing McGwire's candidacy and moving on, they need to climb on their high horses and rip the guy to shreds. Of course, many of them would appear on any radio or TV show for 50 bucks and a free sandwich. We're supposed to believe they would refuse the chance to take a drug that would enable them to do their job twice as well and make 10 times as much money? Yeah, right.

[Edit]

When a painful strike canceled the 1994 World Series and nearly killed the sport, two events got people caring again: Cal Ripken's breaking Lou Gehrig's consecutive-games record in 1995, and McGwire's and Sosa's battling for Maris' record three years later. Watch the end of "61*" sometime, or reread Mike Lupica's gushing book, "Summer of '98." (Note: Lupica now argues that Big Mac doesn't belong in the Hall. He never says anything about returning the profits from his book, however.) The home run chase meant something back then. And by the way, when it was going on, we all chose to overlook the fact that McGwire was a can of green paint away from being the Incredible Hulk and that Sosa looked like he was developing a second jaw. Let's not forget that.

The fact is, this is a hard decision, which is why I have written about it so many times. MLB turned a blind eye - but so did the press and so did the fans. We wanted to believe in baseball so badly that we told ourselves all the incredible feats were natural. This is why I have a hard time acting sanctimonious about this - unfortunately many in the press don't have any trouble.

This issue is going to be with us for a long time. As Boswell said, the choice boils down to imperfect justice or voting everyone in and acknowledging the era they played in (I think we have to admit that with current testing we aren't necessarily out of the steroids era.) Neither answer is very satisfying, and so Hall of Fame induction ceremonies will also feel the same way, not very satisfying. To paraphrase Thomas Boswell, we reap what we sow. It may sound trite, but I think it captures the situation perfectly.

Looking Back, and Forward

Today, the first blog that I wrote for officially closed down and took me off its list of members. Granted, I haven't posted there since the summer, it is still a little bit said. As I was saying goodbye to Restless Mania though, I remembered that I wanted to write about why I blog and what I think blogging is.

First, I want to talk about what I think blogging is. If you hear any journalist talking about it, you will undoubtedly hear her or him say that blogging is poor quality and miserable to read. I get the feeling that many journalists think blogging will replace traditional news media if they don't point out that it lacks the same standards. Any journalist who says this is clearly missing the point and should be ridiculed for being so out of touch.

The fact is, blogging covers a very broad range of the writing spectrum. True, there are some, like the Smoking Gun or Deadspin, that are attempting to give modern journalism a little competition. Their standards for what they print are a little below mainstream journalism, but based on their success they are serving a need in the market.

Many other blogs serve mainly as political commentary, and here is where the variation really becomes obvious. The popular blogs, like Daily Kos for example, serve as a fresh voice in politics. For whatever reason, they have attracted large audiences; maybe it is the frequency that they post, or the ability for the reader to engage the writer and other readers, or maybe it is just that their message resonates. But these blogs certainly cannot be dismissed.

At the other end of this spectrum are blogs like mine. I, like many others I assume, write not because I think I am better than the journalists that dismiss me, but because I want to engage in dialogue. By looking around the blogosphere, you will see so many people engaged in this giant conversation. It is as beautiful and real as any debate you might encounter at a cafe, around the dinner table, or in the lunchroom.

I read one criticism from a journalist that said blogging is usually people just writing down what they think right then at that moment. The argument was that the writing and thought process was too sloppy to be taken seriously (I admit that I rarely take the time anymore to review or edit my posts). I completely disagree because I don't think blogs need to be perfect. When I debate with friends and family, my arguments are not always perfect. But that is why I debate in the first place - so that someone can point out the problems in my logic while ignoring how well I am speaking.

Blogging works in the same way. By publishing what I think and feel on important issues at that very moment, I am inviting criticism and critique. I do this on purpose because I think I need it. Socrates thought of himself as a gadfly, someone to stir people up and make them really think about their beliefs. I write because I hope my ideas can do that to other people, but also because I want other people to do that to me.

I have to admit that I have been disappointed that more people don't call me out on issues. I thrived on the debates that I had on Restless Mania and wish I could have that back. I have to understand though that not everyone devotes the time to this that I do. So I will continue to write, leaving my words out there to be challenged at some later date by someone who sees flaws in the reasoning I laid out at that moment. And hopefully, someday soon, journalists will realize the beauty of all of the conversations taking place in the blogosphere and encourage others to engage instead of dismissing the unpolished nature of the writing.

Always a Reason for Tax Cuts

There is a very convincing editorial in the NY Times regarding Republican efforts to link a minimum wage increase to small business tax cuts. Apparently the cost of the tax cuts is far greater than the increased wages that would go out to employees. Basically, that means the government would be better off paying the difference between current minimum wage and the new minimum wage to all workers.

On Iran

I think that one of our biggest problems in the run up to the war in Iraq was that far too few people knew enough about the country to understand the consequences of our actions. I am afraid we will face the same problem as the situation in Iran heats up. There is an article in the NY Times that does a good job of dispelling some of the misunderstandings and talking about steps we should be taking.

First of all, President Ahmadinejad is not the next Hitler. This statement grossly overestimates his power in the country and the power of his country.

There has been a strange reversal in American perceptions, Mr. Nasr said. When the somewhat moderate Ayatollah Khatami was president, talking to him was dismissed as wasting time because the supreme leader was the real power. Now that Mr. Ahmadinejad inhabits the same office, with the supreme leader still holding the same key powers, Mr. Ahmadinejad is being portrayed as the crux.

Given this knowledge, we need to deal with Iran differently. Our biggest mistake is treating the country like a legitimate security threat and devoting time to making threats against them. This not only makes them feel stronger because we are paying attention to them, but it also gives the impression that they really are (and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela) taking on the United States and the West. This only makes the leaders more popular.

It also justifies their militaristic policies. Iran legitimately thinks we might make a military attack against them, and I think Bush wants it that way (his gunboat diplomacy is absurd). As long as Iran, as well as North Korea, can say that we are a threat to invade, their insistence on seeking nuclear weapons is somewhat reasonable both to their citizens and to a lesser extent the international community. I believe they would be more willing to concede on nuclear talks if we could convince them that we will not attack them (this would be much easier if we could convince them that we don't take them seriously). And in case you aren't sure an attack on Iran should be ruled out:

But Iranian analysts interviewed in America mostly view a military strike as the surest means to cement the regime in power. Some question the wisdom of negotiating now, arguing that the West has so demonized Mr. Ahmadinejad and Iran as threats to peace that the Islamic Republic will believe in its own superpower ratings and not feel pressed to make concessions.

But of course Bush is not bright enough to understand how to deal with people. He knows how to talk strong, but not when to talk strong.

I don't want to give the impression that we should completely ignore Iran and their nuclear ambitions, but we need to show in public that we don't give them a second thought, while telling them in private that we will not be bullied. And then we need to point out the fact that their economy is tanking and they are doing nothing about it.

On negotiating involvement in Iraq, there appears to be some disagreement. Some analysts believe that Iran wants Iraq to succeed as much as we do. Others believe that the country has insulated itself enough and can protect against a surge of refugees and therefore cares little about Iraq imploding. My belief is that they think Shiites will come out on top in a civil war, and therefore don't have a big interest in stability. With this being the case, I don't know how much progress we can make. But what is clear is that we won't know until we talk to them, and we definitely need to do a better job of talking to them in a way that doesn't make them feel stronger.

More on Education

This article on middle school education got me thinking again about my beliefs on education in general. What the NY Times piece highlights is a lack of development in middle school education policies. We have ideas in other grade levels that I think are very strong (early intervention in elementary schools in the form of extended day and year programs and Advanced Placement, IB and other ways to increase rigor in high schools), but very little for middle school improvement.

The article also reminded me that right now I am at a point where I am really questioning some of the things I have supported before in education policy. I think this makes sense given that we now have some tools to evaluate NCLB and some conservative policies. For example, while I thought I supported more accountability for performance, I don't think I agree with how it is implemented or even talked about.

Also, while I agree that teacher quality is an issue, I don't think NCLB does a good job of dealing with it. Unfortunately, I think the unions are a big problem, and no president, governor, or mayor (with two exceptions) can do much about that. I strongly believe that unions do a major disservice by standing in the way of significant reforms like merit pay, ending or changing seniority in placement, and tenure. Even here though I wonder how much good it will do; will this will really improve education all around, or just help get better teachers in lower performing schools (which is very important, but not the only end of our efforts).

This has been a quick and very cursory post, but I wanted to highlight the fact that some of my excitement for education improvements has decreased (both nationally and in watching NYC experiments). I can say though that I will be doing a lot more thinking about this in the future.

Message of Humility

I am reading Barak Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. So far I really like it. Just like Dreams from My Father, the prose in this book is strong. But beyond that, I find myself really agreeing with his message. What really seems to resonate is something I think is lacking in current political discourse - humility.

It is hard to describe what I mean by this without sounding trite (although I can't stress enough that he manages to do it). Basically though, there is an understanding that he doesn't know everything, and we (liberals) don't know everything (that conservatives don't know everything is taken for granted). I find too often that people are so sure they are right that they will never even open up enough to really hear other arguments. In addition, they are so convinced of their rightness that they think people with opposite views are evil, weak or just stupid. It might be naive of me to think he could really change the current discourse, but sometimes one person can make a big difference. Either way, I like his message and I hope he sticks to his guns with the coming elections.

I Might be King

It must be great to be President Bush. From day one he has ruled as if he has had a major mandate - despite losing the popular vote in 2000, and surviving a relatively close election in 2004. Granted, I would do the same thing if no one (re: Congress) did anything to stop me. But at some point he has to realize this isn't going to continue.

The best part about Bush's Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal is that it tries to sound like he is willing to meet in the middle when all of his talking points are strong conservative policies like no government intervention to help those in need, no change in foreign policy, and no repeal of his tax cuts. So basically, despite the fact that his approval ratings are in the toilet and a Democratic Congress was elected largely as a rejection of his administration, he still wants to continue with business as usual. Brilliant.

Must Have Been a Slow Day

I wonder if this reporter knows how boring and unoriginal this article is. Seriously, the issue of Barak Obama's admitted drug use in Dreams from My Father has already been talked about. I just hate this type of article in general (covering elections like they are a horse race, with no regard for issues), but especially when they are rehashing an old issue.

The Sky Isn't Falling?

I was afraid this would happen. Now that Democrats are in charge, some voices on the left are saying that the deficit isn't actually a big deal and that we should continue to spend like crazy if it means expanding social programs. My frustration with this isn't that I think we need to cut social programs. But it really bothers me that Democrats were saying Republicans were spending too much (which they were), but now that we are in power, we will learn how to make excuses for a lack of restraint.

I don't know for sure if Paul Krugman of the NY Times was one of those voices, but I have a feeling that he was. But there were people like him saying that our deficits will soon spell doomesday for our economy, and now seem to think that all will be okay as long as we expand every single program we support.

A Totally New War

I am sure that a large part of this article is outright fear-mongering. Even if that is the case, there is still information in there that is deeply concerning. The analysts that commented in the article admit that they have expected that westerners would become soilders for Al Qaeda. Their passports in England or even the US will make them very valuable to Muslim extremist groups.

When reading this article, I couldn't help wondering if this new war we are facing is completely different than anything we have faced. I know this sounds like a conclusion that everyone else has already come to, but maybe not in the way I mean it. To some respect, I think we still believe that we can use some of the same methods we used during the Cold War, including similar spying techniques. Most people know that this is a new war that feeds in basically lawless and stateless areas. It is a gorilla war that we can't choose whether or not we want to participate. So in understanding that, will any of our previous techinques work?

Right now it looks like the two biggest training areas are Iraq, where people are getting front-line training, and the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The lawless area in Afghanistan is a direct result of our haste to jump into Iraq without completely securing Afghanistan. But in Pakistan the situation is a very different problem, and one we might face more in the future. The government is supposedly an ally of ours but they lack the capacity to control all of their territory. There is also the threat that major crackdowns in those regions could lead to major revolts and possibly the rise of an anti-American government.

This situation is not going to be unique in our future. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon, and others do not control all of their country even if they would like to help us in our war against Al Qaeda. So here is the driving question - how do we deal with governments that want to cooperate but are limited in their ability? I admit that I am drawn to the Cold War for help; I am tempted to suggest that we support our own brand of non-governmental militant groups to battle the extremists. But that didn't seem to work too well in the past.

When I read an article like this one in Newsweek, I get an overwhelming feeling that we are going to need to be much more creative in how we meet this threat. The problem is that governments aren't meant to be creative or flexible. The necessity for consensus can slow evolution. My hope though is that somehow the smart voices will rise above the rest and that progress will be made. If that doesn't happen though, we might well end up with more presidents that believe they need the authority to act unilaterally - without input from the UN or even Congress. And that might be better for creative policy-making and change, but I just don't trust leaving that much power in one person. Either way, this is going to be a big issue for a long time and I think everyone should be taking it seriously and learning as much as they can so they can participate intelligently.

Being Unreasonable

My good friend The Beard sent me a link to Samantha Power's commencement address at Swarthmore College in 2002. The address as a whole is really good, and sums up the main points of her book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. But what really got me was her closing:

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

I wish you, Swarthmore's graduating class of 2002, all the best in the journey that lies ahead. And I pray that you join the ranks of the unreasonable.

Often when I debate issues with my family, I can tell by their tone that they think I am a crazy idealist who just doesn't understand the way the world works. To be fair, I must admit that I have probably implied, if not outright accused, that some of my more liberal friends are guilty of the same thing I am trying to defend myself against.

The truth is that I know the way the world works, but I very strongly believe that I can make a difference to change it (and I am sure the same is true of my more liberal friends). So while I understand, for example, that America's foreign policy decisions are based on our interests and that most Americans want to take care of our own country first, that doesn't mean I find that acceptable. Genocide, mass murder, and mass famine are just as important, if not more so, than issues like food insecurity in America. If the rest of America doesn't agree with me, than I just need to argue louder. Yes, I am an unreasonable idealist, and that is why I strive to adapt the world to me.

Turkey on the Balance

This article ($) from the New York Times sums up the situation in Turkey pretty well. They are situated in such a way that they could either look to the west and adopt government policies based on a European / American model (in regards to human rights, open economy, transparency, etc) and serve as a beacon of light for the rest of the Middle East, or they could instead look to the east and base their practices on countries like Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia.

What has kept them looking west and making real progress was the carrot of potential membership in the European Union. Now that this is no longer likely in the near future, it seems like there might be less that keeps them looking west.

To try to win membership [to the EU], the Turkish government enacted a series of rigorous reforms to bring the country in line with European standards, including some unprecedented in the Muslim world, like a law against marital rape.

But the admission talks have stalled. And while the official reason involves the longstanding Greek-Turkish dispute over Cyprus, most Turks say they believe the real reason is a deep suspicion of their country's religion.

Indeed, in 2002, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president, said Turkey's admission to the union would mean "the end of Europe." Nicholas Sarkozy, the French presidential hopeful, has made his opposition to Turkish membership a campaign issue. Even the pope, when he was still a cardinal in Germany, said publicly that he did not think Turkey fit into Europe because it was Muslim. That talk has begun to grate on Turks.

[Edit]

Despite growing pains, a neglected Kurdish minority in the south, a thin skin for any reference to the Armenian genocide, and failure to scrap a law that makes insulting Turkishness a crime, Turkey stands out as lively democracy in a larger Middle East riddled with restrictions, and its acceptance by the West is a test case for others, officials said.

Muslim countries, Mr. Tan points out, are watching.

"Turkey is a beacon for those countries," he said. "Don't forget, if we fail, then the whole dream will fail."

A few quotes from moderately influential Europeans (including an obviously anti-Muslim Pope) isn't necessarily proof that their religion is what has kept Turkey out. Just based on the quote above (especially the part about insulting Turkishness being a crime) it appears that Turkey has a ways to go before its government is up to the West's exacting standards. But it is hard to say that religion isn't even a factor.

In the future it will be hard to convince any Muslim country that there are benefits to reform when Turkey couldn't get into the EU despite the changes it has made. This can only continue to make Muslims feel like the West will never really treat them as equals. I think if the EU was wise, it would accept Turkey while continuing to push for further reforms. We need to break the cycle and show through our deeds that we respect Muslims and their faith, even if that means making some compromises along the way.

Intolerance and Religion

I had an interesting conversation with a friend about religion recently. The conversation got started because he was describing the book he is reading that is highly critical of religion in America. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I haven’t read the book and my knowledge of it comes from an advertisement I saw about it and my friend’s description of it.

The book seems to be in the same vein as other books out there trying to completely discredit modern religion in America. These are probably responses to the recent strength of the religious right in America as well as possibly the rise of Muslim extremism around the world. Many of these writers attempt to prove that God doesn’t exist and that religion is fake and illogical. I have to say that I find these books and the arguments they try to make as obnoxious and, frankly, intolerant as the far-right religious groups that they are presumably attacking. I hate the assumption that those who don’t believe are uneducated, illogical and unaware of all of the evidence that there is no God. I consider myself very well educated, but I cannot shake the feeling that there is more than what is seen.

Analogies to teacups revolving around the sun aside, any attempt to talk about religion must start with the obvious truth that we can neither prove that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist. Since we know this, any belief therefore is based on faith. Each person must make a personal decision, based on the evidence they know of, to decide if they think there is something else out there and what form that something else takes.

Often times when religion is discussed, people try to use statistics to describe how religious America really is. Based on what I know a majority believes in a God of some kind, and that percentage of Americans decreases when you ask about belief in the Creation and the literal nature of the Virgin birth. As I understand it, the author that my friend is reading seems to think that people who don’t believe everything in the Bible cannot really be considered true believers because it is illogical to only believe in certain parts. I think taking this position ignores a huge population and also demonstrates an ignorance of what makes religion so powerful.

In our life we are surrounded by things we cannot possibly understand. There are horrors that defy imagination, and beauties that we can’t comprehend. Facing that, some people choose to believe that it is merely the result of randomness outside of our control. Life is unpredictable and at times cruel and there is nothing we can do about it. But others cannot overcome the feeling that there is something more than this, that there is a force that we don’t understand but that is nonetheless impacting our lives. Whether it is an omnipotent being that demands we worship it and follow all of its rules, or a force or emotion that ties us all and can provide guidance, many feel there is something in our universe that is working for good.

In the end, our lives will always be surrounded by things that we can neither prove are true nor untrue. In those situations, people will come to their own conclusions. In a tolerant society, we would respect everyone’s position and not believe that anyone is more right. My hope is that we do one day live in such a society. Until then, I accept that I will be forced to watch as the extremely religious attack me for not being religious enough, and those that feel their logic and reasoning make them above belief in things unseen will mock me for having a faith in something else.

Big Mac Tries to Start Over

Ever since I first started posting to a blog, I have been trying to get my head around the steroids scandal in baseball, and how that affects my feelings on my once childhood hero, Mark McGwire. If anyone was to read everything I have written about it, you would not find a lot of consistency, but instead a spectrum of thoughts and feelings that change based on new developments. I have to admit from the start that it is an extremely difficult issue for me. Deep down, I know McGwire to be a good person who was very talented at baseball and a hard worker. He had a few bad years, due in part to nagging injuries, but he stayed focused and made a major comeback, culminating in the magical season of 1998. It was that season that I, and many other fans, forgave baseball completely for the strike of 1994.

Like many people, I did all I could to give McGwire the benefit of the doubt and trust that he never used steroids. But it became apparent that there was too much evidence, culminating in his testimony before Congress in which he refused to answer questions about his past.

I think it was that incident that pushed me over the edge. I felt that if he only admitted to what he did, I could forgive him. Instead, he chooses to hide from his past in what I used to think was a hope that people would soon forget that and only remember his performance.

A new article at ESPN has softened me a little bit. The article tries to shed some light on his current life and state of mind. The way I interpret it is that McGwire isn’t hoping that we forget about his misdeeds. Instead, he merely wants to leave that part of his life behind completely. Some people who used to know him speculate that he is so hurt by the whole situation that he doesn’t know how to deal with it, and wants to just forget about it and start over.

I still maintain that much of the blame lies with Major League Baseball. They refused from the beginning to do anything significant to deter the use of illegal and dangerous performance enhancing drugs (I also think the players’ union is as guilty, if not more so). There is tremendous pressure to use these drugs because, as Jose Canseco has said, they make mediocre players good, good players great, and great players exceptional.

In the world of professional sports, athletes are often isolated and forced to make decisions without any guidance. In that case, it makes sense that someone like McGwire, Canseco, or Barry Bonds, would look at the rules on the books and decide that MLB tacitly condones the use of steroids. It is understandable therefore that someone like McGwire would be crushed to watch MLB do a complete 180 and act like they had no idea and have been against it from the beginning. The owners have gotten rich off the resurgence of baseball, but have thrown McGwire et al under the bus (in my opinion, McGwire’s story isn’t the most tragic, especially compared to someone like Ken Camenitti who had serious problems and needed guidance).

The point of this post is that I can understand how McGwire might feel completely betrayed by what has happened. In that case, it makes sense that he wants to leave the pain of that experience behind him and start over with his new family and invest himself in his golf game.

But that doesn’t mean that I completely forgive him. I do think a reasonable person should have known what they were doing was not in the spirit of the game. More importantly though, when someone makes a mistake, they should come clean and take responsibility for their part of it. If he did that, and then completely disappeared off the face of the earth, I would definitely understand. The fact is that there are countless other people who could make the same mistake he did, and his silence is doing nothing to prevent them from doing so. I can only hope that maybe he will break his silence this year, once he finds out that he has been denied the Hall of Fame on his first ballot. But I am not holding my breath.