The Citizens

Bell Curve

The Law Talking Guy

Raised by Republicans

U.S. West

Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, February 04, 2005

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

I saw an article this morning on CBS about Enron; some new audio tapes of telephone conversations have been released, and they add to the mountain of evidence that Enron illegally manipulated the California energy market. But it was this line that caught me: "The new tapes... confirm what CBS News has been reporting for four years: That Enron secretly shut power plants down so they could cause, and then cash in on, the crisis." [emphasis added]

Yes, that's right--the power crisis was back in the summer of 2001, and Enron filed for bankruptcy Dec. 2, 2001 after the scandal broke. It took three years before (on July 7, 2004) Ken Lay was finally indicted by a Grand Jury--and now it's 2005 we're still awaiting the trial. Assuming the trial actually finally happens sometime, it will surely drag on for months, and then will immediately be appealed, and then re-appealed, etc., taking many more years. All this while Enron claims it is "fully cooperating" with the investigations!

Can anyone please explain to me why obtaining justice takes so damned long in this country? Are there too few judges? Is there not enough money for the courts? Are the laws written to permit virtually endless stalling? Could it be that we do we not have enough qualified lawyers in this country? What is it? And what can we do to fix it? How can any law deter white collar crime if defendants are more likely to die of old age before they get to trial? And while I'm at it, why do appeals in death penalty cases take so long? Is it the same problem? Even in the bloodthirsty Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the average time an inmate stays on death row before execution is 10 1/2 years.

What's the problem? Help a layman understand this, will you?

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Another "Accountability Moment"

Alberto Gonzales has been confirmed by the Senate in a 60-36 vote this afternoon. Here's a link to a news article about it. Many Democrats held together and voted NO. Is this the sign we've been waiting for? Could this mean that the Democrats have finally found their spines again? I can hear the pundits crying Hallelujah! For this time, finally, the Democrats did not roll over!

Instead, they were rolled over.

Hooray. Yippee. Whoop-de-doo. I think I'll get out a firework to celebrate :-(

Gonzalez, Torture, the GOP and Democratic Resistance

Hi Everyone,

This is turning into a very active day for The Citizens. I guess some of us are feeling a little oppressed and need to vent today.

The U.S. Senate today voted on whether to confirm Alberto Gonzalez of Texas as the next Attorney General of the United States. Gonzalez was the White House lawyer who took the lead in justifying the use of torture in the "war on terror." He was also linked to some back room deals to keep then Governor Bush from having to report for jury duty for fear of having his DUI records made public. Gonzalez has been accused of committing perjury in that affair - a charge as yet unexplored and unrefuted. The Republicans all voted for confirmation so Gonzalez will replace John Ashcroft who is soaring off into retirement. That's the bad news.

The good news is that the Democratic Party came very close to voting as a solid bloc against Gonzalez. Democratic Senators voting against confirmation included the following: Reid (D - Nevada), Bayh (D - Indiana), Lincoln (D - Arkansas), Dorgan (D - North Dakota), Johnson (D - South Dakota)

Three Democratic Senators were absent from the vote: Baucus (D - Montana), Conrad (D - North Dakota) , Inouye (D - Hawaii)

Baucus and Conrad were shadowing Bush's tour of their states. Not one Republican voted against confirmation. But Burns (R - Montana) was absent, probably traveling with Bush.

The only Democrats who voted to confirm Gonzalez were: Landrieu (D - Louisiana), Lieberman (D - Connecticut), Nelson (D - Florida), Nelson (D -Nebraska), Pryor (D - Arkansas), Salazar (D - Colorado)

The bad news is that the vote was 60 Yeas, 36 Nays. That's enough to break a filibuster had their been one. What this means is that the Democrats have to get very tough with the weak links in their fold. Salazar might have been voting his ethnicity rather than his principles - not cool. Lieberman is a lost cause. Pryor was probably playing it safe since he comes from conservative Arkansas as were Landrieu of Louisiana and Nelson of Nebraska. But Nelson of Florida really doesn't have much excuse unless the former Batista supporters down in South Florida have convinced him that torture is OK as long as you're pretty sure the victim is a communist or something.

About Academic Freedom

From AP February 3, 2005:
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A federal judge has ruled that Yale Law School can block military recruiters from campus without fear of losing federal funding.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall ruled Monday that a federal law requiring universities to let recruiters on campus violates the school's constitutional right to free speech.
School policy requires all recruiters to sign a nondiscrimination pledge, which the Pentagon has not done in light of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning open homosexuality. Defense officials argued that federal law requires Yale to allow recruiters on campus even without signing the pledge.

With the government threatening to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Yale faculty members sued the Department of Defense last year. Hall's decision echoes a ruling in November by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsin Philadelphia in a case filed by other law schools. The Pentagon has said it will take that case to the Supreme Court. In the Yale case, military officials said they were reviewing Hall's decision Wednesday and had no comment.
Immediately following the ruling, Yale's law school returned to its decades-old policy of banning military recruiters. The school temporarily halted that policy in 2002 to avoid losing federal funding.

The UN, Bremer, Iraq and Corruption

It's not getting a lot of play because of the aftermath of the State of the Union speech etc but a committee lead by former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volker, has just released a report accusing a UN official from Cyprus of corruption including soliciting and paying bribes while running the UN's "Oil For Food" program.

This is interesting because this scandal is widely pointed to as justification for excluding the UN (and by implication the international community at large) from occupied Iraq. The argument, according to the neo-cons, is that Americans are more honest and efficient. Americans can do it better than the UN and the "Oil For Food" corruption case proves it.

But how honest and efficient has the US occupation been? Earlier this month an audit of the Bremer Viceroyalty has revealed that nearly $9 billion is missing. Now here is the fun part. Much of the money that Bremer lost is left over from the UN "Oil For Food" fund supplemented by the sale of "seized property!"

When the "Oil For Food" program was shut down by the occupation, $8.1 billion was transferred to the CPA. I mention that just to give you an idea of the scale of the $9 billion that went missing under Bremer's watch.

In response to the audit, the Bushies are insisting that the corruption wasn't their fault. It was the fault of the Iraqis who they assigned the money to. Funny, I bet the UN made similar excuses.

When Bush awarded Bremer, disgraced CIA chief George Tenet, and General Franks with the Medal of Freedom (the highest civilian award in the US), Jon Stewart of the Daily Show said, "That'd better be some sort of shame medal."

Democracy Gets Fryed

Orange County Superior Court Judge H. Michael Brenner upheld the November election of Mayor Dick Murphy of San Diego, rejecting 5,551 votes for write-in candidate Councilwoman Donna Frye (which would have given her the election by a larger margin than Murphy currently can claims) because people did not fill in the oval next to her name as required by state law. The LA Times writes,

"In his ruling, the judge said the intent of write-in voters for Frye was clear but concluded that the rules were meant to be followed. State law requires that voters for a write-in candidate not only fill in the name but darken the oval. Filling in the ovals, the judge said, 'requires a small burden on voters.'"

This disgusts me. For example, among the rejected ballots was one in which Murphy's name was crossed out and Frye was written in with several exclamation points. But because the oval was not darkened... it did not count. It's especially galling to realize that if San Diego simply had not chosen to use scantron technology, there would have been no requirement to darken the oval, and the race would have gone to Frye without question. Technology trumps democracy??? If even the judge concedes that the intent of the write-in voters was clear, isn't that what really matters? How can this be?

Frye has not yet conceded and those who brought the lawsuit will appeal.

Reid My Lips

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) delivered the first part of the Democrats' rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union address. I think he hit excellent themes when it came to Bush's raid on Social Security. Here's what he said:

"The Bush plan would take our already record high $4.3 trillion national debt and put us another $2 trillion in the red. That's an immoral burden to place on the backs of the next generation. But maybe most of all, the Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform. It's more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a Senator who represents Las Vegas."

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Free Speach Under Direct Attack by GOP in Ohio

Hi Folks,

This is making the rounds of the blogsphere and since I'm from Ohio I thought I would comment here. The Daily Kos website (see sidebar link to the right) has a good stream going on this subject.

It seems that some Republican in the Ohio State Senate have introduced a bill (SB 24) called the "Academic Bill of Rights for Higher Education." Like many pieces of conservative legislation you can tell what it does by assuming the opposite of its title (like the "Freedom to Work" legislation that restricts workers' ability to unionize etc). Check out the legislation...its positively Orwellian!

Some highlights:

(B) "Students shall be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs. Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or antireligious inndocrtination."

(C) "Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relations to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose."

(F) "Faculty and instructors shall be free to pursue and discuss their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, but they shall make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own through classroom discussion or dissemination of written materials, and they shall encourage intellectual honesty, civil debate, and the critical analysis of ideas in the persuit of knowledge and truth."

This is positively a direct attack on free speach. The language is designed to sound like its protective of individual rights but think about how these prospcriptions will be interpreted? Is it obvious what any of this actually permits or forbids?

Could LTG look into this type of law and let us know if anything like this has been struck down by the Federal courts in the past? Are there similar laws already on the books in other states?

The sponsors of this bill are Republicans from small towns in Ohio. The language in the bill hints strongly at the persecution complex of the Christian Right.

How might one arrange a compromise with the sponsors of this bill? I would say compromise on this type of issue is imposible. However, it does underscore the potential for cooperation between progressives and libertarians that Dr. Strangelove and myself have suggested.

If this isn't another bit of evidence that the Republican Party, and especially the Christian conservative movement which dominates that party, has gone completely mad with power I don't know what is.

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Iraqi Election

Hi Everyone,

Its still too early to really say what's going on but this day deserves mention. The elections in Iraq are taking place. And while there is violence it appears to be not much worse than the violence in elections in many transitioning regimes. The range of predictions for turn out is rather broad but it looks like it will be over 50%. I have a hard time seeing how this is anything but a set back for the insurgents. We'll have to wait for the results to see if its a win for the Bush administration (of course the Bushies are already spinning it as a major political victory for them). I think we can say right now its a good thing for the Iraqis.

Reasons for optimism:
High turnout in an election that the insurgents demanded be boycotted is something of a referendum on the insurgents.
Sistani called on everyone to vote.
Violence was not at disastrous levels.

Reasons for caution:
Lots of countries currently ruled by dictators have had reasonably fair elections in the past.
We have no idea yet what policies the elected representatives will push for.
Just because some of these parties support this election doesn't mean they support elections for ever.
There are hundreds of parties. I imagine more than a dozen will get noticeable representation in the assembly. When partisan divisions are so complicated it is very difficult to get anything done (that's not really a problem in established democracies but can be disastrous when you need a new constitution fast).

Comments? Discussion? Wild eyed predictions?

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Ideological Links

Hi Everyone,

I posted some links to some international political organizations the sidebar over to the right. I posted links to international organizations representing the three biggest ideological families in modern democracies: Social Democrats, Liberals and Christian Democrats.

Americans might be interested to note that the Democratic party is neither a member of the Social Democratic international or the Liberal international organizations. The Republicans are not members of the Liberal group either. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that the American Libertarian party is not a member of the Liberal International. Perhaps the Libertarians are too isolationist to think of joining (just a guess, I really have no idea).

Anyway, I just posted them for kicks and giggles. But take a look if you are interested in such things.

Friday, January 28, 2005

Libertarian Heresies

I am not Libertarian, because I feel their extraordinarily individualistic philosophy is corrosive to community values and their views of capitalism and private property are dangerously naive (e.g., "I have the right to do whatever I wish with my property.") But sometimes their unusual perspective can be illuminating.

Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael J. Badnarik wrote this simple sentence about marriage that took my breath away: "Marriage partners, not government, should define the terms and spiritual orientation of their union in accordance with our nation's guarantee of religious freedom." And in another place, he asks rhetorically, "If you have a marriage license, what permission do you have to do now that you did not have permission to do before? Who gave you that permission, and who gave them the authority to give you that permission in the first place?"

I recall LTG saying once that marriage was really a contract with three parties: the two spouses and the government. Badnarik turns that on its head. It's audacious. (As is often the case with such Libertarian heresies, the flaw in the reasoning is that it neglects the context of marriage within the community--but I still think it's a fascinating concept.)

Moving to another line of thought, I ran across a fascinating quote Beatrice Jones, Libertarian councilmember for Hardeeville, SC. "In the past two years, in a city of 1,500 residents, we have built a $4.2 million dollar recreation and city office complex, fixed a 12-year-old road drainage problem that was the root of two lawsuits against the city, bought three brand-new fire trucks and doubled the employment at our fire station, bought four new police cars and paid them off early, doubled the size of the city, and developed a 24-hour cable access channel that broadcasts (in conjunction with a local college) accredited college courses that people can take at home. And we did all this without raising taxes."

Surprised that this list of community programs would come from a Libertarian? I was. But it just goes to show that these values cut across party lines. Even the Libertarians support projects that promote the well-being of their community. In fact, this was from the Libertarian Party website--they are proud of her work. The difference between their approach and that of liberals is that want to pay for these services with individual fees instead of general taxation. I think this helps show how much these values are part of the American political heritage.

Lastly, Jones says, "If elected Libertarians want to accomplish something while in office, they have to be willing to work with other people to forward near-libertarian ideology -- and other Libertarians shouldn't insult them for doing so... If Libertarians are tired of believing that candidates spring fully formed from Ayn Rand's forehead--and actually want to do something real and viable to grow the party as a political force, then it's time to get moving." She has kept her seat through repeated elections and run other Libertarians' successful campaigns. I think this is precisely the kind of practical coalition building that the Democrats could do with church groups and other organizations who are not liberal, but nevertheless share these community values.

Religion and Politics or Topics Polite People Avoid

Hi Everyone,

We've been talking alot about religion and politics lately. The aftermath of the 2004 election seems to be dominated by this question. Most of it is strictly about the Christian conservative movement without much discussion of religion in politics more broadly. Most of the regular posters on this blog are also regular church goers but have political opinions far to the left of the typical evangelical conservative voter/activist. I for one am an atheist - one of the few subsets of American society it is still acceptable to exclude and persecute.

In this posting I propose two subjects for discussion. First, what is the role that religion plays in American politics and life? Second, what is the role that religion should play in American politics and life? The first is an empirical question that has an answer out there waiting to be discovered. The second is a normative question to which answers are essentially opinion.

Here are some basic statistics I found at pollingreport.com (see link to the right):

-42% of all Republicans think that people with strong religious beliefs are discriminated against. 62% of Republicans think that evangelical Christians have the “right amount” of influence on President Bush’s decisions.

-53% of Republicans believe that the greatest concern should be public officials who don’t pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders. In contrast, 65% of Democrats believe that the greatest concern should be public officials who pay too much attention to religion and religious leaders.

- 72% of respondents believe that it is proper for the 10 Commandments to be displayed in public buildings.

- With regard to the religiosity of political candidates, 70% agree that it is important that Presidents have strong religious beliefs. 25% disagree.

- Republicans are split almost 50-50 on the question of whether religious leaders should try to influence politicians. 71% of Democrats believe that religious leaders should not try to influence politicians.

- 15% of Americans say that religion is “not very important” to their own life. 55% say religion is “very important.” 29% say it is “fairly important.”

- 43% of Americans say that they attend religious services “seldom” or “never.”

- 64% of Americans support the use of federal funds for social programs run by Christian religious organizations. 56% of Americans oppose the use of federal funds for social programs run by Islamic religious organizations.

- 40% of Americans believe that government can promote the teaching of religion without harming rights. 54% believe that when government promotes the teaching of religion it always harms rights.

I believe that the above data shows some interesting items. It comes as no surprise that Americans are very religious. Comparisons with other democracies will show that Americans are more religious than any other democracy except for Italy or Ireland. The Italian government is a rightist coalition that includes openly fascist elements.

American views on religion are complex and at times contradictory. 54% believe that governments always harm rights when they promote religion. However, majorities of Americans support federal funding for Christian organizations and oppose similar funding Islamic organizations. Of course, this doesn’t mean it’s the same people making up all three majorities but the overlap means that many Americans have inherently contradictory views of politics and religion. For example, advocates of an entirely secular policy would oppose federal funding to both Christian and Islamic organizations. Also, religious faith is not universal in America. 43% of Americans say that they attend religious services seldom or never.

So what should the role of religion be? My own view is that there is already too much devotion to devotions in American politics. I long for the strict seperation of religion and politics advocated by Jefferson and Madison. Personal spirituality and public policy should be separate debates. When political parties get into the business of taking sides in theological debates (such as what policies are most closely based on Christian teachings), both public policy and private religion suffer. Of course, such a separation is very unlikely in the United States. Ironically, several of the European democracies which have officially recognized state religions have less religion in their politics than does the United States in which the Constitutions calls for their separation.

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Remembering Auschwitz

Sixty years ago this week, the Red Army entered the German extermination camp at Auschwitz. What they found there shocked the world. In the next months, similar camps would be liberated. This is an appropriate time to reflect on how the concentration camps and the Second World War changed the world.

WWII was an anti-fascist war. It changed the ideology of the Western civilization. Broadly put (and of course, putting anything broadly risks over-generalization), the ideology of liberalism and humanism was triumphant. In the years immediately following the war, this had a profound impact on the Western world. It marked the moral demise of imperial foreign policies -- the idea that it was appropriate for a powerful country to exploit and oppress its neighbors. In the US, there was a direct connection between the war and the struggle for human rights and democracy at home in the 1950s and 1960s. Women's equality also was lifted by these ideas. In short, victory put liberty, equality, peace, and above all human rights, at the center of world political and moral discourse. Liberal ideology condemns slavery, racism, and torture, and that has became the dominant ideology of the Western world. In the 1990s, liberal ideas began to dismantle the oppression of gays and lesbians. The ascendancy of these ideas has made the ideological atmosphere pre-WWII world, where eugenics and mandatory sterilization were practiced even in the USA, almost impossible for most of us to imagine. The point is not that everything has changed, but that the dominant hegemonic ideas have changed.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the following went from being dominant to the defensive: official racism, anti-semitism, sexism, religious intolerance, and elitism. The headmaster of Eton remarked that before 1964, all the working-class boys tried to imitate the accents of their "betters." By the late 1960s, that had reversed. Before WWII, the dominant political ideology in the West was that white men of the upper classes were destined by God to christianize and subdue the rest of the world, using any means. Today few advocate this openly -- those who do so couch their ideas in the language of the times, the language of universal human rights and democracy.

In many ways, however, this is a failed revolution. Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur remind us that we have not even abolished genocide. Slavery is on the resurgence in Africa, and human trafficking has brought it into Europe and America again. The Economist estimates that the price of a human being, approximately $100, has never been cheaper. Religious intolerance in the form of fundamentalism is on the rise. Fundamentalist militant Islam is part of the picture. So is "fundamentalist" hinduism, ultra-orthodox judaism in the West Bank settlements, fundamentalist Christianity that preaches substituting allegiance to selected biblical passages over conscience. Bombing abortion clinics and "reform schools" that young boys and girls who sexually "misbehave" are examples of religion that has been cut loose from moral moorings.

The liberation of Auschwitz is, above all, a time to recognize that the liberal ideology that was triumphant and ascendant in the latter half of the 20th century is now on the defensive everywhere. To give you an idea, just try to imagine - even as late as the Reagan administration - Republicans and Democrats discussing what kind of torture is acceptable. Try to imagine Clinton calling Rwanda genocide (as Powell has called Darfur genocide) and then doing nothing about it. Clinton resisted calling it genocide because he assumed that once he did so, he would have to act. It would have been unthinkable in 1989, when the Berlin wall was being breached, for the Israelis to have built their "security barrier" in the West Bank. Now the unthinkable has become commonplace.

The problem is that powerful conservative political elements in the USA have never adopted these values. Conservatives fought civil rights. Then, conservatives said "yes, but not women's rights." Next it was "yes, women's rights, but not gays." Conservatives opposed divorce, then accepted it. Now they want to "protect marriage" as we understand it in the 2005 (with easy divorce, and no legal enforcement of monogamy), and pretend this is as it always was. Each time, conservatives pretend they have a moral basis for the next opposition, when it is actually political expediency. At each stage, until now, they have lost and regrouped. Now, they may be winning. The result -- US government using torture and offensive war -- is sad to see. Europeans haven't indulged in this backsliding nearly as much. European rightist movements are minorities; here, they are the Republican majority.

The anniversary of the liberation Auschwitz should be a reminder for liberals to focus on the battle at hand. Liberal ideas became detached from philosophy -- indeed postmodernists decry any kind of unifying worldview at all. The result is that we have lost the ability to talk about morality in a way that allows us to demand that others desist from immoral behavior. Conservatives know how to talk about morality. The 2004 election showed that Americans perceive conservatives as morally steadfast, as 'firm in their convictions' but cannot say the same for liberals. In much of the 20th century, until the 1960s, liberalism expressed itself often through religious ideas, but liberal christianity is a small force today, a shadow of the 'social gospel' and the early 20th century. Also, multiculturalism has made religion an inadequate moral framework for modern ideas. I do not know how to begin to fight back for liberal ideas. Auschwitz, however, reminds us why we cannot fail. Once conservativism succeed in persuading us to bite into the apple and trade away the value of human dignity for other chimeric but tempting goals such as 'security,' or 'prosperity', we have lost our moral compass. We become unmoored. We can, in the tsunami of fear, be led anywhere. Without a map, without a compass, without our moorings, the roads lead to dark places beyond the edge of our imagination.

Monday, January 24, 2005

It's Not Just About Terrorism

Excerpted from today's New York Times:

"The Israeli government secretly approved a measure last summer that says the state may seize land in east Jerusalem that is owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere, the government and an attorney for the Palestinians said today. Many of the Palestinian landowners live in neighboring Bethlehem and in the past had access to property that is inside the Jerusalem boundaries that Israel unilaterally established after capturing the eastern part of the city in the 1967 Mideast war. Many Palestinians have not been able to reach their property in the past two years because of the West Bank separation barrier, which Israel has built between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. But until recently, the Palestinians still believed they owned the property, most of it olive groves and grape orchards that have been in the families for generations.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government approved the confiscation measure in July under the Absentee Property Law, which has been on the books since 1950. Israel has invoked the law to seize thousands of homes and parcels of land that belonged to Palestinians who fled or were driven out during the 1948 war surrounding the founding of Israel. The Israeli government did not announce the move, which requires no compensation for the land, when it was made, but has acknowledged the new policy following a report last week in the daily Haaretz.

In many cases, the Palestinian landowners in the Bethlehem area live only a short distance from their Jerusalem property, and in some cases are right next to it. Johnny Atik, a Bethlehem resident, lives in a house next to his eight acres of olive trees. However, his house is in Bethlehem, while the olive grove is on land that is part of Jerusalem, according to Israel. The Israeli separation barrier runs through Mr. Atik's backyard, separating him from his olive trees, Mr. Seidemann said. Over the past two years, Mr. Atik and other landowners have repeatedly requested permission from the Israeli military to tend to their land, but never received it."

These issues very rarely make U.S. papers, although they are well known in Europe. U.S. journalists are usually loath to mention any actions of the Israeli government that are unpleasant. Contrast this Israeli policy with the US policy on Cuba, Iran, Iraq, and the whole of Eastern Europe, demanding that refugees and exiles be given their land back in full or be compensated. Dare I mention certain artwork? Of cousre, just putting this here will probably raise accusations of anti-semitism. But here's the point: Israeli actions are part of the problem too. It's not just about terrorism. But the US will not condemn this dispossession, only the terrorism. The US will not establish middle east peace by creating a showcase of democracy in Iraq (the pipe dream of the neocons) while we are seen, rightly (sadly) as having a double standard about how nations should behave.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

Why Howard Dean is the Wrong Choice for the DNC

Hi Everyone,

Before I start, I'd like to thank Dr. Strangelove to injecting new vigor into this blog. After the election we kind of got a flat tire.

OK, here is why I think Howard Dean is the wrong choice for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee:

I just saw Howard Dean on what used to be This Week with David Brinkley but is now hosted by George Stephanopolis. Dean was thoughtful, intelligent and correct about the bizarre kind of "embrace your role in the process" culture in Washington, D.C....but wrong about how to get the Democratic party into power. Dean's vision of what the Democrats need to do is give more power to the activists who would then be more willing to do the grass roots organizing the Democrats need to out mobilize the GOP. I have two points of disagreement with Dean.

First, he assumes that the cause of the defeat in 2004 was due to insufficient mobilization. But the Democratic party got more people to the polls than ever before and exceeded all of their goals for mobilization. The problem was that rural, religious conservatives voted in record numbers too and since the electoral college over represents those interests they won. Ultimately the battle for the White House was a battle for the hearts and minds of the suburban residents of Ohio and Florida. The Democrats NARROWLY lost that battle and narrowly lost the White House. Had Kerry won another 2% or 3% of the vote in the suburbs of Columbus or Orlando we'd have a different President right now.

Second, he assumes that giving power to the activists (which means a shift to the left) would increase support for the Democratic Party. He fails to consider that it is likely that such a move would alienate the suburban voters who ultimately decided the 2000 and 2004 elections. A shift to the left is not what is needed. It would be the end of the Democratic party for the next decade. Its the mistake the British Labour Party made in the early 1980s. Its the mistake the Republicans made with Goldwater in 1964.

I've repeatedly suggested on this blog that the Democratic Party should present itself as an alliance of progressives and libertarians against the religious authoritarianism of the Republicans. The vision Dean laid out on TV today (Sunday) would not lead to such a coalition.

OK all you Deaniacs out there, let the debate begin! ;-)

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

...and they can't drive worth s**t either

You've probably heard by now that Harvard President Lawrence Summers suggested recently that the scarcity of women in the hard sciences might be due to innate biological differences between men and women. This suggestion was one of several deliberately "provocative" remarks he delivered at a private conference (no transcripts were kept) at the National Bureau of Economic Research on the subject of improving the status of women in the sciences. Among his other ideas were that the stress and time committment was unusually high in the hard sciences and therefore more than many married women with children were willing to accept--and also, of course, that there might be actual discrimination at work.

The NY Times article refers obliquely to a, "sharp decline in the hiring of tenured female professors during [Summers'] administration," but offers no details or evidence. While the NY Times reports that Summers says his remarks have been "misconstrued" and that he has pledged to continue efforts to attract and retain female professors, they do not report that he repudiated the suggestion. Not surprisingly, the NY Times reports criticism has poured in from academic committees and professors everywhere. Some have outright accused him of bigotry (often citing the "sharp decline" as proof) while others have said that his remarks distract attention away from real discrimination that is occuring--and others have just scolded Mr. Summers for being stupid enough to accept an invitation to be the "provoker" at such a conference.

While I deplore any knee-jerk reactions to politically incorrect suggestions, the idea of any meaningful biological differences between men and women's intellects really has been fairly well discredited and it bothers me that he did not acknowledge this. It bothers me that he did not say that a competing explanation (discrimination) has a lot more evidence behind it. It bothers me that he has not stated unambiguously that his example was poorly chosen and he simply doesn't believe women are intellectually inferior to men in any way when it comes to the hard sciences.

And while I believe people should be free to speak their minds, I realize that being President of Harvard means Summers' voice is not wholly his own--he is a public figure in charge of hiring professors. As such, he has been rightfully criticized by Harvard alumni for not representing the views of Harvard very well--especially in that, given the limited resources available, as an administrator he really ought to know that it probably isn't worth spending money to study the baseless idea of male superiority in the sciences when the money might be better spent to fight well-documented discrimination.

Finally, in my years as a physics graduate student, I have witnessed discriminatory attitudes toward women in the hard sciences. Too many labs still have a fraternity-like feel to them, where you must be "one of the guys" to fit in and those who don't never get the good recommendations, conference opportunities, financial support, etc. I remember one woman in particular who described to me some of what it was like to be a woman in the sciences: her male peers were either too polite (or worse) to really wrangle with her over the issues--or they listened politely and then always went to someone else, ostensibly to "check" their answer. I have heard a lot of sexist remarks spoken quite seriously by physicists; I have heard the specific assertion that women can't do math as well as men. And I have heard remarks just like Summers' phrased as "provocative questions" by professors precisely so they could shield themselves with plausible deniability later.

So I think, for once, I find myself on the side of the "PC" crowd in condemning Mr. Summers' remarks. But Mr. Summers himself was trained not as a physicist, but as an economist/political scientist, which leads me to ask other Citizens: what have your experiences been in the social sciences? How to you fall on this issue?

Cui Bono?

I've been trying to make sense of Bush's desire to siphon off "personal retirement accounts" from the existing Social Security trust fund, and I keep coming back to one question: why? We can, of course, rule out the stated reason--that he's trying to avert a crisis--because there is no crisis. Even Republican projections admit Social Security will be solvent for at least 40 more years, and even then, modest tweaks are all that is required to make it solvent as far as anyone can see. So what's the real reason behind it?

1. Will this be a windfall for Wall Street, with a hundred million new "personal retirement accounts" to invest?
2. Will this result in more income for the richer retirees, and less income for the poorer ones?
3. Is this a first step toward geting rid of Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, disability benefits?
4. Is this the first step toward getting rid of the payroll tax?
5. Is this some devious attempt to use the hidden $3 trillion in transitional costs that the Federal Government will have to pay as part of a "starve the beast" strategy?

The trouble is, I have not been able to find any good data to back up any of them. Going through these one-by-one...

1. I haven't found good evidence that this would be a windfall for stock brokers, and even the issue of "administrative fees" (which you'd think would be a slam dunk) isn't clear since most accounts wouldn't have much money and fees might be highly regulated.
2. I haven't been able to figure out what effects this program would have on the incomes of people of disparate income (and the only relevant studies I have found were done by the Heritage Foundation, with dubious methodology). Because Social Security is not a needs-based program, it is not obvious to me that getting rid of it would benefit the wealthy.
3. While this might be part of the first wave of assaults on needs-based programs, wouldn't Bush do better to spend his political capital (such as it is) attacking such programs directly (e.g., pushing forward the stalled "Medical Savings Accounts" stuff) rather than touching the "third rail" for what would be essentially purely ideological reasons?
4. I don't see any compelling evidence that this is an assault on the payroll tax. I'm sure that's a long-range goal, but there's a medicare tax too (see previous point).
5. It's not clear to me where the $3 trillion would come from, so it's not clear that this would "starve the beast." And hasn't Bush been fattening the government up, rather than starving it?

Ultimately, I believe the answer must be that this assault on Social Security will financially benefit some Republican constituencies. It's the age-old question: cui bono? Perhaps some of The Citizens can shed some light on this?

Monday, January 17, 2005

Here We Go Again

Hi Everyone,

The BBC is reporting that the New Yorker is reporting that US special forces are active inside Iran preparing for airstrikes against that country. The story also reports that US special forces are active inside as many as 10 Middle Eastern countries. This against a background of Bush administration statements that the election was an "accountability moment" and it produced an endorsement of the Middle East policy based on invasion, occupation and war.

Since this is Martin Luther King Day I think it would be appropriate to consider what that great American would think of these developments? Remember, King was not just a one trick pony. He was mostly remembered for his Civil Rights Movement work but he was also a peace activist and an advocate for the poor.

So what do you think?

Cult of Personality?

Hi Everyone,

I would like to propose a topic for conversation. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his cult of personality.

A&E network is going to broadcast a made for TV movie about Schwarzenegger's run for Office. They already did a biographical piece of his earlier life. The guy is not only in office right now, he's still in the second year of his term. In Ohio a sitting governor of LONG standing, James Rhodes, had a statue of himself erected on the State House lawn weeks before he retired at the end of his term (Rhodes still holds the record for years serving as Governor of a state). The move was highly controversial and was seen even by supporters as extremely arrogant. One night a drunken country boy drove his pickup truck into the statue and knocked it over (the position of the statue well away from the street in the heart of Downtown Columbus made it clear it was intentional).

So here is my question: Where is the outrage? Where are the accusations that Schwarzenegger is building a cult of personality around himself? Given his past statements about the need for "one leader" and blaming California's problems on "too many politicians" isn't this sort of thing just a little alarming? What other politicians have gotten this sort of treatment while still in office??

Friday, January 14, 2005

His Holiness the President

Its long been a matter of Roman Catholic dogma that the Pope (whoever it is) is infallible. But as we learned in the election our President also believes he's infallible himself. When asked to name a single mistake he'd made in a first term so plagued by screw ups that Congress did little else for a year than appoint commissions to "investigate" them all, he couldn't think of one mistake.

But now Bush is coming close to admitting that he might have been a little lacking in the compotence department. Alluding to the "Bring 'em on" comment and the "Wanted Dead or Alive" declaration re: Bin Laden, Bush said "I don't know if you'd call it a regret, but it certainly is a lesson that a president must be mindful of, that the words that you sometimes say. ... I speak plainly sometimes, but you've got to be mindful of the consequences of the words. So put that down. I don't know if you'd call that a confession, a regret, something." You can see the full story on CNN.com. Not exactly Mia Culpa but its about as close as we're going to get from a guy who decides to go to war after asking God but not his defense secretary.

On a side note related to recent debates....About 25% of the American voting population thinks George W. Bush is the paragon of morality and ethical behavior. To many Evangelicals, Bush is the living embodiment of one of Plato's Golden Guardians (of course they probably didn't read Plato but you know what I mean). They trust him implicitly in all matters of policy. Many of them believe his electoral successes were divinely mandated. And they believe that conforming to divine plans should be the ultimate measure of a just government, even if that means treading upon the sensativies (or rights) of less moral people like "terrorists" or "perverts" - sorry - "terrists" or "preverts".

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)