I am growing more and more concerned about US policy toward Iran and the influence Israel may have over our decisions. The NYT ran an article on Friday about Israeli war games that were evidently aimed at practicing a potential bombing against Iranian nuclear sites.
Because of the nature of my work, I know that demand for Persian-Farsi linguists is very high now and it is growing very rapidly. McCain singing "Bomb Iran" rather than "Barbara Ann" and his hard line on the GI Bill, tells you what his mindset is. Some have said that the firing of Adm. Fallon was in party due to his reluctance to consider air strikes against Iran.
One parlor game that I like to play is to take various news stories and see if they might be linked. So I was quite interested when a spate of stories starting coming out over last couple of weeks about all the work Israel is suddenly willing to do to make peace with its rivals. Suddenly, thanks supposedly to Egypt, they are willing to talk to Hamas. They are is serious negotiations over the Golan. And they are cutting deals with Lebanon. Now, we know that Hamas is funded by Iran. We know that Hezbollah in Lebanon is funded my Iran. So is Israel suddenly interested in cleaning things up prior to launching some sort of attack on Iran? Is this the pre-work needed to make an attack more possible?
And we know that one reason violence is down in Iraq is because Iran has asked its proxies to agree to a cease fire. And we know that Iran really pulls the strings in southern Iraq. We also know that our refusal to talk to Iran means that other nations like China and India are free to cut oil and natural gas deal there.
So would Bush dare, in Dec or Jan, after elections to launch a war that his successor would have to deal with? Would he wait to see who won? If it was McCain, it is a go because McCain would keep it going? If it is Obama, would he do it just to force Obama into a bad situation or because he knows Obama wouldn't agree?
Any strike against Iran would be deadly and stupid. We have a population that is pro-American, even if they can't scream it at the top of their lungs. They may not like their government, but they love their country. Brute force will turn the population against us. If we are willing to take the long view, we might be able to gain the upper hand by Obama's method of talking and cutting deals, slowly integrating Iran into the global trading system.
We should just accept that they will have nukes. Non-proliferation needs to move away from containment to mutual agreement not to strike. The containment strategy is now dead. That may make illegal trade in nuclear arms and technology less lucrative and threatening.
Saber rattling against a country like Iran is a poor strategy. Through sheer stubbornness (Same method used by Saddam, mind you) Iran has managed to get the West to promise all sorts of things while maintaining their ability to say "no thanks" and giving up very little. Thus, they not us control the situation. It's an old negotiating technique that has been successful throughout history. They have turned what appears to be a weakness into a strength.
What do you all think?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Iran Again
Unwarranted Wiretapping
So, Congress has buckled to the President at last. Or rather, the President's pitch that he needs warrantless wiretapping to get "bad guys" has proven to politically potent to resist. The bottom line is that Democrats didn't want to give the GOP this weapon headed into the Fall election. It's cowardly and shows a lack of moral principle, but we've come to expect that in the war on terror from both sides. Most people will never understand why there should be judicial checks on the power of good cops to get bad guys, and Hollywood doesn't help.
The bill, at least, provides some minor safeguards. Before getting immunity, a phone company must prove that it received a statement from the executive branch in writing that cooperation would be lawful. A federal district court must review the documents to see if they fit the bill. As a matter of legal doctrine (estoppel) that's not a terrible law. According to CBS the new law requires the following:
-Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
-Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.
-Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.
-Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
-Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
-Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.
The latter point is the critical one. It sets the record straight that the President must use this FISA process. I know, I know - the amnesty provision for his previous violation neuters this. But it's a start. I'm still upset, but not so much now that Bush is going away. Under an Obama administration they can fix this.
Hooray for free speech
... and for a comedy pioneer. This video is not for people scared of foul language.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Talking to Hostile Governments
We've blogged about an earlier poll that said something similar to this but I like this one too. I especially like how the question is set up to make clear the pros and cons of each option. This is from an ABC/Washington Post poll that I found on Polling Report.Com.
America's Role in World Affairs
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 12-15, 2008. N=1,125 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
.
"Some people say a president should NOT meet with leaders of foreign countries that are hostile toward the United States, because it could reward their behavior and make the U.S. look weak. Others say a president SHOULD be willing to meet with leaders of foreign countries that are hostile toward the United States because talking can improve relations and avoid confrontation. Which of these views comes closer to your own?"
Should Not Meet: 27%
Should Be Willing to Meet: 77%
Unsure: 3%
That's pretty bad news for McCain. He was hoping to be able to beat Obama on the head with his "naive" approach to diplomacy. But it looks like most Americans already agree with Obama. We're all just so sick of the way Bush has represented us to the world!
Friday, June 20, 2008
I agree with this
Here is Billy Connolly's (the world famous Scottish comedian) take on religion.
Fockin hilarious....
American Ancestry
We had a long discussion of ancestry in America and such down below. It was a neat discussion. For additional perspective, here's a map showing the largest ancestry (self-reported) by county. Note a few things:
1. German ancestry is much more common than most people realize.
2. "English" ancestry would be more common except that, in the south, people of Scots-Irish and English ancestry call themselves "American." It is worth noting that these people are most likely to think of themeselves as "white" in contradistinction to being "black" - since they live in the area of the country with the most African-Americans. Add up the English and "Americans" and you get a large, large number.
3. Most Mormons claim "English" ancestry.
4. In New Mexico, Spanish but not Mexican is large.
Here's a map of religion by state:
A New Era
Sen. Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing for his campaign--the first candidate ever to do so for the general election--is more than just an astute political move: It signals a new era in American politics. Pundits are falling over themselves to guess how much more Obama might be able to raise on his own--Is it $300 million? Could it be $500 million?--while Sen. John McCain will be "limited" to the $80 million public financing provides.
Who would have imagined it would be the Democrats who would be able to raise so much more money than the Republicans? Obama raised over $250 million during the primary campaign, the vast majority of which was from online donations: he raised a quarter of a billion dollars without lobbyists, political action committees, or thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraisers. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had been a master at traditional fundraising, was able (belatedly) to follow Obama's lead and switch over--her final total was also over $200 million, and close to half of that was from the internet. Even Ron Paul raised $6 million in a single day. Meanwhile McCain--who has access to the same series of tubes as everyone else--is struggling.
For the first time, public enthusiasm has become the real currency, not big money corporate lobbyists. True campaign finance reform has finally arrived. This is a triumph of the bottom-up, free-market approach. By providing instant transactions with minimal effort and offering near-universal availability in the home or local library, the internet has created an efficient political market in which everyone can participate. The internet has created a level playing field for candidates--a wide open forum where the public can vote with their Visas and Mastercards.
This idea is reaching down to all levels of government. Websites like ActBlue have raised tens of millions of dollars for local and Congressional candidates around the country, all without a single traditional political finance program. Ron Paul's surprising success suggests that independent and third-party candidates may be able to leverage this in the future, breaking the duopoly that has ruled American politics since the Civil War. Three cheers for Tim Berners-Lee, the most unlikely revolutionary in history.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Electoral Predictions
Check out the www.electoral-vote.com map today. It has Obama at 344, McCain at 194. I believe the November election results will look exactly like that map. I am not saying this map is *evidence* of what will happen - just that it happens to look exactly like what I'm expecting given historical trends, etc. 
Some Ads Going After McCain
Here are some ads that are starting to appear either online or on TV or both that attack John McCain in various ways. I think a discussion of their effectiveness (both in terms of our own perceptions and how we think they'll influence others) would be interesting. Do we think they are fair charges? Are they overly negative? Slimy? Disingenuous?
1) This one is the newest I think. It shows a young mother saying that McCain can't have her infant son for his 100 year war in Iraq. I think this is devastating for McCain. I think it will slam the door on him for the Clinton supporters who were going to cast a spite vote for McCain. I've seen this online and on TV.
2) This one has been around for a while. It's a parody of the pro-Obama ad "Yes We Can" that's been around since Iowa. It directly contrasts McCain's positions with Obama's. It squarely portrays McCain as the "Anti-change" candidate. I think this one will have traction with young liberals but not really anyone else. I haven't seen it on TV. I think it's a little unfair because it implies that Obama is in favor of equal marriage rights for Gay couples and he's actually hedging awkwardly on that one (along with most high profile Democrats).
3) Here is what I think of as the Gen X ad. It features John Cusack linking McCain to Bush. I think many of the people on this blog will remember Cusack's films about being a teenager in the 80s or an alienated young adult in the 90s. Haven't seen it on TV but I think its target demographic is mostly online anyway.
4) Here is one that is more traditional that is from the DNC. This one hits McCain on the economy. I think this one will see A LOT of air time and really hit McCain in swing states like Ohio and Missouri. The ultimate question, "Do you feel better off?" Followed by the statement, "because John McCain thinks you are."
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
How much will more drilling get us?
I heard on the news today someone put the idea out there that people might be willing to allow more drilling in places like ANWAR in response to high gas prices. But how much will drilling in ANWAR really lower prices?
I saw some stuff online (like at fact check.org) that suggested that ANWAR at most would only increase our domestic oil supply by about 5%. Since our domestic supply doesn't come close to meeting our demand, a small increase in domestic supply won't help prices much.
I get the impression we are stuck with these prices. Would some of the more scientifically inclined members of our group care to elaborate on how increased domestic drilling might influence our gas prices?
California Drought
RBR mentioned the coming food crisis due to flooding in the midwest. He implied that the media isn't doing its job in reporting. Spotted Hand Fish mentioned the drought in Australia. Well another under-reported crisis is the drought in California. It isn't sexy because it creeps very slowly, a drought. It isn't as dramatic looking as say big floods in Iowa. And renown universities don't get directly affected. However, this drought will threaten the nation's fruit, vegetables, nuts, and even dairy supplies (cows need water and alfalfa as well as corn). For the cash receipt value of California's agricultural production, see the pie chart below.
I recently drove past the San Luis Reservoir that supplies a large amount of the water flowing in the California Aqueduct (that silly little canal system that sends water all over the state). This is what it looked like a years ago.
Here it is today.
So before the "Coastal Elites" get slammed too hard by RBR for failing to show adequate concern over Midwestern floods, one should consider that we all have our problems. Would it be at all possible to pump some of that excess water in Iowa to California? Sounds like a win-win to me.
Monday, June 16, 2008
This is what's wrong with the media
Late last week there was a lot going on in the world. Large parts of several Midwestern states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa and Illinois) are being devastated by the worst flooding in the historical record. 24,000 people were forced from their homes in Cedar Rapids, IA alone. These states make up the bulk of the US corn crop so this flood will likely exacerbate the global food crisis (something the US media is under reporting anyway). Before you coastal elite types say "who cares?" think of this: everything you eat is made of corn: beef, chicken and pork are raised on feed made from corn, so are dairy cattle (hell, I'd be shocked if farm raised salmon weren't fed with stuff that contains corn), and corn syrup is an ingredient in most processed food. And lets not forget how ethanol nonsense has already disrupted the corn markets. If you can manage to care about things that affect others not just yourselves, entire towns in Iowa and Indiana have been virtually washed away. In Iowa 83 of the 99 counties are designated as disaster areas by the governor and the Feds have declared 24 of those counties as federal disaster areas. I live in Iowa. Although my home and place of work are not directly affected by the floods, I live close enough to Waterloo/Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City and the University of Iowa to know how devastating these floods are. I've driven through these areas a fair amount and this is a huge deal. Cedar Rapids has about 200,000 people in it. Iowa City and its suburb, Coralville, has about 100,000. Waterloo/Cedar Falls have another 100,000 or so. Together they are the economic and cultural centers for about a half of the state.
Also, Irish voters voted "No" on the EU's latest amendment to its founding treaty. This is somewhat surprising because Ireland is one of the greatest beneficiaries of European integration and has long been among the most pro-integration populations in the EU.
And over in Afghanistan, the Taleban staged a dramatic jail break and set 1000 prisoners free.
Against this backdrop of a rather full news cycle the 24 news services broke away for at least a day to eulogize one of their own. In their minds none of the above was as important to report as the sudden death of NBC/MSNBC commentator Tim Russert. NBC actually made Russert their top story for most of the weekend. This is what is wrong with the media. To them, the most important thing to report is what's going on in their lives. To them, THEY are the story. To them, Tim Russert has had such a HUGE impact on American life that his death overshadows floods, war and political strife abroad.
Of course even when they were reporting on the flood, they were getting the basic facts wrong. First they couldn't get Cedar Falls and Cedar Rapids straight. They would give a report on events in Cedar Falls or Waterloo all while standing in front of a picture or map of Cedar Rapids. I heard one network refer to Iowa Governor Chet Culver repeatedly as the governor of Ohio.
I understand that American education systems have problems. I understand that the errors I saw on the TV news are the kind of errors we hear about all the time in the wider population. However, it is the news media's job to be better informed than the rest of us and to pass that information along to us. If all they do is present video clips and photo-montages with error filled commentary, they could just as easily not bother and just let us look it all up online.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Interesting
So some news on the John McCain front, if you haven't heard it. It seems McCain was feeling the heat for having a fundraiser at the home of a wealthy Texas oilman who had once made a tasteless joke about rape. So he canceled the fundraiser. "Good for him," you say, except that he went on to say that he would not be returning the gentleman's money. Also, later on, he decided the fundraiser was not going to be canceled, just postponed. No surprises there.
But I bring this up to highlight the press treatment of McCain. This joke by oilman Clayton Williams was made in 1990; quite some time ago. Every news story I've seen about this has reprinted the joke in full. You might be thinking that this makes sense; we'd want to know what the joke was to get the full story.
Well, let me relate this story to you. John McCain made the following joke in 1998:
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?This is a pretty nasty joke, possibly career-ending for some. But as Salon detailed, there was practically a media blackout on printing the joke. Why the double standard? It is not worse (in my opinion) that this oilman's joke. Why shield John McCain by not printing it? And why not bring it up now, with this oilman making a similarly crude joke?
Because Janet Reno is her father.
The press is in the pocket of John McCain, and it's sickening. It's going to be a long election. Strap in.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
McCain debates himself
Devastating.
I am so happy Stephen Colbert decided to run this green screen contest.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Again the Court Speaks. Will Anyone Listen?
Once again, the Supreme Court has rebuked the Bush administration re Guantánamo. In a 5-4 ruling, the court threw out the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Again the court reinstated Habeus Corpus, the fundamental constitutional protection that Bush and the Republican Congress have tried to strip away time after time.
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," wrote Justice Kennedy. (Incidentally, Scalia's dissent, where he claimed this decision would "certainly get more Americans killed" was insulting beyond belief. The next Congress should seriously consider impeaching that nasty little man.)
But the Bush administration has flouted the Supreme Court repeatedly--on this issue and many others--and surely will do so again. The Bush administration will complain, spin, quibble, and mostly just keep stalling. It has been over six yeas since this travesty began. Is there anything the Supreme Court can do to make them listen? Is there anything the new Democratic Congress can do? What does the "balance of powers" doctrine mean anymore if a rogue executive can effectively ignore the other two branches?
And the press were worried about Democratic unity?
If it weren't bad enough that long time social conservative Republican, Bob Barr is running as a Libertarian and specifically targeting disaffected Republicans, now we hear that Ron Paul (R-TX) is going to have a rival convention for his supporters in Minneapolis-St. Paul and on the same days as the Republican convention. Apparently the Paulistas are outraged because Ron Paul isn't getting an invitation to speak at the GOP convention.
McCain is going to be playing whack-a-mole with high profile party defections for the next several months. With right wing voters having at least two options (Barr and McCain) and with Ron Paul seemingly doing everything he can to undercut his party's nominee, McCain is going to be real trouble. If Ron Paul announces a run as an Independent, I'll throw a party. If he does that it MIGHT even put Texas in play!
The new EV-Com Maps
I am feeling pretty vindicated right now as the electoral-vote.com maps are starting to look as I predicted they would once Obama got his "being a winner" boost. States like Kentucky, and WV where Clinton had been the only campaigner are, now that the GOP has returned to the airwaives, pretty solidly red. Michigan has come back to the blue column, where it and PA will remain. Ohio is moving there for good. The tossups are, as previously expected, Nevada, Virginia, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico. All of these are "gravy" states for Democrats if they win Ohio.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Barack Obama's Political Philosophy
In this month's New Republic (online), Bruce Bartlett writes that Obama is considered by many to be a closet conservative. Since I happen to have a friend who is connected to the Obama campaign and shares that view, I thought I would blog about it. The thesis is twofold. First, Obama professes to believe in very gradual change. As he was criticized for in his health care proposal, he is an incrementalist. The author suggests that, tempermentally, Obama believes rapid political and social changes are not possible. Hold onto that thought. Second, Obama does not share the Lefist/Rousseauian view that the elected leader should express and implement the popular will. Rather, Obama's inclination is to use big(ger) government where necesary to implement specific policy changes to produce specific outcomes.
I do not find the first point to be credible, but I think it's the lynchpin to a deeper insight. Obama surely does believe that major social and political change is possible. His own biography is such that he must believe it. However, I do not think Obama believes he is an agent of radical political and social changes, such as we saw in the mid 20th century (1950s and 1960s). Rather, I think he sees him role as cementing and perfecting those social and political changes. He's not a revolutionary. That, I would agree, is a conservative (small "c") view - but it is absolutely NOT a Burkean view, as Bartlett suggests.
This observation about Obama's non-radical agenda is echoed by pundits who ask on television, given all the excitement surrounding Obama, particularly from young people, what exactly does Obama promise them? What do they think he offers? Notably, it's not the liberalism of the 1960s, with its radical change and almost unattainable aspirations (be the change you want to see in the world...). Nor is it putting the Great Society agenda back on track, the populism and progressivism of the 1930s-1960s revisited, a philosophy that is Marxian in inspiration inasmuch as it is both materialist and classist.
I think young people in particular are drawn to Obama because he paints an image of a post-racial, post-conflict America that is at peace with itself and the world. It is the Quaker image of Edward Hicks' Peaceable Kingdom.
This is not a Burkean or Hobbesian view because it is radically affirming of the goodness of human nature. It is more Lockean and Madisonian (sorry to use these name shorthands) in the clear belief that factionalism and unchecked power are the primary obstacles to progressing to the good society that Obama believes is possible. It is not Marxian, to be sure, beause Obama does not see class enemies as the obstacles to be overcome - indeed, his preferred policy position is always to put all stakeholders at the table.
Now this view can have a tinge of Messianism to it, and it is open (as was Edwards Hicks' painting) to the charges of naivete and over-simplicity. But it is, I think, profoundly resonant with the yearning for normalcy in a post-9/11 world. This philosophy is also not communitarian; it is compatible with a libertarian worldview. Indeed, there is an interesting affinity between Obama's worldview and libertarian visions of the good world without government. It's not a synonymy, but a resonance. By contrast, McCain is the one playing the role of Burke -- who says that progress and change are not possible, or, if possible, not desirable. McCain views war as a necessary evil; Obama views war as something we can learn to do without. McCain believes the philosophy that Bush acts out (but does not understand). This is, I believe, a profoundly philosophical election.
Any thoughts?
Buttons
I'm still trying to figure out why I find these so disturbing. "Jewish American?" And why have a special button for the disabled? Is there a special button in big type for the elderly?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
THIS IS SO AWESOME
So first of all, the website of the old white guy running for President has this menu bar running across the top, and this is not made up (go check it out yourself):
Yeah. "Golf Gear." Can you believe it?
But better than that are the customer reviews for the golf gear. Go to this site and read the customer reviews for McCain's golf gear before they wise up. It is the best thing that has happened to me today.
Late Update: Yep, they're gone now. Luckily, John Cole made a copy we all can see. Enjoy!