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.

Hotel Rwanda; Fast Forward

I read a really sad article today in the Wall Street Journal (12/4/06, front page). Since I don't subscribe to the online version, and I doubt anyone who reads this does either (except maybe Old $), I won't bother trying to link to it. The main point of the article was that Paul Rusesabagina, the hero of Hotel Rwanda, is apparently no longer popular in Rwanda and it might even be dangerous for him to return. He has been making the most of his fame by doing public speaking tours and living comfortably here in the US. Before I continue though, I should add a disclaimer that we don't know for sure if what the article insinuates is actually true. The danger might be hyped and his unpopularity might be due to the appearance that he has ditched Rwanda for the US.

For now though I will take the article on face value, and the article says that Paul Rusesabagina is unpopular because he has made statements that are critical of the Tutsi-lead government in Rwanda. He has claimed that the government has only given Hutus token positions and has suppressed dissent. The later claim is believable considering a statement denouncing Rusesabagina from Rwanda's President. There also could be a rivalry since Rusesabagina has hinted at a desire to run for President.

But there are some larger issues that seem to be lurking behind the scenes. Whenever there is a genocide, we tend to want the victims to be completely innocent. In some cases they were (Jews during the Holocaust), but in others the ethnic groups were in open rebellion (the Kurds in Iraq and Muslims in Bosnia). This in no way excuses the genocides. But it does mean we need to be open to the fact that the once victims might one-day be oppressors (and might have been in the past as was the case with the Tutsis). We need to be as vigilant in condemning them as would be anyone else.

Unfortunately, the article also gives the appearance that civil war might descend on Rwanda again in the future. In many of the genocides, people who didn’t want to act dismissed the situations as generations-long civil wars that we cannot stop. Those favoring intervention will argue back that it is not a mere civil war, but an attempt from the top of one government to exterminate an ethnic / racial / religious group. The truth though tends to be that both sides are kind of right. No matter how much we wish that Tutsis and Hutus would learn the differences between them are largely false and created by their colonial power to create division, I have to accept that it will take time. Until then, further flair-ups are a possibility.

If Rwanda were to flair up again, it would probably make some people feel justified that we didn’t intervene. They would say that we will never be able to stop the fighting. While that may be true, the fact remains that we still need to intervene to stop genocidal governments, even if we decide not to intervene in civil wars (although I would prefer to intervene all the time if at all possible).

Sweat Shops - Redux

I had an intense debate with The Beard a while ago about sweat shops. My basic position was that there was nothing we could do to improve the working conditions in manufacturing jobs in the developing world. The reason wages are so low and conditions so bad is because there is an oversupply of labor. My argument is that the economic circumstances will resist our efforts at reform. Our goal therefore should be to do as much as we can to build up their economies while will drive up wages and allow for improved conditions.

My underlying assumption though does cause me problems. I do feel strongly about poor labor conditions in the developing world, but I also feel like some efforts to intervene will be useless (or even counterproductive – meaning driving jobs away). I have a lot of difficulty reconciling these two points in my mind. I want to say that I see these same issues at play in other policies like fair trade coffee and domestic price supports for agriculture (which I oppose for different reasons).

The issue here is what do we do about a situation that we think we are powerless to change? My position of waiting for the economies to grow allows for the suffering of the workers to continue for the foreseeable future. The Beard on the other hand, even if he accepted that the economic principles at play impede progress, would likely still advocate for some reform rather than accepting the current situation.

As I consider myself a moral being, I should not be okay, accepting the workers’ fate, even as I realize that dangerous working conditions for low wages are everywhere in the developing world (notably in agriculture and mining).

I realize now that the Nicholas Kristof column that inspired our debate, and my post supporting that column, were both insensitive to the horrible working conditions of the workers. What I should have said is that we want to somehow force better conditions, without driving the labor away. The workers need the money, and the countries need that boost to the economy.

But I also want to distance myself from the well-meaning but poorly thought-out proposals, like the ones that make comparisons between wage increases and price increases of the final product. A proposal like this one ignores the fact that the downward pressure on wages isn’t coming from consumers always needing cheaper Banana Republic shirts, but instead from the over supply of labor in the developing world and the need for bigger profit margins by the companies to remain competitive.

The bottom line is that I should not tolerate terrible working conditions. But I think we need to be more creative and think of solutions that keep in mind the serious economic constraints we work under.

If it Moves, Tax it

I got another one of those emails that tries to show that government is too big through a few short and clever jokes. Although I did laugh at them because of the stereotype they are using, I do think that sometimes jokes like that allow people to oversimplify issues and prevent them from thinking through their beliefs.

The big government attacks from fiscal conservatives (besides being hypocritical) are more often aimed at a few specific programs. They aren’t talking about the military, police, or even prisons; instead they are talking more often about social programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and sometimes even education spending.

In my mind though, the size of the government isn’t the issue. What matters is whether or not we want to provide a basic level of support for every person in this country. I never really understand why this is so controversial. If we are to consider ourselves an advanced and humane society, we should be willing, first and foremost, to protect everyone in our society.

The most common response to this is that the government shouldn’t be the one to do this. I will never understand this argument because it rests on the assumption that private and non-profit groups will be able to provide all the resources necessary to care for those in need through the generous donations of private citizens. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the people who aren’t willing to share their money with the government for these purposes will have a change of heart and give what is required.

If everyone agreed that we do need to take care of everyone, the next step is to decide what a basic level of services should be. I feel that this is a productive argument. Is minimum wage enough to live off? When should health care benefits get cut off (right now, there is a disincentive to getting a job because if you are paid a certain amount, you no longer receive Medicaid). How much public assistance is enough to take care of a family? This is where the argument should be.

I have to say before I close that setting a time-limit on welfare is a strange concept to me. I don’t know what the research is yet, but I can’t see how we will stop giving people the money they need for food and shelter because they have been receiving money for more than five years. This was an experiment though that many people wanted to try, so I guess for this we will have to wait and see the effects.

The bottom line though is that I want to see that everyone in this country is taken care of. And towards that end, I don’t care how big or small the government is (which is obviously relative) as long as we can accomplish that much.

Half-Way Through

I have had to stop in the middle of reading non-fiction books before. I didn’t make it straight through John Adams by David McCullough or His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis. But this time I am stopping for a different reason. It isn’t that I have temporarily lost interest in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide like I did with the others. This time I have to stop because it is affecting my mood. I find that I can only read the book in small doses because of how enraged it makes me. So I will start again with Rwanda after a short break.

If there was only one thing that I could impart on people after reading through half of this book, it would the following: that there are many options of intervening to prevent genocides that are short of a full-scale ground invasion. Too often our leaders supported doing nothing simply because we were unwilling to perform the most drastic option of a full-scale invasion. During the Holocaust we could have bombed the train lines that were carrying prisoners to the concentration camps. In Iraq, we could have enforced a no-fly zone over the north to protect the Kurds, like we did after the Gulf War. In Rwanda, at the very least we could have jammed the radio signals that were issuing the killing orders. In Bosnia we could have ended the arms embargo against the Muslims in Bosnia and we could have launched air strikes against the encampments that were shelling Sarajevo. And in Darfur, we can also enforce a no-fly zone so that the Janjaweed cannot get air support from the Sudanese military.

But in all of the situations we could have at least spoken out against it, and done so without using confusing language that portrays the situation as a centuries-long civil war between groups that will never get along and trying to make both sides of the conflict equal partners in the atrocities. In all of these situations, we could have demonstrated leadership instead of refusing to act because there wasn’t already a pre-formed consensus to act.

If you are willing, there are other things that are important that I have learned from the book. To my extreme dismay, I found that there are very few lawmakers who are free of guilt in our inaction in the face of genocide. While I knew President Clinton ignored Rwanda, I didn’t realize he also refused to do anything significant in Bosnia. Also, I used to respect Colin Powell because I thought he was the only one in the Bush II administration that was advocating for intervention in Darfur. I based this on his insistence to use the word “Genocide”. I have to admit that I don’t know his actual position on Darfur now, but I do know that he advocated against intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq before the Gulf War and also against intervening in Bosnia both during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies. I should admit though that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of politicians because of their forceful advocacy for intervention, including Senator Bob Dole.

What has made me particularly upset so far are the quotes from various administration officials in many different presidencies and how they talked around the truth in the same way that Bush II administration officials do over issues like Iraq. For example, Warren Christopher during a number of Congressional testimonies, referred to the situation in Bosnia as “tantamount to genocide.” It angers me so much to watch government officials try as hard as they can to avoid saying what is obvious because of what that entails.

Another thing I have learned is the importance of paying attention to early reports and projections of deaths even though they may lack the level of legitimacy that we seek in other circumstances. In most of these situations, people refused to act, or even pay attention, because they didn’t believe refugee reports or rough estimates of deaths. In retrospect, many of the stories out of Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia gave a pretty accurate picture of the situation. I also have to recognize that while I tend to discount anecdotal evidence, I cannot let this influence me to ignore something like this in the future.

In the end, the only way this book will be useful is if it encourages action in the next genocide. Although forcing people to feel guilty for their lack of concern over the genocides, that feeling is meaningless if it doesn’t change behavior the next time around. But this is where the book has really changed my outlook and view of politics. I feel so much more cynical now because I get the feeling that we will never actually get involved unless it is in our interest. My resolve has doubled to pay attention to international events and speak out against tolerating these situations, but in the end I do feel like my efforts will be useless. When I tried to talk to my family about genocides, some of them said that we shouldn’t intervene and should take care of our own country first (for the record, two very smart women said we can do both). If I can’t convince my own family that 800,000 dead in Rwanda or two million in Cambodia is completely intolerable, than I am left with no hope that the rest of the world will ever come around.

It is time for another book so that I don’t completely lose faith in humanity and retreat into myself. For those of you who are tired of my moral crusades, rest assured that you will get a brief reprieve.

Deal with the Devil?

This is an interesting story from Afghanistan. I will be very interested to see if this deal with Taliban works out. The fact that the area is peaceful now allows me some optimism, but I doubt that anything will keep the Taliban from sometime soon fighting for power again.

Kristof and Iraq: A Follow-Up

Nicholas Kristof wrote a really good follow-up post to his column about coverage of the Iraq War (yes, Kirstof has a blog). That column has forced me to do a lot of thinking about how I interpreted news from Iraq after the invasion.

My original position was that reporters tend to report more about violence than they do stability and that this gives an overly negative view of the war. Kristof does recognize this, but here is what he says:

But that said, the basic narrative from reporters in Iraq in the last few years has been that security and sectarian violence is worsening, while the basic narrative from the administration has been that things are getter steadily better and that the reporters are exaggerating. To me, it sure looks as if the reporters got it right.

At the time I didn't trust that reporters were being unbiased. What I realize now is that maybe I should have had a little more faith that those covering the situation in Iraq would have reported that there was stability had it existed. Good journalists want to report accurately about the overall situation they are reporting on, and if they are talking about increased violence, I should probably be quicker to believe it.


Note: I replied to a comment on Kristof's post. I couldn't resist.

Have I Ever Been too Pessimistic?

In case you couldn’t tell, I have been thinking about Iraq a lot lately. I am having a lot of trouble reconciling my feelings and how they fit in with any policies I would want to propose. What I think it boils down to is when should we finally give up.

I don’t want to give up on Iraq, but I am finding it harder and harder these days to maintain any hope that there can be a decent outcome. We have done such a bad job at managing the war that it almost feels like there is nothing we can really do now to make up for it. My problem though lies in the guilt I feel. Since we have messed up so badly, I can’t feel comfortable leaving if the country is in shambles. At the same time though, history can clearly show us what happens when we think we can change something we cannot.

I have long disagreed with the comparisons to Vietnam simply because I thought they were more different than they were the same (for an interesting comparison of Iraq and Vietnam, read this NY Times opinion piece). In Vietnam we were fighting against determined nationalist forces. In Iraq we are standing between warring factions – the majority Shiites that realize their strength, the Sunnis who used to be in power and now see a situation where they get left out of sharing oil revenues, and Kurds who are looking for as much autonomy as possible. The better comparison in my mind is to Lebanon. But that comparison doesn’t project a better outcome.

I feel paralyzed because I cannot predict with any certainty what will happen to Iraq if we stay versus if we leave. I have to believe that things will be at least a little better if we stay, but that isn’t always the case. Many analysts predicted Vietnam would fall apart if we left, and it didn’t (Cambodia was a different story). But again, I don’t see this taking shape like Vietnam did. Lebanon was a disaster until the early 1990s. After Reagan pulled the Marines out, we basically let the country sort it out on their own. The peace there is a little tenuous, but it is far better than it was during the civil war. We can’t as easily leave and allow Iraq to go through ten years or so of civil war. We cannot turn our back on them like we did Lebanon because we created this situation.

In the end, I come back to the same conclusion that we need to stay. But at the same time, I don’t see an end to it. My bet is that we will stay a while longer, but end up pulling out in a year or two. But I get depressed thinking about how bad the country might be then and how much worse it will be after we are gone.

What makes me feel even worse is that there is talk of looking to Iran and Syria to help us out. While I don’t think ignoring them is productive, both countries have a history of manipulating weak countries for their own benefit. In Lebanon they have a common goal. But in Iraq, they are working on different sides. Each of the countries in the region have, “a dog in the fight,” but each supports different dogs. I cannot imagine that any country will be willing to do anything but look out for their own interests, no matter what we offer in return.

Basically, when I look into the future regarding Iraq, all I see is uncontrollable bloodshed with almost no reasonable options to stop it. My hope is that I am wrong, but I have lost almost all reasons to be optimistic. I wonder if those who were actually responsible for decision-making feel as guilty as I do.

Enlightenment?

This opinion contribution has some really good commentary on the secularist / modern enlightenment zealots and their war against religion. I may not be a member of the religious right, but I have no patience for the books out there now that are desperately trying to show the world that people who have faith in something other than science are delusional.

It's Not Your Fault

I never expected that Democrats would be doing this, but I guess I should have. Although blaming Iraqis for the state of the country isn’t the right thing to do, it is the politically expedient thing to do. If it is the fault of the Iraqis that the country is falling into a civil war, then Democrats should feel no guilt in pulling American troops out of the country. After all, despite the fact that many Democrat Senators and Congressmen voted in favor of the war, most claim that they didn’t really support it.

The facts are simple though, if you care to look. The administration has made a number of fatal flaws following the invasion that made a successful outcome almost impossible. To name a few; they came in with too few troops, showed contempt for the countries that wouldn’t invade with us which prevented them from wanting to help later on, disbanded the Iraqi army, did nothing to stop the looting or early insurgency, and did not seal the border to prevent foreign fighters. From day one, we did not create a stable situation in Iraq. Sunni insurgents killed Americans and Iraqis alike, and Shiites finally stopped being patient and decided to fight back. I don’t support that decision, but I am not sure that I blame them for it.

The fact is that we are at fault for the crisis in the country. Although I understand that the parliament cannot agree on anything and is largely ineffective, that isn’t why there is a problem. The problem is that violence was never controlled and people got tired of waiting for that to happen.

Here is the bottom line – blaming the Iraqis requires the assumption that they have, or at one point had, the capacity to stop the violence. The problem is that this assumption is very obviously wrong. We were the only ones that could have stopped the violence and improved the lives of Iraqis. But we failed miserably at that and therefore we should feel guilty. Our incompetence has ruined that country. Therefore, we should feel compelled to stay as long as we can to keep the violence as low as we can. If we choose to leave, we need to do some serious self-reflection and take credit for what we have done. Unfortunately, this is something politicians are usually incapable of.

Personality Matters

Until very recently I thought it was ridiculous that so many conservatives hate Hillary Clinton. I thought that if they were rational, they would easily see that she is far more moderate and would be far less dangerous to conservatism than someone like John Kerry, Barak Obama or someone in the mold of Howard Dean. I don’t know why it took me this long, but it finally dawned on me that personality should be important when making political decisions. This is something I recognized when it is in the affirmative, for example when looking at someone like John McCain or Barak Obama. But I never gave it enough credit when it was in the negative. If I am willing to vote for either McCain or Obama, neither of whom are exactly where I am on the political spectrum, then it is perfectly understandable for someone to oppose Hillary.

This doesn’t mean that I oppose Hillary. I think she would make a good president and depending on who she is running against, I would probably vote for her. But I do understand now that some people just don’t think she is a good person.

United Nations: What is it Good For?

Someone told me this weekend that they thought the United Nations is worthless and ineffective. I don’t necessarily disagree, but it made me wonder if he, or even if I, know what we want the United Nations to do. Like any legislative body, it is extremely slow to act and its members often make decisions in their own interests and not necessarily based on morality. But if there was some consensus on what we do want it to do, we could move it in a better direction and help it to become more effective. I think the biggest thing hindering the UN right now is that we don’t know what we really want from it.

Based on what I know, the UN most often defers to a state’s sovereignty. The internal affairs of a state are its own business. This might have been a good policy immediately following World War II (although even that is debatable), but it doesn’t fit now. In my opinion, the biggest problem facing our world is the treatment of groups within states. Genocide continues to be a problem that is ignored despite the commitment of states to take reasonable measures to stop it. There are also far too many people displaced from wars or famine, with governments that are incapable or unwilling to support them. In those situations, we need an international body that is willing to act to protect and defend these people.

The reality is that this change will not happen overnight. It is too easy for member states to turn away from these terrible situations and pretend that they are incapable of doing anything about it. As I read A Problem From Hell, I get depressed at how the world continues to fail in its moral obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We are great at showing regret long after the fact, but we never learn the lesson that true self-reflection leads to. The famous saying is, “Never again, again and again.”

We didn’t learn enough from the Holocaust to stop Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosivic, the Hutu’s in Rwanda or even the Sudanese government and the Janjaweed. We have never learned the lesson, and so our regret comes off as extremely hypocritical.

But I don’t want to focus entirely on genocide. Millions die or are displaced from civil wars every year. We should care about this. War torn regions in Africa or Southeast Asia should not be ignored because they are hard problems. President Kennedy once said, “We choose to do this and the other thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

I have been told during my rants that my position will never get me elected. Let me make something clear. My goal is not to get elected, but to change people’s minds. I want to make people think about their beliefs and understand the moral consequences of their positions. When we ignore major international problems, hundreds of thousands of people die. This should be just as enraging when it is Africans as it would be if it were Americans.

I did start this blog hoping there would be dialogue and debate. I want to know what other people think the United Nation’s role should be. I am calling for an end to what is now complete respect for state sovereignty. To me, this seems like an obvious solution to what ails the UN. To the others who think the UN isn’t useful, feel free to tell me what it should be doing.

For Macie and LEM

Kristof has done it again ($). This time though, it isn’t about genocide. His column is about early reporting of the Iraq War that described the violence and the potential for Civil War. I must be honest that I was also one of the people that ignored the early reports of escalating violence. I was desperate for Iraq to succeed because I wanted to see a relatively stable democracy develop in the Middle East. I hated the argument that Iraq was incapable of being a democracy and thought success here would prove that it could exist anywhere.

I need to give some credit where it is due, mostly to my friends that had said for a long time that this war was a mistake and that this would happen (Macie and LEM to name two). As soon as reports came out that Iraq was wrapped in violence, they brought this to my attention. And when they did, I told them they were ignoring the good reports and I said that things would settle down.

While I do admit that I was hesitant to hear the bad news even as it got worse, I still maintain that there were points when good management of the war could have made this more successful. I think if there had been more troops and we were able to maintain stability early on, we might have avoided the civil war that appears imminent. I must also recognize that part of the reason I cling to that belief is that I am an optimist, and I don’t want to admit that democracies cannot be helped along by foreign involvement. I believe that everyone wants some level of freedom and no one really wants (or needs) an oppressive regime like Saddam’s.

With that said, we do need to learn something from this example. Creating a new democracy is obviously a difficult mission and can end up with us leaving the country worse that when we found it. We must be prepared to use significant troop presence over long periods of time if we are to be successful. Since we are probably not prepared to do this, we should avoid nation-building scenerios like this one in the future.

What I am afraid of though is that this (similar to Mogadishu) becomes proof of why we should not ever get involved in other country’s affairs. Iraq was clearly a mistake, but there are other situations that could use international intervention and will not require long term troop commitment (Darfur, Somalia, Lebanon / Palestine). The Middle East (and Africa) has a violent past and present, but there is good we can do to protect defenseless victims and help the region move forward.

Genocide - Always so Controversial

There have been some interesting, although heated, debates recently about America’s role in stopping genocide. In a column from last week ($), Nicholas Kristof took a reader to task for suggesting that we should deal with domestic problems before fixing problems around the world. Since then, I have had similar arguments with family. The view expressed by the reader is not uncommon.

If someone says that they don’t get involved in that debate because they choose other issues that are more important to them, I can’t really find fault with that. There are so many problems in this world that choosing to fight any of them is worthwhile and noble. We all have to follow our passion.

What I do find fault with though is a similar argument that says we shouldn’t do anything about genocide because we haven’t fixed our own problems. Those two arguments may sound similar, but to me the difference is that the one I just mentioned dismisses any effort to stop genocide, whereas the first one only says that the particular person is more invested in other issues while not disinvested in genocide.

The reason I find the latter argument problematic is because its foundation rests on putting certain human lives above others simply based on nationality – an somewhat arbitrary division. I realize that we cannot intervene right now to prevent every loss of life or stop every repressive government. We have to draw lines somewhere. I happen to think that one of the first places to draw a line is when someone tries to eliminate, “either in whole or in part, a group based on their race, religion, or nationality.” I find the Holocaust appalling for the same reason that I find Pol Pot’s genocide appalling. It has nothing to do with the race of the victim, but that the victims were attacked en masse because of their race (or ethnicity or nationality).

One of the first things people attack when you talk about genocide is the fact that the UN resolution doesn’t include political groups. This part is debatable, but I can see why it exists. It isn’t because anyone tolerates persecution of political dissidents, but is instead based on a belief that there is something inherently destructive to the fabric of humanity when a culture is eliminated. Since some people might not agree that political mass murders should be excluded, I would accept as a compromise that groups should be forced to intervene when there is mass murder of political groups as well.

What usually happens with this argument though is that they think genocide is a bogus term if it doesn’t include political mass murder. Therefore, somehow it becomes acceptable to ignore mass murder based on race, simply because the genocide convention does not include politics.

The bottom line here is that I don’t see any moral difference between killing Rwandan Tutsis, European Jews, non-Muslim Sudanese, or Americans. The difference to me exists in the numbers that are murdered, the motivation behind the murder, and our ability to stop the murders. I am happy, but not satisfied with, condemnation of genocide. Looking back at our history, even that was too much to expect. I look forward to the day when everyone can feel anguished when they become aware of mass murder, and not be able to dismiss it because the victims are not American.

The Year Has Arrived

The funny thing about Ken Rosenthal’s column is that I don’t disagree with his position. I am so angry with McGwire, my boyhood hero, that I don’t know that I want him to get into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot. My problem though is with all of the sanctimonious sports writers. They write like they had no idea that they were part of the steroids era, and now pretend like it is over because of some weak testing.

The fact is that I don’t think any of the baseball writers are objective. They beat up Barry Bonds (who deserves it) but as far as I can tell have given Sheffield and others a free ride. Writers bow down to Pujols, refusing to speculate on whether he uses performance enhancing drugs. Far from the investigative journalists that have infested politics, baseball writers only attack people where there is overwhelming evidence, and turn a blind eye to everyone else.

If I want to be fair though, I have to include myself in with my diatribe against sports writers. I was one of the many people who roared with indignation anytime people suggested McGwire was on steroids. I should have known the truth, and so my disgust is somewhat hypocritical. Ken Rosenthal and others have a hard choice to make, but I would find their columns much less ridiculous if they both took responsibility for their role and ignorance, while changing their behavior as we continue to exist in the steroids era.

Not Again

My Congressman is crazy. Reinstituting the draft is a ridiculous idea. Iraq is right or wrong on its merits and that has nothing to do with whether or not there is a draft.

Politics of the New Majority

There are two news stories that have begun to errode the excitement I had over the new Democratic majority. First, Pelosi might try again to put someone more favorable in a strong position. If this fails, I think it might be time to find a new Speaker of the House.

Also, it looks like Obama has finally let me down. And I thought it wasn't going to happen until his 2008 run for the Democratic nomination. Anyone who looks at the situation in Iraq has to see that pulling out American troops will lead to civil war. So why is he calling for troop withdrawals? He is relying on a common Democratic misconception that Iraq has the capacity to defend itself, they just aren't utilizing it right now (note: I borrowed this wording from an article I read - I can't find the link though). I admit that he seems genuine and speaks the truth. But if he can't see what will happen to Iraq, than I seriously doubt his abilities to correctly analyze a situation.

In good news though, I do like how the Demcocrats plan to deal with ethics reform: lots of individual bills, which hopefully means lots of votes. The flip side is that it might also mean very little (if any) change. We'll see.

More on the Cluster Bombs

I posted about this earlier, and I am relieved to see that it isn't going to be completely ignored:

The chief of staff of the Israeli military, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, ordered an inquiry today to determine whether the military followed his orders in its use of large numbers of cluster bombs in Lebanon during the month-long war with Hezbollah there over the summer.

Several human rights groups have criticized Israel’s use of cluster bombs in the fighting, saying they were dropped in or near populated areas.

Cluster bombs are not prohibited in warfare, but much controversy surrounds them. The munitions spray out many small bomblets that explode over a wide area and may strike unintended targets. In addition, some of the bomblets do not explode when they first hit the ground, and effectively become land mines that can be unwittingly detonated by civilians long after the fighting has stopped.

[Edit]

Israel has received cluster munitions from the United States for many years, and also makes its own. The New York Times reported in August that the State Department was investigating whether Israel used cluster bombs in Lebanon in violation of secret agreements with Washington that restrict their use.

It is interesting that we had a secret deal with Israel about their use. Apparently our criticism is secret also.

Tazer at UCLA

If you haven't seen the video of the student being tazered on YouTube, here it is. There isn't a lot to see actually, but you still get the idea that the police abused their authority. Tazers should be used only against people who are out of control and represent a risk to the safety of cops or bystanders. This clearly was neither. From what the LA Times is reporting, the police officer that discharged the tazer has some very contraversial incidents in his past.

Autism

From the NYTimes:

The research emphasis of the act is appropriate, given how little is still known about the causes and the physiology of autism spectrum disorders, as well as the means by which medical treatments can reduce autism’s severity if applied early enough. Basic questions like whether the frequency of childhood vaccines today contributes to autism are still unresolved.

As parents of a child facing these challenges, we applaud those lawmakers and fellow parents who have done so much to promote this and other initiatives. But research is not enough. We as a nation must also begin to focus seriously on treating those children who are already afflicted. At present, we are failing miserably to do so.

This Opinion piece explains briefly how expensive quality intervention can be (more than $50,000 a year for preschool children), but also how the chances for improvement are increased dramatically with it.

Studies now show that 40 percent to 50 percent of toddlers undergoing intensive Applied Behavior Analysis, one of the best-known methods, can be mainstreamed in regular classrooms without personal aides by the time they reach school age. (The figure is close to zero for children not given special care.) Most of the other 50 percent to 60 percent make notable progress too.

What makes this even more of a no-brainer is that it isn't just the humane thing to do, it also seems to be the efficient thing to do. By investing money up front to help improve the lives of these children, you decrease the long term costs associated with their care for the rest of their life. The authors are right, more funding for research is good, but not enough. Here are our options:

Our options range from mandating that insurance companies cover therapies documented to work, to trumpeting the example of places that do provide coverage in the hope others will follow, to expanding autism Medicaid waivers.