Here is Our Chance

For those of you who have read Samantha Power's book A Problem From Hell, you'll remember her argument that throughout all of the genocides of the 20th Century, the US did nothing. It did not take action and it did not even condemn the genocides. The arguments used were the same - that to even condemn the genocide could cause the leaders of the guilty countries to choose not to cooperate with peace processes. Power argues convincingly that in the end, those leaders did not cooperate even though we avoided condemning them.

Despite countless examples in history to learn from, the same arguments continue to be made and sometimes carry the day. Those arguments have been voiced in regards to Sudan - although the US has condemned the genocide, many voices said that the International Criminal Court should not seek charges or an arrest warrant against Bashir, the President of Sudan. Those people said it could cause Bashir to stop participating in peace negotiations. I am glad those people were not listened to this time and that an arrest warrant for Bashir has been issued.

Those that argued against this in the specific case of Sudan claimed that if Bashir is arrested or otherwise loses power, those that might take over are far worse and that Bashir's role right now is somewhat productive. That may be true (although where are the results?). But for once we need to actually stand up to genocide. We need to show that we won't back down for fear that an uncooperative leader will not cooperate - that a murderous leader will murder more people.

But as with all experiments or new courses, we will be judged by the outcomes. So here is our chance - our opportunity - to show that the one time we condemned genocide and sought action in the ICC while the situation was ongoing, it made a difference. We can show that the best way to stop a killer is not to avoid making his life hard, but to do everything we can to make his life hard.

Here is our chance. Let's follow through. Let's actively seek Bashir's arrest, then continue by seeking charges against anyone else involved. Let's finally put an end to this genocide and set a serious example (unlike all the others before) to those who might perpetuate the second genocide of the 21st Century.

I Beg Your Pardon

As Bush was leaving office, I was waiting for him to issue a whole stream of absurd pardons. But as Obama was inaugurated, I heard / read nothing. So I wondered if maybe he had issued lots of pardons but it just wasn't covered. I went back and looked, and instead, what wasn't covered was the fact that he issued very few pardons at the end (wasn't covered means I didn't see anything in the NY Times - it very well could have been splashed over the Journal but I don't read that as often as I should).

So two things on this. First, I applaud Bush for not issuing a slew of pardons as seems to be the practice. Granted, I am not a lawyer and I don't know how many of the last-minute presidential pardons are legit. But it seems to me that if they are reasonable, then they should issue them at the time they come up. If you have to issue them on the way out, then you are worried about the appearance, which likely means they are probably bad pardons. I am especially glad that he didn't pardon Scooter Libby. (Dick Cheney thinks he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice - I agree. Cheney should have been the one punished.)

Secondly, I am disappointed that this wasn't covered more in the NY Times. If Bush did something prudent, it should be recognized. This is why the paper gets the rep for being very liberal and not objective.

Not Better

In case you were still holding on to the belief that Democrats are more ethical than Republicans, Spitzer's solicitation of prostitutes, Blagojevich's attempts to sell the Senate seat, Daschle's and Geithner's decision to avoid paying some of their taxes, and now stories about Roland Burris should have disabused you of any such notions. It is all simply disgusting.

About Roland Burris, he needs to resign. Either he lied or he is not as sharp as a Senator should be. I think it is both. We need to get the bad Democrats out of office now, so they are not around to make us look bad in 2010.

Disagree but not Disagreeable

Of course the papers / political programs are abuzz with the stimulus bill and what it means for Obama's plan for bipartisanship. Mostly, this is a function of the 24 hour news cycle and journalism's inability to see long-term. Obama will not change Washington in a matter of weeks. What we need to do is look back after two years, or four years, or eight years.

But we also need to be careful about what we are measuring when we evaluate his presidency. While I think the administration should be willing to compromise when that is possible, I don't expect Republicans to vote all the time with Obama (especially considering the fact that most of the Republicans now in Congress are more conservative as the moderates were voted out). After all, they have a different view of government's role in our lives. I do however expect that the tone will change. And I will judge Obama on this in time.

The Bush administration (as many before have done) came into office pledging bipartisanship. At times, they delivered or actually tried: No Child Left Behind received some Democratic support including that of Senator Ted Kennedy, and their attempt at immigration reform was also moderate, although it was scuttled by the far-right of the Republican party.

But when they failed to get Democratic support for other policies - especially the War in Iraq - their tone changed. Instead of respecting the Democrats for their positions, the Bush administration attacked Democrats' patriotism.

The Obama administration cannot do this. The tone in Washington has changed - at least if you believe insiders - over the last ten or twenty years. Democrats and Republicans do not interact as socially and instead the political battles seem to carry over into personal interactions. Obama can slowly change this if he changes his tone and the tone of the party. His campaign showed his potential to do this; he famously said, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." Now his presidency needs to show that he can actually accomplish it. And we need to give him some time to try.

No Anecdotes Please

The election this fall made it clear that our health-care system needed reform. Costs are escalating much faster than inflation and many people are uninsured. The changes we make will need to be carried out thoughtfully. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the debate will be in the form of articles like this one in the Atlantic, where anecdotes take the place of data that explains bigger picture issues.

In places the article mentions the big issues we'll have to deal with: Do we want everyone to have the same coverage or are we okay if the rich can buy better care? Do we want government making decisions about treatments (or insurance companies - an alternative the author doesn't consider)? How does government control affect innovation in health-care? How much are we willing to pay for care?

Although it mentions these questions, the article doesn't really answer them, and doesn't supplement the anecdote with any data to at least get us closer to the answers. So instead, we get a very superficial article about health-care masquerading as something relevant. In reality though, many people will read it - and many articles like it - and decide how they feel about more / less centralized medicine based on the one anecdote. (I haven't seen Micheal Moore's movie, but I have heard it is similar, although from the other side.)

If you have ever heard Senate debate on policy / legislation issues, you know that they also focus on anecdotes. And so I fear that we will end up with bad policy unless the debate begins to include actual information on the real ways different approaches will affect health-care in general. Will centralized medicine prevent drugs like the one in the story from being made? Will everyone be denied more expensive treatments or just the poor? We need to answer these questions through real data, not emotional stories.

Sabermetrics for Basketball

I really liked the book Moneyball. The idea that some baseball skills are undervalued because we do not know what actually correlates with winning, and that using statistics to figure that out and get an advantage, is fascinating. It's like poker, some of it is random and based on luck, but in the long run, you increase your chances of winning significantly if you make bets only where the odds are in your favor.

This week in the Sunday Times there is an article relating this concept to basketball. It is a great article. I am now a Shane Battier fan.