There have been a few articles recently about guns rights issues in the states. Frankly, I find them all baffling. The most recent battles are about absurd laws that would ban (or allow) concealed weapons in coffee shops. And a while back there was a big war over guns on Amtrak trains. For the life of me, I can't understand the emotion over this.
When we are fighting over gun restrictions, it seems to me the fights should be over assault rifles, loopholes (like straw purchases) that allow illegal guns to get into the hands of criminals - especially in our cities - and data sharing between the federal government (ATF) and local police. This is where there we could have the most impact on very serious problem of criminal use of guns in our country.
It seems to me that there should a moderate guns rights lobby group to counter the seemingly anything goes policy of the NRA. The group would promote the ability of private citizens to carry guns (concealed if they please) and would only call for some basic background checks. This guns rights group though would also look for ways to prevent criminal from getting and using guns and push for (or not oppose) a ban on assault weapons.
A group like this could give an out to moderate democrats in more conservative districts / states. It would show they promote individual guns rights in reasonable circumstances but do not support the more extremist positions of the NRA. Unfortunately it seems that there is only the NRA or no one. And this leads to silly debates about guns in Starbucks instead of real and public debates about how criminals get guns.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Latest Election Map
I have been using this feature on the NY Times since the 2006 mid-term elections. And with the upcoming 2010 midterms, I know I'll be checking it regularly. It can give a great sense of worst-case and best-case scenarios. In 2006, I saw that a best-case scenario could result in Democratic control, which of course it did. In 2008, I saw a worst case scenario was the only way McCain could possibly win. And now, it looks like a worst case scenario (at least at the moment) leaves the Democrats with a slim majority. We'll see how things change going forward. After all, things can still get worse (Gilibrand has a challenger) but they could get better (Harry Reid's prospects could improve). It is definitely going to be interesting.
Pres - Dissing on 'Cuse?
I like that Obama fills out an NCAA bracket (no, I don't think he risks overexposure). I don't like that he has Syracuse eliminated before the Final Four.
What I Read
Atlantic has a recent feature where guest writers are describing what they read. Since most are journalists, the entries are pretty similar and focus on which news sources they read. But it seems like a fun exercise, if not a little narcissistic, so I thought I would give it a go.
I always read on my train commute to and from work - but that time is my time; I only read for pleasure and not for work. What I read then varies though. It could be one of the many books I am reading, or one of the magazines I subscribe to.
My book choices vary between non-fiction (something related to, or a mix of, history, current events and policy, including anything by Samantha Power, And the Band Played On, The Power Broker, Team of Rivals, Omnivore's Dilemma, What is the What, and Development as Freedom) and fiction (Murakami, Achebe, Paul Auster, Neil Gaiman, Frank McCourt and since I started at my current job a few children's books that are easier to read after a long day - ie Lightning Thief / Percy Jackson).
For magazines, I subscribe to National Geographic (which I love - great pictures, great animals, great politics / history!), New York Review of Books (great but I can never seem to stay on top of it), and Atlantic Monthly (which I am always debating whether to continue that subscription).
When I get to work, I spend a little bit of time throughout the day checking out local and national newspapers and blogs. I always check Liz Benjamin's blog at the Daily News as soon as I get in, along with the Observer and NY Post. I also check the main page of the NY Times, Wall Street Journal (even though most articles are subscriber only), and Washington Post. Later in the day I will probably check out Huffington Post, The New Republic, Atlantic, the Economist, Foreign Policy, and Slate. Basically, I am looking for as much objective analysis as possible, with as little liberal commentary as possible (and basically no conservative commentary - so no National Review or Weekly Standard).
Surprisingly enough, I don't read much outside of these two times (downtime at work and my subway commute). If I ever lose that commute, I'm not sure when I'll read for pleasure.
I always read on my train commute to and from work - but that time is my time; I only read for pleasure and not for work. What I read then varies though. It could be one of the many books I am reading, or one of the magazines I subscribe to.
My book choices vary between non-fiction (something related to, or a mix of, history, current events and policy, including anything by Samantha Power, And the Band Played On, The Power Broker, Team of Rivals, Omnivore's Dilemma, What is the What, and Development as Freedom) and fiction (Murakami, Achebe, Paul Auster, Neil Gaiman, Frank McCourt and since I started at my current job a few children's books that are easier to read after a long day - ie Lightning Thief / Percy Jackson).
For magazines, I subscribe to National Geographic (which I love - great pictures, great animals, great politics / history!), New York Review of Books (great but I can never seem to stay on top of it), and Atlantic Monthly (which I am always debating whether to continue that subscription).
When I get to work, I spend a little bit of time throughout the day checking out local and national newspapers and blogs. I always check Liz Benjamin's blog at the Daily News as soon as I get in, along with the Observer and NY Post. I also check the main page of the NY Times, Wall Street Journal (even though most articles are subscriber only), and Washington Post. Later in the day I will probably check out Huffington Post, The New Republic, Atlantic, the Economist, Foreign Policy, and Slate. Basically, I am looking for as much objective analysis as possible, with as little liberal commentary as possible (and basically no conservative commentary - so no National Review or Weekly Standard).
Surprisingly enough, I don't read much outside of these two times (downtime at work and my subway commute). If I ever lose that commute, I'm not sure when I'll read for pleasure.
Book Report: Claim of Privilege
I took an undergraduate class on the Federal Courts. For half of the class, we discussed the professor's book. The other half we discussed some of the more recent and important Supreme Court decisions. What I remember most about the class was the discussion of precedent. The professor was constantly, although a little too patiently, reminding us that the facts of the case were not as important as the precedent. For example, in Atwater v. Lago Vista, it is not important whether the mother was just driving in the neighborhood looking for her child's toy. What matters is whether the police do (or should) have the right to arrest (detain) someone for a crime that is only punishable by a fine.
So it should also be case when reading Claim of Privilege and the case of US v. Reynolds. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the executive branch to declare state secrets and not have to reveal sensitive information. In fact, the judge does not even have the right to review the evidence to see if it is in fact a sensitive state secret.
Where I disagree slightly with, or at least have a new understanding of, what we were taught in that undergraduate class is that the facts of a case can shed some light on the impact of a particular decision (as Citizens United shows us, the Supreme Court has some latitude in making a decision). In the Reynolds case, the executive branch claimed state secrets, but it seems clear that they were merely trying to avoid culpability in the lawsuit. When the executive branch is able to claim state secrets without showing any of their evidence, even to a judge, it allows them to abuse it and avoids the checks and balances that is a hallmark of our government.
Since Reynolds has been used as precedent for Bush era actions, we can only imagine how the executive branch can, or did, abuse the power that precedent grants. Although as Citizens United shows us, precedents can be overturned, I am not optimistic that this one will anytime soon.
So it should also be case when reading Claim of Privilege and the case of US v. Reynolds. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the executive branch to declare state secrets and not have to reveal sensitive information. In fact, the judge does not even have the right to review the evidence to see if it is in fact a sensitive state secret.
Where I disagree slightly with, or at least have a new understanding of, what we were taught in that undergraduate class is that the facts of a case can shed some light on the impact of a particular decision (as Citizens United shows us, the Supreme Court has some latitude in making a decision). In the Reynolds case, the executive branch claimed state secrets, but it seems clear that they were merely trying to avoid culpability in the lawsuit. When the executive branch is able to claim state secrets without showing any of their evidence, even to a judge, it allows them to abuse it and avoids the checks and balances that is a hallmark of our government.
Since Reynolds has been used as precedent for Bush era actions, we can only imagine how the executive branch can, or did, abuse the power that precedent grants. Although as Citizens United shows us, precedents can be overturned, I am not optimistic that this one will anytime soon.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A Good Fight
I love this story, mostly because you don't hear much about countries fighting our hypocritical trade policies - at least not South American (aka non-European) countries. But dammit, sometimes they should! And this seems like one of those times. So at risk of being called unpatriotic, Go Brazil! That's what the WTO is for - to force big powerful countries to play by the rules and stop taking advantage of less powerful countries. The only problem is that many countries do not have anything that they can retaliate with.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Book Report: Lies My Teacher Told Me
I finally read Lies My Teacher Told Me, a book in a similar vain to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (which I have not yet read). The main difference between the two books, as far as I can tell, is that Lies is very focused on improving high school history education. The overall message is that hero-worship, feel-good stories about the past, and presenting history as facts instead of arguments do a tremendous disservice to our students.
To present this argument, the author, James Loewen, shows us many examples from American History of ways that high school history text books get history wrong for one of the reasons mentioned above. For example, we often present Woodrow Wilson as a hero without showing his flaws (very racist). In the interest of not showing our own flaws, we show Native Americans as barbarians and uncultured and often avoid talking about our genocide against them (in fact, Loewen spends much time on Native Americans). Frequent depictions of Reconstruction talk about northern interference and not the significant racism and violence.
The book is of course very liberal, and it presents a view of history that is meant to contradict what would appear to be conservative portraits of our history. I don't expect all people to take Loewen's word, but it at least provides a great place to start to investigate and debate different interpretations of our past.
While I was well aware of the way we ignore or misrepresent parts of our past (although I didn't know of all of these examples), what I had not thought about as much was the fact that there is much we do not know about history. For example, while we teach that Columbus was the first to discover America, rarely to teachers or text books talk about the possibility, and different sources of evidence, that others reached America before him. Presenting history as something that is regularly being investigated and debated is to me much more accurate and more interesting for students.
I will be interested to read A People's History and compare and contrast to this. I will also be using Lies as a reference and a starting point for many moments in our American History (first stop, War of 1812, which was different than it is commonly portrayed).
To present this argument, the author, James Loewen, shows us many examples from American History of ways that high school history text books get history wrong for one of the reasons mentioned above. For example, we often present Woodrow Wilson as a hero without showing his flaws (very racist). In the interest of not showing our own flaws, we show Native Americans as barbarians and uncultured and often avoid talking about our genocide against them (in fact, Loewen spends much time on Native Americans). Frequent depictions of Reconstruction talk about northern interference and not the significant racism and violence.
The book is of course very liberal, and it presents a view of history that is meant to contradict what would appear to be conservative portraits of our history. I don't expect all people to take Loewen's word, but it at least provides a great place to start to investigate and debate different interpretations of our past.
While I was well aware of the way we ignore or misrepresent parts of our past (although I didn't know of all of these examples), what I had not thought about as much was the fact that there is much we do not know about history. For example, while we teach that Columbus was the first to discover America, rarely to teachers or text books talk about the possibility, and different sources of evidence, that others reached America before him. Presenting history as something that is regularly being investigated and debated is to me much more accurate and more interesting for students.
I will be interested to read A People's History and compare and contrast to this. I will also be using Lies as a reference and a starting point for many moments in our American History (first stop, War of 1812, which was different than it is commonly portrayed).
Book Report: The Wire
The. Best. Written. Show. Ever.
In fact, the show is so good, I think it is more than fitting for it to be a "book report". The show was pure literature - the story lines and the characters were complex and full of life - not a single two-dimensional character (okay, maybe Carcetti).
Because the characters were so full, I have so many favorites: Bunk, McNulty, Carver, Bubbles, Bodie, Stringer Bell, Snoop and Chris, Avon and D'Angelo Barksdale, Omar, Freeman, Greggs, Prop Joe, Senator Clay Davis, Pryzbylewski, Michael, Randy, Dukie, and Namond - I could go on.
It is also the most intense show I have ever watched - my heart races throughout the whole episode because I don't know what is going to happen. All of the characters are at risk - no one is safe - but it doesn't feel artificial. And the writers make you care about so many, if not all, of the characters.
Of course, the test of any show shot on location is how well they use the location for the show. In the best cases, the location becomes one of the characters of the show. I know of few shows that did this better than The Wire. The way they used Baltimore was perfect - from the accents to the class and race divides and from the neighborhoods to the progress of the city over the last decade.
Unfortunately, although so many people I know recognize this show as one of the best ever, it went largely without any critical acclaim or awards. Hopefully though the show will prove everyone wrong and be remembered long past the shows that did win awards. It certainly deserves it.
Beyond the literary accomplishments of the show - it is also near perfect social commentary. For those who do not know, the show chronicles American urban problems through the lens of the City of Baltimore. Its five seasons swirl around the drug trade, although each season has a slightly different focus and closeness to drugs.
Season one is very much about the drug war between dealers and the police and why each side fails but neither side wins. Season two moves to the docks and the decline of white union shipping jobs and how it leads them into drugs. Season three deals with Baltimore politics and their inability to stop the drugs. Season four, the most intense fictional experience I have witnessed and the hardest season to watch, took place in a Baltimore middle school and shows how the adults we see on the streets might have started out and where we go wrong trying to help them. Finally, season five looked at print journalism and the Baltimore Sun and its declining ability to cover this problem, among others.
The show was especially effective because it was more concerned with being honest than with making good drama (unusual for TV and mainstream movies). And surprising enough, because urban life is full of drama, it was able to accomplish both. And in so doing, it became the only show to give us a glimpse of the real urban life - I say glimpse because the show takes us to close to showing us what really happens, then pulls back because we handle seeing reality and still come back for more.
In the end, we are left knowing that all of our systems are imperfect - or to be more blunt, fucked up. So any belief that we are solving, or even managing, these problems is ridiculous. We can only think that way because we choose not to look too deeply at our problems. The Wire remedies that for us.
In fact, the show is so good, I think it is more than fitting for it to be a "book report". The show was pure literature - the story lines and the characters were complex and full of life - not a single two-dimensional character (okay, maybe Carcetti).
Because the characters were so full, I have so many favorites: Bunk, McNulty, Carver, Bubbles, Bodie, Stringer Bell, Snoop and Chris, Avon and D'Angelo Barksdale, Omar, Freeman, Greggs, Prop Joe, Senator Clay Davis, Pryzbylewski, Michael, Randy, Dukie, and Namond - I could go on.
It is also the most intense show I have ever watched - my heart races throughout the whole episode because I don't know what is going to happen. All of the characters are at risk - no one is safe - but it doesn't feel artificial. And the writers make you care about so many, if not all, of the characters.
Of course, the test of any show shot on location is how well they use the location for the show. In the best cases, the location becomes one of the characters of the show. I know of few shows that did this better than The Wire. The way they used Baltimore was perfect - from the accents to the class and race divides and from the neighborhoods to the progress of the city over the last decade.
Unfortunately, although so many people I know recognize this show as one of the best ever, it went largely without any critical acclaim or awards. Hopefully though the show will prove everyone wrong and be remembered long past the shows that did win awards. It certainly deserves it.
Beyond the literary accomplishments of the show - it is also near perfect social commentary. For those who do not know, the show chronicles American urban problems through the lens of the City of Baltimore. Its five seasons swirl around the drug trade, although each season has a slightly different focus and closeness to drugs.
Season one is very much about the drug war between dealers and the police and why each side fails but neither side wins. Season two moves to the docks and the decline of white union shipping jobs and how it leads them into drugs. Season three deals with Baltimore politics and their inability to stop the drugs. Season four, the most intense fictional experience I have witnessed and the hardest season to watch, took place in a Baltimore middle school and shows how the adults we see on the streets might have started out and where we go wrong trying to help them. Finally, season five looked at print journalism and the Baltimore Sun and its declining ability to cover this problem, among others.
The show was especially effective because it was more concerned with being honest than with making good drama (unusual for TV and mainstream movies). And surprising enough, because urban life is full of drama, it was able to accomplish both. And in so doing, it became the only show to give us a glimpse of the real urban life - I say glimpse because the show takes us to close to showing us what really happens, then pulls back because we handle seeing reality and still come back for more.
In the end, we are left knowing that all of our systems are imperfect - or to be more blunt, fucked up. So any belief that we are solving, or even managing, these problems is ridiculous. We can only think that way because we choose not to look too deeply at our problems. The Wire remedies that for us.
Prodigal Son
We all love a good redemption story. Or at least I do. Each story symbolizes the possibility that any fallen person can be saved. And so it is with my childhood hero, Mark McGwire. When I first started blogging, one of my original posts was about my emotions after first discovering McGwire likely used steroids. It is one of my favorite posts that I have written (which is why I reference it any chance I get). And it only got worse from there - with McGwire refusing to talk about the past during a Congressional hearing (possibly because Bush refused to grant him immunity - just speculation, but interesting to think about).
But now, we have the redemption. McGwire was asked by his old friend Tony LaRussa (manager in Oakland and St. Louis) to come back as a hitting coach for the Cards. There is little doubt that McGwire will be a good hitting instructor since so many say he is a serious student of hitting mechanics. We all knew though that in order to come back, McGwire would have to talk about the past. So he did, and so he admitted to using steroids. He told Bob Costas and the world when he used and why. He seemed genuine and rightly emotional.
But so why do I feel a bit let down? Why is this not actually the prodigal son coming home? Maybe because, no matter how much sympathy I have for him (and all other players that have been thrown under the bus by the complicit owners and oblivious press), I feel like McGwire is still deluding himself and the public. I might grant him that the original reason he started using was because of his string of injuries starting around 1991. But to suggest that steroids did not help him hit home runs is just wrong. Sure, there is more to hitting home runs than strength, but it certainly requires strength to hit a lot of home runs.
So maybe this redemption story isn't as great as it could be. Maybe McGwire held a little back. Yes, I am a little less than satisfied. But I am still glad that McGwire is involved in baseball again, this time showing the world one of his great strengths - his knowledge of hitting mechanics.
But now, we have the redemption. McGwire was asked by his old friend Tony LaRussa (manager in Oakland and St. Louis) to come back as a hitting coach for the Cards. There is little doubt that McGwire will be a good hitting instructor since so many say he is a serious student of hitting mechanics. We all knew though that in order to come back, McGwire would have to talk about the past. So he did, and so he admitted to using steroids. He told Bob Costas and the world when he used and why. He seemed genuine and rightly emotional.
But so why do I feel a bit let down? Why is this not actually the prodigal son coming home? Maybe because, no matter how much sympathy I have for him (and all other players that have been thrown under the bus by the complicit owners and oblivious press), I feel like McGwire is still deluding himself and the public. I might grant him that the original reason he started using was because of his string of injuries starting around 1991. But to suggest that steroids did not help him hit home runs is just wrong. Sure, there is more to hitting home runs than strength, but it certainly requires strength to hit a lot of home runs.
So maybe this redemption story isn't as great as it could be. Maybe McGwire held a little back. Yes, I am a little less than satisfied. But I am still glad that McGwire is involved in baseball again, this time showing the world one of his great strengths - his knowledge of hitting mechanics.
Journal Does it Again
Twice now I have found reasonable articles on the Wall Street Journal about fairly controversial topics. First it was nuclear power, and serious financial costs of using it. Now it is climate change. The article talks openly about the consensus around carbon's role as a greenhouse gas and the human component. At the same time, it describes the large variations in projections of the impact on the planet and difficulties in expressing the uncertainties in a report for public consumption.
Read the article. It is smart and reasonable - or dare I say far and balanced?
Read the article. It is smart and reasonable - or dare I say far and balanced?
Not Convinced Neocons Were Correct
There is a new article in Foreign Policy about what the NeoCons got right. I am willing to be open minded, but this article did not convince me. The author seemed to be trying to hard to find something. Here is what the author says: "So what did the neocons get right? Syria, Iran, and democracy."
I am undecided on Syria. If the author is saying the Neocons were right not to invest any American effort in creating an agreement between Syria and Israel, then maybe I can agree with that. However, I remember the news portraying America as scuttling a potential deal between Syria and Israel. If that is the case, I do not agree.
For Iran, the author says that Neocons knew that Iran was not going to come to an agreement with us on nuclear weapons, therefore they were right not to negotiate. However, getting an agreement is not the only reason to negotiate. Democrats rightly believe that finding an agreement is worth a try (and not beneath our dignity, which the right claimed) and that by trying and failing to reach an agreement, we would get far more international support than had we not tried at all. The author seems to concede this, but yet still claims that the Neocons were right not to negotiate. I'm not sure why.
And so we come to democracy. Yes, Neocons are right that promoting democracy promotes stability. But then again, who disagrees with that? The main disagreement is how easily democracy can be imposed on a country. Neocons were wrong that Iraqis would quickly welcome democracy without any looting, insurgencies or civil war.
The other problem with the Neocons belief in democracy is that many saw this push as disingenuous. Neocons clearly try to balance their support for democracy with their more realist tendencies. Basically, Neocons, and many Democrats as well, support America-friendly dictatorships, but oppose dictatorships or less-than-ideal democracies (Iran) if they are unfriendly. So a push for democracy rings hollow when we do precious little to push countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia towards democracy or when we fail to recognize elections in Palestine that don't go how we want them to.
So to suggest that Neocons got democracy right misses the level of their support for it, and how it is actually perceived by the rest of the world. I would argue that Obama is getting democracy right. While his position on democracy and its positive benefits are the same as Bush and the Neocons, he is talking less about it and coming off less hypocritical.
I'll have to think some more about this, but as of yet, I don't find anything that the Neocons got right. Feel free to try to set me straight.
I am undecided on Syria. If the author is saying the Neocons were right not to invest any American effort in creating an agreement between Syria and Israel, then maybe I can agree with that. However, I remember the news portraying America as scuttling a potential deal between Syria and Israel. If that is the case, I do not agree.
For Iran, the author says that Neocons knew that Iran was not going to come to an agreement with us on nuclear weapons, therefore they were right not to negotiate. However, getting an agreement is not the only reason to negotiate. Democrats rightly believe that finding an agreement is worth a try (and not beneath our dignity, which the right claimed) and that by trying and failing to reach an agreement, we would get far more international support than had we not tried at all. The author seems to concede this, but yet still claims that the Neocons were right not to negotiate. I'm not sure why.
And so we come to democracy. Yes, Neocons are right that promoting democracy promotes stability. But then again, who disagrees with that? The main disagreement is how easily democracy can be imposed on a country. Neocons were wrong that Iraqis would quickly welcome democracy without any looting, insurgencies or civil war.
The other problem with the Neocons belief in democracy is that many saw this push as disingenuous. Neocons clearly try to balance their support for democracy with their more realist tendencies. Basically, Neocons, and many Democrats as well, support America-friendly dictatorships, but oppose dictatorships or less-than-ideal democracies (Iran) if they are unfriendly. So a push for democracy rings hollow when we do precious little to push countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia towards democracy or when we fail to recognize elections in Palestine that don't go how we want them to.
So to suggest that Neocons got democracy right misses the level of their support for it, and how it is actually perceived by the rest of the world. I would argue that Obama is getting democracy right. While his position on democracy and its positive benefits are the same as Bush and the Neocons, he is talking less about it and coming off less hypocritical.
I'll have to think some more about this, but as of yet, I don't find anything that the Neocons got right. Feel free to try to set me straight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)