In the span of little over half a year, hundreds of thousands of names have been added to a federal database used to screen potential gun-buyers, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said this afternoon. Since the shootings at Virginia Tech in August, the number of names in the database has doubled to almost 400,000, Mukasey said at a meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General.
No one can dispute that screening people attempting to purchase weapons is necessary-- even the NRA approves of the database. Yet collecting names of the mentally ill for a national database seems like an unsettling topic for the new attorney general to address in his first policy speech since replacing Alberto Gonzales, who resigned from the Justice Department under the shame of having approved warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. The names are only collected from courts and other authoritative bodies-- not from private mental health records from hospitals or insurance companies. Still, the possibility for abuse of the list is scary to think about, especially given the Justice Department's current reputation.
Perhaps some freedoms have to be ceded in the name of safety; Rudy Giuliani argued as much during last night's debate when asked about the strict gun laws he enforced as mayor of New York. "I enforced all laws very aggressively, and that's the reason we reduced shootings by 74 percent," Giuliani said in last night's debate. "And we went from being one of the most dangerous cities in the country to being one of the safest." While it's true that the city changed dramatically while he was mayor, it's also true that Giuliani was notorious for using draconian measures to get things done. Such measures are sometimes tolerable, but they are more questionable when they make vulnerable a group of people who are already targets of discrimination. People suffering from mental disease don't need the extra burden of having public figures like an NRA spokesman calling them "mentally defective" to the AP.
But as long as the database is used appropriately, it should be a huge benefit for the country; the news of its growth should have been great. Instead, it only feels like a reminder of how much the Justice Department has to earn back our trust.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
DCCC shoots itself in the foot
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee initiated a new web-based fundraising campaign this week, pinning rising gas and energy prices on republicans. Sure, no one likes rising gas prices, but the Democratic party is practically asking to be punished with this move. Predictably, the Republican party has already thrown the issue right back in their face.
"When Republicans had the chance to protect us from high gas prices, they instead chose to oppose punishing price gougers," the DCCC claims. Actually, given that the Democrats were in power at this point, they were kind of the ones who had the chance. Not sure how they missed that. The NRCC certainly didn't, and promptly used the opportunity to point out that the democratic majority has failed to fulfill its promises. They then stepped it up a notch and named every democrat in Congress who's taking money from oil companies. Whoops!
Even if republicans had been responsible for the lack of reform in oil or energy in general, it seems rather foolish to set up the expectation that democrats could do better when there are certain factors involved in oil prices that are simply out of anyone's control. It's sort of like saying Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol... sort of. In any event, while there is certainly politics involved in oil prices, there's no denying that worldwide growth is constantly increasing the demand for oil while our supply continues to shrink. Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC country able to expand its output, oil analysts say, but the oil left in its reserves is of a lower quality.
Really guys? Is this really what you want to hit the republicans on?
Incidentally, the lackluster energy bill that would increase fuel efficiency standards for cars is slowly trudging its way through Congress, no thanks to Democrat John Dingell of Michigan.
"When Republicans had the chance to protect us from high gas prices, they instead chose to oppose punishing price gougers," the DCCC claims. Actually, given that the Democrats were in power at this point, they were kind of the ones who had the chance. Not sure how they missed that. The NRCC certainly didn't, and promptly used the opportunity to point out that the democratic majority has failed to fulfill its promises. They then stepped it up a notch and named every democrat in Congress who's taking money from oil companies. Whoops!
Even if republicans had been responsible for the lack of reform in oil or energy in general, it seems rather foolish to set up the expectation that democrats could do better when there are certain factors involved in oil prices that are simply out of anyone's control. It's sort of like saying Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol... sort of. In any event, while there is certainly politics involved in oil prices, there's no denying that worldwide growth is constantly increasing the demand for oil while our supply continues to shrink. Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC country able to expand its output, oil analysts say, but the oil left in its reserves is of a lower quality.
Really guys? Is this really what you want to hit the republicans on?
Incidentally, the lackluster energy bill that would increase fuel efficiency standards for cars is slowly trudging its way through Congress, no thanks to Democrat John Dingell of Michigan.
Kucinich debates himself
While the Republican presidential candidates spent last night in Florida debating their interpretations of the Bible, not to mention the status of those people with "funny accents" who "look different" that happened to be working on Mitt Romney's lawn, Dennis Kucinich attracted a meager audience in person and online at a townhall session in New Hampshire, where he spoke about health care and relations with Iran. It could have been fun to see Ron Paul alongside the anti-war democrat in New Hampshire instead of the republican debate; seeing the two share their polar opposite views with each other (outside of the war, of course), could have been an interesting experiment in seeing how those outside of centrist positions could actually sell their ideas to skeptics. As it were, Ron Paul instead got sucked into the trap last night of trying to appeal to the values of the audience, even if they didn't quite match his own. The usually strictly libertarian congressman stooped to criticizing our relations that extend south of the border with crazy-talk of a North American Union, but he later went on to declare himself all for trade and internationalism. He wasn't the only one to fall in the trap of hypocrisy, though. Fred Thompson tried to make himself out to be the economic conservative but later stumbled and stalled when asked which federal bureaucracies he'd trim down first. Romney contradicted himself just about every time he opened his mouth. Giuliani, McCain and Huckabee seemed to keep to their principals and consequently, were able to put forth more substantive ideas about what kind of presidents they would be. Unfortunately, Tom Tancredo stuck to his principals, too, and even got everyone else to adopt them. "All I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo," he gleefully observed at one point. I'm glad Dennis was vocal last night about the issues missed at the debate, even if not many were listening.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
For tonight's debate: the war is not a Yes or No question
When the main candidates for the republican nomination get up on stage in Florida tonight for the CNN/YouTube debate, there will only be one person standing who supports a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. And that man, though he earns the approval of a group including everyone from pastors to pimps, will-- let's be honest-- not win the nomination. The rest, for reasons more or less legitimate, are arguing to keep troops active there to some degree for some time. That's all well and good, but let's remember what made this war a debacle in the first place: no consideration for consequences.
I am open to the idea that leaving troops in Iraq could be the best thing to do at this point. But if anyone in the current crop of presidential candidates, republican or otherwise, wants to earn even a degree of my respect, they had better articulate what they expect the consequences of their actions in Iraq to be. As I watch the republican debate tonight, I hope to hear ideas about what our longterm role in the Middle East should be. I hope to hear what sacrifices we as a nation would have to make to fulfill that role. Perhaps most importantly, I would like to hear how we expect to repay those making the biggest sacrifices.
It's no secret that the government's treatment of veterans is pathetic. The deplorable conditions of Walter Reed hospital made it clear to the general public that veterans are not getting the medical attention they need and deserve. Read The Nation's investigative report from earlier this year about the questionable practices of the VA that are preventing veterans from collecting medical benefits-- the personal stories told are heartbreaking. The Nation also ran a story just yesterday commenting on the paltry educational benefits veterans receive, which are in stark contrast to the benefits they are promised. And what a surprise that, with no medical benefits or the resources to obtain an education, veterans make up more than their fair share of the country's homeless population.
When the White House declared its opposition to the new GI bill that Senator Jim Webb introduced in January, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, the president only demonstrated that he continues to be short-sighted. As pointed out in The Nation's article, a stronger GI Bill could potentially invigorate the economy as the Congressional Research Office showed the original did.
The next president cannot afford to have such narrow vision. The next Commander in Chief may or may not decide we should keep troops in Iraq-- but he or she better think about the decisions to make after that.
I am open to the idea that leaving troops in Iraq could be the best thing to do at this point. But if anyone in the current crop of presidential candidates, republican or otherwise, wants to earn even a degree of my respect, they had better articulate what they expect the consequences of their actions in Iraq to be. As I watch the republican debate tonight, I hope to hear ideas about what our longterm role in the Middle East should be. I hope to hear what sacrifices we as a nation would have to make to fulfill that role. Perhaps most importantly, I would like to hear how we expect to repay those making the biggest sacrifices.
It's no secret that the government's treatment of veterans is pathetic. The deplorable conditions of Walter Reed hospital made it clear to the general public that veterans are not getting the medical attention they need and deserve. Read The Nation's investigative report from earlier this year about the questionable practices of the VA that are preventing veterans from collecting medical benefits-- the personal stories told are heartbreaking. The Nation also ran a story just yesterday commenting on the paltry educational benefits veterans receive, which are in stark contrast to the benefits they are promised. And what a surprise that, with no medical benefits or the resources to obtain an education, veterans make up more than their fair share of the country's homeless population.
When the White House declared its opposition to the new GI bill that Senator Jim Webb introduced in January, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, the president only demonstrated that he continues to be short-sighted. As pointed out in The Nation's article, a stronger GI Bill could potentially invigorate the economy as the Congressional Research Office showed the original did.
The next president cannot afford to have such narrow vision. The next Commander in Chief may or may not decide we should keep troops in Iraq-- but he or she better think about the decisions to make after that.
Giuliani acts like a winner, and not just in Florida
The polls out today show that Rudy Giuliani's "I'm the best to beat Hillary" campaign has been a hit in Florida, if not the earlier primary states. Not only do all the polls out of Florida show him beating the other republicans in the locale of choice for retired New Yorkers, but they show why: he is the "most electable," said 61 percent of people polled by CNN. A plurality of voters polled also said he is the most likeable, the most honest and the strongest leader. Giuliani's support there is also evident in his fundraising. While he has yet to run a television ad in Florida, Mitt Romney has been running them for months there but has still raised about a million dollars less than Giuliani, says the Hill.
Clearly, though, it is the "electable" element that Rudy is clearly hoping to bank on. Giuliani's campaign will be mailing out flyers in New Hampshire this week, where the New Yorker trails far behind Mitt Romney. Rather than going after the republican frontrunner, however, the flyer is all about Hillary Clinton's "out-of-control spending." Giuliani will also release a new television ad in New Hampshire this week. Perhaps his campaign thinks drumming the "electability" point home that much more in New Hampshire will earn him some significant support,-- or perhaps he really is banking on Florida and other states for the nomination and is already setting his sights on Nov. '08. “He never assumed he would win the early states,” former Rep. Bill McCollum, Giuliani’s state campaign chairman, told The Hill.
Clearly, though, it is the "electable" element that Rudy is clearly hoping to bank on. Giuliani's campaign will be mailing out flyers in New Hampshire this week, where the New Yorker trails far behind Mitt Romney. Rather than going after the republican frontrunner, however, the flyer is all about Hillary Clinton's "out-of-control spending." Giuliani will also release a new television ad in New Hampshire this week. Perhaps his campaign thinks drumming the "electability" point home that much more in New Hampshire will earn him some significant support,-- or perhaps he really is banking on Florida and other states for the nomination and is already setting his sights on Nov. '08. “He never assumed he would win the early states,” former Rep. Bill McCollum, Giuliani’s state campaign chairman, told The Hill.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Gates tries to help out Condi
Many are skeptical of today's Middle East summit taking place in Anapolis, not only with regards to what can be accomplished but also the intentions of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice. They are only trying to salvage their legacies from being completely tarnished by the Iraq war, detractors say. Maybe so, but at least member of the administration who does not exist under the shadow of the ongoing war is trying to change the United State's course. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said yesterday at a speech at Kansas State University that if the U.S. wants to keep its influence abroad, it should stop thinking so much about military matters and invest more in the State Department.
Gates' statement is interesting in light of the deal reached yesterday between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is all but inevitable that the United States will be involved in Iraqi affairs for years to come, but hopefully Gates will lead the way to a fresh direction for the Department of Defense, one in which it is not always at odds with the State Department, as was the case under Rumsfeld and Powell. Programs like the State Department's blogging efforts hopefully inidcate more of an emphasis on diplomacy. “Conflicts will be fundamentally political in nature and require the application of all elements of national power," Gates said. "Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries and, most importantly, the people in between.”
Still, of the twelve main appropriations bills that need to be passed for 2008, Congress has so far only put the defense bill onto the president's desk; he signed it, though apparently the $460 billion spent was not quite as much as the president had hoped for. As Gates pointed out yesterday, that's a pretty hefty sum in comparison to the State Department's $36 billion. But perhaps more than the budget, just the will to expand diplomacy needs to increase. “We are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals,” Gates said. “It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”
Gates' statement is interesting in light of the deal reached yesterday between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. It is all but inevitable that the United States will be involved in Iraqi affairs for years to come, but hopefully Gates will lead the way to a fresh direction for the Department of Defense, one in which it is not always at odds with the State Department, as was the case under Rumsfeld and Powell. Programs like the State Department's blogging efforts hopefully inidcate more of an emphasis on diplomacy. “Conflicts will be fundamentally political in nature and require the application of all elements of national power," Gates said. "Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a function of shaping behavior of friends, adversaries and, most importantly, the people in between.”
Still, of the twelve main appropriations bills that need to be passed for 2008, Congress has so far only put the defense bill onto the president's desk; he signed it, though apparently the $460 billion spent was not quite as much as the president had hoped for. As Gates pointed out yesterday, that's a pretty hefty sum in comparison to the State Department's $36 billion. But perhaps more than the budget, just the will to expand diplomacy needs to increase. “We are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals,” Gates said. “It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”
Fanning the flames
David Brooks takes it upon himself this morning to remind us why America is great: our resourcefulness, productivity and ingenuity are forces to reckon with. Our success and security are rooted in strong ideals. In spite of this, he says, there is rising clamor among some politicians and pundits that we are unsafe; a select few would have us believe that the forces of globalization, immigration and terrorism are coming together to pose one great, united threat to the United States.
Brooks' column was well-timed-- the fear-mongering was in full force yesterday. The Washington Times ran a story about supposed Iraqi and Afgani terrorists sneaking into the United States through tunnels from Mexico to attack an Arizona Army base. The article is based off an FBI document that relies on DEA sources in Mexico who, in turn, got their information from a "sub-source" who is "of uncertain reliability." Anyone who remembers the moniker "curveball" knows how well these types of sources work out. Morever, all that FBI spokesman Paul Bresson would tell the Washington Times was that such reports are based on "raw, uncorroborated information that has not been completely vetted."
While most media outlets commendably resisted any temptations to run with the senational story, Fox News gave it continuous coverage, often conveniently leaving out in its reports the questionable sources, along with the fact that if this happened at all, it in fact happened six months ago. One anchor described the report as about "men who are willing to die for the privilege of killing Americans."
Fox's Neil Cavuto turned for commentary to Tom Tancredo, who is one of those whose fringe-opinion, anti-immigrant diatribes have been loud enough to change mainstream discourse. Tancredo, of course, is gleefully using this report to justify his recent campaign ad, which features a terrorist blowing up a mall. "I was called an alarmist, engaged in fear mongering," he said in a statement he released yesterday. "Considering the imminent threat of an attack on U.S. soil posed by Islamic terrorists, I challenge the sponsors of the upcoming presidential debates to give national attention to this real and present danger. Americans should know what our next President is going to do to assure their safety.”
As we all know, the other presidential candidates have taken Tancredo up on that challenge. Sadly, the American public seems to be ingesting this unfounded anxiety, though it may not be going down easy. Polls show that, when asked about them specifically, people are strongly in favor of security measures like a fence at the U.S.- Mexico border and national ID cards; however, when a Wall Street Journal poll from Nov. 1-5 asked what the federal government's top priorities should be, both terrorism and immigration fall behind issues like the war in Iraq, health care and job creation. The public is well aware that there are more pressing issues to worry about than building fences on the border, but somehow, the issue will not be put to rest. Thank for your vigilance, Tancredo.
Brooks' column was well-timed-- the fear-mongering was in full force yesterday. The Washington Times ran a story about supposed Iraqi and Afgani terrorists sneaking into the United States through tunnels from Mexico to attack an Arizona Army base. The article is based off an FBI document that relies on DEA sources in Mexico who, in turn, got their information from a "sub-source" who is "of uncertain reliability." Anyone who remembers the moniker "curveball" knows how well these types of sources work out. Morever, all that FBI spokesman Paul Bresson would tell the Washington Times was that such reports are based on "raw, uncorroborated information that has not been completely vetted."
While most media outlets commendably resisted any temptations to run with the senational story, Fox News gave it continuous coverage, often conveniently leaving out in its reports the questionable sources, along with the fact that if this happened at all, it in fact happened six months ago. One anchor described the report as about "men who are willing to die for the privilege of killing Americans."
Fox's Neil Cavuto turned for commentary to Tom Tancredo, who is one of those whose fringe-opinion, anti-immigrant diatribes have been loud enough to change mainstream discourse. Tancredo, of course, is gleefully using this report to justify his recent campaign ad, which features a terrorist blowing up a mall. "I was called an alarmist, engaged in fear mongering," he said in a statement he released yesterday. "Considering the imminent threat of an attack on U.S. soil posed by Islamic terrorists, I challenge the sponsors of the upcoming presidential debates to give national attention to this real and present danger. Americans should know what our next President is going to do to assure their safety.”
As we all know, the other presidential candidates have taken Tancredo up on that challenge. Sadly, the American public seems to be ingesting this unfounded anxiety, though it may not be going down easy. Polls show that, when asked about them specifically, people are strongly in favor of security measures like a fence at the U.S.- Mexico border and national ID cards; however, when a Wall Street Journal poll from Nov. 1-5 asked what the federal government's top priorities should be, both terrorism and immigration fall behind issues like the war in Iraq, health care and job creation. The public is well aware that there are more pressing issues to worry about than building fences on the border, but somehow, the issue will not be put to rest. Thank for your vigilance, Tancredo.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Thompson talks taxes
Fred Thompson released a 7-point tax plan on Sunday that incorporates a lot of policies that have been proposed by George Bush-- whether that makes it a "conservative" plan is up for debate.
The plan would, among other things, maintain Bush's tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010 and introduce a two-tiered flat tax. Thompson's plan would call for a 10 percent tax rate for joint filers with incomes of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and a 25 percent rate for those with higher incomes; it would simplify the tax code by reducing the deductions and credits available.
Thompson also spelled out that he favors repealing the death tax (or if you prefer, the estate tax); he also wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which everyone seemingly wants to do, though no one can agree on how to go about it. The former "Law and Order" star also proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to no more than 27 perent, which could actually increase federal revenues: if the loopholes and the jumble of deductions currently available to corporations were closed as Thompson suggests they should be, corporations might actually end up paying more in taxes than they currently do.
Throwing out suggestions of instituting flat taxes and lower rates for corporations sounds like it should be appealing to conservatives, but as the Washington Post points out, a nonpartisan group found that "major parts of Thompson's plan would cost at least $2.5 trillion more than it brings in over 10 years." When asked about this on the morning talk show circuit yesterday, Thompson simply replied that those estimates were wrong. He said money would be saved by his Social Security plan, in which workers younger than 58 years old would receive less Social Security than they've been promised.
How the plan might actually work may be less important than how it is received. As already noted on PoliticalBase, the Club for Growth applauded Thompson for suggesting to lower corporate tax rates. This sort of response to his plan could be a strong counter to Mike Huckabee's recent surge in Iowa. Huckabee calls himself an "authentic conservative," but if Thompson emphasizes economic issues over social issues, he can bolster Robert Novak's claim that Huckabee is really a "false conservative" and a "high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government."
The plan would, among other things, maintain Bush's tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010 and introduce a two-tiered flat tax. Thompson's plan would call for a 10 percent tax rate for joint filers with incomes of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and a 25 percent rate for those with higher incomes; it would simplify the tax code by reducing the deductions and credits available.
Thompson also spelled out that he favors repealing the death tax (or if you prefer, the estate tax); he also wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which everyone seemingly wants to do, though no one can agree on how to go about it. The former "Law and Order" star also proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to no more than 27 perent, which could actually increase federal revenues: if the loopholes and the jumble of deductions currently available to corporations were closed as Thompson suggests they should be, corporations might actually end up paying more in taxes than they currently do.
Throwing out suggestions of instituting flat taxes and lower rates for corporations sounds like it should be appealing to conservatives, but as the Washington Post points out, a nonpartisan group found that "major parts of Thompson's plan would cost at least $2.5 trillion more than it brings in over 10 years." When asked about this on the morning talk show circuit yesterday, Thompson simply replied that those estimates were wrong. He said money would be saved by his Social Security plan, in which workers younger than 58 years old would receive less Social Security than they've been promised.
How the plan might actually work may be less important than how it is received. As already noted on PoliticalBase, the Club for Growth applauded Thompson for suggesting to lower corporate tax rates. This sort of response to his plan could be a strong counter to Mike Huckabee's recent surge in Iowa. Huckabee calls himself an "authentic conservative," but if Thompson emphasizes economic issues over social issues, he can bolster Robert Novak's claim that Huckabee is really a "false conservative" and a "high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government."
Oprah stumping for Obama
We can all stop speculating! Oprah will indeed join Barack Obama on the campaign trail. She will be traveling to Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Manchester, New Hampshire; and Columbia, South Carolina on the weekend of Dec. 8. It's time to revive the debate of whether the woman who turns paperbacks into gold can have the same effect in politics. Certainly, Obama is banking on Oprah's appeal with female voters. As he said about visiting her show, "there was a level of excitement among these middle-aged women that I’ve never seen. Their eyes glaze over."
Obama's support among women is just about equal to Hillary Clinton's in Iowa, though Clinton seems to be showing an edge among blue collar women. Working class women will almost assuredly stay in Clinton's camp. For women who came of age during an era of feminism, in a less advantaged class level in which the barriers against women are only higher, seeing a woman in power is very meaningful. It vindicates their years of hard work, their roles in bringing equality to women, which have been less celebrated than the work of their more intellectual peers.
Lest we forget, John Edwards has also been aggressively pursuing the female vote, paricularly the working class female vote. Former NARAL president Kate Michelman is one of his senior advisors, and he has even been referred to as potentially the "first woman president." His campaign often equates his fight for bridging the "two Americas" to a fight on behalf of poor women in particular.
Then there is the question how much the female vote really matters in and of itself. At least one report this year called single women "the most eligible untapped voters," no pun intended (I don't think). The report, which came out this summer, showed that unmarried women account for nearly 25 percent of all eligible voters.
Obama's support among women is just about equal to Hillary Clinton's in Iowa, though Clinton seems to be showing an edge among blue collar women. Working class women will almost assuredly stay in Clinton's camp. For women who came of age during an era of feminism, in a less advantaged class level in which the barriers against women are only higher, seeing a woman in power is very meaningful. It vindicates their years of hard work, their roles in bringing equality to women, which have been less celebrated than the work of their more intellectual peers.
Lest we forget, John Edwards has also been aggressively pursuing the female vote, paricularly the working class female vote. Former NARAL president Kate Michelman is one of his senior advisors, and he has even been referred to as potentially the "first woman president." His campaign often equates his fight for bridging the "two Americas" to a fight on behalf of poor women in particular.
Then there is the question how much the female vote really matters in and of itself. At least one report this year called single women "the most eligible untapped voters," no pun intended (I don't think). The report, which came out this summer, showed that unmarried women account for nearly 25 percent of all eligible voters.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Immigrants are not the enemy!
As immigration, particularly illegal immigration, looms over the political discourse as an intractable problem, the news that the federal Citizenship and Immigration Services agency is amassing a huge backlog of applications for citizenship and residence visas almost seems expected. Everyone is in agreement that the country is in dire need of comprehensive immigration reform. If anything, this story is noteworthy for the angle it takes; it shows the crisis from the other side of the story-- the immigrants' side.
In the dialogue of political campaigns, immigration is often framed as a red vs. blue problem, a white vs. brown problem, Us against Them. It isn't always clear who's on which side-- it took Hillary Clinton quite a few tries to pick sides in the "Us vs. Them" debate surrounding driver's licenses. And while some republicans may want to portray themselves as pitted against democrats on the issue, nativism isn't an idea that belongs squarely in the conservative camp. Bob Moser pointed this out in The Nation more than a year ago; interestingly, he made the case for this in Tennessee, which experienced its first strong anti-immigrant wave in 2001 after becoming the first state to grant driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The point is, this is a problem that everyone finds personally frustrating, political inclinations aside. People are angry.
The New York Times addresses the seething discontent in the nation over immigration on its editorial page today. It blames piece-meal, enforcement-heavy measures to curb illegal immigration for that anger-- the sort of anger that instigates violence and racial bias. There is hope, however, the Times goes on to say, that a leader willing to face the political headwinds and bring forward comprehensive change could allay the country's anger.
A leader could do this with comprehensive policy reform-- but first he or she needs to change the "Us vs. Them" tone that is becoming increasingly hostile towards immigrants. "I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants," Dennis Kucinich said at the last debate, in response to Wolf Blitzer's driver's license question. "There are no illegal people." He is right. Most Americans probably know he is right, but as the problems stemming from immigration policy continue with no resolution in sight, their anger often is taken out on immigrants. There can never be any successful immigration reform as long as this hostility towards immigrants, Latinos in particular, continues. Hopefully, with news like today's, more people will realize immigrants are on our side, and are just as much short-changed by poor policy as Americans are.
In the dialogue of political campaigns, immigration is often framed as a red vs. blue problem, a white vs. brown problem, Us against Them. It isn't always clear who's on which side-- it took Hillary Clinton quite a few tries to pick sides in the "Us vs. Them" debate surrounding driver's licenses. And while some republicans may want to portray themselves as pitted against democrats on the issue, nativism isn't an idea that belongs squarely in the conservative camp. Bob Moser pointed this out in The Nation more than a year ago; interestingly, he made the case for this in Tennessee, which experienced its first strong anti-immigrant wave in 2001 after becoming the first state to grant driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants. The point is, this is a problem that everyone finds personally frustrating, political inclinations aside. People are angry.
The New York Times addresses the seething discontent in the nation over immigration on its editorial page today. It blames piece-meal, enforcement-heavy measures to curb illegal immigration for that anger-- the sort of anger that instigates violence and racial bias. There is hope, however, the Times goes on to say, that a leader willing to face the political headwinds and bring forward comprehensive change could allay the country's anger.
A leader could do this with comprehensive policy reform-- but first he or she needs to change the "Us vs. Them" tone that is becoming increasingly hostile towards immigrants. "I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants," Dennis Kucinich said at the last debate, in response to Wolf Blitzer's driver's license question. "There are no illegal people." He is right. Most Americans probably know he is right, but as the problems stemming from immigration policy continue with no resolution in sight, their anger often is taken out on immigrants. There can never be any successful immigration reform as long as this hostility towards immigrants, Latinos in particular, continues. Hopefully, with news like today's, more people will realize immigrants are on our side, and are just as much short-changed by poor policy as Americans are.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Obama: the second-choice candidate
The democratic candidates may find a moment of respite today from the relentless Iowa campaigning to celebrate Thanksgiving, but with the race as close as it is, no one's going to be counting their turkeys before they hatch. The campaigning in Iowa is, as of late, being framed as a race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, since the Washington Post's last poll shows Obama overtaking Clinton's lead, but only within the margin of error. But given that this is Iowa, Obama may have a lot more to be thankful for than one might think at first glance. Namely, he can be very thankful not only his supporters, but also those in Iowa who support Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich.
In Iowa, it doesn't necessarily matter which candidate caucusgoers see as the best choice; rather, it matters which candidate has the most support as the caucusgoers' first OR second choice. As Time pointed out yesterday, "Obama could benefit from last-minute shifts in support...under the arcane rules of Iowa caucuses." On Jan. 3, democratic Iowan caucusgoers will gather together in their precincts, huddling in the corner designated for their respective first-choice candidates. After 30 minutes of trying to convince others to join their corner, there will be a count. If a candidate's corner is not occupied by at least 15 percent (in some precincts, 25 percent!) of the attendees, that candidate is not eligible to receive any delegates from that precinct. At that point, people are free to move corners again, and those who originally supported a candidate who ended up with less than 15 percent of the room will disperse to support someone else.
In other words, if the polls could truly represent a cross section of each precinct in Iowa, basically everyone in Iowa who now supports Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich or Gravel (is anyone supporting Gravel?), will have to choose someone else. Of course, the precincts could each have very different preferences; maybe all of Richardson's support in Iowa is concentrated in one county. In that case, caucusgoers' second choices may not matter as much. But if the three top candidates in Iowa truly are the top three in most precincts, Obama is doing very well. Twenty-six percent of those polled by the Washington Post said Obama is their second choice; Edwards came in at 24 percent, and Clinton only received 19 percent of the second choice votes. The Post shows Obama as the clear winner of combined first and second choice votes, at 55 percent, with Edwards in at a distant second with 45 percent and Clinton at 44.
This second-choice support could be critical for Obama. "If [Clinton] wins Iowa, I think the race is over," the La Times quotes Democratic pollster Mark Mellman as saying. "There's really no place else to stop her." On the flip side, a win for Obama in Iowa could propel him to take the lead he's been inching closer to in New Hampshire, and then to take the bigger states on Feb. 5. Obama might want to say thanks for the tight primary schedule as well.
In Iowa, it doesn't necessarily matter which candidate caucusgoers see as the best choice; rather, it matters which candidate has the most support as the caucusgoers' first OR second choice. As Time pointed out yesterday, "Obama could benefit from last-minute shifts in support...under the arcane rules of Iowa caucuses." On Jan. 3, democratic Iowan caucusgoers will gather together in their precincts, huddling in the corner designated for their respective first-choice candidates. After 30 minutes of trying to convince others to join their corner, there will be a count. If a candidate's corner is not occupied by at least 15 percent (in some precincts, 25 percent!) of the attendees, that candidate is not eligible to receive any delegates from that precinct. At that point, people are free to move corners again, and those who originally supported a candidate who ended up with less than 15 percent of the room will disperse to support someone else.
In other words, if the polls could truly represent a cross section of each precinct in Iowa, basically everyone in Iowa who now supports Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich or Gravel (is anyone supporting Gravel?), will have to choose someone else. Of course, the precincts could each have very different preferences; maybe all of Richardson's support in Iowa is concentrated in one county. In that case, caucusgoers' second choices may not matter as much. But if the three top candidates in Iowa truly are the top three in most precincts, Obama is doing very well. Twenty-six percent of those polled by the Washington Post said Obama is their second choice; Edwards came in at 24 percent, and Clinton only received 19 percent of the second choice votes. The Post shows Obama as the clear winner of combined first and second choice votes, at 55 percent, with Edwards in at a distant second with 45 percent and Clinton at 44.
This second-choice support could be critical for Obama. "If [Clinton] wins Iowa, I think the race is over," the La Times quotes Democratic pollster Mark Mellman as saying. "There's really no place else to stop her." On the flip side, a win for Obama in Iowa could propel him to take the lead he's been inching closer to in New Hampshire, and then to take the bigger states on Feb. 5. Obama might want to say thanks for the tight primary schedule as well.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
What the caucus-goers read
As anyone who watches CNN knows, large mainstream media outlets will tell you about the presidential campaigns until your ears bleed. Meanwhile, small local media will print what presidential news they have, but will happily stick to covering this year's toy drive if they have to. They may not have much news to print, but to their credit, small weeklies know their communities well. With that in mind, Barack Obama's string of interviews with small Iowa weeklies makes a lot of sense. The pressure is on for all of the democratic candidates to leave a lasting impression on people in Iowa, which should mean more than just showing up in a small town for a few photo-ops. Most of the towns the candidates are visiting are probably rarely mentioned in larger statewide papers; their residents most likely see the local weeklies as the most legitimate news source about what's going on in their community. If a town of only a few thousand people is worth visiting in the first place, speaking with its local paper should certainly be a priority; if it's worth going to the local tailgate, or showing up for the community toy drive, it's worth speaking to the paper that would cover those events regardless of who was in attendance.
The 30-second work day
Jim Webb was the only senator who had to go to work yesterday, being a junior member and convienently located in Northern Virginia. He opened the Senate for a full 30 seconds on Tuesday, as part of Harry Reid's plan to keep the president from making appointments while the Senate is on recess. As long as the Senate technically meets again after three days off, it is not in recess. That means the Senate will next need to "reconvene" on Friday, when Byron Dorgan of Nebraska is scheduled to preside over another 30-second session. Jack Reed of Rhode Island takes over next week.
Most notably, this would foul up any plans President Bush might have had to appoint his controversial Surgeon General nominee, Dr. James Holsinger. Many on the left consider Holsinger a preposterous choice for Surgeon General, given his tendency to weave his religious beliefs into his medical work, especially with regard to homosexuality. Now that he can't sneak into the post while the Senate is in recess, it looks like Holsinger is going to have to face the music and answer the questions of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, if he wants his nomination to get anywhere.
Most notably, this would foul up any plans President Bush might have had to appoint his controversial Surgeon General nominee, Dr. James Holsinger. Many on the left consider Holsinger a preposterous choice for Surgeon General, given his tendency to weave his religious beliefs into his medical work, especially with regard to homosexuality. Now that he can't sneak into the post while the Senate is in recess, it looks like Holsinger is going to have to face the music and answer the questions of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, if he wants his nomination to get anywhere.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
When technology trumps common sense
California's secretary of state is suing a Nebraska voting machine company for selling nearly 1,000 uncertified machines to the state of California. The lawsuit could cost the company as much as $15 million in fines and reimbursements and, alleges the company, could possibly disadvantage California voters if the machines subsequently could not be used right away.
In pretty much completely unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security is under fire for trying to push the use of a new kind of radiation-detection machine at U.S. borders. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a plan in July 2006 to buy $1.2 billion worth of these machines, which he called a "vital priority." Just one month later, the Government Accountability Office alleged that officials had greatly exxagerated the machine's capabilities. After that, Congress put Chertoff personally in charge of certifying the machines; DHS officials responded to that move by rigging the certification tests. The ongoing problems have stalled the DHS's plan to buy any more of these machines-- so far, they've only bought 55 and use only 10 (for testing).
It seems that at every level of government-- from city councils to the feds-- officials are apt to embrace new technologies to give an appearance of efficiency and expertise. This could be fantastic for their constituents-- if government officials weren't also prone to letting the pomp and circumstance surrounding new technology overshadow a need for basic competence.
Surely, a business selling voting machines should be held liable if it does not meet standards set by the state, but shouldn't the secretary of state be held liable to the people for not verifying the machines' certification before purchasing them? In the case of the radiation-detection machinery, it's fortunate that not many have yet been purchased, but someone needs to be held accountable for trying to unjustifiably push forward the purchase. Radiation detection could possibly the very worst place for subjective influence. But should the accountability end simply at the DHS? Senator Joe Lieberman urged the DHS "to work quickly to resolve its problems so we can put this technology to work." That's a nice sound bite to make Lieberman sound tough on homeland security to voters, but do we really want them rushing through these tests anymore?
In pretty much completely unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security is under fire for trying to push the use of a new kind of radiation-detection machine at U.S. borders. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a plan in July 2006 to buy $1.2 billion worth of these machines, which he called a "vital priority." Just one month later, the Government Accountability Office alleged that officials had greatly exxagerated the machine's capabilities. After that, Congress put Chertoff personally in charge of certifying the machines; DHS officials responded to that move by rigging the certification tests. The ongoing problems have stalled the DHS's plan to buy any more of these machines-- so far, they've only bought 55 and use only 10 (for testing).
It seems that at every level of government-- from city councils to the feds-- officials are apt to embrace new technologies to give an appearance of efficiency and expertise. This could be fantastic for their constituents-- if government officials weren't also prone to letting the pomp and circumstance surrounding new technology overshadow a need for basic competence.
Surely, a business selling voting machines should be held liable if it does not meet standards set by the state, but shouldn't the secretary of state be held liable to the people for not verifying the machines' certification before purchasing them? In the case of the radiation-detection machinery, it's fortunate that not many have yet been purchased, but someone needs to be held accountable for trying to unjustifiably push forward the purchase. Radiation detection could possibly the very worst place for subjective influence. But should the accountability end simply at the DHS? Senator Joe Lieberman urged the DHS "to work quickly to resolve its problems so we can put this technology to work." That's a nice sound bite to make Lieberman sound tough on homeland security to voters, but do we really want them rushing through these tests anymore?
Thompson losing religious and WWF vote to Huckabee
The National Right to Life's endorsement hasn't saved Fred Thompson's campaign from sliding behind in New Hampshire, where the libertarian Ron Paul and the true social conservative Mike Huckabee have proven to hold more appeal. In the latest CNN poll, in which Mitt Romney maintains a strong lead with 33 percent, Thompson has fallen into sixth place. Thompson only picked up a feeble 4 percent in the CNN poll, and 50 PERCENT of people polled said they would not support him "under any circumstances." His insipid campaign even has his formal supporters in Washington grumbling that they will ditch him soon after voters do on Feb. 5.
Meanwhile, the proselytizing of Mike Huckabee has won him enough support in Iowa to put him neck-and-neck with Romney in that state. His call to keep the White House occupied by evangelicals has also won the endorsement of Christian conservative organizer Tim LaHaye, whose wife runs Concerned Women for America. He and his wife have sent out emails appealing to voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina to vote for Huckabee. In keeping with his fabulous Chuck Norris endorsement, Huckabee can also now claim the support of WWE wrestler Ric Flair, a.k.a. "The Nature Boy," and rock star Ted Nugent. Can we get all of these people together in an ad to follow up the Chuck Norris ad with, please?
Meanwhile, the proselytizing of Mike Huckabee has won him enough support in Iowa to put him neck-and-neck with Romney in that state. His call to keep the White House occupied by evangelicals has also won the endorsement of Christian conservative organizer Tim LaHaye, whose wife runs Concerned Women for America. He and his wife have sent out emails appealing to voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina to vote for Huckabee. In keeping with his fabulous Chuck Norris endorsement, Huckabee can also now claim the support of WWE wrestler Ric Flair, a.k.a. "The Nature Boy," and rock star Ted Nugent. Can we get all of these people together in an ad to follow up the Chuck Norris ad with, please?
May and Flower off the hook
President Bush officially pardoned two turkeys this morning in the Rose Garden. May and Flower, as the turkeys were named by the public through an online poll, escaped a grisly death at the hands of the Vice President. Even Bush admitted as much, saying the VP wanted to name them "Lunch" and "Dinner." After speaking about all that he's thankful for (the usual-- the economy, soldiers, etc.), Bush tried to make a joke about a letter he received from a young girl in California who asked, "Do you ever get a headache?" "Not really," the president answered, "only when i have a press conference." Somehow, I believe him.
Obama takes the lead in Iowa
Barack Obama has finally pulled ahead in Iowa, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. He stands at 30 percent in the poll, compared to Clinton's 26 percent, although there is a 4 percent margin of error. Obama has already inspired a great deal of excitement in many people, and with the news of his lead, his campaign could earn a great deal of momentum. According to the Post, his lead seems to come from changing priorities in Iowa, where 55 percent of people said a "new direction and new ideas" was more important than "strength and experience" in this campaign. This is a 6 percent shift from The Post/ABC's last poll, which was in July. At that time, 49 percent said change was the most important, and 39 percent said experience. This would imply that Obama's lead comes from caucus-goers who are abandoning Clinton. But while Obama's support rose 3 points from 27 in July to 30 this month, Clinton's has stayed steady at 26 percent. John Edwards took the real hit, going down from 26 percent of the support in July to 22 percent this month. Now that Obama has a clear lead as the alternative to Clinton, he will probably only steal more votes from Edwards.
Clinton won't be taking this lightly, though, with only 43 days left until the Iowa caucus. She recently opened her 34th campaign office in Iowa, and she reportedly spent over $350,000 on TV and radio ads last week alone. Besides that, she is amplifying a rhetorical tactic she has always employed of talking like the winner. "I cannot wait to get on the stage to debate the Republican nominee as we make the case for change, and they argue for the status quo," she said in Iowa yesterday morning. She also said, "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush," which doesn't seem like a line of thought you'd want to harp on when more and more Iowans are prefering change to experience.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Blogging for peace
The Washington Post reported today on a new program in the State Department that has "official bloggers" joining online conversations in Arabic on Arabic blogs in order to promote moderate views and positive viewpoints about the United States. Upon first reading about this program, it sounded to me like a strange, subversive way of manipulating international opinion. But after thinking about it a bit, and taking into consideration that the State Dept. employees apparently readily identify themselves as such on the blogs, it seems like a great strategy to me to promote better international relations.
By integrating themselves into online community discussions, the State representatives give the impression to regular citizens that there is a desire on the United States' side to engage our country in a dialogue and relationship with their respective country. This could temper the public's impressions when the United States officially limits its engagement with that country. For instance, the United States clearly has a careful line to walk with Iran. Measures like economic sanctions are, of course, useful in displaying the United States' power and communicating that it will not be too tolerant of actions that go against our democratic ideals. On the other hand, enforcing sanctions or using other measures that may appear too draconian in the eyes of regular citizens in Iran, or wherever, is obviously not going to win the U.S. any Iranian fans. The key is to act in a manner that communicates to the Iranian public that their own government is to blame for their international isolation-- not the United States. This would be a lot easier to accomplish by actually communicating directly with people --not just through actions.
Obviously, the government has means of doing that (Voice of America, for instance), but clearly any regular person would be more inclined to trust someone they talk to directly, in an informal discussion, than they would be to trust an official source. Even Americans don't always trust the official communications of our federal government. It's no suprise to me that the State Department says the feedback has been good so far. When you reach out to people and try to engage them in a sincere discussion, they will usually listen.
By integrating themselves into online community discussions, the State representatives give the impression to regular citizens that there is a desire on the United States' side to engage our country in a dialogue and relationship with their respective country. This could temper the public's impressions when the United States officially limits its engagement with that country. For instance, the United States clearly has a careful line to walk with Iran. Measures like economic sanctions are, of course, useful in displaying the United States' power and communicating that it will not be too tolerant of actions that go against our democratic ideals. On the other hand, enforcing sanctions or using other measures that may appear too draconian in the eyes of regular citizens in Iran, or wherever, is obviously not going to win the U.S. any Iranian fans. The key is to act in a manner that communicates to the Iranian public that their own government is to blame for their international isolation-- not the United States. This would be a lot easier to accomplish by actually communicating directly with people --not just through actions.
Obviously, the government has means of doing that (Voice of America, for instance), but clearly any regular person would be more inclined to trust someone they talk to directly, in an informal discussion, than they would be to trust an official source. Even Americans don't always trust the official communications of our federal government. It's no suprise to me that the State Department says the feedback has been good so far. When you reach out to people and try to engage them in a sincere discussion, they will usually listen.
Homeland Security Advisor resigns- so she can work more
Please don't dare say Francis Townsend wants to spend more time with her family. The president's Homeland Security Advisor, whose resignation was announced today, apparently explicitly forbade the White House press office from saying she was resigning to spend more time with her family. "I'm going to just take another job doing 20 hour days but this time in the private sector," Townsend said, according to CNN.
In a statement released by the White House press office, President Bush said Townsend "has played an integral role in the formation of key strategies and policies my administration has used to combat terror and protect Americans.'' Townsend spent 4 1/2 years in the role, in which she tracked terrorist groups and assessed the threats they posed. She also oversaw the revamping of the federal government's response to emergencies after Hurricane Katrina.
Townsend's resignation of course follows that of many other Bush aides, including Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales. The AP notes that White House press secretary Dana Perino "shrugged off the notion that a loss of top talent will hurt Bush's last months in office." Perhaps Townsend is a different story, but surely no one contends that losing Gonzales was going to "hurt" the Bush administration.
In a statement released by the White House press office, President Bush said Townsend "has played an integral role in the formation of key strategies and policies my administration has used to combat terror and protect Americans.'' Townsend spent 4 1/2 years in the role, in which she tracked terrorist groups and assessed the threats they posed. She also oversaw the revamping of the federal government's response to emergencies after Hurricane Katrina.
Townsend's resignation of course follows that of many other Bush aides, including Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales. The AP notes that White House press secretary Dana Perino "shrugged off the notion that a loss of top talent will hurt Bush's last months in office." Perhaps Townsend is a different story, but surely no one contends that losing Gonzales was going to "hurt" the Bush administration.
Chuck Norris approved
Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee are all debuting ads this week. Romney's highlights his family values, while Giuliani's once again focuses on his experience in times of crisis. They're viewable through the below Boston Globe page. Huckabee's features none other than Chuck Norris himself, the man whose tears cure Cancer (too bad he never cries). It's ridiculous and hilarious, and it will definitely draw interest in his campaign and probably attract many young people to his web site. Maybe he'll overtake Ron Paul as the hipster vote.
McCain looks on the bright side- and wins endorsement
Tom Kean, former New Jersey governor and co-chair of the 9-11 commission is endorsing John McCain for president today, says the Politico. The endorsement will clearly signal that McCain is strong on national security issues.
This comes on the heels of an interesting fact John McCain pulled out while on the campaign trail over the weekend that could be an indication of great recent success in Iraq -- or of a worsening plight, depending on how you look at it. "I'm happy to tell you that exodus has turned around and Iraqis are now coming back from Jordan and other places back to Iraq because we have established an environment in which they can live more peacefully," McCain said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting on Sunday.
It's true that Iraqis are returning home. Iraq's Ministry of Displacement and Migration has said about 46,000 Iraqi refugees returned to their war-ravaged country in October. "We are simply living in a better and obvious security situation," said Gen. Qassim Atta, according to CNN.
However, CNN's report glosses over the fact that the increased number of refugees returning home happens to coincide with strict new laws being enforced against Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan, which together harbor more than 90 percent of the 2.2 million people who have left the country. Syria now demands incoming Iraqis have Visas, and Jordan has begun turning people back, AP reported. Additionally, refugees already in those countries will either have to be officially recognized as refugees by the United Nations or leave once their residency permits expire. Many of those who manage to stay in these safer countries legally ultimately return simply because they cannot afford to live outside Iraq. "Going back to Baghdad means going to death row, but we have no money left that could allow us to go on living here," said one returning Iraqi to AP.
To cite statistics about returning Iraqis as a reason for optimism, McCain must either be so inclined to find success wherever possible that he is completely missing the bigger picture, or he is willfully deceiving people in New Hampshire. Either case doesn't exactly help his campaign, regardless of his endorsements.
But since Mr. McCain was kind enough to bring it up, the plight of Iraqi refugees is certainly worth exploring further.
Though millions of Iraqis have fled their country because of a war instigated by the U.S., the United States is harboring relatively few refugees. Only 1,608 were admitted last year, noted Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy Director for Human Rights Watch, when he testified on Nov. 15 before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The U.S. aims to resettle 12,000 this year, but Frelick said that goal would not likely be reached. Even if it did, he said, that only amounts to the number of Iraqis who flee to Syria within a span of six days.
He also had this to say: "The Bush Administration has boosted its 2008 emergency request to fund the Iraq and Afghan wars to $196.4 billion, bringing the total price tag to more than $800 billion. Less than one-fifth of 1 percent of that request, $240 million—less than the amount the U.S. spends each day to wage the war—is slated for emergency relief, basic health services and education for the 4.4 million Iraqis who have been forced from their homes."
If the U.S. does not provide more aid to refugees and the countries that harbor them, Frelick said, "Jordan’s and Syria’s borders will remain closed, more refugees will be forced back, and the present emergency could well escalate into a full-fledged disaster... The United States needs to spend money to save lives where it can and prevent further resentment and destabilization that could bring far greater costs in the years to come."
Maybe someone just needs to get John McCain something read other than official Iraqi press releases.
This comes on the heels of an interesting fact John McCain pulled out while on the campaign trail over the weekend that could be an indication of great recent success in Iraq -- or of a worsening plight, depending on how you look at it. "I'm happy to tell you that exodus has turned around and Iraqis are now coming back from Jordan and other places back to Iraq because we have established an environment in which they can live more peacefully," McCain said at a New Hampshire town hall meeting on Sunday.
It's true that Iraqis are returning home. Iraq's Ministry of Displacement and Migration has said about 46,000 Iraqi refugees returned to their war-ravaged country in October. "We are simply living in a better and obvious security situation," said Gen. Qassim Atta, according to CNN.
However, CNN's report glosses over the fact that the increased number of refugees returning home happens to coincide with strict new laws being enforced against Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan, which together harbor more than 90 percent of the 2.2 million people who have left the country. Syria now demands incoming Iraqis have Visas, and Jordan has begun turning people back, AP reported. Additionally, refugees already in those countries will either have to be officially recognized as refugees by the United Nations or leave once their residency permits expire. Many of those who manage to stay in these safer countries legally ultimately return simply because they cannot afford to live outside Iraq. "Going back to Baghdad means going to death row, but we have no money left that could allow us to go on living here," said one returning Iraqi to AP.
To cite statistics about returning Iraqis as a reason for optimism, McCain must either be so inclined to find success wherever possible that he is completely missing the bigger picture, or he is willfully deceiving people in New Hampshire. Either case doesn't exactly help his campaign, regardless of his endorsements.
But since Mr. McCain was kind enough to bring it up, the plight of Iraqi refugees is certainly worth exploring further.
Though millions of Iraqis have fled their country because of a war instigated by the U.S., the United States is harboring relatively few refugees. Only 1,608 were admitted last year, noted Bill Frelick, Refugee Policy Director for Human Rights Watch, when he testified on Nov. 15 before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. The U.S. aims to resettle 12,000 this year, but Frelick said that goal would not likely be reached. Even if it did, he said, that only amounts to the number of Iraqis who flee to Syria within a span of six days.
He also had this to say: "The Bush Administration has boosted its 2008 emergency request to fund the Iraq and Afghan wars to $196.4 billion, bringing the total price tag to more than $800 billion. Less than one-fifth of 1 percent of that request, $240 million—less than the amount the U.S. spends each day to wage the war—is slated for emergency relief, basic health services and education for the 4.4 million Iraqis who have been forced from their homes."
If the U.S. does not provide more aid to refugees and the countries that harbor them, Frelick said, "Jordan’s and Syria’s borders will remain closed, more refugees will be forced back, and the present emergency could well escalate into a full-fledged disaster... The United States needs to spend money to save lives where it can and prevent further resentment and destabilization that could bring far greater costs in the years to come."
Maybe someone just needs to get John McCain something read other than official Iraqi press releases.
Friday, November 16, 2007
More evidence of politicizing climate change
California and other states celebrated a victory yesterday in their protracted battle against the federal government's neglectful energy policies. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bush administration's new fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUV's need to be fixed to take into account the effects of carbon emissions and their possible link to global warming.
At the same time, the Washington Post is breaking news that government scientists think that certain Smithsonian exhibits dealing with issues of climate change and the Arctic were too politically influenced. These new revelations of the administration's "chilling effect" on the scientific community can only "fuel" the states' convictions to proceed with their own energy policies. (sorry, couldn't help it!)
The Museum of Natural History ran a 2006 exhibit about changes in the Arctic that was dramatically altered by high level Smithsonian officials. For one thing, the name of the exhibit was changed from "Arctic Meltdown" to "The Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely." Hmm. "For the focus to be shifted from scientific content to political content, I found disturbing for a museum," said NASA scientist Waleed Abdalati, who was involved in the project. Museum officials are under fire for other sketchy moves as well, such as approving a $5 million donation from the American Petroleum Institute to fund the Natural History Museum's Ocean Initiative exhibit hall and web site.
At the same time, the Washington Post is breaking news that government scientists think that certain Smithsonian exhibits dealing with issues of climate change and the Arctic were too politically influenced. These new revelations of the administration's "chilling effect" on the scientific community can only "fuel" the states' convictions to proceed with their own energy policies. (sorry, couldn't help it!)
The Museum of Natural History ran a 2006 exhibit about changes in the Arctic that was dramatically altered by high level Smithsonian officials. For one thing, the name of the exhibit was changed from "Arctic Meltdown" to "The Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely." Hmm. "For the focus to be shifted from scientific content to political content, I found disturbing for a museum," said NASA scientist Waleed Abdalati, who was involved in the project. Museum officials are under fire for other sketchy moves as well, such as approving a $5 million donation from the American Petroleum Institute to fund the Natural History Museum's Ocean Initiative exhibit hall and web site.
These incidents were preceded by one in 2003, the Post reports, when the Natural History Museum moved a photo display of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to a less noticeable location and changed its captions, right as the administration was considering oil and gas drilling in the region. That event was certainly a harbinger of things to come, and not only in the scientific community. The Bush administration has obviously since been lambasted for politicizing just about every apolitical federal bureaucracy imaginable. On a more tragic note, keeping images of our precious natural resources out of sight from the public, lest people be reminded of what we are destroying, brings to mind attempts to keep the public focused on the War on Terror by keeping our fallen soldiers out of view.
Thankfully, some like California gov. Schwarzenegger are trying to rein in the federal government's politicization of nonpartisan issues. In addition to the previously mentioned lawsuit, California is also suing the EPA so it can implement its own emission standards. Also, the governor will be hosting with Al Gore a forum on energy and climate change for both democratic and republican presidential candidates. It is supposed to take place this December in New Hampshire. Hopefully the next president will spend some time actually trying to change things, rather than changing their appearances by politicizing them.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Hillary wields the gender card proudly
Tonight, perhaps for the first time ever, I felt like I saw a bit of authenticity in Hillary Clinton. As a female voter, this meant a great deal to me. There could never be any question about the significance of Hillary's campaign; whether you like it or not, the fact that she is a woman is notable. Mrs. Clinton has certainly acknowledged that and at times has tried to embrace it-- but, in my humble opinion, she has never been quite able to convey that it means anything to her personally. She seemed to do just that, finally, in the Nevada debate.
As the pundits mentioned on CNN once the debate was through, Hillary did quite well in the debate. The other candidates, Barack Obama in particular, did not fare as well by comparison. Obama perhaps just doesn't have "the fire in his belly," as James Carville and others put it. Clinton, on the other hand, does-- but it never seemed clear why. Having that sort of drive without showing any sort of underlying human emotion is kind of scary. By contrast, John Edwards has framed the passion of his campaign around the desire to unite the "two Americas" he has seen in his lifetime. That is something I can understand.
But tonight it seemed that maybe a little bit of the fire in Hillary's belly is indeed fueled by her pride in being a female candidate. "What did you mean when you referred to 'the boys' club'?" CNN's Campbell Brown asked Hillary, in reference to a speech Hillary gave at her alma mater, Wellesley. Hillary tilted her head up, her eyes scanning the ceiling. Her mouth opened wide. She seemed to be searching for one of those verbose, "nuanced" answers she is so fond of. But before the words could come tumbling out, paused and took in a breath. There was new clarity in her eyes. "Oh, Campbell," she said in a chiding tone. She then went on to speak of the many women she has met during her campaign, such as 95-year-old women who tell her they were alive when women couldn't vote and they want to be alive to see a woman president. It was perhaps the most genuine-sounding moment I've seen from Clinton.
It was interesting to note what happened afterwards, when John Edwards was given a chance to respond to whether he thought Clinton was playing the "gender card." He responded that all the candidates were well-qualified, but that voters had a right to know about the corporate ties of some of the candidates and that pointing out those ties should not be interpreted as making personal attacks. It was a fair point, but it generated a chorus of boos from the audience. For once, Edwards was the candidate coming off as cold while Clinton looked sincere and impassioned.
It was a great moment. Great enough to convince me to vote for her? No. But maybe it was for some women.
As the pundits mentioned on CNN once the debate was through, Hillary did quite well in the debate. The other candidates, Barack Obama in particular, did not fare as well by comparison. Obama perhaps just doesn't have "the fire in his belly," as James Carville and others put it. Clinton, on the other hand, does-- but it never seemed clear why. Having that sort of drive without showing any sort of underlying human emotion is kind of scary. By contrast, John Edwards has framed the passion of his campaign around the desire to unite the "two Americas" he has seen in his lifetime. That is something I can understand.
But tonight it seemed that maybe a little bit of the fire in Hillary's belly is indeed fueled by her pride in being a female candidate. "What did you mean when you referred to 'the boys' club'?" CNN's Campbell Brown asked Hillary, in reference to a speech Hillary gave at her alma mater, Wellesley. Hillary tilted her head up, her eyes scanning the ceiling. Her mouth opened wide. She seemed to be searching for one of those verbose, "nuanced" answers she is so fond of. But before the words could come tumbling out, paused and took in a breath. There was new clarity in her eyes. "Oh, Campbell," she said in a chiding tone. She then went on to speak of the many women she has met during her campaign, such as 95-year-old women who tell her they were alive when women couldn't vote and they want to be alive to see a woman president. It was perhaps the most genuine-sounding moment I've seen from Clinton.
It was interesting to note what happened afterwards, when John Edwards was given a chance to respond to whether he thought Clinton was playing the "gender card." He responded that all the candidates were well-qualified, but that voters had a right to know about the corporate ties of some of the candidates and that pointing out those ties should not be interpreted as making personal attacks. It was a fair point, but it generated a chorus of boos from the audience. For once, Edwards was the candidate coming off as cold while Clinton looked sincere and impassioned.
It was a great moment. Great enough to convince me to vote for her? No. But maybe it was for some women.
Richardson could learn from Dodd
The New York Times reports that, according to Project Vote Smart, only three of the mainstream presidential candidates managed to answer politically risky questions on the organization's “political courage test” that forces them to take a side on tough issues.
All three of those candidates happened to be democratic-- John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel. Two mainstream candidates-- Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney-- declined to participate.
It's no surprise that the feisty Gravel-- who sees nothing wrong with calling Americans fat and stupid-- didn't refrain from giving his opinion. Edwards has been ratcheting up the dialogue surrounding his campaign and portraying himself as the straight-shooter in comparison to Clinton, so that makes sense as well. Dodd's passing marks from PVS should perhaps be the most noteworthy, given his impressive-- though fruitless-- attempts to stand out among the lower-tier candidates as honest and transparent.
During the Oct. 30 democratic debate, right before Clinton gave her fateful, flip-flopping response about Spitzer's proposed license program, Dodd quickly responded that he disagreed with the program. He, quite frankly, seemed like the only candidate really listening and thinking about the question. Next, Dodd announced Wednesday that he had convinced every democratic campaign-- except Richardson's-- to commit to prohibiting staff or out-of-state volunteers from caucusing in Iowa. Now, with this test, he has once again shown true character. Too bad nobody cares.
Richardson's refusal to even participate in the Project Vote Smart test is troubling because, unlike Dodd, his campaign actually has the momentum to go somewhere if he were to step up his game. By standing out as the only democrat not willing to declare his transparency on issues-- and the only democrat not promising to forgo shady caucusing tactics-- he can only lose that momentum. Sure, he just got nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for the fifth time. Yes, that's pretty special. But as MSNBC points out, so did Stalin. Richardson really does seem to be running for VP-- if his campaign is to be for anything else, much more should be expected of him.
All three of those candidates happened to be democratic-- John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel. Two mainstream candidates-- Bill Richardson and Mitt Romney-- declined to participate.
It's no surprise that the feisty Gravel-- who sees nothing wrong with calling Americans fat and stupid-- didn't refrain from giving his opinion. Edwards has been ratcheting up the dialogue surrounding his campaign and portraying himself as the straight-shooter in comparison to Clinton, so that makes sense as well. Dodd's passing marks from PVS should perhaps be the most noteworthy, given his impressive-- though fruitless-- attempts to stand out among the lower-tier candidates as honest and transparent.
During the Oct. 30 democratic debate, right before Clinton gave her fateful, flip-flopping response about Spitzer's proposed license program, Dodd quickly responded that he disagreed with the program. He, quite frankly, seemed like the only candidate really listening and thinking about the question. Next, Dodd announced Wednesday that he had convinced every democratic campaign-- except Richardson's-- to commit to prohibiting staff or out-of-state volunteers from caucusing in Iowa. Now, with this test, he has once again shown true character. Too bad nobody cares.
Richardson's refusal to even participate in the Project Vote Smart test is troubling because, unlike Dodd, his campaign actually has the momentum to go somewhere if he were to step up his game. By standing out as the only democrat not willing to declare his transparency on issues-- and the only democrat not promising to forgo shady caucusing tactics-- he can only lose that momentum. Sure, he just got nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for the fifth time. Yes, that's pretty special. But as MSNBC points out, so did Stalin. Richardson really does seem to be running for VP-- if his campaign is to be for anything else, much more should be expected of him.
Iowa hearts Huckabee
It should come as no surprise that Mike Huckabee is nipping at the heels of Mitt Romney in Iowa, where the latest polls indicate he is just six points behind the republican frontrunner. In a state where speaking to relatively small groups of people in personal settings is the key to success, the former governor's eloquent and affable manner are surely taking him far.
Romney's criticism of Huckabee's plan in Arkansas that gave tuition breaks to children of illegal immigrants seems like a desperate attempt to arouse people's knee-jerk reactions against anything having to do with immigration that doesn't include building a fence. Educating children, regardless of their immigration status, clearly benefits the whole community; unfortunately for Huckabee, many people probably don't see it that way.
Romney will probably have to do a bit better than that if he wants to quell support for the
Arkansas underdog, who is appealing for all the reasons Romney and Giuliani are not. His executive experience is from the south, not the northeast; no one questions his conservative record; and the religious right can have no qualms with a creationist Baptist minister. Plus, how can you not like a guy who lost 100 lbs. and is "Chuck Norris approved"?!
Romney's criticism of Huckabee's plan in Arkansas that gave tuition breaks to children of illegal immigrants seems like a desperate attempt to arouse people's knee-jerk reactions against anything having to do with immigration that doesn't include building a fence. Educating children, regardless of their immigration status, clearly benefits the whole community; unfortunately for Huckabee, many people probably don't see it that way.Romney will probably have to do a bit better than that if he wants to quell support for the
Arkansas underdog, who is appealing for all the reasons Romney and Giuliani are not. His executive experience is from the south, not the northeast; no one questions his conservative record; and the religious right can have no qualms with a creationist Baptist minister. Plus, how can you not like a guy who lost 100 lbs. and is "Chuck Norris approved"?!
Will Obama's stock soar like Google's?
When asked at Google yesterday how Obama supporters could convince their friends to vote for the young senator despite his supposed lack of experience, Barack compared his campaign to Google itself, whose founders started the company in grad school.
"Sergey and Larry didn't have a lot of experience starting a Fortune 100 company," Obama said. "I suppose when they came in and started talking to (Google's current general counsel) Dave Drummond about starting a company, he could have said, 'They don't know what they're doing."
I think this is a great analogy-- not because running the country is all that similar to running a technology company, but because it gets to the heart of a very basic question: What does it take to be a leader? Certainly experience helps, but pointing to the industry and innovation in this country reveals that Americans truly value the notion that anyone should have a chance to prove himself or herself as a leader.
"Sergey and Larry didn't have a lot of experience starting a Fortune 100 company," Obama said. "I suppose when they came in and started talking to (Google's current general counsel) Dave Drummond about starting a company, he could have said, 'They don't know what they're doing."
I think this is a great analogy-- not because running the country is all that similar to running a technology company, but because it gets to the heart of a very basic question: What does it take to be a leader? Certainly experience helps, but pointing to the industry and innovation in this country reveals that Americans truly value the notion that anyone should have a chance to prove himself or herself as a leader.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Spending in all the wrong places
President Bush pulled out his veto pen this morning to remind us all that we can't be worrying about petty things like health or education in the midst of a War on Terror. He vetoed the bipartisan appropriations bill for labor, health and human services, and education on the basis that it would cost too much-- but he was apparently able to let slide what he himself referred to as "some unnecessary spending" in the Pentagon's non-war budget, which he did sign today.
I certainly agree that there is some "unnecessary spending" going on at the Pentagon these days; more surprisingly, I can also find some "overspending" in the health bill as well--though it's small change in the grand scheme of things.
The appropriations bill laid out $141 million for the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program. This actually would have increased spending for abstinence-only programming even though it's been well-documented that such programming is pretty useless. Curiously, in spite of the president's apparent concerns over wasteful spending, his administration restricts federal funds for sex education courses to abstinence-only programs, as the Washington Post points out today. This article reveals how states have had to take matters into their own hands by refusing to take the abstinence-only money; Virginia governor Tim Kaine has made his state the lastest out of 14 to wipe their hands of the wasteful federal funds.
The president needs to embrace a totally new philosophy, in my opinion: Make love, not war-- but use condoms.
I certainly agree that there is some "unnecessary spending" going on at the Pentagon these days; more surprisingly, I can also find some "overspending" in the health bill as well--though it's small change in the grand scheme of things.
The appropriations bill laid out $141 million for the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program. This actually would have increased spending for abstinence-only programming even though it's been well-documented that such programming is pretty useless. Curiously, in spite of the president's apparent concerns over wasteful spending, his administration restricts federal funds for sex education courses to abstinence-only programs, as the Washington Post points out today. This article reveals how states have had to take matters into their own hands by refusing to take the abstinence-only money; Virginia governor Tim Kaine has made his state the lastest out of 14 to wipe their hands of the wasteful federal funds.
The president needs to embrace a totally new philosophy, in my opinion: Make love, not war-- but use condoms.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Those "mannish," "ruthless" women, Hillary and Nancy
I find articles like "The Myth of the Iron Lady" in today's Post, regarding people's perceptions of female leaders, very interesting. It's particularly thought-provoking to me because I still have my reservations about Hillary Clinton-- but as a young female voter, I really, really want to like her.
One female leader that I more confidently can get behind is Nancy Pelosi. I think she is a highly skilled politician capable of balancing the responsibilities she has to her very liberal SF constituency with those she has to the country as Speaker. Could it be that I have an affinity for Ms. Speaker because she's been able to play up her warm persona? After the Democrats' victory in Nov. '06, she mentioned her five children and six grandchildren so many times, I felt like I knew her family better than mine. And then there was the horde of children surrounding her as she was sworn in as Speaker. I rolled my eyes at all this at the time, but maybe it seeped into my psyche.
To go along with this article's use of Wikipedia, it's worth noting that the entry on Clinton is full of references to her "polarizing force" in the subsection about her image; by contrast, Pelosi's entry mentions little about her image. Maybe that just means, based on other female leaders' entries, that people recognize the great potential in Clinton?
One female leader that I more confidently can get behind is Nancy Pelosi. I think she is a highly skilled politician capable of balancing the responsibilities she has to her very liberal SF constituency with those she has to the country as Speaker. Could it be that I have an affinity for Ms. Speaker because she's been able to play up her warm persona? After the Democrats' victory in Nov. '06, she mentioned her five children and six grandchildren so many times, I felt like I knew her family better than mine. And then there was the horde of children surrounding her as she was sworn in as Speaker. I rolled my eyes at all this at the time, but maybe it seeped into my psyche.
To go along with this article's use of Wikipedia, it's worth noting that the entry on Clinton is full of references to her "polarizing force" in the subsection about her image; by contrast, Pelosi's entry mentions little about her image. Maybe that just means, based on other female leaders' entries, that people recognize the great potential in Clinton?
The global warming question: was it worth it?
The story of Hillary Clinton's campaign planting questions with audience members at campaign stops seems mostly noteworthy to me because of the inferences that can be drawn from it-- ranging from the analytical (it will damage voters' perceptions of her) to the more far-flung psychological (I've heard people speak of the "arrogance" of the Clinton campaign).
Certainly, I don't ever want to see politicians pronouncing authenticity where it doesn't exist; but as an isolated incident, having a college student ask a question about global warming isn't going to do much harm. It is not as serious as deceptively ducking from responsibility, like FEMA did with a fake news conference about the California wildfires, and it doesn't even compare-- in terms of scope and enormity of issues addressed-- to the fake news packages produced under the Bush administration.
Because the real story lies in the incident's implications, it is interesting to watch the media's reaction. The New York Times writes a pretty straight account of the incident and mentions toward the end of the article a second alleged time the Clinton campaign tried to plant a question at an Iowa event. The article ends with the Clinton campaign disputing that second story.
FOX News, which first broke the planting story nationally after Grinnell's Scarlet and Black wrote about it, approached the second allegation more aggressively, making the second incident sound more legitimate and the Clinton campaign more deceptive. They also ran this analytical story about the negative impact it could have on her campaign; "rarely has there been as packaged and protected a presidential candidate as Hillary Clinton," they quote Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia, as saying.
LA Times blogger Andrew Malcolm downplays the event, pointing out that "virtually every professional presidential campaign plants questions."
The Des Moines Register's lede today in a story giving John Edwards' response to the affair really packs a punch, which I think is great: "Hillary Clinton's campaign was acting like President Bush's when it recently planted a softball question."
There are certainly a lot of ways to read into this story, including arguing that it's not really a story at all... which makes me wonder why it even happened in the first place. Why would the campaign run the risk of creating such a fuss when the payoff was just three more minutes or so to talk about global warming?
Certainly, I don't ever want to see politicians pronouncing authenticity where it doesn't exist; but as an isolated incident, having a college student ask a question about global warming isn't going to do much harm. It is not as serious as deceptively ducking from responsibility, like FEMA did with a fake news conference about the California wildfires, and it doesn't even compare-- in terms of scope and enormity of issues addressed-- to the fake news packages produced under the Bush administration.
Because the real story lies in the incident's implications, it is interesting to watch the media's reaction. The New York Times writes a pretty straight account of the incident and mentions toward the end of the article a second alleged time the Clinton campaign tried to plant a question at an Iowa event. The article ends with the Clinton campaign disputing that second story.
FOX News, which first broke the planting story nationally after Grinnell's Scarlet and Black wrote about it, approached the second allegation more aggressively, making the second incident sound more legitimate and the Clinton campaign more deceptive. They also ran this analytical story about the negative impact it could have on her campaign; "rarely has there been as packaged and protected a presidential candidate as Hillary Clinton," they quote Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia, as saying.
LA Times blogger Andrew Malcolm downplays the event, pointing out that "virtually every professional presidential campaign plants questions."
The Des Moines Register's lede today in a story giving John Edwards' response to the affair really packs a punch, which I think is great: "Hillary Clinton's campaign was acting like President Bush's when it recently planted a softball question."
There are certainly a lot of ways to read into this story, including arguing that it's not really a story at all... which makes me wonder why it even happened in the first place. Why would the campaign run the risk of creating such a fuss when the payoff was just three more minutes or so to talk about global warming?
Friday, November 09, 2007
Can Congress redeem itself?
By approving Michael Mukasey as attorney general last night, the Senate confirmed that they lack the ability to take a principled stance on an important, fairly black-and-white issue like torture (I call it black-and-white since most Americans, along with military personnel, don't have any doubt waterboarding is torture). Their lack of moral compass is sad and disheartening; their lack of political sense is simply puzzling.
Chuck Schumer's NYTimes op-ed explaining why he voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring Mukasey's confirmation to the full Senate had its merits-- it's true that the threat of an interim AG was a serious one. Whether Mukasey was confirmed or not, it looked like a lose-lose situation for the American people and for Congress. But by confirming Mukasey, we now not only have an AG whose ability to put an end to torture by our government is suspect, but the Democrats have also thrown away a great deal of political capital to a lame duck president.
This foolish move seems to be following a trend: Democrats' repeatedly dismal attempts to curtail the war make their political gains of last year seem undeserved. Republicans have bafflingly chosen to make the most noncontroversial of issues-- children's healthcare-- into a wedge issue by refusing to support SCHIP. It is no wonder Congress' approval ratings are so low.
If the Congress wants to redeem itself, and show it has any sort of moral compass or political fortitude, it has a few opportunities immediately in front of it. The first would be to reform the alternative minimum tax, in a manner that can survive the president's veto. The second would be stop confirming the president's morally dubious appointments; Mukasey got through, but others such as Julie Myers don't need to. Her display of racial insensitivity is totally inappropriate for someone in charge of immigration and customs enforcement, and given ICE's questionable recent history, the organization clearly needs better leadership than that.
Hopefully our representatives in Washington will realize that standing up to the president, big business, etc., is not only in the nation's best interest, but in their best interests as well.
Chuck Schumer's NYTimes op-ed explaining why he voted in the Senate Judiciary Committee to bring Mukasey's confirmation to the full Senate had its merits-- it's true that the threat of an interim AG was a serious one. Whether Mukasey was confirmed or not, it looked like a lose-lose situation for the American people and for Congress. But by confirming Mukasey, we now not only have an AG whose ability to put an end to torture by our government is suspect, but the Democrats have also thrown away a great deal of political capital to a lame duck president.
This foolish move seems to be following a trend: Democrats' repeatedly dismal attempts to curtail the war make their political gains of last year seem undeserved. Republicans have bafflingly chosen to make the most noncontroversial of issues-- children's healthcare-- into a wedge issue by refusing to support SCHIP. It is no wonder Congress' approval ratings are so low.
If the Congress wants to redeem itself, and show it has any sort of moral compass or political fortitude, it has a few opportunities immediately in front of it. The first would be to reform the alternative minimum tax, in a manner that can survive the president's veto. The second would be stop confirming the president's morally dubious appointments; Mukasey got through, but others such as Julie Myers don't need to. Her display of racial insensitivity is totally inappropriate for someone in charge of immigration and customs enforcement, and given ICE's questionable recent history, the organization clearly needs better leadership than that.
Hopefully our representatives in Washington will realize that standing up to the president, big business, etc., is not only in the nation's best interest, but in their best interests as well.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Ron Paul: The Samuel L. of Politics?
I got pretty excited reading the news yesterday about Ron Paul's tremendous feat of raising more than $4 million in the span of one day. With a campaign that has amassed such a rabid following-- to the surprise and chagrin of many-- Ron Paul could very well create some interesting twists in the Republican race.Sadly, his campaign may not amount to much besides impressive fundraising and clever slogans. It just seems all-too hipster to me.
For those unfamiliar with hipster culture (or those too hipster to admit it), UrbanDictionary.com provides some useful descriptions: "Listens to bands that you have never heard of. Has hairstyle that can only be described as 'complicated'... Definitely cooler than you... Complains."
For a young crowd that likes to complain about the establishment with an air of superiority and relishes any opportunity to embrace the obscure, there is no better candidate than Ron Paul.
This is not to say that Ron Paul should be immediately dismissed-- the defiant, idealistic nature of his campaign could be inspirational for any age group. However, the Internet-based, more-than-slightly quirky character of his support network has all the telltale signs of a hipster fad. His ingenious "Ron Paul rEVOLution" slogan is the platonic ideal of hipster-ism. (Does it even mean anything? Is it supposed to be funny? Whatever, we're all for love and for revolutions...) The slogan works for this crowd because main tenant of hipster-ism is irony. Remember all the hype behind the movie "Snakes on a Plane?" Young people gushed over it online because it was so ridiculous-- and then didn't bother to actually go see the movie. Similarly, the wanton abandon behind Ron Paul's support may simply be fueled by the belief that he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination, much less the general election. If that's the case, he comes acros as just a side-show, and there's no point in paying him any attention.
But the fact that so many people were willing to put actual money on him-- on Monday alone-- suggests that the Ron Paul campaign is more than just a hipster fad. It will be interesting to see how all this Ron Paul support shapes the dialogue of the race. He may not win the race, but his goals of ending the war and instituting extreme government reforms are likely here to stay. Frontrunners, take note.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Immigration Schmimmigration!
Please excuse that horrible post title-- I am on the road, in a Motel 8 in the middle of Nebraska, and a little weary. In any event, I have to comment on all the hullaballoo surrounding the recent yet not surprising emergence of immigration as a "wedge" issue in the election. I agree that this issue is problematic for Democrats; however, I do not think it's as big of a deal as some make it out to be.
Republicans will almost certainly be able to skillfully utilize the issue of immigration as a diversion from topics such as the war, the economy, etc. once the general election campaigning is under way. I do not think it is as complicated an issue for Democrats during the primaries, however. E.J. Dionne said in yesterday's Post that "the issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration -- including a share of the African American community -- threaten to undercut the Democrats' large and growing advantage among Latino voters." I do not think the candidates need to appease voters "upset" about immgration. Here's why: for groups like African Americans who are arguably only tangentally affected by immigration (at least in comparison to Latino voters), it is not going to be a critical issue. The Democratic candidates should be able to have progressive stances on immigration and maintain their support among groups like African Americans because of their positions on other topics.
Dionne cites a study-- being repeatedly cited in the media-- that says most people think our country is "going in the wrong direction" because "our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing." I think this response was the most popular simply because of the wording. In my opinion, suggesting that "our borders have been left unprotected" is a little extreme. This poll may not be the best way to gage the importance of the issue of immigration to voters.
So basically, immigration will mostly become a critical issue later on down the road, but for now, it looks like a bunch of media hype to me.
Republicans will almost certainly be able to skillfully utilize the issue of immigration as a diversion from topics such as the war, the economy, etc. once the general election campaigning is under way. I do not think it is as complicated an issue for Democrats during the primaries, however. E.J. Dionne said in yesterday's Post that "the issue is especially problematic because efforts to appease voters upset about immigration -- including a share of the African American community -- threaten to undercut the Democrats' large and growing advantage among Latino voters." I do not think the candidates need to appease voters "upset" about immgration. Here's why: for groups like African Americans who are arguably only tangentally affected by immigration (at least in comparison to Latino voters), it is not going to be a critical issue. The Democratic candidates should be able to have progressive stances on immigration and maintain their support among groups like African Americans because of their positions on other topics.
Dionne cites a study-- being repeatedly cited in the media-- that says most people think our country is "going in the wrong direction" because "our borders have been left unprotected and illegal immigration is growing." I think this response was the most popular simply because of the wording. In my opinion, suggesting that "our borders have been left unprotected" is a little extreme. This poll may not be the best way to gage the importance of the issue of immigration to voters.
So basically, immigration will mostly become a critical issue later on down the road, but for now, it looks like a bunch of media hype to me.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Back! And Better!
I am back in full force! After a month hiatus, during which I traveled to Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Colombia, and then drove from Philadelphia to San Jose, across the flattest states in the union.
And what constitutes the "better" part of this blog entry's title? My blog entries posted here will be initially featured on PoliticalBase.com, where I am currently a contributing blogger, among other things.
And what constitutes the "better" part of this blog entry's title? My blog entries posted here will be initially featured on PoliticalBase.com, where I am currently a contributing blogger, among other things.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The happiness gap: During debates, my dominant emotions are negative
This is going to hurt to say, but.... I think I actually *agree* with Chris Matthews.
In tonight's democratic debate on MSNBC, Hillary Clinton's attempts to avoid making any statements that could offend potentially any part of the democratic party-- and what's more, statements that could offend anyone of any party-- only reinforced what I consider to be some of the strongest criticisms against her.
Clinton held a commanding presence on the stage, but her evasiveness made her seem insincere and too similar to republicans.
With regard the latter issue, John Edwards skillfully insinuated that with Clinton as the democratic nominee, there would be little difference in next year's presidential election between what either party had to offer in terms of policy on Iraq. I am not sure yet how I feel about Clinton's strategy for the Iraq war, but Edwards' point at least seemed worth noting.
As for her insincerity, I was miffed that would not even give an opinion as to whether the Clinton Foundation's donors should be made public. She appeared to be incapable of answering any question without consulting her pollsters and strategists, even questions that could be called tangentially significant at best.
More seriously, she was obstinately silent on the topic of social security and on Tim Russert's very viable hypothetical involving Israel and Iran.
Clinton's refusal to answer questions bothered me for this reason: at such a critical juncture in the country's history, the last thing we need is a president who is willing to keep the American people in the dark for political gain.
More than ever, I am simply looking for a candidate at this point that I believe I can trust. I have never been one to put more stock in "character" than in a candidate's stance on the issues, but the Bush administration has certainly shown the devastation that can come out of dishonesty. I am not calling Clinton dishonest-- yet; I simply wish she were more forthcoming with her opinions.
All that said, I have not made up my mind about Clinton, or any of the candidates, really. There's plenty of time before the primaries for Hillary to 'fess up as to how she'd actually run the country. And while she might offend some people with her answers, she could very well win me over.
In tonight's democratic debate on MSNBC, Hillary Clinton's attempts to avoid making any statements that could offend potentially any part of the democratic party-- and what's more, statements that could offend anyone of any party-- only reinforced what I consider to be some of the strongest criticisms against her.
Clinton held a commanding presence on the stage, but her evasiveness made her seem insincere and too similar to republicans.
With regard the latter issue, John Edwards skillfully insinuated that with Clinton as the democratic nominee, there would be little difference in next year's presidential election between what either party had to offer in terms of policy on Iraq. I am not sure yet how I feel about Clinton's strategy for the Iraq war, but Edwards' point at least seemed worth noting.
As for her insincerity, I was miffed that would not even give an opinion as to whether the Clinton Foundation's donors should be made public. She appeared to be incapable of answering any question without consulting her pollsters and strategists, even questions that could be called tangentially significant at best.
More seriously, she was obstinately silent on the topic of social security and on Tim Russert's very viable hypothetical involving Israel and Iran.
Clinton's refusal to answer questions bothered me for this reason: at such a critical juncture in the country's history, the last thing we need is a president who is willing to keep the American people in the dark for political gain.
More than ever, I am simply looking for a candidate at this point that I believe I can trust. I have never been one to put more stock in "character" than in a candidate's stance on the issues, but the Bush administration has certainly shown the devastation that can come out of dishonesty. I am not calling Clinton dishonest-- yet; I simply wish she were more forthcoming with her opinions.
When Clinton introduced her health care plan last week, I was impressed. It appears to be a well-crafted, viable plan, and its unveiling raised my hopes that Clinton could accomplish great things as president. As she resorted to calculated, vague statements tonight, however, my cynicism was roused.
All that said, I have not made up my mind about Clinton, or any of the candidates, really. There's plenty of time before the primaries for Hillary to 'fess up as to how she'd actually run the country. And while she might offend some people with her answers, she could very well win me over.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
War on Terror Over-- Kanye Wins!
This is old news by now, but I'd like to point out that Kanye West won the War on Terror for us. It should come as no surprise that West, the only American straight-up balla enough to say on national television what everyone else was thinking-- "George Bush doesn't care about black people"-- has led us to victory over the fundamentalist ideologues attempting to overwhelm the American psyche. Props to West for remaining hardcore thug in front of the terrorists while keeping his fresh-to-death, high-end preppie style. 
The sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks passed this month amid a flurry of events that would concern any red-blooded American: Congress extracted tense testimonials about the Iraq war from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the President rebuffed his detractors in a live address to the nation, and the elusive Osama bin Laden released another video (apparently after a nice trip to his neighborhood Pashtun salon).
The sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks passed this month amid a flurry of events that would concern any red-blooded American: Congress extracted tense testimonials about the Iraq war from Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the President rebuffed his detractors in a live address to the nation, and the elusive Osama bin Laden released another video (apparently after a nice trip to his neighborhood Pashtun salon).But the terrorists don't seem to be winning this war to control the hearts and minds of Americans-- a New York Times/CBS poll conducted the first week of September shows that for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, there are as many Americans who think an imminent attack on U.S. soil is not likely as there are who think an attack is likely.
Yet while bin Laden's tape may not have elicited that much fear, President Bush didn't seem to pique much interest with his address to the nation, either. According to Nielsen Media Research, President Bush's Sept. 13 speech drew in 28.8 million viewers. This sounds like a lot (at least to me, anyways), but it is a paltry number compared to the 42.4 million who tuned in to watch Bush propose a troop surge in Iraq on Jan. 10. Furthermore, on CBS-- which had the highest number of viewers watching the speech, at 6.9 million-- the speech was just about the least popular program of the night. 8.8 million people decided to watch an episode of Big Brother 8, which was on before the speech, and 9.12 million people tuned in after the speech to watch part of a rerun of CSI and a rerun of Without a Trace. Hmm.
So if people weren't too concerned with Osama bin Laden or President Bush on Sept. 11, who were they interested in listening to? KANYE WEST. In a true showdown between two American heavyweights, Kanye West and 50 Cent both dropped their albums on Sept. 11, to see who could garner the highest record sales and thereby prove themselves the better MC (let's forget about proving that by, sayyy, rapping). Kanye had knockout sales reaching nearly one million. On top of that, 1.3 million viewers watched a Sept. 11 showdown between West and 50 on BET's 106 & Park. That is a considerable number for a cable network; it is 89 percent higher than the channel's average viewership on Tuesdays this season so far.
So if people weren't too concerned with Osama bin Laden or President Bush on Sept. 11, who were they interested in listening to? KANYE WEST. In a true showdown between two American heavyweights, Kanye West and 50 Cent both dropped their albums on Sept. 11, to see who could garner the highest record sales and thereby prove themselves the better MC (let's forget about proving that by, sayyy, rapping). Kanye had knockout sales reaching nearly one million. On top of that, 1.3 million viewers watched a Sept. 11 showdown between West and 50 on BET's 106 & Park. That is a considerable number for a cable network; it is 89 percent higher than the channel's average viewership on Tuesdays this season so far.
With all of this in mind, one can only reach the conclusion that Kanye West now has a more powerful grip over American life than the president or the terrorists. Congratulations, Kanye, and thank you for making us forget about the terrorists.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
All this Fed stuff can get confusing...
I think I may want to read Furby's book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, after watching him on The Daily Show tonight. After Jon Stewart asked him why the Fed seemingly rewards the large investments of the wealthy over the modest savings of the working class when it lowers interest rates, Greenspan retorted the comedia
n should read his book again. It seemed like a good question to me, and it sounded like I could get a good answer from the book. Based on Furby's simple and articulate talking points during the rest of their discussion, his book may actually be pretty enlightening. A lot more, anyways, than watching "The Briefcase Indicator" on CNBC, an old favorite of my mom's back in the day.Tuesday, September 11, 2007
NO ONE in Baghdad thinks the surge was beneficial.
MoveOn.org is in full force this week, having sponsored a highly contentious full-page ad in The New York Times calling General David Petraeus "General Betray us."Of course, the nutty protestors who made their way into today's congressional hearings, featuring the general and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, took quite a liking to the nickname.I appreciate MoveOn's ability to mobilize ordinary, progressive citizens, but I find this particular ad counter-productive. General Petraeus is well-respected by both political parties, as evidenced by the Senate's unanimous approval of his tenure as leading commander in Iraq. Resorting to name-calling and placing blame on any number of individuals is not going to solve anything at this point. Perhaps it could have before we were so deeply entrenched in Iraq, but at this point, it seems clear that Petraeus is doing whatever he can to simply keep us above water.
MoveOn should focus more on the facts-- information that no one can dispute and that makes it clear that drastic change is needed. The organization highlighted in an email today a factoid from a new ABC News Poll that I think should be getting more coverage: NOT ONE Baghdad resident who was polled thinks the surge has worked. The poll presented a number of dismal findings, but this completely consensual response from every living person from Baghdad (who was polled, of course) really blew me away. Here is the direct text from the report:
Every respondent in Baghdad, and also in Anbar (where George W. Bush paid a surprise
visit to a sprawling U.S. base last week), says the surge has made security worse now
than it was six months ago (anti-U.S. sentiment in these areas is very high, and likely a
factor in these direct assessments). Views in the rest of the country are hardly positive:
Outside Baghdad and Anbar, still just 26 percent say the surge has improved security.
What a tragedy that on this sobering anniversary we face such bleak news.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Pics: Condos!
Sunday, August 26, 2007
All these empty buildings
I happen to be in South Florida right now and took a drive through Miami just the other day. I was stunned at how many high rises were in construction. There have to be thousands of unfinished condos in downtown Miami. I can't imagine what will happen to those buildings if their developers meet the same fate as the partners of the Savoy Hotel and face foreclosure. The Savoy Hotel, a landmark with a guitar-shaped pool that sits on prime beachfront property on Ocean Ave., was in the process of being converted into luxury condominiums and condo hotels. The developers ultimately could not convince banks that the project was worth financing, and now the project is shut down. One of the lenders, BankFirst Corporation, is suing for $4.7 million.
It's also being reported today that median housing prices in the U.S. will probably fall this year for the first time in 50 years. Surely, if a famous luxury building literally on the sands of South Beach cannot withstand the market downturn and convince bankers that it is worthy of a loan, the high-rise condos that only face the polluted Miami river will not fare any better. What will happen to those buildings?? Will they be left unfinished??
I will try and take pictures when I am back in Miami on Tuesday to document the crazy number of half-finished buildings.
It's also being reported today that median housing prices in the U.S. will probably fall this year for the first time in 50 years. Surely, if a famous luxury building literally on the sands of South Beach cannot withstand the market downturn and convince bankers that it is worthy of a loan, the high-rise condos that only face the polluted Miami river will not fare any better. What will happen to those buildings?? Will they be left unfinished??
I will try and take pictures when I am back in Miami on Tuesday to document the crazy number of half-finished buildings.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
YouTube + the enterainment industry = BFF
So Google is attempting to make YouTube profitable with ads that overlay video content on the bottom of the screen for a short period. Upon first reading about this form of advertisement, I was skeptical; I absolutely hate the moving pop-up ads that appear at the bottom-right corner of the screen on some channels, promoting programs other than the one you're watching.
On the other hand, it is at least reassuring that it will only appear on content created by media companies that have licensed their videos to YouTube. Putting ads on Viewer Created Content (VC2) would be practically sacreligious. I'm pretty sure YouTube would not only lose its legitimacy with amateur content creators that way, but also with most viewers.Additionally, as mentioned in the NYTimes article (linked to the Title of this blog entry), this will hopefully convince more media companies to partner with YouTube to show their content. The populist nature of YouTube makes it the perfect medium with which to create buzz for programming. I think it's silly that there are people/companies who think that providing content online will cut away from regular viewership; I know I only get sucked into wanting to watch TV shows on a regular basis after watching them online, on DVD, or in any other format. It blows my mind that so many in the media business, whether it's television, print news, or whatever, seem so afraid of the Internet.
Andrew Keen, who was on the Colbert Report recently, is one of the idiots perpetuating the idea that the Internet is bad for art, culture, etc. As someone trying to make a living as a writer, I should be more sympathetic to that view than anyone. But he's not seeing the forest for the trees. He says Colbert is losing money from his show airing on YouTube; he also says he knows more about the Internet than Colbert. Both claims are ridiculous. Clearly, Stephen Colbert has harnessed the power of the Internet to promote his show and his right-wing persona better than any other celebrity. Just take, for instance, the fact that Colbert's speech at the White House Corresondent's Dinner was a No. 1 hit on iTunes, or that he single-handedly changed the population status of the African elephant on Wikipedia. His viewers have made him a sensation on the Internet, and more than likely, that has come full circle to earn him more viewership.
The point is, I think Andrew Keen is absolutely wrong about everything he says during this interview and that increased partnership between media companies and YouTube would be good for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)