THE CONCH

2003-11-02T15:24:00.000-07:00

NEW BLOG

Check out the new Conch...

The Conch

New URL - theconch.typepad.com

2003-10-27T09:21:00.000-07:00

I'm working on a new home for The Conch, which should be ready for action in a few weeks or less. If you'd like to know when the new site's ready, email me at conch_email@yahoo.com.

Until then, I highly recommend the blogs on my links list. Take care.

2003-10-24T12:57:00.000-06:00

Breaking Through Stereotypes

Sorry for the lack of posts this week. Next week will be back to normal.

A new poll released by Zogby of the New Hampshire primary race shows Dean pulling away. A Dean win in New Hampshire of this magnitude would help break the stereotype that he's the left-wing's true believer candidate.

500 likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters were polled. MOE is +/- 4.5%
Dean 40
Kerry 17
Clark 6
Edwards 6
Gephardt 4
Lieberman 3

- Interesting that this lead is so huge, and according to the Zogby poll it's huge among moderates, liberals, union and non-union households, women, men... Zogby calls it a "juggernaut".

- Also interesting that Edwards and Clark may have overtaken Gephardt and Lieberman as the two fighting for 3rd place. This could have serious ramifications for the February 3rd races that will Clark, Edwards, and Lieberman are pinning their hopes on.

But this most important thing...
57% of primary voters say Democrats should nominate somebody with a Clintonesque ideology, while 24% say Democrats should nominate somebody more liberal. This means that Dean is breaking through the stereotype of being a liberal's liberal. New Hampshire voters have seen more of him than anybody, and they realize he's not. A huge win in New Hampshire could unify the party behind Dean by bringing moderate and liberal voters together. This would make things really tough for those pinning their hopes on February 3 primaries. As a GOP strategist recently said, the rest of the guys are trying to be the stop-Dean candidate after Dean may be completely unstoppable. Not a good situation.

2003-10-23T15:25:00.000-06:00

There is a God

Pop-up ad pusher X10 files for bankruptcy

The notorious Internet pop-up ads of scantily clad women being viewed from miniature wireless cameras might be gone forever.

X10 Wireless Technology, which sells the cameras mainly through the Internet, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Tuesday in U.S. District Court, seeking a voluntary reorganization.

2003-10-22T00:56:00.000-06:00

Washington Times: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia in Secret Nuclear Pact

It's clear why this makes sense for both parties. Saudi Arabia seems to perceive the need for a deterrant against Iran and Israel. Pakistan gets cheap-oil and remains more economically competitive with nuclear-rival India.

Here's the article.

2003-10-21T23:31:00.000-06:00

Plans for Peace

It's easy to become cynical when analyzing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I strongly believe peace in the region is achieveable with the strong leadership from the US or another third party in mediating the dispute.

I'm not the only dreamer. In this month's American Conservative, Israel Policy Forum scholar Stephen L. Spiegel lays out a convincing rescue plan for the "road map". There are a few interesting things I'd like to touch on.

Spiegel places the blame for the failure of the "road map" squarely on the shoulders of President Bush. President Bush might have paid lip service to the road map and the recently departed Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, but didn't direct enough action in support of either to ensure success. Spiegel explains:

Under Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), for the first time there was a Palestinian Authority that genuinely sought to control the violence, but the experiment failed because of a weak prime minister who could not do the job alone because the Israelis remained skeptical that he could produce (whether they were correct or engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy is a matter of conjecture), and because the U.S.—having promised to help, did little to make sure Abu Mazen would survive. President Bush’s road map will never succeed if he treats every Palestinian prime minister with verbal support and little else.

Perhaps the most important element needed in an American effort to work for peace in Palestine is simply engagement. The Nixon, Carter and Clinton administrations were able to make progress in the conflict because they were willing to work with both sides tirelessly. President Bush virtually ignored the conflict until very recently, and hasn't done much more than say a few stern words here and there. I think it's worth nothing that every major Democratic contender has pledged to make more of a commitment to the region than President Bush has.

A key facet of Spiegel's road map is the strengthening of Palestinian security forces. This is essential because it corrects one of the great paradoxes of Israeli policy. The Likud government has consistently demanded that the Palestinian security forces do a better job of fighting terror, even though the Likud government has been partially responsible for effectively neutering those same security forces. Spiegel says this kind of commitment might not be enough, and says at that point foreign troops should be considered.

This approach should be pursued in two stages. In the first, the training of security forces under the control of the prime minister and his cabinet must be accelerated. Today Arafat has reasserted his control over the various Palestinian security forces; even before Abu Mazen fell, he had little flexibility because Arafat controlled 75 percent of the security apparatus.... This will be difficult, because, as we saw under Abu Mazen, the moderates are caught between the terror and Arafat’s prevention of effective steps to end it.

Therefore, if this more subdued method proved insufficient, and it probably would, then actual troops from outside must be deployed. With the approval of Israel, it is far better to have forces such as the Egyptians, Jordanians, or Turks, or perhaps Canadians, Australians, or British assisting the Palestinian prime minister than it would be to slide back into chaos.

I'm glad to see somebody calling for a more interventionist approach. It's something I've thought was necessary for a while, but nobody seems willing to commit to it. (The article mentions that maverick GOP Senator Richard Lugar has also called for a NATO security force. Props to him.) Solving the conflict will do more to further the cause of international peace and security than anything else. Every country in the world would benefit, so I wouldn't imagine that with US leadership there'd be too much opposition to contributing to a security force.

Now all we need is an exit strategy for Iraq that won't leave the country in shambles, so our military can regain the flexibility needed to address crises around the globe.

2003-10-21T11:53:00.000-06:00

On a mission from God...

The Boston Globe reported that presidential candidate John Kerry says his favorite movies are The Blues Brothers and Animal House. (Thanks to Political Wire.) Can't you just picture cool cat John Kerry sportin' some Belucci shades and a somersaulting down the aisle in a Baptist church? I know I can!

2003-10-20T23:57:00.000-06:00

Edwards' Message: Wealth vs. Work

This is the first of a 3-part series I'm going to write highlighting the most appealing facets of the messages and campaigns of the three Democrats tugging my political heart in different directions. Next up: Howard Dean.

The difference between George Bush and John Edwards is, while he honors and respects only wealth, I honor and respect hard work. I honor and respect responsibility. I believe in opportunity. He's about building barriers and closing doors; I'm about exactly the opposite. I want to knock barriers down. I want to open doors.
...

What we believe is that wherever you live and whoever your family is, and whatever the color of your skin is, if you're willing to work hard, if you're willing to take responsibility, you ought to be able to go as far as your God-given talents and hard work will take you.

- John Edwards

Earlier today I lamented John Edwards' terrible showing in the first poll I've seen out of Arizona. Edwards has crept into the mix in Iowa and has a solid lead in South Carolina, to be expected considering that he's from North Carolina and has spent TV money in both states. But the reason I'm so surprised he hasn't caught on is because his economic message is the best in the race. It really speaks to my heart more than any other argument offered by any other candidate in the race. It's dead-on what I meant when I tried to explain to a conservative friend of mine why George Bush's values are so suspect. Edwards believes that any American willing to work hard and obey the law should have an equal chance at success as anybody else. Surprisingly, conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks noticed it, giving Edwards some of the most national media exposure he's had, in today's column.

His campaign is based on the argument that the Democrats need to nominate a person from Middle America, not from the coastal educated class. "My campaign is a different Democratic campaign," Edwards said in his announcement speech. "Not only will I run for the real America, I will run in the real America. . . . Democrats too often act like rural America is just someplace to fly over between a fund-raiser in Manhattan and a fund-raiser in Beverly Hills."

Edwards draws an implicit contrast between himself and Howard Dean and John Kerry by pointing out that he worked for everything he has. He loaded trucks to pay for college. "It didn't hurt me at all," he says.

He draws an explicit contrast with George Bush, arguing that the Bush administration rewards wealth and punishes work. This is not about economics, he says; it's about values. The Bush administration disrespects working Americans. It lowers taxes for people who sit around the pool and collect capital gains, while shifting the burden to people who wake up early, work hard and hope to get rich.

Edwards can make this argument because of his background. As he'll tell you any time he gets the chance, his father worked in a mill and taught him to value hard work. He put himself through college and law school by working... how many college students with part-time jobs visit this blog? You should understand John Edwards. He understands you. Contrasted with the background of President Bush, whose father got him into Yale, this is a convincing and powerful argument.

President Bush hasn't helped himself by this type of argument by his policy decisions. The most outrageous was his attempt to make 8 million less people eligible for overtime. Luckily, a few Republicans in the Senate had enough backbone and moral decency to vote against the President and stall the change.

Edwards weaves almost every major policy idea he has into the framework of his message. It is clear he believes government should provide people the tools that they need to succeed, and that right now there are too many barriers in the way of success for hard-working, honest Americans. Here are a few of my favorite ideas, that are simple and make sense:

- Guaranteeing the first year of college free for any student willing to work part-time during school.
- Allocating more money to pay teachers who accept assignments in troubled school districts.
- Offering a $5,000 matching tax credit to help cover a down payment on a family's first home.
- Raising the mininum wage; his website says he supports at least a $1.50 an hour increase in the federal minimum wage, currently $5.15/hr.

Most Americans couldn't care less about political party affiliation, but most Americans could use a helping hand in buying a new home, or working themselves through college. Perhaps more importantly, all Americans could use a government that values and rewards hard work and responsibility, instead of just preexisting wealth.

Edwards supports cracking down on corporate criminals and ending unnecessary loopholes that give money to huge corporations and allow them to do things like move their headquarters to Bermuda to avoid paying taxes. Practices like these have been ignored and even encouraged by the Bush administration. They're not compatible with the basic American values of honesty, hard work, and responsibility, and they need to be put to an end. They will be put to an end in an Edwards presidency.

Brooks' column is essentially about why the Democrats have slid into political oblivion. Brooks seems to think Edwards is the one Democrat whose message can resonate.

Except for Bill Clinton, Democrats have nominated presidential candidates who try to figure out Middle American values by reading the polls, instead of feeling them in their gut. If they do it again, the long, slow slide will continue.

I'm not sure Bill Clinton was such a genuine guy, and I don't think Edwards is the only candidate who speaks to Middle America. Gephardt clearly does, and a case could be made that Dean has tapped into how voters are feeling better than anybody so far. Clark can still prove himself. But Edwards is the candidate, more than any other, whose populist economic message speaks to me.

2003-10-20T17:24:00.000-06:00

Dean Leads in Arizona

540 registered voters were polled Oct. 9-16. MOE is 4.3%.

Dean 32
Clark 24
Kerry 15
Lieberman 15
Gephardt 8
Sharpton 4
Edwards 1
Braun 1
Kucinich 0

Arizona is one of the six primaries on February 3rd. Gephardt and Dean will likely have emerged victorious from Iowa and New Hampshire. These six states are especially important to the three candidates (Clark, Edwards, Lieberman) who have decided to focus on them because they can't compete in Iowa and New Hampshire.

This is good news for Clark, but he needs to win an early state, not just finish second. Arizona might be his best chance.

Poor Edwards. He has the best economic message in the race, and I don't understand why he isn't catching on outside of South Carolina, and to a lesser extent, Iowa. His dad was a millworker, fer cryin' out loud!

Lieberman's numbers will only drop. He should drop out, and future prospective candidates should take notice of the fact that dissing Democrats every day is a bad way to get the Democratic nomination.

2003-10-20T17:04:00.000-06:00

Collateral Damage is Not Okay

Israeli Airstrikes In Gaza Kill 11

...The deadliest attack came after nightfall in the Nusseirat refugee camp in central Gaza. Residents said Israeli helicopters fired three missiles at the main street, destroying a car.

Residents said one of the dead was a doctor who was treating victims when a second missile struck. The identity of the other victims was not immediately known, and the military did not comment.

Hundreds of camp residents carried charred pieces of the vehicle aloft and chanted, "Revenge, revenge."

If action against terrorists kills doctors and wounds schoolchildren, making hundreds more people want to support the terrorists, is the action effective?

2003-10-19T21:42:00.000-06:00

This blog is a "free-speech area"

Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? Unfortunately, there's no denying that in today's America, expressing opinions contrary to the agenda of the ruling party is strongly discouraged. Here's some evidence.

Keeping Dissent Invisible

Andrew Wimmer, another member of the Instead of War Coalition, says he was offered a similar explanation last January in St. Louis when he attempted to unfurl a sign reading "Instead of War, Invest in People" on a street full of Bush supporters. According to Wimmer, St. Louis police officers told him he'd have to leave a street full of Bush supporters and go to a protest area two blocks from the presidential motorcade route because of his protest sign. He recalls that as crowds of people walked down a thoroughfare toward the trading company that President Bush was slated to visit, "local police were pulling out people carrying protest signs and directing them to the protest area." The 48-year-old IT worker says, "When they got to me, I said no, I'd just as soon stand with the people here. But they said the Secret Service wanted protesters in the protest area."

In the end, Wimmer, like Ramsey and others who have refused to be caged during protests, was arrested. "They charged me with obstructing passage with my sign, which was a 2.5-foot-by-2-foot lawn sign," he says, noting that a woman standing nearby with a similar-size sign saying "We love you Mr. President," was left alone.

The article, in Salon, details how protesters at presidential events not only have to be far away, they have to be out of sight, in designated "free-speech areas." With all due respect to the safety concerns involved in organizing a presidential event, a fair representation of opinion should be allowed.

Last spring I sat with a few friends in a dining area on my campus, discussing some ridiculous thing Ariel Sharon had just done, when I heard somebody behind me mutter "unamerican" just loud enough for me to hear. This was a transformational moment for me. Previously, I'd been a person content to stay in the background and do the important work people didn't get as much credit for. I had opinions, but usually was content to keep them to myself and let other people do the debating. I got up quickly and confronted the misguided neocon behind me. I'd heard stories of war protestors being heckled, and I'd even heard conservative news magazines say that the protestors were giving encouragement to the enemy and endangering the lives of our troops, but I never really gave much credence to the idea that this might be a widespread phenomenon. I was angry. After all, how could anybody not understand that free speech in America means tolerating dissenting opinions more than anything else? How could anybody not remember that it was dissenters with the courage to stand up to authority that drafted our Constitution and rescued the 13 colonies from tyrannical, imperial oppression to create the most freedom-loving country in world history? It seemed to me that forgetting this primary American value was, if anything, an "unamerican" act.

The reason for so many conservatives across the country having a visceral reaction to anti-war protesters and middle-of-the-road critics is because the GOP has encouraged it. Right-wing talk show hosts organize rallies to protest protesters. Members of the Bush administration went on talk shows and said Democrats who questioned the cost or execution of the war were giving comfort to the enemy. This enraged me more than anything the Bush administration has done. Why should I take it when the Secretary of Defense goes on national television and calls me a traitor? Why should anybody take it when they are told they can't be seen expressing their opinion? It's time to make America a "free-speech area" again.

We are not a country that manipulates facts, ignores debate, and stifles dissent. We are not a country that retaliates against people who criticize the government. We are not a country that disdains our friends and allies. We are not a country that sheds blood before every other option has been exhausted. And we can't have a government that stands for any of these things.... Debate, dialogue, discussion, disagreement, dissent - that's not wrong - that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it.

- Wesley Clark

2003-10-19T18:27:00.000-06:00

Why outsourcing's a bad thing

Kayne at Pleasing to Remember, an excellent local blog out of suburban Seattle, did a fantastic job explaining why outsourcing jobs really doesn't help Americans or American companies.

Read his post here.

Also note the new links sections on the sidebar of this page. The Conch now features links to college newspapers and locally focused blogs. I'm going to link to the college newspapers of any college's domain name that shows up as a visitor to The Conch more than a few times.

2003-10-19T01:13:00.000-06:00

Now this is what I was talking about...

Remember all that ruckus between Lobowalk and The Conch? (See below.) I was accused of excusing terrorism for demanding Israel take actions to reduce popular support for terrorists in the occupied territories, or at least cease action that has the opposite effect. This juicy little nugget from Howard Dean shows somebody is thinking like I am.

This vision requires sacrifice and commitment on both sides. The Palestinian leadership will have to make the fundamental decision to abandon violence and enforces this policy by dismantling terrorist infrastructure.

At the same time, Israel should do all it can to alleviate Palestinian suffering through easing conditions in the territories, and ultimately through spurring economic development and job creation.

Then peace will once again become a genuine possibility that a Dean administration will work tirelessly to achieve.

2003-10-18T18:05:00.000-06:00

Bad Test Scores...

Seattle Times: Only one-third of students pass first WASL science test

As in other subjects, white and Asian students scored higher than students in other ethnic groups. In the eighth grade, more than 80 percent of African-American, Hispanic and Native American students failed to meet the standard. In 10th grade, the failure rates of those groups were between 84 and 90 percent.

2003-10-17T00:07:00.000-06:00

Bill Would Penalize Colleges on High Tuition Rises

GOP economics are to blame for tuition hikes in the first place

Chalk this one up under the "Another Horrible GOP Idea" category. Time to dissect the bill, described in this NY Times article, piece by piece.

First, here's how the bill's author, Rep. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.), explained it.

To keep that from happening, Mr. McKeon said his bill would create a government watch list of public and private universities that raised their tuition and fees more than twice the rate of inflation for three years in a row. If the offenders still did not curb their costs after another three years, they could lose their eligibility for millions of dollars in federal grants and programs under the bill.

This bill separates the public and private colleges in need of the most financial assistance, and takes money away from them. If it were in effect right now, 24% of private and public colleges and universities in America would see funds cut. Republicans always seem to magically believe that we could cut taxes down to zero if government institutions would just stop wasting money. Instead, Republicans need to be honest about why tuition is rising the way it is. It's not a simple response, and certainly every large institution, public or private, wastes a little money here and there. But cracking down on waste isn't going to make tuition go down.

Consider my school, the University of Montana. A decade ago, the state legislature provided over 70% of the funds needed to run the school. Now, that number is around 30%. States in budget crises can't afford to pay what they should for college costs. This year tuition went up 8%. Right now, the state can't even find the money to give staff employees, whose average earnings per year total $21,000, a raise until 2005. We're still one of the cheapest universites in the country, and we don't waste money. Our university president is very qualified, but one of the lowest paid in the country. Our faculty take less money to go to school here because they love Missoula. Wasteful spending isn't driving tuition up.

Rep. McKeon's bill is said to be aimed at helping low-income students afford college. Yet the bill itself, according to unnamed colleges and universities in the article, takes funding away from low-income students.

Although Mr. McKeon's bill would not withhold federal Pell grants and Stafford loans, two primary sources of assistance to low-income students, several other programs would be withdrawn. In particular, campuses could be cut off from federal money that helped pay student workers, provided scholarships and furnished low-interest loans to those in need of financial aid.

Here's the point: You can't address tuition at the federal level without addressing the budget problems facing nearly every state in the country. Decreased funding and increasing costs for health care and other essentials are what is driving costs up, not wasteful spending. Withholding federal money from universities that have seen a funding decrease from the state legislature is fundamentally unfair. It's also bad economic policy, considering the role higher education plays in creating a favorable business climate and more capable workforce.

An irony here is that this bill is designed as a cure to the problems partly caused by bad Republican economic policy. Since President Bush took office, a $5 trillion surplus has turned into a $5 trillion projected deficit. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are the White House's only answer to the struggling job market and dire fiscal situation. Of course, they'll argue that tax cuts create more revenue by allowing the money to be invested by the private sector. If that were the case, wouldn't a zero-tax policy create the most government revenue?

Targeted Keynesian tax cuts could stimulate the economy under two conditions. Unforunately, neither condition is being met. The tax cuts don't go to people most likely to spend the money. They go to the 'investment' class, which puts a higher percentage of its money into savings accounts instead of back into the economy. And the tax cuts can't work when states are being forced to raise taxes and cut spending to make up for the loss of funds resulting from this tax cut. In this way, the tax cuts are a tax shift, placing more burden on America's working class.

So first we have a party that ties the hands and empties the bank accounts of the state governments whose job it is to provide funding for essential services like higher education. Then we have members of the same party proposing to punish higher education institutions for making up the funding lost as a result of that party's economic policy. Is it unreasonable, then, to conclude that the Republican Party is opposed to maintaining top-quality higher education in America?

2003-10-16T17:23:00.000-06:00

Congressman Nethercutt: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Last year, conservatives across the country made a huge stink over Sen. Patty Murray's (D-Wash.) comments to a class of high school students. Paraphrasing some, Murray said part of the reason Osama bin Laden is supported in the Muslim world is because of his support for charities and public services in poor areas. This is undeniably true, but conservatives went ballastic, accusing Murray of being an Al Qaida sympathizer and all but calling for her immediate arrest for treason.

You can bet the incident will end up in the attack ads of GOP challenger, Rep. George Nethercutt (D-Spokane), in the campaign season next fall. Unfortunately for Nethercutt, he got a little carried away and made some comments that, although I suspect are being blown a little out of proportion, are much more inflammatory and insensitive than Murray's comments. And I'm giving Nethercutt the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he actually does care about the lives of American troops in Iraq. Here's what he said, from this article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable," Nethercutt, R-Wash., told an audience of 65 at a noon meeting at the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs.

"It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."

He added that he did not want any more soldiers to be killed.

Well, gee. That's good, I guess. Apparently Nethercutt thinks that soldiers dying should be a distant 3rd or 4th story on the nightly news, losing out to, say, a road being constructed. Damn liberal media!

You can read Nethercutt getting blasted by the liberal blogosphere here and here.

2003-10-16T14:19:00.000-06:00

Order on Leaks Leaked

Thanks to Political Wire for this gem.

"Concerned about the appearance of disarray and feuding within his administration as well as growing resistance to his policies in Iraq, President Bush - living up to his recent declaration that he is in charge - told his top officials to 'stop the leaks' to the media, or else," the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

"News of Bush's order leaked almost immediately."

Bush told top aides that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed officials, "and that if he did, there would be consequences," according to a "senior administration official who asked that his name not be used."

Just priceless.

Just a few thoughts: BWAHAHAHAH!!!

I also think its a strong possibility that they wanted this leaked, not seeing how stupid they would look. They definetely want the impression to get out that Bush is tough on leaks. Of course, we all know Bush is only tough on the leaks he wants to be tough on, and I don't think this was one of them.

2003-10-16T11:42:00.000-06:00

Northern Lights

The aurora borealis lights the night sky above the towns of Douglas, on the left, and Juneau, Alaska, right. The recent unseasonably clear and warm weather has allowed spectacular views of the northern lights. (AP Photo/Juneau Empire, Brian Wallace) (October 15, 2003)

2003-10-15T20:48:00.000-06:00

Give Rush a break

Lots of liberals in the blogosphere are cackling in delight at Rush Limbaugh's drug troubles. For those of you under rocks, he recently admitted after a week's worth of speculation that he was addicted to the painkiller Oxy-contin and was checking himself in to a rehab facility for 30 days. We can all imagine the field day Rush would have had with any famous liberal suspected of such troubles, but I don't think that's any reason to take out rage against Rush now.

Who is the victim in the crime Rush has committed? Rush is. He's the one who needs the treatment and the help that would be provided to victims in most other crimes. I'm not in favor of legalization or reducing penalties for dealers of drugs, but I would like to see a greater emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation for drug users in cases like this one. The irony, of course, is that Rush has spent considerable airtime opposing such wimpy, crackpot liberal ideas. Liberals just have to take the moral high ground on this one. Rush will get everybody angry again later, but its just not right to kick somebody when they're down.

2003-10-15T20:09:00.000-06:00

Dean the centrist

William Saletan at Slate says Howard Dean is the centrist candidate all the other guys are trying to be to beat him.

But the more Dean's rivals expose his record, the more I suspect that the centrist who's going to spare Democrats this left-wing nightmare isn't any of these guys. It's Howard Dean.

Read about why Dean isn't the liberal you think he is here.

2003-10-15T11:51:00.000-06:00

Does anybody have an airplane?

So a bunch of GOP Senators went to Iraq, and returned with great news of all the magnificent progress being made. The Democratic Senators... weren't even allowed to go.

GOP Senators Cite Progress, Dems Frustration

And you know what else I'm sick of? Time for the GOP to stop whining about the 'liberal media'. Whenever a Republican doesn't like the facts, they cite the 'liberal media' as a way to dismiss the inconvenient facts at hand. Sure there's progress being made in Iraq, but that's not going to get reported when a handful of US soldiers die every other day.

2003-10-14T19:37:00.000-06:00

Are you a neoconservative?

I found a nifty little quiz on Christian Science Monitor. If you want to have your foreign policy views categorized, and have five minutes to spare, take it. It's interesting, informative, and intelligent.

NeoCon quiz

Post your results in the comments thread below.

2003-10-14T19:29:00.000-06:00

Clark's New American Patriotism

Presidential candidate Wesley Clark proved it's more than just a campaign slogan by proposing a civilian reserve corps today. You can read about it here.

Clark's plan would create a deployable civilian reserve to be called upon during national disasters and emergencies. Corps members could also be called upon for overseas reconstruction projects like Iraq and Afghanistan. Volunteers would receive benefits, pay, and their job when they get back. Tours would last no more than six months. TNR Online likes the plan for a lot of reasons, and I do too.

In terms of innovation, Clark's plan is light years ahead of anything offered by any other candidate or the Bush Pentagon. It takes into account the current threat environment--homeland security and low-intensity combat operations mixed with the need for rapid reconstruction--and marshals already considerable American resources to address the need. And what's more, it would help bridge the unfortunate gap in our society between civilians and the military that protects them, by introducing military values of unit cohesion and shared responsibility to civilian life. That's a form of patriotism that we could always use more of.

In addition, the TNR review points out how this plan will help focus the extremely broad role of national guardsmen. It's good policy and good politics.

2003-10-13T18:49:00.000-06:00

Excusing Terrorism?

Lobowalk author Daniel has posted a response to my post (Sunday, October 12) criticizing his accusation that I entirely blame Israel for terrorism in the occupied territories. I argued that any nation seeking to combat terrorism must consider not only how to eridicate the terrorists but how to destroy popular support for the terrorists as to make it more difficult for them to carry out their violent acts.

In his response, Daniel says:

...what do you call it when Hamas, Islamic Jihad, El Qaeda, and other Islamo-facists strap on a bomb vest and detonate themselves in a crowded pizza shop or fly a plane into a building? I'd call that aiming pretty damn wide. The point I'm making, Jesse, is that when it comes to defending one's self from an enemy that wants you extinct reasoning like yours is obscenely unrealistic.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic when I ask Israel cease actions like this, reported by the BBC.

A senior UN official who went to assess damage said it looked like there had been a severe earthquake at the densely-populated camp in the south of the Gaza Strip, with up to 120 homes demolished.

Israel says that the tunnels under the camp were being used to smuggle weapons into Gaza from Egypt. Still, wouldn't you think there's a better way to do the job than demolish 120 homes? I'm not making this a moral issue; this is a strategic issue. People who have their house bulldozed by Israeli tanks aren't going to be as angry if one of their own people kills innocent Israelis. Even if the Israeli action was defensive in intent, it will be viewed as an unprovoked attack on civilians by the victims. They'll be more likely to support or even join terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. I'm not saying this is morally excuseable, but it is an irrefutable fact.

Daniel continues:

You may not be defending terrorism but you are certainly excusing it. Why can't you also recognize that there are conditions in which a people may feel the need to defend themselves from indiscriminant, murderous bombing by people who want you extinct?

If Daniel had read my blog, he would find that I actually supported Israel's attack on the camp near Damascus last week, assuming they had enough evidence that terrorists were using the camp to plot attacks. I have no problem with defensive action directed towards the terrorists themselves. In none of my posts have I ever excused an action undertaken by a terrorist, but it seems that Daniel is excusing the violence of Israelis because the other guys started it, and he can't think of anything more effective to do. I refuse to believe that each member of those 120 households want all Israelis extinct. It might be tough, but it is essential to win the fight against terrorism that popular support for terrorism is destroyed. There's no other way.

2003-10-13T16:48:00.000-06:00

Tacitus Goes to South Africa

My favorite conservative blogger, Tacitus, is blogging from South Africa this week as he does humanitarian work. Be glad you don't live there.

Guguletu - where the hospital has 92 beds for 1.5 million people.

2003-10-13T16:01:00.000-06:00

Democrats should expand appeal

The appeal of Governor Dean to Democrats is that he is willing to stand up to President Bush. He opposed the war at a time most Americans and quite a few Democrats did not. At the time he appeared courageous. Now he appears prophetic. His campaign has continued along the theme of being a Democrat's Democrat, but Democrats must avoid the trap of only standing up for Democrats against Republicans.

Thomas Oliphant makes this argument in today's Boston Globe, and you can read it here. He is, in my mind, rightly critical of Democratic attacks on General Clark for having formerly been of a different political persuasion. As a military man, Clark's responsibility was not to be openly partisan, but to carry out the orders of those who set the agenda, Republican or Democrat. Clark was never a registered Republican, although he admits to having voted for Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr. Clark was an independent. Some Democrats think this is a bad thing. I think it's fantastic.

Dean has told Democrats he will stand up for their ideals, unlike the moderates in Washington today. I want a moderate Democrat who won't be afraid to stand up for Democratic ideals. That moderate has to do that in a way that's inclusive instead of divisive in their rhetoric and policy. It is a tight-rope walk, but one I think three of the candidates (Dean, Clark, and Edwards) are well-positioned to succeed in.

Democrats can't win unless they convince some people who voted for Bush in 2000 to vote for their candidate in 2004. There are people out there who voted for Bush last time but are disappointed now, who know that we can do better. Clark can appeal to them because he made the same conversion he'll be asking them to make.

2003-10-12T20:41:00.000-06:00

The Conch: a bunch of dimwits

That's what Daniel at Lobowalk says anyway, in response to my previous post (Friday, October 10) criticizing Israel's continued policy of failing to distinguish between civilians and terrorists. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain further.

Failing to make every effort to distinguish between civilians and enemies in a war is a clear and serious violation of international law. That law was established after World War II, which saw millions of civilian casualties and city after city reduced to oblivion by carpet-bombing. The incident in Israel isn't on the same scale. To be fair, I don't know the circumstances, although the article said 20 people were wounded. Did all of them just get in the way? Perhaps. But Israel has engaged in a pattern of aiming wide. Remember the Jenin refugee camp incident? As many as 500 people may have been killed there, and I can bet there weren't terrorists hiding behind most of them.

Some people view all terrorists as people who have been evil since the day they were born, and now have a place to hide and a big target upon which to carry out their evil deeds. I am NOT defending terrorists, but any worldview of which doesn't include recognition of the fact that certain conditions exist which create an environment that may lead people to consider terrorism is misguided and incomplete. Occupation, religious tension, and extreme poverty (unemployment in the occupied territories is over 50%) are all some of those conditions.

Killing children in the name of fighting terrorism isn't just morally wrong, it's terrible strategy. If Israel wants to reduce the problem of terrorism, it should fight those committed to terrorism in a way that shows respect for the civilian population the terrorists come from. If the public doesn't support the violence, it won't thrive as it has in Palestine. If the public does support it, the terrorists will be harder to kill and impossible to stop. And if the public blames the person with the gun for the death of that child, a natural reaction regardless of the circumstances, the public will be that much harder to convince that Israelis are not the bad guy.

P.S. You can send a polite hello Daniel's way if you like. Tell him the dimwits sent you.

2003-10-12T20:09:00.000-06:00

The Bush administration hates lemurs...

Primate expert calls Bush environmental record 'terrifying'

She cited an effort by the White House to amend the 1973 Endangered Species Act so U.S. companies can import a certain number of endangered animals if they compensate the animals' native countries with money for conservation programs. Currently, such animals can't be imported into the United States.

The party of Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon is now in the pockets of... the circus lobby?! Looks that way. Looking for anybody who thinks this is a good idea to explain why, please...

2003-10-12T19:31:00.000-06:00

The Plame Affair - Day 17

Deep background

Today the Washington Post continued the story by printing a fantastic article detailing the Justice Department investigation so far. The story also provided details and clarification on earlier points of contention.

Probe Focuses on Month Before Leak to Reporters
In their interviews, FBI agents are asking questions about events going back to at least early June, the sources said. That indicates investigators are examining not just who passed the information to Novak and other reporters but also how Plame's name may have first become linked with Wilson and his mission, who did it and how the information made its way around the government.

You can read the article for details, but the reason the Post says the FBI is looking that far back is the most interesting thing.

One reason investigators are looking back is that even before Novak's column appeared, government officials had been trying for more than a month to convince journalists that Wilson's mission was not as important as it was being portrayed. Wilson concluded during the 2002 mission that there was no solid evidence for the administration's assertion that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium in Niger to develop nuclear weapons, and he angered the White House when he became an outspoken critic of the war.

So just in case you didn't think this had any relevance to the war in Iraq, now there it is, in print. The White House was in full damage control mode when this leak happened, and somebody was desperate enough to break the law in order to convince reporters to reduce the pressure they were under.

Other key points...

- The article says an unnamed Post reporter (probably Dana Priest) was contacted prior to Bob Novak. So we can be pretty sure that those other six reporters were contacted before Novak, and he was the only one who decided to run with it.

- We're back to calling them "top White House officials". "Top" and "senior" have been used interchangably to refer to the leakers since the story broke on Septemer 26.

- The White House was ruled out Karl Rove's involvement in the leak, but hasn't denied that he was involved in a campaign to draw attention to Novak's column. Newsweek reported that Chris Matthews contacted Joe Wilson to say Karl Rove was pushing the story a week after Novak's column ran.

Also check out yesterday's Nicolas Kristof column in the NY Times - Secrets of the Scandal. Some interesting history on Valerie Plame.

2003-10-10T13:55:00.000-06:00

Stop killing little boys, please...

7 Palestinians Killed in Overnight Israeli Raid in Gaza Strip

Israeli forces looking to close down tunnels used to smuggle weapons and other items from Egypt into the Gaza Strip clashed with militants in a large-scale assault on the Rafah refugee camp overnight.

Seven Palestinians were killed — four militants and three boys, ages 8, 12 and 15. More than 20 Palestinians were wounded, Dr. Ali Mousa, director of Rafah's Najar Hospital. said today. Israel said one of its soldiers was wounded.

... because if the family of that 8-year-old boy wasn't inclined to support terrorism against Israel before, they are now.

2003-10-10T02:34:00.000-06:00

3 Reasons TNR is wrong on Edwards' corporate tax plan

In The New Republic Online Primary (which I linked to yesterday regarding Dean's 'Success by Six' program), Adam Kushner contends that presidential candidate John Edwards proposal to stop tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas is somehow bad policy. Unfortunately, there are so many problems with his argument that I have to give him a "D" in both Intellectual Honesty and ECON 101.

First, Kushner's contention that Edwards is cutting taxes for companies that move jobs overseas in deliberately misleading. Most multinational corporations transfer jobs around the globe nearly constantly. Kushner's implication is that nearly every large American company will see their tax breaks cut, and that's simply false. Edwards plan actually calls for ending tax breaks for companies that move overseas. For example, a company that moved its headquarters to a PO Box in Bermuda just to evade US taxes would no longer get a tax break. Edwards also calls for additional tax breaks to companies that keep their jobs here, which is a much different propostion. Kushner probably based his entire article on the misleading headline found in this Des Moines Register article, which he links to as well.

Second, Kushner argues that Americans are so well-educated that jobs will stay here because our productivity is higher. He uses the example of a programmer making $40 in America doing ten times the work of a programmer making $10 in India. If that was the case, our jobs wouldn't actually be going overseas at all. Too bad they actually ARE! If his argument were true, there wouldn't be a need to have an argument.

Finally, Kushner cites the basic economic principle of comparative advantage to argue that the US will always maintain jobs building higher-end products. Because the difference in the cost of making lower-end goods and making higher-end goods is smaller in the US than in India, the US will continue to have an advantage in making higher-end goods even if the real cost is higher here than in India. This is technically true, but I wonder what the millions of Americans making a living by doing blue-collar manufacturing jobs have to say about this. I guess they can just all go make computer programs, right? He argues that its actually better to free up American labor capital from low-paying manufacturing jobs and move them into higher-paying fields. Again, true, but that only works with the kind of emphasis on expanding higher education and job training programs that Edwards has been the most consistent proponent for of the presidential candidates. And like the education argument above, if his theory held completely true, then there wouldn't be a need to have an argument. The fact is that we are losing high tech jobs to countries like India. Just go ask an unemployed programmer in suburban Seattle or Silicon Valley.

2003-10-09T21:44:00.000-06:00

True Christians

State Department Protests Televangelist's Remarks

Introducing Mowbray on his Christian Broadcasting Network, (Pat) Robertson said that a person who read Mowbray's book would reach the conclusion that a nuclear explosion at the State Department was the best solution.

"I read your book. When you get through, you say (to yourself): 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom (the State Department's main building), I think that's the answer' and you say: 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" he said.

How compassionate. This guy's a real gem. While I'm at it...

Vacitan: Condoms Don't Stop AIDS

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which the HIV virus can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus.

This is why its tough for me to call myself a Catholic sometimes. Aren't we supposed to be trying to save lives?

2003-10-09T19:55:00.000-06:00

Good luck, Ah-nuld

I found this earlier today and lost the link. Billmon found it and had plenty to say about it. Sounds a little shady doesn't it? Read his entire post.

Uncle Sugar
Having promised the voters of California he can plug an $8 billion hole in the state's budget, repeal the hated car tax increase and boost education spending, without raising any other taxes, Governor-elect Schwarzenegger apparently has figured out where the needed miracle is going to come from: the federal Treasury.

"I will make sure that I can meet with President Bush as quickly as possible, because I have a whole bunch of business, California business, to talk to him about and take care of," Schwarzenegger said during a short news conference at the Century Plaza Hotel. "There's a lot of money we can get from the federal government."

Good luck with that one, Arnie. While I'm sure the Rove machine would be more than happy to shove a few quick billions into your sweaty paws, if they thought they could get away with it, you have to wonder how the good citizens of, oh, say, Alabama -- where a bloody fiscal crisis is also raging -- are going to feel about the idea of a fat federal bailout for the Sodomite heathens of the Golden State.

Not sure I'm comfortable with the 'sweaty paw' imagery. Also, I'm a little less confident that Bush/Rove won't find a way to get Ah-nuld the money anyway. They want California bad, and they've shown they'll do anything to advance their agenda.

2003-10-09T03:09:00.000-06:00

If we knew what we know now last winter...

Rice Says Iraq Never Disarmed
Condoleezza Rice told a foreign policy forum in Chicago that the team led by chief US weapons hunter David Kay "is finding proof that Iraq never disarmed and never complied with UN inspectors."

In fact, she suggested, if the UN Security Council knew last winter what Kay's group has uncovered now, it never would have rejected the US call for war.

Finding scientists that have been storing banned materials since the early 90's, despite the fact that inspectors left, is not evidence of intention to build weapons. The Kay report uncovered that Iraq has about as much ability to produce weapons of mass destruction as my high school did. (Come to think of it, the smell from that fetal pig was a weapon of mass destruction.)

By the way, last winter we were told Saddam had links to Al Qaida, was "reconstituting nuclear weapons", and had thousands of tons of anthrax, nerve gas, etc... etc.... If we knew what we know now, Congress wouldn't even have authorized military force.

2003-10-08T20:37:00.000-06:00

The Idea Primary

Dean Announces "Success by Six" program

Apologies if in the coming months this blog begins to sound like a debate between my two cartoon-character inner voices, one perched on my left shoulder as Governor Howard Dean, the other on my right shoulder as General Wesley Clark.

At this time Howard Dean is clearly winning the idea primary. Clark can't be expected to have fully formulated policies and programs after running for three weeks, but clearly his campaign hasn't been as prepared for the bigtime as it should have been.

I especially like Governor Dean's latest proposal, modeled after his successful program in Vermont that can be credited with at least helping cut child abuse rates by as much as 40%, depending on the statistic. To explain the program, here is most of a favorable review in The New Republic online.

Under the program, local communities would offer new parents home visits by professional child experts. (It could be anybody from a registered nurse to a volunteer from the United Way; local officials implementing the program would decide.) These experts would bring along literature on things like child safety and nutrition, then offer to put parents in touch with local government and non-profit agencies in case they need some sort of assistance. Lest anybody think this sounds like Big Brother run amok, the program would be strictly voluntary in every sense: Each city (or county) could decide for itself whether to join the program--the feds would simply offer financing--and each parent could decide for his or herself whether to accept the visit.

The biggest advantage of this program is that it offers a chance for early intervention in those rare cases of severe neglect or abuse. (That alone should justify the program's relatively tiny budget, just $200 million a year.) It's also a great opportunity to make sure children eligible for public assistance--like, for example, subsidized health insurance--actually receive it.

But it's not just poor or abused kids who benefit from these visits. Parents from all backgrounds can attest to the overwhelming sense of confusion and insecurity when a new baby arrives, particularly if it's a first child: Am I feeding my baby the right foods? Is this sound normal? And so on. Welcome Baby visits are like pediatric house calls.

This isn't just speculation. One New England state implemented a very similar program back in the early 1990s. Today, 90 percent of all new mothers in the state opt for the visits. Meanwhile, the child abuse rate has declined somewhere between 20 and 40 percent, depending upon how you count. (That doesn't mean the program is singularly responsible for the drop, but it stands to reason that the visits at least helped.)

The state, of course, is Vermont. And the governor who made the program a reality there is Howard Dean. Which is why when he talks about bringing a similar program to the rest of the country, you can believe that he means it.

2003-10-08T00:43:00.000-06:00

Whippersnappers Shaping Up

Came across this the other day in the Des Moines Register...

Swing Vote
The study said that although only 32 percent of college students ages 18 to 24 voted in the 2000 election, close to 59 percent say they will "definitely be voting" in the 2004 election. Additionally, 27 percent say they "probably will vote."

So what's the reason?
- Has the Bush administration so thoroughly enraged those left-wing college students that they're now showing up in droves?
- Does politics seem more relevant to people after the past few years?

Nice to see the kids showing some responsibility.... Anyway, I have to do some homework. Feel free to use the comment thread.

2003-10-08T00:09:00.000-06:00

Libertarians for Dean? (Probably not.)

Libertarians have traditionally been a Republican constituency because of GOP support for lower taxes, smaller government, and less interventionalist foreign policy. Now The American Prospect argues that they might be ready to bolt the party. I just don't think they're going Democrat any time soon.

Liberty Island
"When Bush won, I was very hopeful," says Stefanescu, who runs fellowship programs at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian foundation. "He sounded like he was going to do some very libertarian things: a less interventionist approach [overseas], school choice, free trade. He says all the right things. He just didn't do them.

"Normally, I wouldn't consider it," she adds, "but if I had to vote today, I'd vote for [Howard] Dean."

The article cites the President's misadventures in Iraq on John Ashcroft's assault on civil liberties as catalysts for the Libertarian shift. But while the Bush administration has definetely left libertarians out in the cold, they don't have a home in the Democratic Party either.

Libertarians want less foreign intervention, but almost all Democrats support foreign aid programs and some humanitarian interventions, like Kosovo. Even Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq was not a call for a return to an isolationist foreign policy, but a pragmatic decision based on costs and rewards. Libertarians support completely purist free trade. Dean calls for the same kind of fiscal conservatism Clinton practiced, and libertarians aren't Clinton fans.

The purist libertarians still believe in privatizing everything: private schools, toll roads, private libraries. And as long as their views remain so far from the mainstream, they will remain just as far from the mainstream.

2003-10-07T23:33:00.000-06:00

The Plame Affair - Day 12

Not quite "Dead or Alive"

Of course there's no telling how long we'll have to wait to find out who the felons are in the Bush administration. The investigation has expanded to the Departments of State and Defense, and this story will likely drift to the back of the public consciousness for a time. Expect updates a little less frequently, but as often as there's real news.

Today there was real news, as President Bush showed he really isn't too concerned about the whole thing. Or, at the very least, he doesn't seem to be very determined to seek justice.

Check out the President's comments today on TPM. (I did steal the 'dead or alive' thing from him. You should be reading this blog.)

To skeptics out there who say this isn't that big of a deal, or that it's too complicated, it's not.

Somebody in the White House exposed the name of a CIA operative whose job deals with weapons of mass destruction. This is indisputable. This is a threat to our national security because of that, and because it exposes who knows how many intelligent agents fighting the war on terror and their sources. Why hasn't President Bush been more upset? It's not a small problem.

Also... Billmon noticed this crap:

White House lawyers will review phone logs and other records supplied by presidential aides before turning the documents over to the Justice Department officials conducting the investigation into who leaked a CIA undercover operative's identity, officials said Monday.

The disclosure inspired new Democratic calls for an independent inquiry.

"To allow the White House counsel to review records before the prosecutors would see them is just about unheard of in the way cases are always prosecuted," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on NBC's Today show. "And the possibility of mischief, or worse than mischief, is very, very large."

Is this why President Bush is so unconcerned?

2003-10-07T01:15:00.000-06:00

The Gropenator

I'm not gonna rag all over Ah-nuld for these allegations, but the recall is as silly as this picture illustrates and titling a post "The Gropenator" isn't something I get to do that often. Whatever happens, the voters will deserve what they end up with.

One more thing, for all the people that say the LA Times shouldn't have reported this, would you honestly rather the press decided to start holding news because it's inconvenient for somebody to have it released? Come now, that's just as silly as the recall.

2003-10-07T00:36:00.000-06:00

Busy Day

I won't be able to post again until late tonight. In a few months this site will be relocating and I'll start using Movable Type. It will be a good thing.

Random Thought... I covered a lecture given by Chicago Tribune reporter Maurice Possley tonight on his work uncovering problems with the criminal justice system, especially capital punishment. My biggest problem with the death penalty is simply that if you execute somebody, you'd better be damn sure you didn't make a mistake. Since 1977 in Illinois, 12 people have been executed and 13 people have had their sentences overturned due either to legal or factual innocence proven by new evidence.

I will announce my support for either General Clark or Governor Dean's campaign sometime in the next month. Check this out...

Clark Lets Positions Be Known (including on the death penalty, the drug war, and what he would concede to get the needed international help in Iraq)

I'll be paying close attention to his remarks in tomorrow night's "Hear it from the Heartland" forum with Senator Harkin (D-IA). I love Clark's foreign policy positions and expertise. I have questions about his domestic policies.

Say hey on the comment thread...

2003-10-06T00:23:00.000-06:00

Fiscal Doomsday

If you are in favor of the existence of Medicare or Social Security, you should not vote for President Bush in 2004. Here's why.

Fiscal conservatism used to be one of those cornerstone Republican issues, but that is certainly no longer the case with the way the Bush administration has handled our budgets. This article by Washington Post columnist details just how bad it really is and mentions three think tanks who recently agreed with him.

Staff members of the three groups said that a realistic picture of the next decade shows it is likely that annual deficits will rise from current levels of $400 billion to more than $600 billion and total $5 trillion between 2004 and 2013 -- even assuming a quick return to healthy economic growth and lower unemployment.

And this is what confuses most people.. conservatives?! How is blowing the deficit that far out of whack conservative? Well, I have the answer. Consider these statistics from the article...

In order to balance the budget by 2013, we'd need to do one of the following:

- Raise all corporate and individual income taxes by 27% (This would totally destroy the economy.)
- Cut all defense spending by 73% (These neo-cons would never go for that.)
- Cut all programs except defense, homeland security, Medicare, and Social Security by 40%
- Cut Social Security by 60%

Now it makes sense. The folks in this administration may have misplaced values, but they're not stupid, and they certainly realize this. Picture five or ten years from now, when the US government is threatened with bankruptcy. Raise taxes 27%?! Not gonna happen. Cut defense spending almost to nothing?! Not gonna happen. What's left?

Would a compassionate conservative favor policies that put Medicare, Social Security and public education at such extreme risk? Would a Christian favor those policies?

I'd like to hear a defense for the Bush deficit policies other than the "it's not really that bad" line we hear every now and then on Sunday talk shows. If these tax cuts are going to stimulate growth so much that it will make up $5 trillion in projected shortfalls, when are we going to start seeing it? And why, if economic stimulation is the goal, are the tax cuts so extreme that states have to cut services and raise taxes to offset their extremity?

By the way, liberal NY Times columnist Paul Krugman argued the same points a few weeks ago in a lecture to Berkeley journalism students. Watch it here if you're really interested.

2003-10-05T15:48:00.000-06:00

Israel attacks camp inside Syria

Here's the article.

The UN Security Council will meet to discuss this in a special session. As I've argued before, a preemptive attack is only justified if there is very strong evidence of both the existence of a threat and the imminent use of that threat. Without that second piece of intelligence, chances are too great that the intelligence used to justify the attack may prove false, leaving a bigger mess than was originally there. (See: Iraq) Israel does have a right to self-defense, and if there is an Islamic Jihad camp in Syria that is active and being used to prepare attacks on Israel, it seems entirely appropriate that they attack the camp. Technically, this wouldn't even be a preemptive attack if the camp was used by the group that carried out the latest suicide attack. Hopefully Israel has solid intelligence to present to the Security Council to refute the claim that this was just a refugee camp.

Unfortunately, today's example is probably the least desirable solution to the problem of Palestinian terrorism. Every time Israel shoots rockets into a market or bombs an Arab country, it is only going to fuel the rage Arabs feel towards Israel, and by extention the United States, creating even more people that will to resort to terrorism.

What worries me is what happens next. An Israeli diplomat said to watch for more action in the coming days. What happens if Syria defends its airspace? This becomes much more difficult for Syria and the Arab world to ignore if they get a few planes shot down.

2003-10-05T14:30:00.000-06:00

The Plame Affair - Day 10

Denials and Details

Earlier I remarked that it was suspicious that the White House had yet to issue denials of Scooter Libby's involvement in the leak as they had for Karl Rove. Lesson learned? The White House definetely reads The Conch.

2 Disclaim Leaking Name of Operative
Spokesmen said I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, and Elliott Abrams, the director of Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, were not sources of the leak. The White House has said the same of Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser.

Since the White House denied Karl Rove's involvement, Joseph Wilson has been a little fuzzy as to the extent he suspected or knew Rove was involved. Calpundit noticed that Wilson clarified that on "Nightline" with Ted Koppel earlier this week.

"What I have confidence in, based upon what respectable press people in this town have told me, is that a week after the Novak article came out, Karl Rove was still calling around and talking to press people, saying Wilson's wife is fair game. The gist of the message, as it was reported back to me right after the phone call, was "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He tells me your wife is fair game."
- Joseph Wilson on Nightline

Just how does Wilson know this? Newsweek reports it was Chris Matthews that told him.

Secrets and Leaks
Wilson told Newsweek that in the days after the Novak story appeared, he got calls from several well-connected Washington reporters. One was NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell. She told Newsweek that she said to Wilson: "I heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story." The next day Wilson got a call from Chris Matthews, host of the MSNBC show "Hardball." According to a source close to Wilson, Matthews said, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."

So it seems that even although the Rove's involvement in the leak itself is unclear, he certainly encouraged reporters to use the leak after the fact. I don't think this is illegal, but it's certainly immoral. With all that has come to light in the press, why hasn't President Bush done something about it? Maybe now would be a good time for him to start reading the news.

Here's some more speculation from the Newsweek article...
It may be significant that both Rove and Libby deny leaking classified information. They may say that in talking to reporters they used her name without knowing that she was undercover.

Oh ya, NICE JOB NOVAK! He just blew this wad on CNN yesterday. What a patriot.

Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

Also check out Talking Points Memo, where Josh Marshall says Novak didn't really do any damage because the damage was already done on July 14. Fair point.

This is actually tremendously important to the investigation. It establishes that Plame was undercover in the last five years, important in determining what laws were broken. However, anybody who has ever used this business as an employer in undercover activities has now been exposed by Bob Novak. Their lives, as well as the lives of their contacts, are now at risk. That's why this leak is so important. It's not about somebody leaking classified information. It's about somebody putting the lives of who knows how many of our agents, whose job is vital to keep our country safe from terrorist threats abroad, at extreme risk.

2003-10-04T20:19:00.000-06:00

Oh ya? Your Mom!!

I copied this from the Howard Dean Weblog today.

Wisconsin for Dean Responds to Republican Plans To Protest Dean Visit Tomorrow

MADISON--Wisconsin for Dean State Coordinator Michael J. Tate issued the following statement today regarding plans by the state Republican party to protest Governor Dean's visit to Wisconsin tomorrow:

"We thank our Republican friends for joining our canned food drive and acknowledging the plight that the Bush economy has visited upon Wisconsin's working families.

"Since our working families couldn't afford to feed themselves at President Bush's $2,000-a-plate lunch in Milwaukee, it's worth noting that Republicans had to come to a Howard Dean event in order to help them.

"What is more repugnant than the Republicans' admission of economic failure is a contest they held awarding prizes for the 'best' poster attacking Governor Dean. The winning slogan reportedly reads 'Dean's a queen.'

It's sad that at a time when Americans are losing jobs at home and our nation its credibility abroad, Republicans spend their time on contests for homophobic slogans.

Governor Dean's campaign is one of grassroots power and inclusion, not one of bigotry and division."

2003-10-04T11:28:00.000-06:00

Let's take a break...

Check out these sites and blogs

Chris Rodkey is the editor of The University of Montana's (Go Griz!) student newspaper.

Ngati Ao has an interesting diversity rant up. I told him he's crazy but he's really not.

ResLife Comics is inspired by life at UM, written by UM alums, and is a great Web comic. Paruse the archives.

2003-10-03T18:38:00.000-06:00

The Plame Affair - Day 8

"Scooter" left twisting in the wind

I really don't like to speculate too much, but I don't mind reporting on other people's speculation when it seems substantiated. Salon seems to have put together quite of bit of circumstantial evidence pointing towards Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, as the leaker.

Suspicion Centers on Lewis Libby
On Wednesday the New York Daily News reported that "Democratic congressional sources said they would like to hear from Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby." On MSNBC's "Buchanan and Press" on Wednesday, Pat Buchanan asked an administration critic who claims to know the leaker's name point blank if "Scooter Libby" was the culprit (the critic wouldn't answer). And Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska made a veiled reference on CNBC this week, suggesting that President Bush could better manage the current crisis by "sitting down with [his] vice president and asking what he knows about it."

There's more where that came from in the article, including a former senior CIA official saying Libby is "suspect No. 1" at this time.

And maybe the White House just likes Karl Rove more than Scooter (sorry, bud), but isn't it interesting that with all the speculation about Scooter that's been flying around, they haven't issued denied anything like they did immediately with Rove?

Billmon got the press on this one. (Way to go man! People do read the blogs...)

Democrats Want Ashcroft Out of Inquiry
The clamor will probably be fed by financial data underscoring the close political ties between Mr. Ashcroft and Karl Rove, the presidential adviser whose role in the leak has come into question. Campaign finance data show that Mr. Rove's former company received more than $300,000 from Mr. Ashcroft's 1994 Senate campaign in Missouri for direct-mail work and other services, in addition to his role in two earlier Ashcroft campaigns.

I can't believe there aren't Republicans willing to see that a fair investigation is conducted. After all, if they are so confident, wouldn't absolving the President be in their best interest? Republicans are proving not to be interested in justice, just keeping power.

I'm not surprised.

2003-10-03T14:35:00.000-06:00

Everybody's a critic...

Allen Barra over at Slate Magazine decided he'd be perceived as an intellectual if he went against conventionalism wisdom and argued Rush Limbaugh was right in claiming Donovan McNabb's popularity stems entirely from his race.

Go ahead and read his article if you like. It's lame. Basically, he argues that because Brad Johnson (a white quarterback) has better passing statistics and isn't considered as good, it means McNabb is only considered good because he's black. Then he poopoos the one statistic that makes McNabb such an exciting player, his rushing yardage. He's outrushed Johnson by 1,500 yards in his career, despite having played not nearly as long. McNabb's playmaking ability is something special, a la Michael Vick. He's fun to watch. And not just because he's black.

Barra then decides to say he's really not a racist, and, like Jackie Robinson before him, McNabb has fans because we want to see him be better than all the white boys because there's never been a really good black quarterback before. I guess Steve McNair's just some throwback loser who's never won anything, right? McNair even scrambles once in a while, though not as prolifically as McNabb does and Michael Vick will. The fact is that fans like exciting quarterbacks. Brett Favre is exciting because he has a cannon for an arm and played for the Packers, a team with a winning tradition and a magical aura of greatness around it, like Notre Dame. Brad Johnson's not exciting because, well, he doesn't do anything flashy and he plays for Tampa Bay. Granted, they won the Super Bowl, but I bet there's a lot more Packer fans than Bucs fans. Johnson is quietly efficient, while McNabb is a whole lotta flash. He deserves the attention and praise he gets because he makes the game that much more fun to watch.

2003-10-03T11:43:00.000-06:00

Fair and Balanced

Daily Kos noticed this fair and balanced graph, scientific proof that Fox News sucks... or at least does a much worse job at relaying the facts. I guess that's OK if you're a neo-con...? (By the way, this was proven to be the same across different demographics, so it's not just that ignorant people watch Fox, it's that Fox keeps people ignorant.)

Oh ya... No WMD in Iraq.

2003-10-02T20:38:00.000-06:00

The Plame Affair - Day 7

Slime and Defend

White House Looks to Manage Fallout Over CIA Inquiry
The White House encouraged Republicans to portray the former diplomat at the center of the case, Joseph C. Wilson IV, as a partisan Democrat with an agenda and the Democratic Party as scandalmongering. At the same time, the administration and the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill worked to ensure that no Republicans in Congress break ranks and call for an independent inquiry outside the direct control of the Justice Department.

Ah, yes. It's Joe Wilson's fault! He's a Democrat! He gave money to JOHN KERRY! He's MEAN!

(Psst.. we forgot to tell you he gave $1000 to President Bush in 1999 and was appointed by President Bush I.)

This kind of reminds me of 4th grade. 4th grade for me was eleven years ago, and the class went bananas on posters for the 1992 presidential election. My favorite sign: "Al Gore is a duck!" The crap we're seeing from Republicans now is equal in wit and intelligence to that sign. At this point, it doesn't matter if Joe Wilson is a Democrat, a Nazi, or a Klingon. He's almost completely irrelevant to the story.

And boy, they sure are working hard to keep John Ashcroft in charge.

Attorney General Is Closely Linked to Inquiry Figures
Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, whose possible role in the case has raised questions, was a paid consultant to three of Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns in Missouri, twice for governor and for United States senator, in the 1980's and 1990's, an associate of Mr. Rove said on Wednesday.

Jack Oliver, the deputy finance chairman of Mr. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, was the director of Mr. Ashcroft's 1994 Senate campaign, and later worked as Mr. Ashcroft's deputy chief of staff.

Aha! A clue, Sherlock! Just in case you weren't already uncomfortable with the idea of a Bush appointee investigating the Bush administration... but maybe I'm overreacting.

What reason would he have to be anything less than diligent? When has the Bush administration ever demonstrated that it might, from time to time, maybe, bend the truth just a little?

The most interesting thing about this is how strongly John Ashcroft supported a special counsel when it was Clinton under investigation. (See below for hypocricy from different Republicans on the same subject.)
"The truth of the matter is that if the law's been violated, we should be able to ascertain that. We can, if we have an independent person without a conflict of interest."
- John Ashcroft - October 4, 1997

As Liberal Oasis pointed out today, John Ashcroft is not "an independent person without a conflict of interest."

Washington Abuzz Over a New Kind of Scandal
This is a nice LA Times article (reg. required) that seems to direct a little circumstantial evidence towards Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff. Seems like more and more eyes are focused on the Vice President's office. This makes two former CIA guys who've insinuated Libby was involved. It's got some good background on how this whole thing started if any of you are a little behind. Essentially, it comes down to the justification for war in Iraq. Joesph Wilson called BS on the administration, and it looks like somebody in the administration tried to fight back in a most vile kind of way.

And cheers to the best damn college newspaper in the land... when the copy editors do their jobs.
Montana Kaimin Online: Time for conservatives to fess up about leak

2003-10-02T12:23:00.000-06:00

Some Good News!!

Tired of The Plame Affair? Elect a new president next fall. I'll try to alleviate your frustrations by temporarily replacing it in your mind with all this good news...

North Korea Says It Is Making Nuclear Bombs
Analysts See Pre-Negotiation Gambit
A few interesting tidbits in this latest development. At first, this seems like something less than a good thing. However, North Korea said they would not proliferate the weapons, but sought to keep them as a deterrant. Hey, that's good news! The biggest threat posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons isn't that they might use them against us, but that they might sell them to terrorists or terrorist states to shore up their terrible economy. This seems like a good faith concession to me, and probably means they intend to negotiate soon.

No evidence of WMD expected at briefings
This report's been anticipated for a long time and delayed quite a bit. No weapons. It's getting a lot more press overseas (BIG SURPRISE!!). This is actually also good news! Oh, wait, it's not.

Limbaugh Downplays Comments About McNabb
Too bad he resigned. I wish he would have stayed on so people could be exposed to the racist undercurrents of right-wing ideology. What an idiot. What's WORSE is the guy STILL won't admit he screwed up! Why is it that conservatives can never admit when they were WRONG?! (See the WMD story.) I suppose even though he resigned, this is still good news! Now maybe more people will see what a monument to buffoonery his rhetoric really is.

I can't wait to see if there's anything to these drug allegations... maybe he should have read The Book of Virtues.

2003-10-01T17:11:00.000-06:00

The Plame Affair - Day 6

When did they start recruiting 10-year-olds for CIA missions?

Man Behind the Furor
As the world now knows, Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson, nee Plame. She is his third wife. She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins. In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star.

Newshour Transcript - September 30
This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover.
- Former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson

This story, as journalists would say, definetely has legs, but people aren't going to keep paying attention if journalists don't get their shit together. This isn't a new Spy Kids movie, is it? I very much doubt Valerie Plame was an undercover operative at the age of 10. As far as I know, nobody in the media has sought to clear up this ridiculous contradiction. (The Conch scoops them all! HAH!) It could mean only that she worked as a CIA operative IN three decades (1980's, 90's, 2000's), and if that's the case, that's news! It means she was very recently an operative.

In the rest of today's news...
UPDATE: Calpundit found this little tidbit from Larry Johnson (quoted above) very interesting. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, is one of the few administration officials that could be described as both "top" and "senior". This might explain why the Washington Post mysteriously mentioned Libby without much context in an article a few days ago and why President Bush mysteriously praised Dick Cheney out of context today.

Poll: Independent Investiation Favored
Most Americans Suspicious of White House but Doubt Bush Knew of Leak

Who Should Handle the Case?
Justice Department - 29%
Independent Counsel - 69%
Is this matter "Very Serious" or "Somewhat Serious"?
Republicans - 72% Yes
Independents - 81% Yes
Democrats - 90% Yes

White House Besieged With Questions Over Leaking of Name
The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, was overwhelmed with questions about the affair, to the exclusion of practically every other topic. Mr. McClellan said again that President Bush wanted to see a free-ranging inquiry by the Justice Department, which says it is investigating.

So it was a bad day for the Bush administration, with a majority of Americans of all political persuasions paying attention and disagreeing with the administration on how this should be handled. It's appearing that even though this scandal doesn't implicate President Bush, he's taking flack for not being aggressive enough early on in finding the leaker. Click this to read part of the transcript of today's press conference.

2003-09-30T21:22:00.000-06:00

I don't want to live in a shed

"Freedom of the Press" must be protected, even in scandal

Media Groups Concerned by Probe of Leak

I know there are people who will say that the journalists should be forced to reveal their sources, but frankly those people need to think about WHY the founding fathers wanted to include press protections in the First Amendment. A free press is the ultimate protection against tyranny from government, and prevents government from becoming more powerful than the people it governs. Isn't that what the Revolutionary War was fought for?

This administration has shown a tremendous disrespect for freedoms of the press. Liberals: John Ashcroft may be the "psalm-singing fascist" you claim he is, but it is the ability of the free press to act as the world's nosiest watchdog that prevents totalitarian sympathizers like him from trying too much funny stuff. As a source in the article argues, requiring journalists to reveal leakers would mean, quite simply, that there would be no more leakers, and then we'd never know what really happened in our own government. That's unacceptable.

Whenever America loses its First Amendment protection is when I'll run to the woods and live in a heavily-armed shed, but PLEASE, I don't want to do that just yet. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

2003-09-30T20:38:00.000-06:00

Wilsongate Update - Day 5

"...a conflict of interest..."

The FBI-led criminal investigation started today, with White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzalez ordering officials to keep all documents pertaining to the case since February, 2002. Read the memo from Gonzalez here at Talking Points Memo.

Billmon found some GOP hypocricy of the finest caliber, as Republicans use the exact opposite argument they used to authorize a special counsel to investigate Clinton's Whitewater as they use now to argue against a special counsel to investigate this scandal, which RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie said today on Hardball with Chris Matthews could be worse than Watergate.

Q: Scott, the statement you gave about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor was almost word for word what the Clinton people said in 1994 about why there shouldn't be a special prosecutor in Whitewater. Why should it stand now if it didn't stand then?

Mr. McClellan: Ken, I just reject that comparison.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan
Press Briefing
September 29, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our concern has been that you, and the Department of Justice generally, face an inescapable political conflict of interest in investigating campaign fundraising violations that may involve senior Administration officials. As you yourself have recognized in testimony before Congress, such a conflict inevitably arises whenever an Attorney General, appointed and removable by the President, is asked to investigate possible wrongdoing by senior Executive Branch officials.

-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
Letter to Attorney General Janet Reno
July 24, 1998

Also of note, Daily Kos says there might not be much to this report in The Guardian that claims Karl Rove did it.

2003-09-30T14:53:00.000-06:00

American Violence

New film examines Columbine tragedy

Check out this trailer to Elephant, a foreign film about Columbine soon to be coming to the United States.

Elephant

The movie seems to portray the killers as victims of a society that too easily creates social outcasts, apparently a contrast to the Oscar-winning Michael Moore documentary film Bowling for Columbine.

Feel free to use this comment thread to discuss any aspects of violence in America or either of those two films.

2003-09-30T01:02:00.000-06:00

Wilsongate Update - "What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know?"

Not sure what else to call this scandal at this point, and you know how they say journalists love to label things.

I'm in no better position than anybody else to cover this brewing scandal, and I hope you are all reading the same things I am. The Washington Post has made the New York Times look like a bunch of amateurs on this one. Anyway, what I hope to do is simply give you the best of the blogosphere on this thing. Talking Points Memo and Atrios are great and you should be checking them anyway. Here's some of the latest observations from Billmon, paraphrased.

A NY Times article (yes they actually scooped the Post on something) revealed that the CIA almost immediately asked for an inquiry after the column was published on July 14, but the Justice Department refused until CIA Director George Tenet wrote Attorney General John Ashcroft much more recently. In Billmon's words, Tenet must have "gone nuclear". The FBI was asked to investigate Monday.

The Washington Post article that broke the story said the unnamed source wouldn't go on the record to name the leakers. The Washington Post probably knows. This makes a reporter's job much easier, because now he knows what he has to prove and isn't walking blindfolded into the story.

This gem is from the White House press conference transcript. Talking Points Memo got this up first yesterday, and the questions were asking if Karl Rove was involved in the leak.

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows.

QUESTION: What, is he clairvoyant? How does he know?

2003-09-29T21:53:00.000-06:00

Dennis Miller for Senate?

(Via: Political Wire)

This LA Times article says Dennis Miller has been talked to by the California GOP about running for a statewide post, possibly challenging Senator Boxer for her seat in 2004. I guess they figure they haven't been able to win with anybody but actors or Republicans who act like Democrats for the last 30 years, so why not go with what works?

2003-09-29T21:40:00.000-06:00

First Poverty, Now Health Insurance

The number of people living under the poverty line was reported last week to have increased over the year. Now the number of people without health insurance has risen too.

Census Finds Many More Lack Health Insurance

43.6 million people without health insurance. In the United States, there shouldn't be 43 people without health insurance. We're too rich to let this happen.

Sidenote: The only candidate running for President without a plan to expand health coverage is George W. Bush.

2003-09-29T21:33:00.000-06:00

Who Should Investigate?

Today the White House denied Karl Rove had a hand in the Plame affair, and said that if any administration officials had been involved, they wouldn't be in the administration any more. Fair enough. However, this isn't the kind of story that somebody just makes up. I have very little doubt that two White House officials, probably both "top" and "senior", committed the alleged felony. Where else would Bob Novak have gotten his tip? The CIA wouldn't expose its own agent. As Josh Marshall points out at Talking Points Memo, why else would an unnamed Bush administration source say that six reporters were called by two officials and have such detail to share? It seems likely the White House has already investigated. Although she won't comment, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell reportedly contacted Wilson and told him she had been contacted by the administration. Wilson has said publicly he has a keen interest in seeing Karl Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House in handcuffs. More will come on this story, and probably from the Washington Post.

Here's today's news:
Bush Vows Action if Aides Had Role in Leak - Democrats' Demand for Special Counsel Rejected

A few thoughts on this story... I'm less than confident that a John Ashcroft-led Justice Department investigation will result in anything substantially close to the truth if that truth harms the administration he is a part of? There needs to be an independent investigation. The credibility of our intelligence community and justice itself are at stake.

Secondly, about that quote from Press Secretary Scott McClellan today...
"If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Can anybody think of anybody no longer in the administration who might have had contacts with six Washington reporters? (I can.) It seems worth investigating.

Thirdly, check out these two paragraphs really closely.
Another journalist yesterday confirmed receiving a call from an administration official providing the same information about Wilson's wife before the Novak column appeared on July 14 in The Post and other newspapers.

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story."

Sounds like these officials might not have knowingly broken the law, but just been really stupid instead. This probably rules out Vice President Cheney or Condoleeza Rice's involvement, because I happen to think they would know better.

2003-09-28T15:46:00.000-06:00

More on the Plame Affair

The Washington Post Article
This article is the best summary of what has transpired to date. It includes a senior Bush administration official as a source to back up claims that two other senior Bush administration officials blew the cover of CIA Agent Valerie Plame, wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, by leaking her identity to six journalists. One of them, conservative columnist Robert Novak, ran the story. Exposing the cover of an intelligence operative is a felony. Wilson came forward several months ago and exposed the claims that Iraq obtained enriched uranium from Niger as false. The administration has since admitted those claims should not have been made. The senior official said the claims were made to intimidate others who may have considered coming forward.

Bush Administration is Focus of Inquiry - CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media

Who is it? - Atrios
Atrios recently posted on who the senior officials might be. Articles have said the leak came from "top White House officials" and "senior Bush administration officials." Here's what Atrios came up with for people who are both "top" and "senior" officials.

That list would include:

George W. Bush -- President
Dick Cheney – Vice President
Karl Rove Sr. -- Advisor to the President
Condoleeza Rice -- Assistant to the President for National Security
Andy Card – White House Chief of Staff
Ari Fleischer -- Press Secretary
John Walters -- Drug Czar
Josh Bolten – Director of OMB
Michael Gerson – Assistant to the President for Speech Writing and Policy Advisor
Albert Gonzales – White House Counsel
Dan Bartlett – Assistant to the President for Communications
Greg Mankiw -- CEA
Stephen Friedman -- Director NEC
John Gordon -- Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor
Scooter Libby – Vice President’s Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President

Ari Fleischer is on the list as press secretary even though he has now departed the White House. The Novak column at Town Hall is dated July 14, 2003. In a strange coincidence, July 14 was also Fleischer's last day at the White House. If the Press Secretary was involved, it was Ari.

Let's see if the list can be further narrowed.

The Post source implies that President Bush did not know so he comes off the list. Walters, Bolten, Mankiw, and Friedman probably do not have the security clearances needed to know the identity of covert CIA operatives so they get eliminated from the list.

I can not believe that the White House Counsel would be stupid enough to commit six felonies so eliminate Gonzales.

I also can not see the leak coming from the Speech Writing office (maybe I am naive). It is not at all clear to me that Gerson would have security clearance needed to know the identity of covert CIA operatives. Let's eliminate Gerson.

That leaves eight candidates:

1) Dick Cheney – Vice President
2) Karl Rove Sr. -- Advisor to the President
3) Condoleeza Rice -- Assistant to the President for National Security
4) Andy Card – White House Chief of Staff
5) Ari Fleisher -- Press Secretary
6) Dan Bartlett – Assistant to the President for Communication
7) John Gordon -- Assistant to the President and Homeland Security Advisor
8) Scooter Libby – Vice President’s Chief of Staff

I am not sure I would consider Libby and/or Gordon to be top and senior but maybe they are.

If any of the first 5 (Cheney, Rove, Rice, Card or Fleischer) is involved, it is a major scandal.

The identity of the six journalists may soon be known. We know from the efforts to smear Wes Clark that phone records are kept at least for incoming calls to the White House. It does not seem hard to match those calls up with the small circle of suspects.

(Thanks again to Atrios... I don't think he minds me stealing this.)

2003-09-28T05:14:00.000-06:00

This Week's Sunday Mascot

This dog has the world's biggest dog ears. No joke.

2003-09-27T10:49:00.000-06:00

CIA Wants White House Investigation

I'm stealing this post from Daily Kos so everybody that happens here knows what's up. This is kind of a complicated story if you haven't been following it. This is a nice summation.

Still stinging from the White House's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the CIA is requesting the Justice Department investigate the source of the leak.

Plame is the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, who exposed the administration's Yellowcake lies (you know, the forged Niger letter Bush cited as evidence of Iraq's intent to build nukes).

In retaliation, two White House officials told columnist Robert Novak that Plame was a CIA agent, a blatant violation of both the National Agents’ Identity Act and the Unauthorized Release of Classified Information Act. The outing could very well have harmed national security, exposed operations and assets involving Plame, and perhaps even endangered lives. (Here's the column.)

Wilson has already hinted the source of the leak was Karl Rove. Well, not so much hinted as accused:

AQ: Assuming that what Novak said was true, can we expect a ful FBI investigation?

[Ambassador Joseph Wilson]: First, the CIA would perform an internal investigation. The results of that would be passed on to the Justice Department for professional investigation. I don't think this will be dropped. "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words."

So there it is. The CIA has finished its investigation and determined laws were broken. So it has passed on those results to the Justice Department.

Will Ashcroft kill the investigation, or will he dutifully investigate these serious charges?

And if he investigates, will Rove and/or whoever else leaked Plame's identity (and as Novak noted, they were "senior administration officials") offer up sacrificial lambs to save themselves? (Though who would willingly take the fall for a felony and potential jail time?)

Do you guys realize how explosive this could be?

Time for the press to get on the ball.

2003-09-27T10:45:00.000-06:00

Just kinda funny...

North Korea Calls Rumsfeld 'Psychopath'

North Korea called U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld a "psychopath" and a "stupid man" on Saturday, denouncing him for predicting that the country's isolated communist regime will one day fall.

North Korea is like an angry child with a gun. Scary stuff. But you don't see an official statement from a nation-state calling a foreign official a 'psychopath' too often.

2003-09-27T01:42:00.000-06:00

Rove a felon?

CIA seeks probe of White House

This could be the biggest story since Clinton's impeachment.

2003-09-25T16:10:00.000-06:00

Civil Unions poll

The latest Fox News Poll of the President's job approval and the race for the Democratic nomination included a lot of interesting questions for political junkies, including this one.

28. Do you support or oppose allowing homosexual couples to form civil unions that are not marriages, but would give gay couples rights such as inheritance, insurance and hospital visiting privileges?

Support - 46%
Oppose - 44%
Not Sure - 10%

2003-09-24T22:43:00.000-06:00

Compassionate Conservativism at work

In a way, this is related to the last post regarding Tom Friedman's op/ed. Terrorism is not just about violent people who need to be eridicated. There are root causes of terrorism, things that make people susceptible to that line of persuasion. I would imagine living in a poor African village and seeing the only health clinic shut down due to a heartless, immoral US policy designed solely to appeal to President Bush's right-wing political base might qualify.

President Bush (news - web sites)'s anti-abortion policy has forced family planning clinics in poor countries to close, leaving some communities without any healthcare, according to a report issued Wednesday. ...

Under the policy, known as the Mexico City rule by supporters and the Global Gag rule by opponents, foreign family planning agencies cannot receive U.S. funds if they provide abortion services or lobby to make or keep abortion legal in their own country.

And here's an interesting twist: the policy might actually lead to MORE women having abortions. If the Bush administration was serious about stopping abortions, they would do their part to prevent unwanted pregnancies, not restrict access to contraceptives and condoms. Once again, the Bush administration has shown where its priorities lie.

In Romania, women may be more likely to get abortions, not fewer, because the rule has meant more women cannot get any information on contraceptives that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, the report said.

"This is the real face of Bush's compassionate conservatism -- a war on the world's most vulnerable women and children, who bear the brunt of Bush's obsession with appeasing his domestic political base," Planned Parenthood's Gloria Feldt said in a statement.

2003-09-24T22:16:00.000-06:00

Right on the money

Thomas Friedman's latest op/ed really hits the nail on the head. The war on terrorism isn't just about reservists and soldiers. US trade policy should be an instrument in fighting terrorism, not an unwitting enemy.

Connect the Dots

Excerpts:
Cancún was the site of the latest world trade talks, which fell apart largely because the U.S., the E.U. and Japan refused to give up the lavish subsidies they bestow on their farmers, making the prices of their cotton and agriculture so cheap that developing countries can't compete. This is a disaster because exporting food and textiles is the only way for most developing countries to grow. The Economist quoted a World Bank study that said a Cancún agreement, reducing tariffs and agrisubsidies, could have raised global income by $500 billion a year by 2015 — over 60 percent of which would go to poor countries and pull 144 million people out of poverty.

Sure, poverty doesn't cause terrorism — no one is killing for a raise. But poverty is great for the terrorism business because poverty creates humiliation and stifled aspirations and forces many people to leave their traditional farms to join the alienated urban poor in the cities — all conditions that spawn terrorists.

....

If only the Bush team connected the dots, it would see what a nutty war on terrorism it is fighting, explains Mr. Prestowitz. Here, he says, is the Bush war on terrorism: Preach free trade, but don't deliver on it, so Pakistani farmers become more impoverished. Then ask Congress to give a tax break for any American who wants to buy a gas-guzzling Humvee for business use and also ask Congress to resist any efforts to make Detroit increase gasoline mileage in new cars. All this means more U.S. oil imports from Saudi Arabia.

So then the Saudis have more dollars to give to their Wahhabi fundamentalist evangelists, who spend it by building religious schools in Pakistan. The Pakistani farmer we've put out of business with our farm subsidies then sends his sons to the Wahhabi school because it is tuition-free and offers a hot lunch. His sons grow up getting only a Koranic education, so they are totally unprepared for modernity, but they are taught one thing: that America is the source of all their troubles. One of the farmer's sons joins Al Qaeda and is killed in Afghanistan by U.S. Special Forces, and we think we're winning the war on terrorism.

Fat chance.

2003-09-24T18:14:00.000-06:00

Powell said Iraq had no WMD

These comments were recently uncovered by a British investigative reporter, but they're on the State Department website for all to see. Remember: the Bush Administration has admitted that it had no NEW evidence of Saddam's alleged weapons stockpiles or programs since 1998, when UN inspectors left. There should be no reason for a change in that assessment without evidence. Why are we over there?

Press Remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa (February 24, 2001) - from US State Department Website

An excerpt:
We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
- Secretary Powell regarding sanctions on Iraq, February 24, 2001

2003-09-24T17:42:00.000-06:00

Vacation?

Hah. No. With the exception of a few news links here or there, The Conch won't be updated until Sunday. Unless somebody wants to make a guest post, that is. Email your whatever to conch_email@yahoo.com.

2003-09-23T12:45:00.000-06:00

Read This...

This is a hot-button issue for me. The Senate is opening debate this week on an experimental school voucher program for low-income children in Washington, D.C. My two cents on vouchers should be coming later tonight.
Federal dollars to private schools?

One of those horrible things about bad economies that you don't see reflected in unemployment statistics or GDP.
U.S. Retirees Plan More Work, Less Play, Study Says

Yikes. Maybe we should invade Eritrea, too. (Kidding... ) As Tacitus pointed out on Sunday, this is especially strange, because the persecuted in this case are opponents of the Eastern Orthodox Church. So we have a Muslim country persecuting the main opponents of its biggest Christian denomination for possessing bibles. Weird.
Eritrea: 57 Christian girls and boys held in metal containers for possessing bibles

2003-09-22T23:52:00.000-06:00

(No) Hillary in 2004?

In response to this crazy op/ed this crazy op/ed by Bill Safire in the NY Times, accusing the Clintons of propping up Clark so Hillary can dominate a weak field when she enters the race early next year, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo links to his own article from January, 2001, in Slate Magazine. I think I know one Conch reader who will definetely be interested.

Hillary in 2004?

The crux of the story... ain't gonna happen. (I hope Democrats are smart enough to realize this.)

2003-09-22T23:32:00.000-06:00

New Poll Good News for Clark, Democrats (but what does it really mean?)

Clark Tied With President Bush in Poll

I've posted the results of the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, which can be found in the article linked to above. President Bush's approval rating has dropped to 50%. Another lower will be serious trouble for the incumbent. Americans are now evenly split on whether Iraq was "worth going to war over". Wesley Clark has jumped out to a surprising early lead among Democratic contenders, and all the candidates are doing quite well against Bush. I don't post on polls much, because I don't think they mean too much this early in the race, but it's clearly good news for Democrats because they are running even with the incumbent despite trailing in name recognition.

It's also clearly good news for Clark, who has stolen the headlines and even the front-runner status from Howard Dean. However, expect Dean to jump back into the headlines after 3rd quarter fundraising totals are announced. Dean will set the record for funds raised in a single quarter by a Democrat. Clark also has to show he can win in a few early primary states. Dean currently is leading or tied for the lead in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Edwards polled in the low single digits. Before Clark's announcement, some uptick in his numbers was beginning to show. I still think he might catch on (now a solid 4th in Iowa), but it'll be tougher for him now that Clark's in. This article gives a good case for why Democrats should embrace Edwards' economic message even if he doesn't get the nomination. I agree.

Democrats
Clark -- 22
Dean -- 13
Kerry -- 11
Gephardt -- 11
Lieberman -- 10

Democrats vs. Bush
Clark 49, Bush 46
Kerry 48, Bush 47
Lieberman 47, Bush 48
Dean 45, Bush 49

2003-09-22T01:39:00.000-06:00

What is the justification for pre-emptive war?

The Bush administration's Iraq policy vs. Clark's standard for justifying pre-emption.

Most die-hard liberals today argue that there is never a justification for pre-emptive war, but I disagree. However, the threshhold for pre-emptive war has to be much more difficult to attain than the Bush administration has made it. New Democratic presidential candidate Ret. General Wesley Clark, as outlined briefly in this profile of Clark's worldview at Slate Magazine, has guidelines for when pre-emptive war is justified that make sense.

The Bush administration's justification for pre-emptive war on Iraq has morphed over the last year, because as time passed their original justifications no longer made sense. There were three main points in the administration's sales pitch, and none of them hold up under scrutiny.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Originally the US needed to invade because Saddam Hussein lied about the weapons of mass destruction he was supposedly hiding, and those weapons posed an imminent threat to national security and vital interests. As presidential candidate Howard Dean points out frequently in his stump speeches, the administration claimed that they knew the location of these weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was close to reconstitution a nuclear weapons program. I will give the administration the benefit of the doubt and assume they weren't lying through their teeth about these facts. It is entirely possible that they believed these facts to be true, but that they were based on faulty intelligence. Hence, one of the main problems with pre-emptive war is that there's no way to be sure the action is justified. Intelligence can almost always be wrong.

After the weapons didn't turn up, the objective suddenly became to stop the development of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. Once the administration shifted its rhetoric to focus on development programs, they basically admitted they were wrong, and their primary original justification for war was false.

Human Rights
The conservatives who now list human rights protection and Saddam's brutal totalitarian rule as the prime reason for engaging in a "war of liberation" are often the same conservatives who opposed military intervention in Kosovo to stop the ethnic cleansing program of Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic's campaign was current and totally brutal, while Saddam's government was your basic run-of-the-mill dictatorship, previously supported by the US government, and its human rights violations occured many years ago.

There were mass graves in Iraq. Saddam may have used poison gas on the Kurds in Northern Iraq in 1989, although there is evidence that Iran may have been behind the attacks during the Iran-Iraq War that ended that year. Saddam probably dammed up the water supply to a unique indigenous people known as the "marsh Arabs" in SE Iraq several years ago. In my mind, this was the biggest human rights transgression of the Saddam regime, and if you believe interventions in Kosovo and Rwanda were justified, something to save these people may have been justified at that time too.

The biggest problem with this justification of war is that it lacks consistency across the Bush administration's foreign policy. If the US says it aims to liberate the people of Iraq, should it not liberate the people of North Korea, Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe, etc...? The only reason neo-conservatives give for Iraq being a different case is its location in the oil-rich and politically troubled Middle East. However, current events in Israel, Iran, and Iraq show that regime change in Iraq did not lead to peace in the Middle East, and that justification was no more credible than betting on one side of a coin flip.

Al-Qaida Link and Weapons Proliferation
If true, evidence for this would have been the most convincing case that could've been made for pre-emptive war. Iraq wouldn't have had the means to be a serious threat to anybody without connections to terrorists, because it lacked the delivery systems needed to strike even nearby Israel with these alleged weapons. If Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and established links with a global terrorist network, it would have had the means to proliferate weapons which could pose a catastrophic threat to anybody in the world. However, evidence for this couldn't have been sketchier. The plausbility of this was exagerrated by the Bush administration in light of this sketchy evidence. And the credibility of this argument is entirely based on the given fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which now appears false.

Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are ideologically incompatible. Hussein is a secular dictator, while bin Laden is a fundamentalist who believes that secular rulers should be out of the Arab world. The likelyhood that there was an alliance between these two is unlikely, but not entirely impossible. After all, the United States and the Soviet Union allied to fight the axis powers in World War II. Unfortunately, there is a greater likelyhood that the US forced these two into an alliance by presenting itself as their mutual mortal threat than that they were already working in tandem. The only evidence the Bush administration presented to the UN or the US Congress of such a link was that there was an al-Qaida member treated at an Iraqi hospital, and that there were reportedly al-Qaida cells operating in Iraq. There are cells operating in about forty other countries too, usually without the consent of the government (Afghanistan was an exception), including the United States. Should we invade Oregon too?

The biggest lesson the US should learn from the Iraqi experience is that intelligence isn't incontroverible fact. To paraphrase what Ambassador Joesph Wilson, the whistle-blower on the Bush administration's false claim regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire yellowcake from Niger, said at a discussion forum hosted by US Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA), intelligence is interpreting complex sets of facts, obtained by sources of varying reliability, and deducing what these facts mean. It's not an exact science, and it's almost always impossible to conclude anything beyond a shadow of a doubt based solely on intelligence. Therefore, it is necessary to go the extra mile.

General Clark believes that pre-emptive war should not be waged based solely on evidence of the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, there should also be solid evidence of a plan to proliferate or use these weapons against the US or its vital interests. If there is solid evidence (Clark said "documents or discussion" are needed) of a plan to use weapons, one can pretty much assume that those weapons at least exist, especially if there is already intelligence indicating it does. Again, one could imagine a scenario in which the intelligence is wrong on both the means and the plan to attack, but it's much more unlikely than mistaking whether or not an adversary has the weapons to attack with. These two pieces, in concert with a pattern of hostility, would be more than enough evidence to take action without much fear of being wrong about the justification for that action.

Neo-conservatives argue that sometimes waiting to check on whether intelligence is accurate and gathering more intelligence is not a luxury a country can afford when a possible consequence could be a September 11-style attack. The US didn't wait to attack Iraq, and is now faced with a dire situation. US troops are engaged in a guerilla war in a semi-hostile country that has become a magnet for terrorists, who are easily penetrating Iraq's porous borders. Iran and North Korea are speeding up their nuclear programs to take advantage of the window of opportunity where US forces are committed so heavily in Iraq that threating force to deter the continued development of their nuclear programs is impossible. The US has also damaged its credibility in the world to such a degree that should a genuine threat arise, the world will be leery to listen. Engaging in pre-emptive war without proving the justification for it is something the US has clearly not been able to afford.

2003-09-21T00:39:00.000-06:00

"Awww"

I generally don't post on weekends, but...

Chipmunk Hitches a Ride to California

2003-09-19T15:06:00.000-06:00

Kennedy: War Money Being Used for Bribes

While it's not unusual for Democrats to speak out strongly against the war effort in Iraq, if Senator Kennedy's accusations in his latest criticism of President Bush's war policy are true, there will be (and should be) serious political consequences.

From the AP - Kennedy Says Iraq War Case a Fraud

...
Kennedy said a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office showed that only about $2.5 billion of the $4 billion being spent monthly on the war can be accounted for by the Bush administration.

"My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops," he said.

Bribing foreign governments is bad, but what makes this accusation so horrible if true is not the bribe itself, but that the American people were lied to about where their tax money is going. Obviously I don't know what kind of evidence Senator Kennedy might have, but this is a story everybody, regardless of how you feel about the war, should start following closely.

2003-09-19T10:54:00.000-06:00

Bad Idea

U.S. May Study Israeli Occupation Tactics

In an apparent search for pointers on how to police a hostile population, the U.S. military that's trying to bring security to Iraq (news - web sites) is showing interest in Israeli software instructing soldiers on how to behave in the West Bank and Gaza, an Israeli military official said Thursday.

I'm no expert on how to occupy an impoverished foreign land, but based solely on the stunning lack of success the Israeli occupation has had in preventing terror attacks and reducing the appeal of terrorist organizations to the Palestinians, I hope that the U.S. is only considering studying Israeli tactics to find out what NOT to do.

2003-09-18T20:30:00.000-06:00

Not Good: NK May Have More Nukes

It's interesting to remember that the Bush administration promised that a decisive victory over Iraq would humble all potential adversaries with our military might, thus ushering in an era of peace through strength and intimidation. Precisely the opposite has turned out to be true. Iran and North Korea both seem to be accelerating their nuclear weapons programs now that they see the U.S. is in no position to threaten military action.

Starting now, you're going to see more frequent posts concerning the situation in North Korea. Part of this is because I think it's the most dangerous situation U.S. foreign policy has to confront, and part of this is because as part of my university studies, I'm beginning a semester long research project on the history and progress (or lack thereof) of the ongoing standoff.

What makes the situation in North Korea so dangerous is that they have a proven history of weapons proliferation, and an economic situation dire enough to make proliferating nuclear weapons seem viable. The U.S. will have to negotiate from a particularly weak position for the near future because the war in Iraq has stretched military resources too thin to effectively use the threat of force as a negotiating tool.

The news analysis in this particular article is very good and underscores just how complicated the situation is.

Experts Fear N. Korea May Have More Nukes

Every new weapon would enhance North Korea's nuclear capability and give the country significantly more authority at the negotiating table, experts say.

One or two nuclear weapons would be considered last-resort devices, because once used they could no longer deter a U.S. nuclear response. But a half-dozen would give North Korea the ability to strike and then be ready to strike again.

In addition, if North Korea had weapons to spare, its leaders might be more willing to part with one, either in a test or by selling it. The leaders also could more easily afford to put one weapon on display at a missile launch site for U.S. spy satellites to see — to up the ante in negotiations.

2003-09-17T22:59:00.000-06:00

Guest Blogger

Emily is the second Conch reader to submit a column for posting on The Conch. Most points of view and most topics are cool by me as long as the points are well-articulated. If you're interested in writing a guest post, contact me at conch_email@yahoo.com. Of course, comments are always welcome.

Hostage standoff ends in Tennessee

Guns on campus: Good or Bad?

Sadly, earlier today, Harold Kilpatrick Jr., took a college basic math class hostage. About 70 miles outside of Tennessee, a few hours into the standoff, three women, one pregnant were allowed to leave the classroom. The teacher and 12 students remained. Before killing himself, he wounded two of the hostages. A nine-hour standoff resulted in his death, but no others were seriously hurt. He had apparently left a note earlier in the day saying, he "wanted to kill some people and die today."

College students like me may have shivered today at the thought of such a thing happening at their own schools. But in my case, the stakes seem to be just a bit higher. I hold a position with the residential life staff on our campus; most people would call me an "RA." As part of my training I had to meet with Public Safety (our on campus police dept.). During this meeting I learned that our officers do not carry guns. I had all that time assumed that my public
safety officers carried firearms. Technically, the college says that they are armed: If you count nightsticks, mace and their own fists! While these are components of police weaponry, a handgun is essential.

Before all you gun-haters roll your eyes, look up some of the stats on how many lives a year are saved by guns. (And while you are at it, might as well check on the fact that more kids die each year from drowning than from accidents involving guns.)

The worst thing about the choice not to have our officers carry guns is that the choice-maker had apparently said that she was worried about how the students might feel about guns on their campus. I can tell you: I AM A STUDENT, AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF GUNS ON MY CAMPUS! The issue here is not whether guns are good are bad, but how essential they are to the job of a police officer. Just as a student learns to use a computer to write a paper and therefore pass a class, an officer uses a gun to scare/fend off wrongdoers and therefore serve and protect. For a policeman who is trained and well-educated in the uses of a gun, the gun is a tool on which he depends. I had an officer tell me that if a lunatic were to come on campus with a gun shooting people right and left, we would have no defense- because not only do our officers not carry guns, there are no guns on our campus. No gun safe in the Public Safety office- NOTHING.

I'm not suggesting that an incident like in Tennessee could have been prevented at my college if officers carried guns; I am suggesting that if they carried them, the officers would be better equipped and better prepared to protect the faculty, staff and students.

Dyersburg Police Chief Bobby Williamson was earlier quoted saying that this was a sad crime, but luckily the officers had been preparing for this kind of unpleasant incident. Unfortunately that is not something that my school can be proud of.

Emily is a sophomore and member of College Republicans.

2003-09-17T20:04:00.000-06:00

The Wrong Message on Marijuana

Seattle voters passed I-75 yesterday, mandating police to make adult marijuana possession city law enforcement's lowest priority. The question I have is simply, Why?

City law enforcement already made adult marijuana possession a low priority, as it probably should be. I have no interest in filling up our jails with people who have substance abuse problems that would be better addressed by treatment and rehabilitation. But, since this law is going to change absolutely nothing about how law enforcement handles marijuana cases, what's the point?

Instead, the only effect this law appears to condone marijuana use. As City Attorney Tom Carr said, it gives children the idea that marijuana use is something society will "wink at and ignore." This idea could lead to more children experimenting with marijuana. Marijuana is a scientifically proven "gateway drug" for children, so this necessarily would lead to more children with a serious drug problem later down the line, which means both more people in prisons and more people in rehab.

Why can't we just stick to making laws that make sense and actually have a chance to accomplish something?

2003-09-17T19:22:00.000-06:00

Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9/11

Yesterday it was Rumsfeld, and today President Bush himself finally admitted Saddam had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.

Bush: No proof of Saddam role in 9/11
The president's comment was the administration's firmest assertion that there is no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11. It came after Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on Sunday clouded the issue by saying, "It's not surprising people make that connection" between Saddam and the attacks.

Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," also repeated an allegation — doubted by many in the intelligence community — that Mohamed Atta, the lead Sept. 11 attacker, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before Sept. 11.

As Josh Marshall said, Bush is using the same logic by saying there's no evidence of a Saddam role in 9/11 as he would be using by saying there's no evidence that I can bench press 1000 pounds. What I can't figure out is why the administration insists on sending mixed signals. The American people aren't stupid, and sooner or later this is going to present a serious credibility problem for President Bush. I assume that by admitting Saddam's distance from the attacks they are trying to address that, but that is only an effective strategy if they appear like they're telling the truth. Having the President say one thing and the VP say another isn't going to cut it.

2003-09-17T01:30:00.000-06:00

Guest Blogger

Michael is the first Conch reader to submit a column for posting on The Conch. Most points of view and most topics are cool by me as long as the points are well-articulated. If you're interested in writing a guest post, contact me at conch_email@yahoo.com. Of course, comments are always welcome.

Patriotism: Blinded by the Flag

On September 11th 2001 this nation rose up united. People all across the country stood arm in arm vowing never to forget the day. Flags popped up on every street corner, while America the Beautiful rang in everyone’s heads. This nation’s wounds were bandaged in red, white, and blue. Many took opportunity to motivate people using the renewed sense of patriotism. Sometime between all the brotherhood and mourning, a new enemy crept in.

This enemy was using the same source that brought the country together to drive people apart. The term patriot was now part of the desperate’s arsenal. People began accusing others of being unpatriotic for not falling in line with every idea the President had. Claims were made that tarnished reputations. I have been appalled, disgusted, and downright ashamed of some of the things said in the name of patriotism in the past two years.

I find myself trying to figure out how patriotism became so perverted. In the 2002 Senate elections I saw one of America’s great veterans, Max Cleland (who lost 3 limbs fighting for this nation), labeled unpatriotic because he refused to give up civil liberties. This nation, now thriving on fear and anger, has seemed to forget what the patriots of the past fought so hard to protect. We have fought against communist nations where to dissent was punishable by law. Americans now have to worry that by dissenting they too will be punished and alienated.

When President Bush wanted to declare war on Iraq he gave speeches alternating between talking of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. There was a clear intent to stir the patriotism and anger felt about September 11th into frenzy for war with Iraq. Anytime I heard someone oppose the war I heard people calling out coward. When I heard people ask, “Why we are going after Saddam when Bin Laden was still out there?” I heard screams saying un-American. Since when did disagreeing with the president become un-American? As far as I can remember it has almost been tradition to find those who dissent.

More and more patriotism feels like indoctrination. Last week I heard something that made my heart sink. Teen pop icon Britney spears said “Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens”. Sure enough, after watching this statement of blind trust, I saw people nodding their heads in approval.

Even as people read this they will accuse me of being unpatriotic and say, “Don’t you remember?” Rest assured I remember. I remember that McCarthy trials were patriots trying to get rid of those un-American communists. I remember the day when the flag became a shield from dissent. And yes, I remember the day those towers fell.

Michael is a junior at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. He is studying public relations, marketing and political science.

2003-09-16T23:27:00.000-06:00

Read This...

This a great feature about the "troubling issues of inmate justice - and society's indifference." This is a great read and doesn't require registration, so no excuse.
Inside prison, outside the law

Senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) formally announced his candidacy for President of the United States today. (Does he kind of look like Bobby Kennedy?) From my view, Edwards is starting to hit his stride, and he's been the best of the Democrats at articulating the problems with the values of the Bush Administration.

You probably didn't hear much about Edwards' announcement today, because aides to ret. General Wesley Clark (D-Ark.) ended months of speculation by leaking that his presidential candidacy will begin tomorrow. (Scroll down for my analysis of the Clark candidacy.)
Clark Will Announce Run for Presidency

2003-09-16T21:49:00.000-06:00

Rumsfeld sees no link between Iraq, 9/11

Journalists are taught to always stay for the question/answer period of a speech, lecture, etc.... One bright journalist had the nerve to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, considering 70% of Americans think Saddam was somehow behind September 11, whether he believed Saddam was indeed involved in those attacks.

His answer is quite telling.
"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

So why do so many Americans believe there's a link? Unfortunately, it's because the Bush Administration chose to exploit the greatest tragedy in American history since Pearl Harbor to justify a war that neo-conservatives have been calling for since 1998.

Granted, nobody in the Bush Administration never came out and said, "Iraq was behind 9/11." That would've been a lie they couldn't have gotten themselves out of. In President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address, which he used to make the case for war in Iraq, he mentioned September 11 nine times. In speeches since, he has continued to juxtapose Iraq and September 11 in ways that hint at a link.

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."
- President Bush declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1.

The way the Bush Administration has done this over the last year or so has been nothing short of a despicable act. I can't imagine them doing anything that would make me forget about this or forgive them for act, short of apologizing. But it's not me they should apologize to. As a start, how about the families of the 3,000 people who lost their lives two years ago this week?

2003-09-15T22:44:00.000-06:00

Read This... with a twist

I wish I could post more, but I can't. At least half of my readers are college students, so you understand.

Here's the twist. Since I won't be able to post as much as I'd like, I'm opening up The Conch to guest posts. Most points of view and most topics are cool by me as long as the points are well-articulated. I've already talked to a few of you. If you're interested in writing a guest post, contact me at the following email address:

conch_email@yahoo.com

Now class, here's today's reading.

I've done my best to keep this blog away from name-calling. Have you heard a lot of conservatives talking about how much the left HAAAATES President Bush? As you surf around the liberal blogosphere, you will not find anywhere near the hatred of President Bush as these Republicans show for Howard Dean on this post and comments thread on The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Ezra Klein at Not Geniuses was kind enough to bring people's attention to the civil discussion at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. I also agreed with this very short post on why Dean and Edwards are, in my mind, the cream of the Democratic current crop at this time.

Here's on article in the Washington Post on the problems with 'No Child Left Behind', or at least some of them.
To Educators, 'No Child' Goals Out of Reach

2003-09-13T11:38:00.000-06:00

The Value of Dissent

This week Defense Secretary Rumsfeld tried to imply that dissenting opinions hurt the war effort... blah, blah, blah. Same old neo-conservative garbage. You'd probably expect me to post some overly righteous, uber-patriotic rant of my own, but frankly I'm sick of it. All thinking American adults should know the importance of free speech and dissent to both the democratic process and American ideals.

What I'm going to post instead is a link to another blogger's take on why dissent is so important. I like showing different takes on the same old ideas when I can, so we can continue a dialogue on this important topic without sounding as if we're beating a dead horse.

Why Dissent Remains Important
- by Jack at Balkinization

Here's an excerpt:
Dissent provides a crucial counterweight to wishful thinking. If the Administration simply dismisses the dissenter today, as it did in the past, it risks making the same mistakes it made in the past two years...

2003-09-11T21:39:00.000-06:00

Two Years Later

How has your life changed since 9/11? What did you do today to remember?

Have we learned from 9/11, or is it best simply to remember? How do you feel about the USA PATRIOT Act? Are we doing what we need to do to fight terrorism?

An open thread...

2003-09-11T21:18:00.000-06:00

The General's Campaign

Obviously, there's been a lot of news today on the possible presidential candidacy of Wesley Clark, the retired 4-star Army General and CNN military analyst.

News Today
First, early today, the Washington Post reported Clark and Dean had discussed the General joining the Dean campaign.
Gen. Clark Reportedly is Asked to Join Dean

Then, in the afternoon...
Clark Set to Enter 2004 Presidential Race

A CNN poll today also showed Clark drawing evenly from the four top Democratic contenders (Gephardt, Dean, Lieberman, Kerry) and apparently already established as a serious contender for the nomination.

What It Might Mean
It is clearly in the interest of the Dean campaign to feed the speculation that Clark is running to secure the VP slot from the winner, especially if that winner was Dean. This strategy has the effect of reducing the amount of Dean supporters who would switch their support to Clark, because those Dean supporters would believe Clark would eventually be on their ticket anyway. It seems pretty logical to assume that the Dean team leaked the story of the Dean/Clark meeting over the weekend to the Washington Post.

It is equally interesting, however, that the same day a story came out directly contradicting the notion that Clark is only interesting in a VP position. Could this be a sign of an effective bare bones Clark operation already in the works? I'm surprised nobody in the blogosphere has made this point as of yet. Of course, it has the advantage of being impossible to prove, but if true, it's a good sign for Clark supporters.

Clark's Advantages
While Clark has not offered any specific policies or programs, his tone and rhetoric seem to place him somewhere along with Dean in the left-leaning radical center of the political spectrum. (See the On the Issues page at the Draft Wesley Clark website.) His resume has the advantage of negating Dean's biggest perceived weakness, foreign policy experience. (Granted, most Democrats paying attention at this point know Dean's foreign policy is very carefully crafted, and probably influenced a great deal by discussions with Clark, but for better or worse, politics is perception.) While Dean is undoubtedly a centrist, Clark would probably appeal to supporters turned off to the rabidly liberal nature of a good number of Dean supporters (Deaniacs, Dean-heads, Deany-boppers, etc...) who were initially drawn to Dean's opposition to the war in Iraq.

Kerry's campaign has focused to this point on his resume. Clark will take from Kerry the distinction of being the only candidate with a military record. Kerry can talk about serving in Vietnam, and Clark can talk about graduating at the top of his class from West Point, serving in Vietnam, and rising to the rank of 4-star general after over 30 years in the military. He as NATO's "Supreme Allied Commander" during the Bosnia campaign, and he even wrote a book about it.

This resume may also leave him uniquely suited to unify the party's liberal and centrist bases, because he has the uniform to appear supremely credible on military issues while spewing anti-Iraq war rhetoric as sharp and pointed as any candidates. This is his biggest advantage.

Of course, he also has the support of the Clinton's political organization and will probably gain President Clinton's endorsement if he enters the race. Clark beat Bush in a "blind bio" Zogby poll, asking those surveyed to choose between the candidate's resumes, by nearly 10 points. He's also been described by some as incredibly telegenic.

Clark's Disadvantages
While Clark supporters enjoy comparing their guy to President Eisenhower, Clark doesn't enjoy anywhere near the name recognition or the popularity Eisenhower did before he was elected. Clark's biggest claim-to-fame in the minds of most voters is having sat in on CNN as a military analyst during the Iraq war.

As the more astute observers point out, Clark was asked to leave his post as Supreme Commander of NATO in August, 2000, by President Clinton. Why was he asked to leave? The answer to this question will be speculated upon behind the scenes by the right and those in the Democratic field who wouldn't consider Clark as a potential future ally.

Wesley Clark is not a politician. He's never run for anything. While this will be an advantage in drawing in disenfranchised voters looking for something new, a la Howard Dean and, to a lesser extent, Arnold Schrawzenegger, his lack of experience will be a major vulnerability in both the primaries and general election.

Other candidates have spent as much as a year organizing political operations in key states by hiring up the top talent in the field and raising money. By the end of this quarter, Dean and Kerry will likely have raised over $20 million for the year, while Clark will probably have only raised around $3 million. This weakness doesn't hurt Clark's ability to beat Bush, but it does hurt Clark's ability to beat the other Democrats. His late entry into the race will only help fuel the notion that he's really running to secure himself the VP position with the eventual winner, especially if it is Dean or Kerry.

There's also creepy, ambiguous associations with the Clintons. This article in the NY Times a few days ago led some to speculate that Hillary Clinton was planning a run as Clark's VP. Clark definitely has connections to the Clintons, which will help him overcome his financial disadvantages, but may also fuel rampant anti-Clinton rage on the right. I'm not one to hate the Clintons, but lots of people do hate them, and Clark's position in the radical center would be compromised by associations with such divisive political figures as Bill and Hillary.

Clark and The Conch
I'm not going to officially endorse any candidate until more specifics come from Clark. Let's see a health care plan, a foreign policy, an economic stimulus plan, etc.... How's he going to hold up in the debates? Can he raise enough money to compete?

Despite my doubts, I'm keenly interested. If I had to rank the candidates in order of my preference, Clark's a solid #2 at this point. Regardless of how Clark takes shape as a candidate, having a 4-star general on your side always looks good.

Most political observers expect Clark to announce one way or the other at a scheduled speech in Iowa next Friday. I want him to run.

2003-09-08T10:59:00.000-06:00

This is a crazy day.

Lord knows, there's lots to say today. Unfortunately, I won't be able to post until probably tomorrow. Say hi in the comment thread, and check out these blogs.

Ngati Ao - by Benjamin. There's some unique stuff on here.

Juan Cole - by, you guessed it, Juan Cole. Cole is a history professor at the University of Michigan and writes about "the Middle East, history, Islam, and religion." He has an interesting commentary on President Bush's address last night.

2003-09-06T22:29:00.000-06:00

Read This...

By now, you've probably noticed the pattern I'm going to settle into for the school year. There will be several substantial posts during the week, while on the weekends I'll probably only post the "Read This..." section.

Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean appeared with California Governor Gray Davis to show solidarity against the recall. Not only is Dean beginning to act like the frontrunner, he's beginning to step into the role as a prominent party leader.
In an Appearance With Davis, Dean Denounces Recall Effort

President Bush's address Sunday night will probably give him a slight bounce in the polls, which according to this latest Zogby poll, he needs badly.
Bush Numbers Hit New Low, Dean Tops List of Democratic Presidential Contenders

A shortage of priests is leading some Catholics to consider calling for celibacy to be optional.
A Married Priesthood

Mary at The Left Coaster effectively and rightly rips into the Bush EPA's policy on snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park.
Another Day, Another Clean Air Victory

I got this via Mike at The 18 1/2 Minute Gap, and it's something I like to point out to people who say Republicans are better at economic management.
Administration Average Annual Job Growth
Kennedy/Johnson + 3.27%
Carter + 3.11%
Clinton + 2.38%
Reagan + 2.04%
Nixon/Ford + 1.90%
Eisenhower + 0.85%
Bush, Sr. + 0.63%
Bush, Jr. - 0.78%

2003-09-05T01:41:00.000-06:00

Read This...

Nobody really won the first debate between the Democratic presidential candidates, which means Howard Dean is still the frontrunner. He didn't face as many attacks as expected, but Sen. Joe Lieberman TRIED. I admit some bias, but I can say with certainly that this one ended Dean 7, Lieberman 0. The former VP candidate seemed to imply that Dean would be WORSE than Bush, which makes me think he got lost on the way to the Republican debate and ended up in the wrong theatre.

Lieberman Opens Anti-Dean Offensive

Lieberman said he found “stunning” a quote attributed to Dean in an interview in the Washington Post on Aug. 25 in which Dean said he would not have trade agreements with any nations that did not adopt American labor and environmental standards.
...
Dean answered Lieberman by saying the human rights, labor and environmental standards in trade accords need not be American, but could be those set by the International Labor Organization. He added, “We can not continue to ship our jobs to countries where they get paid 50 cents an hour with no occupational safety and health, no overtime, no labor protections, and no right to organize.”

Here's a fun article about how prescription drug companies bought influence in the GOP and Bush Administration in exchange for a drug plan that keeps prices as high as possible. Keep in mind that prescription drug users are the sick and needy. I love "compassionate conservativism."
Industry Fights to Put Imprint on Drug Bill

2003-09-04T19:53:00.000-06:00

Trade and Immigration

At the presidential debate at UNM tonight, most of the candidates continued their call to include labor, environmental, and human rights standards into existing and future trade agreements. This is a must. It is a necessary step to dissuade companies from moving their jobs to places where they can pay workers less, prevent workers from bargaining collectively, and pollute the environment more than they are allowed to in the United States. However, this step will have an effect on more than just the struggling American manufacturing sector.

If Mexican workers were guarenteed the right to organize, and to bargain collectively for better wages, safety standards, and health benefits, illegal immigration into the US from Mexico would drop dramatically. Conditions wouldn't be so bad that hundreds of thousands become convinced sneaking across the border was their last hope for a dignified existence.

I was disappointed that none of the candidates on stage in Albequerque tonight were able to articulate that connection. None of the candidates come off as flawless in these debates and forums, so I would say there's definetely room for Wesley Clark on stage. (C'mon General!) That said, I thought Governor Dean handled himself beautifully when attacked by Senator Lieberman on the trade standards issue. It's the first time he's been in a back and forth argument like that with another candidate, so it was encouraging to see him perform well under the pressure he's sure to encounter more often.

2003-09-04T00:00:00.000-06:00

Read This...

Dean is the front-runner as the race heats up, starting with the first of four sanctioned debates tomorrow night.
Democratic Race Pivots on Dean - from C.S. Monitor

Check out one of my absolute favorite blogs on the net. There are three terrific writers, including one from The University of Montana, Matt Singer. (Thanks for the shout-out Matt!)
These guys are Not Genuises, but you should check it out anyway.

Bond. James Bond.
In London, Sports Car Doubles as Boat

2003-09-03T22:29:00.000-06:00

Immigration: A Needed Conversation

It's not often I find myself nodding in agreement to something I read in the National Review, so I figured it was postworthy.

In fact, this article by NR editor Rich Lowry made a bit of sense to me. Of course there is a snide remark criticizing liberals' fondness for looking after children, and I suspect, perhaps cynically, that this is part of the GOP effort to convince minority voters that the Democratic Party doesn't represent them or protect their interests.

Thus, high-level immigration is further laid bare as one of the great corporate-welfare programs of all time. Immigration gives employers a ready source of cheap labor, reduces the bargaining power of native-born workers and weakens the clout of unions. It imposes costs on taxpayers, so all of us subsidize employers' cheap workers.

No wonder corporate America loves our open borders. They serve as a kind of rolling, reverse minimum-wage law.

The NR position on immigration must be amended to single out illegal immigration, and exclude legal, hard working immigrants. The United States is a nation of immigrants, and should encourage the brightest minds in the world to come to the United States, as they have done throughout history. The US should also encourage anybody in the world lacking an education to come here and fulfill their human potential, as long as they're willing to work for it. The American Dream should be attainable for anybody willing to do the work.

However, the kind of open borders the US should avoid is a porous border where illegal crossing is as easy as it is now. Illegal immigrants drive wages down by offering a steady supply of cheap labor, as correctly explained in the NR op/ed. Unions and the Democratic Party should embrace immigration reform as a way to protect the wages of the American worker. Unfortunately, both parties are reluctant to tackle this issue because of their loyalty to interest groups. Hispanics, for obvious reasons, oppose tighter border patrols, and they are a key constituency of the Democratic Party. Corporations rely on cheap labor from illegal immigrants, and they hold too much political clout in the Republican Party. It would take a brave politician with a creative idea to enact meaningful reform.

So, in another first for The Conch, I'd like to applaud Joe Lieberman's new proposal to enact immigration reform. I'm not a policy analyst, just a hack, so I'm not sure if it will work, but it seems like a way to tighten border security while still respecting the human dignity of immigrants. If Lieberman's right, it will reduce illegal immigration through market forces, and that's much preferable to mass arrests and deportations. Here's the explanation of Lieberman's plan in the linked article:

Lieberman's proposal would grant legal status to undocumented workers many of them Mexicans who have lived in the United States for five years and can pay their taxes, as long as they do not pose a security risk.
...
Lieberman wants to create a temporary work visa program for unskilled and semiskilled workers to fill labor shortages in the construction and service industries. Lieberman said such a program would not take jobs from Americans but would reduce illegal immigration and stop the exploitation of undocumented workers.

Maverick Republican Senator John McCain (R-Az.) also recently sponsored a proposal to grant legal status to undocumented workers in the US, and I think it's both a good idea, for the economic reasons mentioned above, and the right thing to do. As well said by long-shot presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun, "It doesn't matter whether you came to this country on the Mayflower or on a slave ship, through Ellis Island or the Rio Grande. We're all in the same boat now."

Immigration in the US is an important topic to discuss in regards to both the economy and human rights. It's time for the two parties to put aside their loyalty to special interests and have a serious discussion.

2003-09-03T10:39:00.000-06:00

Petulance

"If we want to be safe in this country we'd better have a foreign policy based on something other than petulance."
- Howard Dean

It's a line that appears in nearly every one of Gov. Dean's stump speeches, but what exactly does it mean? How is the Bush Administration being petulant?

US Derides 'Chocolate Makers' for EU Military Headquarters Plan

In unusually blunt language that drew surprised gasps from reporters, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher scoffed at Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg for continuing to support the proposal that they first introduced at a mini-summit in April.

He described the April meeting as one between "four countries that got together and had a little bitty summit" and then referred to them collectively as "the chocolate makers."

The State Department is supposed to be the diplomatic arm of the US government. In theory, the US State Department should be filled with some of the brightest diplomatic minds in the world. Of course, everybody makes mistakes. What makes this worthy of note is how it continues the pattern of petulance shown by the Bush Administration's foreign policy. I'd have to say this one even beats Secretary Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" shot.

By the way, aren't we trying to get help for our troops in Iraq?

2003-09-03T00:47:00.000-06:00

Read This, Look at That

Read This... is a smattering of links to news stories or op/ed pieces from today that I think are important, timely, interesting, or otherwise just "cool", but didn't post about. I might include some pictures now and then. As always, questions, comments, suggestions, links to stories you thought I should've included, rants, and just about everything else are welcome. Enjoy.

Anytime you hear the Bush Administration say they care about "healthy forests" or environmental protection in any way, they're trying to fool you.
Superfund to Run Out of Money, says GAO

Just in case you missed it, John Kerry's running for President.
"No Ordinary Time" - John Kerry's Announcement Speech The speech begins at 44:30.

Something for you neo-cons. This op/ed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In my estimation it's pure propaganda, trying to paint those against the occupation of Iraq for any reason as unpatriotic. This is not out of character for the GOP, and frankly I'm sick of them insulting my love of country. Anyway, I'm trying to be fair and balanced, so here.
Support Our Troops

2003-08-29T18:52:00.000-06:00

Dave Matthews vs. Moby

Thanks to Atrios for noticing this one.

According to CNN's Inside Politics, a few more famous musicians are signing up with presidential candidates.

WOODRUFF: Well, you can add a musical name to the list of celebrities lending a hand to their favorite presidential candidate. Dave Matthews is expected to help former Vermont Governor Howard Dean at a fund-raiser next month. Final details are still being nailed down.

John Kerry will have his own musical accompaniment at two fund raisers next month. Moby is scheduled to perform at a low dollar Kerry event in Boston and another in New York.

So the question is: who wins the cool musician primary?

John Kerry - Moby
Howard Dean - Dave Matthews
Dennis Kucinich - Ani Difranco and Willie Nelson.

I think I can nail down how at least two Conch readers will vote... comments welcome as always. Ciao.

2003-08-28T23:26:00.000-06:00

Read This, Look at That

2003-08-28T21:57:00.000-06:00

Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Howard Dean -- Who's the Liberal?

I've been meaning to write something about the bodybuilder's campaign for a while, but what sparked a thought was a comparison to the other hot campaign in the country right now, that of the party insurgent turned nomination frontrunner Howard Dean. What confused me most was why Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Republican, because when you look at the issues, he lands very close on the spectrum to the feisty ex-Governor from Vermont. Let's take a look...

Who's the Liberal?

Offshore Drilling in California - TIE
- Both Dean and Arnold are opposed to oil and gas drilling off California's coast.

Abortion - DEAN
- Arnold supports a ban on partial-birth abortions, while Dean opposes such a ban.

Affirmative Action - TIE
- Both candidates support affirmative action programs.

Guns - ARNOLD
- While Dean opposes any additional gun control, Arnold has said, "Gun control should be stiffer."

Gay-rights - TIE
- Both support domestic partnerships, but say marriage should be reserved for relationships between men and women. Arnold supports homosexual adoption, whereas Dean's stance on homosexual adoption is unclear. Arnold doesn't support civil unions, while Dean signed the nation's first civil unions bill in the country as Vermont's governor after mandated by the state's supreme court. However, Dean has promised to let states decide their own civil unions issues as President.

As governor, Dean ran as a pro-business moderate. Arnold has promised to fix California's budget by "bringing business back to the state and making California a job-creating machine." While that approach isn't endorsed by most economists, it sure beats cuts in education and health care, which both Arnold and Dean adamently oppose. I'm very skeptical that a budget deficit as large as California's can be cured without a tax increase of some kind. Still, the similarities between Democrats like Dean and Schwarzenegger are striking, and Arnold may be able to win in October without necessarily getting the votes of all Republicans.

2003-08-28T11:51:00.000-06:00

Leaving (More) Children Behind

This is op/ed piece by NY Times columnist Bob Herbert is a nice follow-up to my post yesterday, and it's another example of the horribly misplaced priorities of the Bush Administration. Take the time to read the entire article.

The Kids Left Behind

Next week the Senate will take up the education budget proposed for next year by the White House and Senate Republicans. From the perspective of those who are pro-children, it's loaded with bad news. Not only does the bill fall far short of the photo-op promises Mr. Bush made to provide funding for programs to improve public education, but it would actually cut $200 million from the president's very own (and relentlessly touted) No Child Left Behind Act.

...

The proposed cuts, according to Congressional officials who have studied the budget proposal, would eliminate a high school dropout prevention program, would prevent more than 32,000 children with limited proficiency in English from participating in federally supported English instruction programs, would drastically cut high school equivalency and college assistance for migrant children, and would end the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship program.

The proposal would also cut more than 20,000 teachers from professional training programs, despite Mr. Bush's promise that teachers would "get the training they need to raise educational standards."

2003-08-27T18:37:00.000-06:00

Read This, Look at That...

I'm going to post this everyday. Read This... will be a smattering of links to news stories or op/ed pieces that I thought were important, timely, interesting, or otherwise just 'cool', but didn't post about. I might include some pictures now and then.

A few AP stories on the political phenomenon known as the Dean Campaign, including some great news if you're a Deaniac...
Democrat Dean to Step Up Effort in Iowa
Dean Takes 21-point Lead in New Hampshire

Dmitri at Citizen Dmitri took some pictures at the Portland rally for Howard Dean on the Sleepless Summer Tour on Sunday.
Citizen Dmitri

Paul Krugman's column in the NY Times today explaining his theory on why the Bush Administration decided to direct the EPA not to tell New Yorkers their health was at risk after 9/11.
Dust and Deception

Amy Sullivan explains why it's not too late for the entry of Gen. Wesley Clark into the nomination race. I am definetely intrigued by the possible Clark candidacy. While I'll likely support any Democrat who wins the nomination, and there are great things about the other candidates, Clark is the only one I might eventually prefer over Gov. Dean.
General Election

As always, questions, comments, suggestions, links to stories you thought I should've included, rants, and just about everything else are welcome. Enjoy.

2003-08-27T12:03:00.000-06:00

Leaving Children Behind

It's safe to say that everybody applauds the goals of "No Child Left Behind", the bipartisan education reform bill that calls for more accountability in schools to reach higher standards of performance. In my estimation however, the law dangerously perverts the roles of the state and federal governments, making it less effective. It also fails to provide schools with the tools they need to make the necessary improvements.

The Seattle Times reported today that most school districts in Washington State will find themselves on the failing list. Why? Because its students failed to meet the standards set forth by the State of Washington for achievement on it's own test, the WASL. Essentially, whether a state's school districts meet or fail to meet federal requirements is dependent on how difficult the state decides to make the standardized test. There is therefore tremendous incentive for states to lower their standards so that their schools aren't labeled as 'failing'. That's why the State of Ohio recently lowered their testing standards so 200 of their 700 failing schools were no longer considered in need of improvement.

Some sort of federal testing standard needs to be added to this bill to make it work. The standards shouldn't necessarily be the same everywhere, but the primary goal of this bill, and in my estimation all of this country's education policy initiatives, should be to close the achievement gap that exists between students in poor districts and students in affluent ones. Having the standards set by the federal goverment, instead of state governments, would take away the incentive to lower standards in our public schools.

The reason school districts might be so anxious to keep their schools off the failing list is that if they do find themselves there, then the school boards essentially lose control of their own schools. For example, if a school fails four years in a row, it has to radically alter the cirriculum and staff of the failing school. Never mind if the people who know the school the best believe it isn't the best way to solve the problem. Decisions like that should be made by locally elected administrators, teachers, and parents, not senators who've never even heard of the school. It's important to find ways for parents to get more involved in the schooling of their children, and this isn't helping.

Finally, it doesn't do much good to tell a school to do something if they lack the means to do it. There was debate during the discussion and creation of "No Child Left Behind" as to whether schools were provided the money necessary to enact the required changes. Apparently, that discussion fell on deaf ears in the Bush Administration, which underfunded the same education bill that it supported by $7 billion in the 2003 budget. Of course, there was enough money to give $350 billion in tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, those local governments struggling to find the money to raise for the unfunded mandate passed down by the federal government are being forced to raise local taxes and service fees to make up the difference.

No Child Left Behind isn't a horrible bill, but it does have some problems. And it does need to be funded as promised to work. Hopefully, the 2004 elections will provide the necessary medium to reopen discussion on how to truly achieve the goal of leaving no child behind.