Overblown Rhetoric

Sen. Charles Schumer's (NY-D) remarks regarding our current funding system for homeland security, and his belief that New York should receive a larger portion of the money (I belief that I agree with):

"The president should be a leader on this. Englishmen are proud of London. And Frenchmen are proud of Paris. But Americans are not proud of New York."

What world is Schumer living in? Does he forget the outpouring of compassion for the citizens of New York after the 9/11 attacks? I still keep seeing those damn "I love New York" t-shirts everywhere. I dislike when people use overblown rhetoric to garner sympathy for themselves or their cause.

A Sign of Progress

Finally something that Bill Frist and I agree on.

Remarks from the Senate floor by Majority Leader Bill Frist:

"In all forms of stem cell research, I see today, just as I saw in 2001, great promise to heal. Whether it’s diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, or spinal cord injuries, stem cells offer hope for treatment that other lines of research cannot offer."

Sen. Frist and I may quibble over the details of his plan for stem cell research, but for the most part I think he is spot on.

Sorry...

No new posts today. Go on over to Andrew Sullivan for posts by an interesting guest blogger. Tomorrow hopefully I will start up again.

Cheetahs Saved by Rescue Mission

I work at a zoo so stories such as this one remind me of what I see at my work. (Alright I only work in the stock department, but I do get to see the animals)

Yeah CAFTA!

The House passes CAFTA... barely with a 217-215 vote.

I for one am in favor of free trade and CAFTA is another step towards a free trade world. If two brilliant economists with such divergent views on other issues such as Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman can agree on the merits of free trade how can I disagree?

North Korea Rejects U.S. Proposal

N. Korea formally rejected the United States' proposal that it dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for security assurances and economic aid. The deal offered by the United States was designed to end the stalemate that has ensued after N. Korea announced in February that it possessed nuclear weapons.

Talks have not stopped and will continue with the four other delegations (China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan) participating.

I cannot imagine that the United States and its fellow delegates could contemplate any sort of military action. Our troops are already stretched too thin with our current commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Negotiations will be the only conceivable option at this point in time.

Thought to throw out: Perhaps North Korea decided to resume and announce its nuclear weapons program because of the war in Iraq. No nuclear weapons in Iraq--> United States invasion. Nuclear weapons in North Korea--> No United States invasion? Nuclear weapons provide a wonderful deterrent to foreign invasion, and perhaps Kim Jong il is not quite as insane as he appears. (I personally think he is, and he has no logical reason for starving his people and creating nuclear weapons)

Bribery at the UN

The Italy's UN Ambassador said that certain members of the UN seeking to reform the structure of the Security Council are engaged in blackmail to further their goal. Ambassador Marcello accused the G-4 (Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil) of "blackmailing some sector of the membership."

The G-4's reform plan entails enlarging the Security Council to 26 members and adding six more permanent seats to the current five (new members would not have veto power). The G-4 needs the support of the African Union in order to obtain the necessary 2/3 of the 191 member General Assembly to begin the Security Council reform process.

So would changing the current structure of the UN be good or bad? The answer is bad. Currently the members of the permanent UN SC reflect the concentration of raw military and economic power in the world (one could make the case for adding Japan and Germany to this equation). Without the support of the United States, China, Russia, France, and England maintaining effective and sustained military operation is virtually impossible. Expanding the SC would dilute the already marginal effectiveness of the organization. Already the act of passing effective resolutions is extremely difficult because of excessive deliberations. I do not see how adding more members would solve this problem.

There are many more arguments for and against expansion of the UN, and I will not delve into further detail.

Some resources for further reading:

Wikipedia

Global Policy

UN Website

Heritage Foundation

Presentation by the Brookings Institute

Spin, Spin, and more Spin

Iraq not going so well, terrorist are attacks up, and creating a democracy in Afghanistan a little harder than expected. What's the response of the Bush Administration? Change the slogan.

No more will our fight against al-Qaeda and extremist Islamic groups be called the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT), now it will be titled "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (G-SAVE). It only took since January to reword the slogan. Debating the merits of a particular slogan, a wonderful way for our government to spend its time.

Thanks to:

NY Times

Slate

No Wonder Why the Radio Sucks...

Payola scheme foiled.

U.S. Troop Withdrawal Schedule

According to the Washington Post:

"The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad."

Also the memo stated that Britain will reduce troops from 8,500 to 3,000 by mid 2006.

The British Defense Secretary "did not dispute the report, but stated no decision on troop levels had been met."
The Pentagon stated that officials had not seen the document.

I truly hope that this policy will not be implemented. The U.S. already does not have enough troops to pacify the insurgents. Withdrawing more within the year would be a disaster for the region. Not only is it morally imperative that ensure a stable and strong Iraq when we leave, but it is also a geo-political necessity. Radical Islamic groups, who could easily transform the area into a terrorist breeding ground, would fill the power vacuum that would be created by an early U.S. withdrawal. We must stay the course.

Interesting Quote

From Fareed Zakaria:

"Like all ideologies, radical Islam is a phenomenon of the educated class. From Muhammad Atta to Mohammed Sidique Khan, almost all suicide bombers have been men who read and write. In V. S. Naipaul's book "A Million Mutinies Now," the author interviews a young Hindu fanatic. The man explains his fascistic views, and then Naipaul asks the man's father, who happens to be sitting there, what he thinks. The old man explains that he works at a factory from morning till night and doesn't really have time for these kinds of ideas. Extremist ideology is a leisure-time pursuit."

Blair's Response to Shooting in Subway

PM Blair after the shooting in the Stockholm tubes of an innocent man by the police:

"'We are desperately sorry for the death of an innocent person. I understand entirely the feelings of the young man's family. But we also have to understand that the police are doing their job in very, very difficult circumstances and it's important that we give them every support,' Blair told a news conference at his Downing Street office.

'Had the circumstances been different and for example this had turned out to be a terrorist and the police had failed to take that action they would have been criticized the other way,' he said."

Where's al-Qaeda?

Most certainly in places other than merely Iraq. The Washington Post reports that:

"The back-to-back nature of the deadly attacks in Egypt and London, as well as similarities in the methods used, suggests that the al Qaeda leadership may have given the orders for both operations and is a clear sign that Osama bin Laden and his deputies remain in control of the network"

Unfortunately for our national security Osama bin Laden has been pushed to the backburner in favor of Iraq. Hopefully these horrific acts of terrorism will serve as a wakeup call to our government that Osama still poses a major threat to the United States. Otherwise another 9/11 is bound to happen.

AID to Africa

A recent column in the New Yorker calling for targeted aid to Africa. A few key points that I agree with:

"The few sub-Saharan African countries that have enjoyed any economic success at all of late—including Botswana, Mozambique, and Uganda—have been major aid recipients [of foreign aid]"

"A recent study by three scholars at the Center for Global Development found that, on average, foreign aid that was targeted at stimulating immediate economic growth (as opposed to, say, dealing with imminent crises) has had a significantly beneficial effect, even in Africa."

"There’s still a lot wrong with the way that foreign aid is administered. Too little attention is paid to figuring out which programs work and which don’t"

"By all means, let’s be tough-minded about aid. But let’s not be hardheaded about it."

Africa needs our help. but just throwing money at the problem will not work. Systemic changes in African (and other nations) governments will be the only true way to reduce poverty. The symptoms must be addressed, but eventually we need to get to the root of the problem.

Good Ol' Milwaukee Beer

Not only does Sprecher Beer Co. win awards for its beers' taste and flavor, but also for the company's office decor. On Fri. the company won $100,000 worth of office makeovers from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guys" for the having the most unkempt office space.

From: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Interview with Fareed Zakaria

Talks about recent events in England, radical Islam, and the success of America in integrating Islamic immigrants with the rest of society. On The Daily Show.

Wonderful Quote

From Thomas Friedman:

"We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."

Limbaugh is One Sick Puppy

Just looking at this makes me sick.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan

Go to Costco!

NY Times

Costco is a responsible discount superstore. With average pay at 17$ per hour, excellent health benefits (85% if its employees are covered), and generous 401k contributions, Costco proves that deep discount stores do not have to wring their employees out of every last cent.

Not only does Costco treat its employees generously, its stockholders are doing very well off. Costco's stock price has risen more than 10% over the last year compared with a decline of 5% for Wal-Mart.



Props to Jim Sinegal (CEO) for running a company that is socially responsible and profitable.

Boo Wal-Mart

More Bombings in Britain

Met Police Chief Ian Blair:

"'The casualty numbers appear to be very low in the explosions.'

'The bombs appear to be smaller than on the last occasion but we don't know the implications of all this yet.'"

Devices have been found appearing to be bombs, but no explosives were found.

London's transportation system has been effectively shut down.

BBC News
CNN

20th Anniversary of Sober 20 Year Olds

In 1985 my home state of Wisconsin changed the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 in response to the Federal Government's threat to take away a portion of the state's highway funds. Advocates say it has cut down drunk driving and created a much more safe college campus environment. Opponents argue binge drinking skyrocketed and it is a civil rights violation. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigates.

How can people say with a straight face that 18 year-olds are competent to wield a firearm and fight for our country in Iraq, but not old enough to go to a bar and have a beer? Opponents of the 18 year-old drinking age say it is for their (and my) own good as "alcohol-related traffic deaths of drivers under 21 dropped by 17% immediately after states increased their minimum drinking age." Under this logic we should return to the days of prohibition, as alcohol-related traffic deaths would decrease to almost zero. This argument advocating the new drinking age is misleading as " studies also show that more people ages 21 to 24 were killed after the bump in the drinking age."

Alcohol is everywhere on college. Underage students can get it from an older legal-age friend, with a fake id, at a college kegger, and many many more different ways. During my freshman year living in a dorm at the U of Minn Twin-Cities binge every Thurs, Fri, and Sat binge drinking occurred. Instead of going out to the bar for a few social drinks and then going to a party or a club, kids would get plastered and then stumble out for a night on the town.

Drinking at college will not go away. If kids cannot legally drink in the open, they will drink to extreme excess in secret. America should seriously consider raising the driving age to 18 and lowering the drinking age to 16. I know that America does not have the mass transit system that Europe does, but this could stimulate an increased interest in building and maintaining a better running system. More importantly it would teach American kids how to drink responsibly and smartly.

The 18 year-old drinking age is wrong. It is ineffective on combating 18-21 year olds drinking and it is a violation of civil rights. Change is needed. If legislators are looking for a less radical solution than lowering the drinking age to 16 and increasing the driving age to 18, they could just lower the drinking age to 19. That way kids would be out of high school. A solution is needed. The status quo is not effective.

What Wins Elections?

According to a new study in Science magazine, facial features are an important indicator of who wins an election.

"The study was designed by a Princeton psychology professor named Alexander Todorov, who analyzed several hundred recent congressional races. He found that simply by flashing a pair of head shots before subjects’ eyes, and asking them to identify the face that displayed the most competence, he could predict winners with about seventy-per-cent accuracy."

"Facial Maturity" (ie. strong chin, ridged browline, etc.) implies competence, and the candidates with more "mature" facial features have a better chance at winning the election.

Interesting thesis. Appearance does mean everything in politics and it figures that the candidate with the best physical features would have a slight advantage. It would be interesting to find out how much effect these physical features have on a candidate's electoral chances and how much has to be done to overcome a "feature deficit".

John G. Roberts Nominated for Supreme Court Justice

I confess that I do not have much knowledge or understanding about Roberts' views or positions, but from my readings he appears to be a highly competent, extremely intelligent, and conservative. His legal positions are relatively unknown having served little more than two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A graduate with honors from Harvard Law School, Roberts lack of judicial experience on the bench is "is offset by his many years arguing cases before the Supreme Court." Roberts is probably the best judge the Democrats could have hoped for in these circumstances.

Quotes about the nominee:

The Supreme Court Nomination Blog:
"he will be like William Rehnquist, his former boss"

Red State:
"It must be said: There is nothing extraordinary about John Roberts, Jr. He is a long serving judge on a Circuit Court. His legal reasoning skills seem to be unassailable. His demeanor is unremarkable. And his judicial philosophy is well within today's mainstream."

People for the American Way:
"John Roberts’ record raises serious concerns as well as questions about where he stands on crucial legal and constitutional issues — it will be extremely important for Senators and the American people to get answers to those questions."

Committee for Justice:
"John Roberts has had one of the most distinguished legal careers in modern times," CFJ Chairman C. Boyden Gray said. 'His outstanding education and career, high character, and faithfulness to the Constitution make him an excellent fit for the court at this moment. His nomination is a solid first step towards returning the federal judiciary to its proper role in our system.'"

The Moderate Voice:
"DEMOCRATS may and will oppose him on issues but the bottom line is that Bush did indeed promise to appoint a conservative if he was elected. Roberts — so far — doesn't seem to be quite the kind of red-flag nominee that would trigger a massive firestorm. (But the week is still young). The Democratic leadership may conclude that they need to save an no-holds-barred (read that filibuster) opposition in case Bush appoints someone more to the right than Roberts."

Senator Schumer:
"Well, he's one of those nominees that you have a lot of questions about. There are some very good things about him. He's a bright mind. There are some things. He's not answering questions.

So he's, you know, it might have been — with a handful of nominees, I was not going to say anything, you know, definitely, no matter who the nominee was. But with some nominees, you might have said: well, there's a darn good shot that's going to be a consensus nominee. With others, you'd say: There's a darn good shot it's not going to be a consensus nominee. He's in the middle."

NARAL Statement
"We are extremely disappointed that President Bush has chosen such a divisive nominee for the highest court in the nation, rather than a consensus nominee who would protect individual liberty and uphold Roe v. Wade."

Words Mean Nothing, Action is Everything

Maybe to win African-American votes the GOP should do more than just talk about the "proud history" of Lincoln freeing slaves, and actually implement legislation benefiting African-Americans. Perhaps instead of sugarcoating recent Republican transgressions (e.g. Nixon's racial polarization strategy) the GOP should fully admit to its mistakes and take steps to win the black vote.

Even the recent speech by GOP leader Ken Mehlman at the NAACP National Convention skirted around the issue with disingenuous claims and inaccurate historical summarizations. Saying:

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Some Republicans? How about the President of the United States?

"The history of the other party is a different one. Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and Democratic filibusters blocked progress for decades."

Mehlman fails to mention that these Democrats soon were proud members of the new Republican Party after Johnson's Civil Rights Act.

To erode some of the huge African-American support for Democrats, Republicans need to demonstrate their willingness to reach out to the African-American communities. Improving public schools and access to health care would be step in the right direction. Not only would it help the GOP expand its electoral base but also it would be better for all Americans.

How Not to be a Dumb Donkey

Framing, Framing, Framing. Merely repackaging stale ideas can turn the Democrats fortunes around and once again they will be in the majority! What a load of crap. After reading Matt Bai's recent article about the new phenomenon in Democrat politics about reframing the debate is the key to victory I cannot help but feel Democrats are doomed to lose many more races if this is their only solution.

Let me summarize the concept of "reframing". George Lakoff, professor of linguistics and author of How Not to Think Like an Elephant, has theorized that if the Democrats change the framework of how their ideas are expressed, elections will be a cakewalk and soon the Democrats will enjoy prosperity equivalent to their glory years in the middle 20th century. Of course this idea is popular with many people who would rather not examine their core beliefs and values and want to focus only on aesthetic solutions.

Example of Reframing: Republicans use the phrase "tax relief" instead of "tax cuts." Lakoff argues that this subtle turn of words focuses people on the fact that they are oppressed by taxes and need immediate relief, and conveniently Republicans will provide it. This obscures the fact that maybe the shift in words is not what drives peoples' desire for lower taxes. Democrats and Lakoff can argue all they want about the "common good" gained from more government. The reality is "common good" is much more of an abstract concept than a check in the mail. Shifting the debate will not change this reality.

One thing the Democrats can do to better communicate their message. Stick to your core ideas. This encompasses everything from explaining policy goals to attacking your opponent. Citizens are busy people who do not have the time to review every minute detail about prospective candidates or policy decisions. A multitude of topics and ideas creates confusion and builds feelings that a candidate does not have true core beliefs and goals.

Example: The recent Senate filibuster controversy. (This argument ignores the end result of the Senate controversy, which did not help the Democrat cause) Reid and crew stuck to two main ideas: Bush's plan relied on privatizing the most popular government benefit in America, and it amounted to benefit cuts coupled with long-term borrowing. They did not use lofty metaphors, but stuck to simple undisputable facts.

Just reframing words will not win elections for Democrats. The Democrats have deep problems and "reframing" as a solution serves only to obscure the deeper issue. No new ideas and structural problems have hurt the Democrats. Republicans have longstanding think tanks, columnists, and TV pundits that serve as a base for their rise to national prominence. Republicans are seen as standing for something as opposed to just being against something. Clinton bucked the recent trend of Republican victories, but no new political genius is on the Democratic scene. Changing words will not solve Democratic problems. Coherent ideas and strong organization will win over smokescreens and distortion any day.

Articles against Reframing:
Joshua Green
Noam Scheiber

Scientologists are just plain weird

Read this Slate article profiling the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. An interesting excerpt:

"He reportedly once claimed to have written a manuscript that contained such brutal truths that anyone who read it went insane or committed suicide. He fancied himself a nuclear physicist, never mind his lack of training, and posited that fallout from Cold War nuclear tests were interfering with Scientology therapies."

More weird stuff from scientology, the creation story:

"the story of Xenu, the galactic tyrant who stacked hundreds of billions of his frozen victims around Earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago before blowing them up with hydrogen bombs and brainwashing them with a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days. The traumatized thetans subsequently clustered around human bodies, in effect acting as invisible spiritual parasites known as "Body Thetans" that can only be removed using advanced Scientology techniques."

Very strange.

Olympic Bomber Sentenced

Eric Rudolph, the notorious bomber of abortion clinics, a gay nightclub, and the Olympic Games in Atlanta, was sentenced to two consecutive life terms in prison. This zealot showed absolutely no remorse for any of his actions saying:

"I will be vindicated - my actions in Birmingham that overcast day in January 1998 will be vindicated. As I go to a prison cell for a lifetime I know that I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course. I have kept the faith."

Fundamentalist zealots come in all religions and creeds and systems of belief. Every one of the world's religions can be perverted to justify any action taken by man. Islam is not the only home of extremists. Christianity has had more than its share of fundamentalists throughout its long history, but the terrible acts committed in the name of Christ do not represent the real word of God. Neither do the actions of Islamic terrorists represent the true teachings of Islam.

Come on Economist...

I agree with almost everything in the recent Economist column about homeland security except for this:

"The Senate voted this week to allocate to rural states a larger-than-planned share of the homeland security budget, on the ground that no one knows what the terrorists will do next. The senators have a point. An attack on a shopping mall in Idaho might scare more Americans than one on the White House."

Huh? An attack on rural Idaho would have more of an effect on the American physche than an attack on the White House? Maybe its just me but a successful attack on the White House would be much more devastating than in Idaho or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter.

Everything is Peaches and Cream in Iraq

This is the premise of Mark Yost's article in the Pioneer Press on July 12. His take on things is that the MSM (Mainstream Media) believes that "the U.S. is "bad," our enemies "understandable" if not downright "good" and they distort stories to conform to their warped value system. Yost questions why there has not been stories about a "desalination plant that just came on-line, or the school that just opened, or the Iraqi policeman who died doing something heroic?" Well I can answer these his convoluted claims and questions.

The news media reports on abnormalities in our world. Whether it be the attacks on the World Trade Centers to the local bank robbery to Lance Armstrong overcoming cancer and winning the Toure de France the extraordinary is always reported. An event such as the Iraqi desalination plant coming online or a school opening is mundane, ordinary, and expected. Why should the NY Times or CNN waste time describing the new school opening in Mosul when a suicide bomber kills 99 people in Baghdad? I personally find reporting a bombing that takes the lives of 99 men, women, and children to be much more relevant and important than a school opening. It is expected that the United States rebuild Iraq.

To say the MSM never reports positive events is misleading. Who could forget the stories of heroism after 9/11 or the extensive coverage of the Iraqi elections? The main problem with MSM reporting lies not in too much negativism, but with reporting the ridiculous and unimportant. The coverage given to the "runaway bride" was absurdly long and much too in-depth. The problem with news is that it does not have enough investigative reporting or real stories.

Casualties in Iraq number 1,949 coalition troops alone killed, while Iraqi deaths are estimated as of July 17, 2005 to be at 22850. People dying are more important than school openings.

A wonderful quote from Andrew Sullivan:

The job of the media, even in wartime, is to relay facts, not to skew coverage for purposes of morale.

The Plame Investigation and Mr. Rove

There is no question in my mind that the Fitzgerald (the special prosecutor investigating the Valerie Plame uncovering) will definitely dredge up some dirt regarding the role that Karl Rove had in the outing of an undercover CIA agent. Just look at the change in White House Press briefings from 2003 to now.

From NBC News. Meet the Press

MR. RUSSERT: "That person will be taken care of." A week after that, Scott McClellan talked to the White House press corps and the American people. David Gregory of NBC News asked him the following question.

(Videotape, October 7, 2003):

MR. DAVID GREGORY: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Whey did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked them?

MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN (White House Press Secretary): Yeah. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with--of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Look at the responses to questions pertaining to the investigation now:

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.


McClellan will not answer any questions pertaining to Karl Rove or even any generic questions about if the President's previous remark about "taking the appropriate action" (meaning removal from office) against any and all leakers will be implemented. Where did the previous statement of "they are not involved" go? Either Rove and co. lied to McClellan or McClellan lied to the press, and anyway the end result screams cover-up.

Rove will be implicated in the investigation as "the" or "one of" the source(s). He probably can beat the criminal charges, but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Anyway the GOP tries to spin it, Rove was wrong and should be fired. Undercover CIA agents should not have their identities revealed for petty political gain.

Democratic Problems and Solutions

A list of articles by Matt Bai about the Democratic Party and their recent political failures and potential solutions.

"The Framing Wars"
"King of the Hill, Democrats?"
"Democratic Moral Values?"
"Wiring the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy"

Suicide Bombings

Interesting article in the Washington Post about the evolution of suicide bombings as a political tool. For a more in-depth look at terrorism and the Middle East:

9/11 Commission Report

From Beirut to Jerusalem

Imperial Hubris

Jihad vs. McWorld

Terrorism.com

Suicide Bombing Near Iraqi Mosque, Over 55 Killed

Story in:

Washington Post
NY Times

Income inequality rising

Class warfare! Class warfare! is the immediate outcry by the rich for any attempt to rescind tax-cuts for the wealthy, change the distribution of property taxes for school districts, or any other way to equalize the playing field and improve class mobility for Americans. When the Economist even has an article about the lack of class mobility there must be something to what all those bleeding-heart liberals have been saying.

The Economist hits the nail right on the head with its proposed solution:

"Republicans should be willing to spend more cash on schools in poor areas (including on teachers' salaries) in exchange for the Democrats accepting structural reform. The No Child Left Behind Act, which introduced some forms of testing and the daring possibility of shutting down some bad schools, was an important step forward. But more is needed. Otherwise two Americas really will start to jump out off the map."

Education is the foundation on which wealth is created. In today's globalized world educating every single child in America is imperative if we want to succeed as a nation. Blue-collar jobs are going the way of the dinosaur. That’s not a bad thing if we can give people alternative skills and opportunities to succeed.

NY Times in depth investigation.

What if it was Clinton?

Interesting hypothetical about the Karl Rove scenario if it happened during Clinton's years in office. Normally I do not like What Ifs? but this I think is a spot on accurate portrayal of what conservative pundits (Limbaugh, Hannity, editors at the NR, etc.).

I do believe that the left has handled the Rove situation well. The GOP's number one man is in the Left's crosshairs and is easy pickin', but with few exceptions the response on the Left has been restrained. Compare the rhetoric on the Left now to the rhetoric on the Right during the Clinton sex scandal. No comparison. And this is a matter of national security!

Africans need to help themselves, with a little boost from us

While I agree with the general concept of by Jean-Claude Shanda Tonme's article that Africa need internal reform and not outside money, I do believe that us citizens of the 1st world need to help. It is true that Africans can do this alone, but at the cost of how many lives due to disease, war, and hunger? Helping to alleviate suffering by funding NGOs, and not the African governments, can help expedite the process.

GOP Smear Sheet

GOP's supposed fact-finding memo about Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband) and the "inaccuracies and misstatements" in his report. Joe Wilson is the author of the NY Times' op-ed that debunked Bush's wrong statement about connections between Saddam and nuclear weapons procurement in Niger. Of course the GOP memo is filled with misleading analysis and chopped up quotations that any astute person can see.

From the Washington Post detailing the strategy to defend Rove:

"The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans."

The response to Rove's involvement in the Plame leak: cover up, defame, spin, attack something proven true. Throw enough crap against the wall and some of it will stick.

Debunking the memo:
TalkingPointsMemo

Rove's involvement in the Plame Affair

If Rove leaked the name of undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame, to Robert Novak, he should be fired. Bush should not go back on his previous statements which to summarize stated that "he would fire any White House employee found to have leaked classified information" according to the NY Times.

Rove probably could not be criminally prosecuted for the leak because there lies ambiguity about whether he knowingly passed on classified information.

David Corn's, take.
Another prespective from conservative Powerline.

More Diagnosis from Afar

Senator Tom Cobrun, MD (R-OK), had this to say about the Schiavo medical report:

"I have on my desk a complete medical file of Terri Schiavo, and I would challenge the accuracy of many of the statements by people involved in that case in terms of her medical condition, and I would also challenge some of the autopsy findings based on what I have on my desk in Washington," Coburn said.

What have you started Sen. Frist?

The Schmidt Report

An anaylsis of the just released report detailing the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. Whether one calls it torture or just "abusive and degrading" as the report does the treatment of prisoners is horrific.

Specific guidelines for how we are to be treating prisoners must be established and examined in the public light. Most of the prisoners at Gitmo are terrorists, but some are not. Judicial hearings for all prisoners must happen in a timely manor. I harbor no sympathy for any members of al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, but those who are innocent should be given an opportunity for release.

WorldCom CEO Sentenced

Bernard Ebbers received a 25 year sentence in a minimum security prison for his role defrauding WorldCom of 11 billion dollars . Almost 17,000 employees lost their jobs as a result of this horrid scheme.

I hope every one of these scumbags who defraud employees and mislead investors spend many years in prison.

Are You the Next Wolfowitz?

Find out if you are neo-conservative, a realist, liberalist, or isolationalist at Christian Science Monitor.

Another of my favorite political litmus tests found here.

Joe Wilson a liar? NY Times use of leaks wrong?

Powerline has it wrong once again. In their most recent post about today's NY Times editorial they voice their displeasure about the supposed hyprocracy of the NY Times use of leaks, specifically in relation to the Plame affair and a recent article in the NY Times detailing a CIA run airfield, as " guerrilla war against the Bush administration for the last four and one-half years".

First, Powerline details the efforts of Joe Wilson's (Valerie Plame's husband and former ambassador) work in disproving the Niger-Saddam nuclear weapons connection as "peddling disinformation" to "harm an adversary." This is an unusual stance taken with all the evidence suggesting the contrary, and the fact that the CIA admits the line should not have been in President Bush's speech. A link to Hersh's New Yorker article.

Powerline then asserts that Wilson's op-ed has "been found to be fraudulent by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee!" In actuality

"But on April 5, 2003, the National Intelligence Council issued a memo that noted, "we judge it highly unlikely that Niamey has sold uranium yellowcake to Baghdad in recent years." It added that the government of Niger was unlikely to proceed with such a deal. And on June 17, 2003, the CIA produced a memo that said, "since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from aboard."

In refrence to the "bipartisan SIC", Powerline refers only the additional views written by Sens. Roberts, Hatch, and Bond asserting their doubts about Wilson's information. These musing were only additional commentary and not part of the actual Senate Intelligence Report.

One of the accusations against Wilson's integrity.
Wilson's response.

Shoot the messanger. Cover-up the truth. Throw enough crap against the wall and some of it will stick. This is not how to have an honest debate about the benefits and drawbacks about reasons for invading Iraq.

Play down the charges of incompetence or misleading the public, done. Now onto discrediting the victim of a possible leak.

Powerline further obscures the truth by falsely stating that Valerie Plame's job is not that dangerous and "she might be in danger as she drove to and from her desk job in Langley."

In actuality she was an undercover agent in the field of WMD work. Not exactly 9-5 desk job material.

Did Iraq have stockpiles of WMD? No. Was Wilson's conclusion right? Yes. Is Powerline wrong? Yes.

To respond to Powerline's last comment about the NY Times supposedly " recent, real outing of a clandestine CIA operation", which in reality revealed that "the agency owns at least 26 planes, 10 of them purchased since 2001." Hardly surprising when considering that " the company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company".

The NY Times even:

"sent them [The CIA] an e-mail of several hundred words that included virtually all the facts we were planning to print (all corporate names, details on the history of Aero Contractors, details of arrests of Al Qaeda figures coinciding with flights, criticism of their 'bad tradecraft'). On Friday afternoon, May 27, the chief spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise, gave me a no comment, while assuring me that the information had been seen by all the relevant officials.''

NY Times public editor's complete response.

Santorum sticks his foot in his mouth, again

Rick Santorum, Republican Senator of Pennsylvania, reiterated his previous position that the Boston's liberal attitude towards sexuality helped foster the Catholic priest pedophilia scandal, saying in an interview "the basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior."

Santorum’s previous remarks in an article for Catholic Online about Boston's liberalism creating an atmosphere welcoming pedophilia:

"When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm. "

Other notable Santorum remarks:

About the recent filibuster controversy Santorum compared the Democrats to Hitler saying:

"The audacity of some members to stand up and say 'How dare you break this rule' -- it's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying 'I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine. ' This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding and agreement, and it has been abused."

Comparing the NY Times supposed secular tradition to totalitarian regimes: (in video form)

Quicktime
Windows Media Player

Updates on London Bombings

The perpetrators behind the bombs that ripped apart the British mass transit system and killed more than 50 are now described as having "blown themselves up" during the attacks according to the NY Times.

Also developments in the investigation include the arrest of a man suspected in assisting the operation.

Supporting Our Troops

Can people who disprove of the war in Iraq simultaneously support our troops? Of course. There is a difference between supporting a war and supporting the troops who fight in it. The war was based on false pretenses. Our troops should not be in Iraq. This is an example of not supporting a war. Not supporting the troops would be calling for an immediate end to all funds for our troops' supplies and equipment, spitting on our returning soldiers, and calling our troops evil butchers.

In Dennis Prager's recent article at RealClearPolitics he argues that support for the troops is linked to one's support for the war. This argument is preposterous. If I disagree with the decision to send our troops to battle in Iraq (and hence disagree with the war) why does this mean that I do "not want the troops to win in Iraq"? Then to compare my response to the Iraqi war to a German who believed that "the Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops." is an utterly facetious and reprehensible analogy. Our troops have not committed mass genocide. Our troops with few exceptions have behaved commendably in the face of hostility. Our troops are striving for a free and stable Iraq. The Nazi soldiers were fighting for the right to enslave Europe and eliminate non-Aryans. I disagree with the pretenses of the war on Iraq. I believed the costs outweigh the benefits. Does this make me the equivalent of a Nazi sympathizer? No.

Our troops need to succeed. A free and stable Iraq needs to be the result of this war. Withdrawing our troops is not an option.

Guns, Germs, and Steel on PBS

Jared Diamond's excellent book Guns, Germs, and Steel has been adapted to a PBS television series.

If you have not read the book I would highly recommend you at least watch one of the episodes, which I imagine to parallel the book's structure and message.

Diamond's thesis is that European dominance of the world is not due to superior culture, smarts, etc. but due to favorable geographic placement. Diamond argues that the relatively horizontal landmass of Euro-Asia allowed for easier transmission of agricultural innovations (due to similar weather patterns), which sped up development. A very interesting idea, and one that I am inclined to believe.

One other notable thinker espousing a different theory is Victor Davis Hanson (I cannot think of anymore right now).

"Urbanomics" in Milwaukee

In a nod to this week's NAACP convention hosted by the city of Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel features a three-part piece about "urbanomics" a portrait of business life in my hometown's innards. Not surprisingly the outlook is not so good, especially for black and Hispanic business. A closer look at today's article.

Good Muslims? Of Course.

Maybe this story will change some minds that we are not at war with the entire Muslim world. (note-- free version on cnn.com)

The full story at Time.com.

Eliminating the Axis of Evil cont.

Read up on Syria our POSSIBLE next target in the "War on Terror"

The New Republic
NY Times Magazine

Anti-Semitism in the 20th Century

God chose the Jews to be hated? This is the gist of David Prager's article in the LA Times. My Jesuit schooling has taught me much about the Jews being the chosen people, but never that their centuries of terrible persecution at the hands of the Romans, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Nazis, Communists, etc. is because of their status as God's chosen people.

My main concern with the article lies in a two smaller points:

"However, as almost always happens, too many dismiss anti-Semitism as the Jews' problem or even the Jews' fault, when in fact it [anti-Semitism] is the most accurate predictor of an evil that humanity will have to fight"

An interesting conclusion when taken by itself as over the 20th century anti-Semitic behavior by a nation or group of people has been a precursor to a wider conflict (Nazism, Communism, extremist Muslim terror).

However when Prager states the "evil that has targeted the Jews since the mid-20th century" he lists the UN's numerous resolutions about Israel and the entire Muslim world as on par with the evils of Nazism and Stalin.

How can (on the rare occasion) reasonable resolutions passed by the UN (condemnation of the Sabra and Shatila massacre for one) or the acts of Muslims as a whole compare to the millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis or the pogroms of Tsarist Russia and the persecution by Stalin?

A grouping like this, either the product of shoddy writing or a deliberate attempt to mislead, serves to trivialize the horrors committed against the Jewish people, and to debase all legitimate criticism of Israel as just another example of anti-Semitic behavior.

Horrid Remarks

Fox News host John Gibson stated on the day before the horrid terrorist bombings in London on the radio program The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, which Gibson guest-hosted:

GIBSON: "By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?"

How can a man with these views be allowed to host a major cable news program?

Not only did he not retract his callous and vicious words he expanded on them on July 7 after learning about the attacks on London:

GIBSON: "The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."

I believe a firing is mandatory when comments of this nature are stated.

Why not Novak?

An interesting discussion about the Valerie Plame case. Thanks to talkingpointsmemo.

Battle for the Court

An interesting article by E.J. Dionne about the effect of special interest groups on the nomination of our next Justice.

I must disagree with Dionne's belief that special interest groups contribute positively in the debate over the next Justice "because these groups tell the truth about how important this battle is for the future of our country." The nomination of the next Justice is extremely important, and the narrow-minded special interest groups should not be responsible for disseminating information regarding the potential candidates. Special interest groups often resort to distortion and half-truths to advance their agenda at the expense of public knowledge. This is no way to have an open and honest national discussion about the future of our country. The news media needs to be the catalyst in this debate.

I fully realize that this is a futile argument to make. Many people do not spend time reading or watching the news and will have no perspective on the nominations other than watching advertisements. In an ideal world 60 second clips would not have influence over American domestic policy, but this is not the case. Special interest groups are here to stay, but their magnanimity need not be exaggerated. The political debate would be much better off without them.

Rehnquist Leaving?

An unsubstantiated rumor about the retirement of our Chief Justice courtesy of Robert Novak.

Homeland Security

Why can't we have this type of security at our mass transit system all the time?

War on Terror Continued:

It was only a matter of time before another terrorist attack occurred on Western soil. Once again, just like the 9/11 attacks, the Madrid bombings, and the previous WTC bombing, conventional weapons devastated a city. Hopefully this new attack will be the wake-up call to our Administration to increase funding for our Homeland Security to secure our ports, mass transit systems, etc.

A closer look at the crisis in our Homeland Security Department can be found in Fred Kaplan's Slate article.

In addition to securing our homeland from future attacks, this attack should be a wakeup call to people advocating a quick pullout from Iraq. It is a fallacy to believe that our current occupation of Iraq is the cause of terrorist attacks. While it is very true that terrorist attacks since the occupation have greatly increased a quick pullout will not have the effect of placating our enemies. Our retreat would create a power vacuum with a weak and infant Iraqi government, which would come under the influence of either the fundamentalist Iranian government or internal extremist groups.

The situation in Iraq is not comparable at this point to Vietnam. In Iraq the possible benefits to maintaining the occupation outweigh the negatives. Creating a stable, strong, and free Iraqi government is crucial in this stage of the war on terror. Without America's assistance the limited gains we have made so far in Iraq will vanish leaving chaos and; consequently, a breeding ground for terrorists. The war was a mistake. Saddam posed little threat to America. No WMD were found or will be found. Saddam had no connection with 9/11 attacks. But this does not mean that we cannot turn a horrible mistake into a positive. We must stay the course.

Multiple Bombings in London

Four coordinated bombs ripped through three London subway trains and one double-decker bus killing an estimated 40 civilians. Claiming responsibility for the bombings on an Islamic website is an obscure Islamic group called the Secret Organization Group of al-Qaeda of Jihad Organization in Europe. For more in-depth coverage view an article by the NY Times, one by the BBC and reactions by a prominent British blogger.

Video of Daily Show Interview

A clip of Jon Stewart's interview with Hannah Rosin, the author of the New Yorker article about Patrick Henry College.

Patrick Henry College

An interesting article I ran into on the New Yorker a couple of weeks ago about the ultra-conservative Patrick Henry College.

One of the more interesting facts:

"Three times a year, the White House chooses a hundred students for a three-month internship. Patrick Henry, with only three hundred students, has taken between one and five of the spots in each of the past five years—roughly the same as Georgetown."

This little unknown school has the almost the same amount of interns over the past five years as Georgetown!?

A few excerpts from PHC's official Applications of the Statement of Biblical Worldview.

On Scientific Theory and Evolution:
"Any biology, Bible or other courses at PHC dealing with creation will teach creation from the understanding of Scripture that God's creative work, as described in Genesis 1:1-31, was completed in six twenty-four hour days. All faculty for such courses will be chosen on the basis of their personal adherence to this view." While in the next sentence paying lip service to exposing "students to alternate theories and the data" as long as in the end "teach creation as both biblically true and as the best fit to observed data."

On Sexual Conduct in relation to the Government:
"any government which creates legal structures to encourage or condone inappropriate sexual activity or lust, heterosexual or homosexual, or which creates special legal rights and protections based on sexual conduct, is acting immorally and without authority."

I want to know why anyone would want to live in such a homogenous environment. College should be a time for exploring new people and challenging one's personal beliefs, not just reinforcing previously held positions and stances.

Reading the article makes me wonder how these graduates of this highly cloistered environment can adjust to life in Washington where the behavior is not so kosher?

Cal Thomas-My Favorite Columnist

I do not think that anyone can say enough about this man and his ability to twist words to serve his own agenda, namely discrediting anything Democrats do or say. Once again it appears in his recent column on June 30 in which he discusses the comments of Karl Rove.

Thomas:
Rove added, "Conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban . liberals believed it was time to submit a petition."
Democrats cried foul, and worse, but Rove wasn't talking about Democrats, not all of whom are liberal. He was talking about liberals - and he was right, at least about some of the more prominent ones.

Mr. Thomas begins by arguing that all Democrats are not liberal and Rove was only referring to the "liberal" ones. Thomas's ability to discern Rove's comments as meaning Conservatives include both Democrats and Republicans, while Liberals are only those pesky left-wing, tree-hugging, Volvo-driving, peace-loving, Democrats is impressive. Or maybe he really does not mean this...

Thomas:
Rove didn't mention Democrats, so if the Democratic leadership responded to his critique of liberals, I guess those feigning outrage must be considered liberals.
Just to complete the connection between the liberals and the Democratic Party...

Going from liberals as a one extreme part of the Democratic Party to "just to complete the connection between the liberals and the Democratic Party" is impressive in the span of one column, and just another example of why Cal Thomas is my favorite columnist.

The vote "to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the use the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals" passed 420-1 in the House, and 98-0 in the Senate.

Book Review: Colossus

I completed Niall Ferguson's recent work Colossus. A fascinating, but ultimately flawed look at the emergence of America as a global empire. Ferguson's thesis is that America's rise to imperial status is a benefit to the world, but paradoxically Americans do not acknowledge their status as an empire. To illustrate this point Ferguson fills much of his work with a look at our nation's rise to imperial status and then he discusses the benefits of the British Empire. He glosses over the horrors and atrocities committed by the British and chooses to focus almost exclusively on the supposed benefits rendered by the English. Ferguson writes about the British Empire opening markets and enforcing the rule of law in her colonies, but does not delve into the atrocities committed in under the guise of fulfilling the "white man's burden". He firmly believes that self-determination has not worked for much of the developing world, and only a new, 21st century "white man's burden" can lift developing nations from poverty.

Ferguson's main argument for an American liberal empire is to restore the good old days when non-Europeans prospered under European rule. When viewing just the raw numbers as Ferguson almost exclusively does he is correct. He touts statistics of per capita GDP that proves that only two sub-Saharan countries have escaped the cycle of economic failure evident in the rest (176). Two factors, which Ferguson merely plays lip service to, are the responsible for African and all other indigenously ruled nations dismal economic performance. The first and foremost being the cavalier and utterly self-serving way the European nations carved up land to suit their own economic needs. The states of Africa did not arrive in their present day boundaries by centuries of formation, but rather in the "scramble for Africa" in the late 1880s. Only after WWI and WWII were many of the colonies able to first experience self-rule, and then another factor began to hit, AIDS, which has devastated the populations of sub-Saharan Africa.

One of the two countries Ferguson mentions as escaping the supposed fate of freedom is Botswana. Botswana is an exception to most nations in Africa in that it has a relatively homogenous ethnic population (79% Tswana), has not been plagued by war, and has lead the way in sucessfully combating its high AIDS infection rates. Ethnic tension, warfare, and disease plague the entire region of sub-Saharan Africa with few exceptions. The inability to control disease is directly related to war and poor governance, and each of these factors can be directly attributed to colonial rule.

This legacy is the one that Ferguson wants America to resume? The drawbacks of imperialism vastly outweigh the benefits for the colonies. The next question is does the Ferguson's version of liberal imperialism benefit the empire?

One of the interesting facets of Ferguson's novel is his belief that America is an empire, but is not imperial enough. Whether we call it a hegemon, hyperpower, or any other term his end result is we are an empire now and we had better live up to this fact. Not caring to argue with Ferguson's exceptionally broad definition of empire, I look at his claim that America need to become more imperialistic.

I am a realist and believe that America should only send troops abroad when our national interest is at stake. Peacekeeping missions should not be undertaken solely by America unless a direct threat to our national interest is at stake, but rather should be under the domain of the UN and the Security Council. What Ferguson argues is that America is not performing enough altruistic work, and this is because of the classic American "attention deficit" disorder (290). Why should the American people have to accept large casualty numbers, huge costs for war, and world scorn and disapproval? I am in full agreement with him to stay the course in Iraq, but to invade Iran or North Korea without acknowledging the immense costs would be inane. One of the characteristics of the American people as a whole for our existence is our "bring our boys home" mentality. This is both good and bad, but one characteristic of this is no matter what the desires of Ferguson Americans will not have the stomach for a large-scale empire on the level of the British.

Success of Live 8

Looking back at the Live 8 concerts and their stated goal of building the foundation to end world poverty I cannot help but be pessimistic. How many of the attendees understand that merely throwing money at nations will not end the crisis? The major impediment to changing the fact that 21% of the world's population lives on less than one dollar a day is corruption. To his credit the face of the movement to end poverty, U2's Bono, has readily acknowledged the role corruption plays in the cycle of poverty saying, "this is the number-one issue and there's no way around it." I am not convinced by Bono's idea that now "targeted money" will be able to be re-routed from the governments to the NGOs with much success. One thing is certain and that is the governments have squandered away much of the money for their own private use. In Nigeria alone "past rulers stole or misused £220 billion." This is almost equivalent to the entire amount of aid given to Nigeria! Money is part of the solution, but vast changes in the structures of many governments is almost as important.

Iraq War

Before beginning posting about the current conflict in Iraq I feel the need to state my thoughts regarding the war. After 9-11 I trusted our President to lead our nation competently, honorably, and mercilessly in eliminating the extreme threat posed by al-Qaeda. While President Bush did not handle the Afghanistan war perfectly (waiting too long to send Special Forces in) he did handle it competently and successfully with the destruction of the Taliban and the beginnings of a stable government. The Administration has mismanaged the development of the Afghan government but that analysis and argument is for another day. When our President and his cabinet members shifted gears and began to speak to our nation about the threat posed by Iraq I believed him. I believed that Saddam had WMDs and that he was intimately connected with al-Qaeda. Now after the invasion has uncovered no stockpiles of WMDs, no ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and no evidence of an imminent threat I questioned our leader's competence in leading our nation. Now with the scandal at Abu Ghraib, the lack of troops to secure Iraqi security, and the general ineptness in running a nation, I fear that the one benefit to starting this ill-advised war (a free and democratic nation in the Middle East) will be frittered away. Change in the management of the occupation is necessary, but I fear that under the leadership of President Bush the necessary changes will not be made. I hope that I am wrong and the situation will stabilize and Iraq will prosper. Only time will tell.

Supreme Court Nomination Battle Begins

Before selecting a potential nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy the President, over the last few decades, has traditionally formed or selected a findings committee to assist in the selection. The Bush Administration currently retains the services of the Committee for Justice. With an official statement describing previous nomination contests as the result of a "radical coalition and its Senate allies, which cut its teeth attacking Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas" and now "has declared war on President George W. Bush's nominees to the federal courts." The senators referred to as supporting this "radical coalition" are hardly all bleeding-heart liberals and include such noted moderates as Kohl (D-WI), Biden (D-DE), and previous senator John Edwards. It appears another radical conservative along the likes of Janice Brown and William Pryor will be rammed through the Senate.

My First Actual Post

My name is Thomas and I am currently a student at the Univ of Minnesota Twin-Cities. I am originally from Milwaukee and currently am residing in my beautiful home city for the summer months. I care deeply about politics and the future of our great nation. This blog will allow me to vent some of my feelings about current political debates. I do not believe myself to having solutions for all the world's problems, but do think that I have an important contribution to make. I consider myself to be a DLC Democrat, meaning I am slightly left of the center. Well lets begin.