Thursday, December 21, 2006

Three interesting news points

So, I'm often pissed off by historic preservation societies. They seek to "preserve" so much that they do damage to the very neighborhood they claim to be preserving. Often, their desire to preserve stretches to building that aren't particularly old and little-to-no aesthetic charm. Moreover, their desire to preserve appears to override the basic fact that we still need a functioning city or house (or whatever they're preserving). So, functionality must be a permissible reason to modify existing structures. Apparently, that is not the case in D.C. An elderly couple who own a brick rowhouse (yeah, there aren't many of those in D.C.) in the Mt. Pleasant area of D.C. are now living in the basement of their house and would like a ramp connecting the basement to the front sidewalk. However, the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board denied their request for this modification because "Repeating porches of similar height and depth create a notable pattern and rhythm on these formerly suburban streets" and this modification would have knocked out part of their porch. As Marc Fisher (the columnist reporting this) put it, the preservation board would rather preserve the rhythm of the porches than allow the couple to continue to live in the home they have lived in for decades. And did the board suggest an equally palatable alternative? Of course not. They're just there to shoot things down.

Now, I'm all for preserving the character of a neighborhood, but such desires to preserve MUST take into account that people still need to live and work in such neighborhoods. In Charleston, the historic society is currently trying to preserve a library that, based on its facade, is something from the 1950s or 1960s (i.e. not that old) and has all the aesthetic appeal of government buildings from that area. Currently, the library is an abandoned building with broken windows that the city wants to tear down to allow to be developed. Such development would be good because the building divides nice, economically vibrant areas with ones that are less so. Anyway, these people drive me crazy.


In other news, another conservative has jumped into the "I'm too stupid to live" river. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) decided to go beyond Dennis Prager's rant about the use of the Koran in a swearing-in for Congressmen (despite the fact that no book is used during the swearing-in). Goode said:
The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

Besides Goode's ignorance about something he has done many times himself (namely, take the oath of office without any book), his statement is a complete non sequitur. Maybe he should think before mouthing off, but, alas, even after thinking, the Post reported that "In his written response, Goode said he will not apologize and does not see why his comments could be offensive to some Muslims." Really? He's completely baffled as to why Muslims might be offended by his statements? Wow, what an idiot.


Finally, in a completely unsurprising piece of news, Britain, France, and Germany have gone completely spineless -- once again -- for the umpteenth time -- in relation to yet another dangerous country. This time, it is, of course, Iran. Apparently, they have "scrapped plans to impose a United Nations travel ban on Iranian officials who are linked to Tehran's most controversial nuclear activities." Yes, that sanction would have been just too much of a hardship for those poor Iranians -- all twenty of them (I'm just guessing at this) involved in the most controversial activities. Britain, France, and Germany did this, ostensibly, to get Russia on board. Of course, this just means that these countries are spineless when it comes to anyone. I don't mean to imply much praise for the U.S. because our dear President has been a personal supporter of the Russian dictator. Yes, we've opposed Putin a few times in other countries, but Bush doesn't seem to understand the connection between Putin's problematic meddling in world affairs and the anti-democratic moves Putin has made at home. Instead, (I wish I could recall the exact words), Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a man he could trust and work with. Yeah, right. I don't agree much with Cheney, but his speech last spring criticizing the backsliding Russia was right on. Cheney seems to be able to convince Bush of anything -- except for one of the few things that matter -- the increasing danger of Russia.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Predators and Internet Idiots

I read an interesting article this past week reporting that Virginia's attorney-general (Robert McDonnell) plans to create a registry for the state's convicted sex offenders to keep track of their email addresses and instant messaging screen names. According to his plan, when the offenders have registered their information, this information will be passed on to networking sites such as MySpace to prevent the sex offenders from using the sites and, thus, ostensibly, prevent them from interacting with minors.

Yes, that's right. For some idiotic reason, McDonnell actually believes that he can regulate the internet, as that is essentially what he's proposing. However, he's not alone. Two idiots of the U.S. Senate (John McCain and Chuck Schumer) are proposing a similar thing at the federal level.

There are so many ways that this is stupid that I'm not sure where to begin. Thankfully, a Post editorial already points out some of them. The most important problem is the obvious loophole: you can always just get another email address. It seems that our out-of-touch political leaders believe that every person is given a single, unique email address (and IM screen name) when he/she is born and that this one email address sticks with you throughout your life. Therefore, it's only necessary to find out that information, register it, and share it with networking sites. Yeah, could someone please inform these idiots that email addresses are a dime a dozen and that you can put in any name you want for an email address and that, therefore, it's impossible to keep track of them? I have had at least 8 email addresses during my life -- and I know I'll have some more. For some reason, the Post is only mildly critical. Really, they should have taken the senators and McDonnell to task for even suggesting such a stupid proposal.

So, as the program is completely unenforceable in the first place, that raises the second major problem -- it's a waste of money. I doubt it would be that expensive (relatively speaking), but the government is chock full of these small programs put in place for very small issues. And, yes, I'm calling this a small issue. As the Post editorial points out, there's no record (or even anecdotal report, apparently) of any of these networking sites leading to a known sex offender committing some sex crime with these children. So, the problem is that we're throwing money at a so-far non-existent problem in such a way that we could never prevent the problem in the first place. Great.

Finally, the third issue is that we, as a society, have become obsessed with sex offenders, and this only reinforces our obsession. We seem to think that child molesters are everywhere, and those online maps showing where sex offenders live only reinforce the idea. The reality about sex offenders is much different than what McDonnell's proposal suggests. Most sexual abuse of children is NOT committed by random strangers, let alone by strangers on the internet (Dateline's "Sexually Salacious Ways to Catch a Predator", notwithstanding). Most child sexual abuse is committed by family members or close family friends. Despite that fact, many Americans have come to live in fear of their children being abused by random strangers. Why is that? I believe that it's due to the nationalized, 24-7, sensationalistic media that we now have. When one child is New Jersey is molested and killed, the whole nation hears about it for days and days. While such events are truly awful and horrific, their over-exposure warps people's understanding of the threat such events actually pose. In a nation of 300,000,000 people, statistically speaking, we can expect all sorts of things to occur at least once a year. Yes, anytime someone says that there's a one-in-a-million chance of something occurring, then we should expect it to happen to 300 people in this country a year. Unfortunately, our media warp these things -- we panic about bird flu (ever killed in this country: 0) and hardly blink an eye at the regular flu (annually killed in this country: ~60,000).

So, what should be done about online sexual predators? Well, the government should not be involved in every aspect of life and this is one of those areas where the government can do little to prevent the bad stuff from happening. HOWEVER, people (i.e. parents) can prevent these problems easily. Unlike offline predators who can kidnap kids and molest them, online ones can only do harm WHEN people do stupid things. Do you ever notice on Dateline's "Sensationalistic, Ratings-catching Ways to Catch a Predator" that the men are lured by the underage girls willing to have sex with them? The few stories I have read about men actually meeting and engaging in sex acts with underage kids reveal that the kids (usually young teenagers) agree to meet and have sex with the men. This does not reduce the moral repugnance of the men's actions, but it does call into question the parenting of these kids. Why are these kids engaging in sexual banter online with these men? Moreover, why are they agreeing to meet them? Parents, rather than worrying about the online sexual predators out there, should be worrying about whether they've done a good job raising and educating their kids. At some point in their lives, their kids will, most likely, meet creeps and losers of all stripes, whether it's online, in school, or as adults.

In one of the news stories from the D.C. area about a case like this where (I think) the guy was convicted of statutory rape, the judge also criticized the teenage girl and parents involved. This, of course, created a giant backlash against him, but, frankly, I had to agree with him. To criticize the girl and her parents and say that what she did was stupid and dangerous does not mitigate the guilt of the adult male involved. It just merely reinforces that we all (yes, even teenagers) have to be responsible and careful and this girl was anything but.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Much Ado about the Koran (AKA: When Pseudo-Religious Conservatives Attack!)

So, the first Muslim elected to Congress (Keith Ellison) has announced that he will use the Koran when he takes his oath of office, according to this Post article. This, in turn, has apparently outraged some pseudo-religious conservatives (the qualifiers are necessary because I have to believe that more intelligent conservatives do not fall into this line of thinking), who claim that it is a slap in the face of the Judeo-Christian tradition of our country. According to Dennis Prager, a conservative talk show host,
This has nothing to do with the Koran. It has to do with the first break of the tradition of having a Bible present at a ceremony of installation of a public official since George Washington inaugurated the tradition.
Prager has explained his stance here, where he also says:
But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Unfortunately for Prager, the truth appears to be quite different. Ellison was incorrect to say that he would use the Koran in the first place simply because, as it turns out, Congressmen do not use any book, holy or otherwise, at their swearing-in. They merely stand on the House floor and are sworn in together. So, what was Ellison referring to? Well, after the official swearing in, House members have their own personal unofficial swearing-in that is actually just a photo op and typically includes a Bible (though that is up to them), and Ellison apparently would prefer the Koran. Note, however, that, when the Bible is present, no actual installation of a public official is going on.

Other public officials have used books other than a Bible at official oaths of office, including the current governor of Hawaii (Linda Lingle-R), John Quincy Adams, and Teddy Roosevelt. Moreover, it should be noted that not all public officials are actually sworn in -- some affirm their oaths. The Founding Fathers apparently gave this as an out due to the religiously pluralistic nature of the country (did they know something that people can't figure out today?). So, it appears that Prager is wrong on many fronts.

After his original column, he wrote a follow-up, where it appears that he has now been informed of the unofficial nature of the use of the Bible in Congressional oaths of office. Rather than offering a mea culpa, he continues to defend his original position by adding some nuances to his argument that aren't particularly germane to my post. However, it does not appear, unless I missed it, that anyone has informed him that previous presidents, no less, have NOT used the Bible in their swearing-in.

Frankly, I'll chalk this one up to the same elements behind the so-called "War on Christmas" that was so big last year (or was it the year before?). Essentially, these kinds of people create oppositions that they can bash over the head for being un-Christian, un-patriotic, and/or ultimately un-American. They create a straw man or raise the specter of the boogeyman to create the sense of a cultural and/or religious clash that is not actually occurring. They assume a certain homogeneity of cultural and religious beliefs in this country that they insist has always existed and then insist is under attack. And they cite the Founding Fathers, incorrectly, as supportive of this Christian culture that, according to these elements, has always been intended to, and is always supposed to, pervade our government.

What I find most irritating is that the Post waits until the TENTH paragraph before informing the reader that Prager has his facts about Congressional oaths WRONG. Would it kill the media to actually point out to the reader clearly and explicitly when someone has their facts wrong ASAP?

Sunday, November 26, 2006

World War II and Iraq -- the inevitable yet pointless comparisons

So, it has been made known that the Iraq war has now lasted as long as World War II, thus inviting the inevitable comparisons between this war and WWII. Before addressing those comparisons, I want to say that these really are pointless comparisons -- the wars are vastly different in many, many ways. I much prefer the Vietnam comparisons because at least the types of fighting in Vietnam and Iraq are similar, though obviously there are differences between Iraq and Vietnam as well.

The Washington Post ran an interesting article in which WWII vets explained WWII in relation to the Iraq war. Many vets, including rather famous ones, gave their points of view on the issue in their own words. Many of the same themes appeared throughout the vets' paragraphs. WWII had a clear moral purpose with clear goals, whereas Iraq, from the beginning, has been messy both on purpose and goals. WWII had tremendous unity across the country, whereas support for the war in Iraq has always been fractured and tenuous. WWII required sacrifice on everyone's part, whereas Iraq has required sacrifice from the very few.

Despite the mostly apolitical nature of the vets' comparisons, a couple of them made implicitly political arguments, which would not bother me so much if they weren't wrong. Bob Dole, who I generally respect as a WWII generation Republican (very different from today's breed), said: "In WWII, the media coverage was far less intense, while heavy coverage of the war in Iraq contributes to the loss of American support." This statement is an implicit criticism of the media, in that Dole places the cause of the loss of support on the media coverage of the war, at least in part. Again, this would be his prerogative to make such an argument, if it weren't wrong. To say that the media coverage of WWII was "far less intense" is simply FALSE. The newspapers covered the war every single day, in as much detail as they could fit into the articles. Granted, the war was a much vaster undertaking, thus stretching journalistic resources thin. Nonetheless, the coverage, as indicated by any newspaper front pages from the time or by radio broadcasts at the time or by the newsreels they would show at movie theaters before the main feature began, was far MORE intense (I mean, how many of us have seen newsreels about Iraq at the beginning of a movie?). There is a difference in that TV was not around then, but that's hardly the fault of the media -- plus, the movie reels made up for that. Moreover, as acknowledged by the other vets, WWII consumed the homefront, from rationing to buying bonds to the fact that everyone knew many, many people who were off the fighting the war -- it is impossible to imagine that people during WWII were less aware of the war, as implicitly suggested by Dole's comments.

The other political commentary that bothered me was not so much wrong as hypocritical and, ultimately, lacking in conviction. Ted Stevens (a U.S. senator) complained that, in WWII, "Everybody did something to help. No one's doing anything like that now." He is quite correct that there are vast differences in the way the homefront is operating in WWII compared to now. In WWII, though, people sacrificed because they were asked to. They were told what to do to help the war effort and the president made appeals to all Americans to do everything they can to aid the effort. This was total war. Taxes were raised to pay for the war and it was considered your patriotic duty to pay them (can you imagine Bush doing that?). Bonds were issued and Americans bought them up. All money and effort had to go to the war (deficit financing was not in fashion then). Instead, now, taxes on the rich are cut (supported by Ted Stevens), while American troops were not given the proper armor for them or their vehicles at the start of this war. Despite these money problems, Stevens himself was working the system in Washington to bring pork home to his state. He is the one, now famous, for creating the earmark to spend tens of millions of dollars to build the "Bridge to Nowhere". Apparently, he doesn't see any hypocrisy in continuing pork-barrel politics and the vast wasting of money while troops aren't given all they need to fight the war in Iraq.

Overall, though, I enjoyed reading the vets' commentaries and I began to think about why there is such a difference on the homefront. Obviously, the size and scope of the wars make a dramatic difference. The fact that we have an all-volunteer military that, despite Bush's feigned hurt at Kerry's idiotic comments, disporportionately comes from the lower socioeconomic strata of society also affects us -- the pain of having friends and family in Iraq, of having them be injured or having them die, is not distributed evenly across society. Some people know lots of people there, while others know very few. I have known only one person who has served in Iraq and he is no longer in the military.

Perhaps the biggest reason for the difference is the attitude of our leaders. The American people have not been asked to sacrifice -- we've been asked to spend more. We are not encouraged to save or decrease consumption -- instead, our leaders worry about keeping people flush with cheap oil. Ultimately, the blame rests squarely with Bush and his administration. They have never encouraged such thinking and, in fact, have tried to finance this war with little cost to the country. They get upset when the media show pictures of caskets (though the media did that in all previous wars -- the Civil War has far more gruesome photos than I've ever seen for this war) or when the lists of those who have died in Iraq are read in public (commonplace during WWII). Essentially, they have treated the American people as the Roman leaders treated their citizens -- keep the people happy with their bread and circuses and don't ever let them feel pain. It is stupid, absurd, and insulting to the American public. Clearly, this country can handle sacrifice. This country is strong and proud and has ideals that carry much weight with its citizens. However, its citizens must be convinced of the importance and necessity of the war. When leaders try to get the people to follow blindly, people may follow at first, but eventually their feelings change. Americans can handle great sacrifice -- but only when the circumstances are appropriate. That Bush et al. do not believe the country could handle the sacrifice of war or even being reminded that we have troops fighting and dying in Iraq is very telling about their own beliefs about the circumstances of this war.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Black Republicans: Why they barely exist

I was reading Nate's blog about stereotypes for Black Republicans (you can find it on November 10, 2006).
That post got me thinking along related lines as to why the Republican Party does so poorly among Black Americans. The Republicans, of course, are the party of Lincoln, whereas the Democratic Party was long associated with the South and oppression of blacks.

Obviously, one can cite recent history for the strong association between blacks and the Democratic Party. Beginning with FDR, the Democratic Party began reaching out to blacks simply by helping the poor and unemployed around the country during the Depression. With FDR, blacks across the North switched their allegiance. Truman continued the new tone of the Democratic Party by desegregating the military. And, finally, of course, it was the Democrats during the 1960s and 70s who led the way for passing civil rights laws. Concurrently, the Republican Party opposed many civil rights efforts due to a strong respect for "states' rights". Of course, the history of that term "states' rights" is one loaded with racial undertones. It was originally used in defense of slavery. Nonetheless, for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the proportion of Republican senators voting for the bill was greater than the proportion of Democratic senators voting for the bill, indicating that the long history of racial tolerance in the Republican Party going back to the Radical Republicans during and after the Civil War was still present.

Still, the Democratic Party was clearly wrenching itself over to the side of civil rights for blacks, whereas the Republican Party was wrenching itself over to the side of "states' rights". It is no surprise that, beginning with Strom Thurmond's break with the Democratic Party in 1948 over the desegregation of the military and his run for president as a Dixiecrat, many Southern Democrats began to switch parties from 1948 through the 1990s. This represented the expunging of the racist elements of the Democratic Party and the similar accruing of those elements into the Republican Party. This process was essentially complete in 1994, with the final demolition of the Democratic stronghold in the South, making it now the Solid Republican

How did the Republican Party accomplish this takeover of the South? Was it through a combination of winning over Southern blacks (who are socially conservative and religious) AND Southern whites, thereby creating a grand coalition? Hardly. No, the Republican Party used something called the Southern Strategy, beginning with Nixon's election in 1968. This strategy consisted of using "race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters" (quote from here). You can see the effectiveness of this strategy by comparing presidential electoral maps from before '68 with those after. Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has recently announced he is stepping down, told the NAACP that the Republican Party was wrong to use this strategy of dividing people in the South (same article). Of course, after you've already taken over a region, it's easy to apologize for how you did it. Sorry, Ken, but too little, too late.

So, even assuming that Mehlman's implication that the Republican Party is beyond its race-baiting past is right, why can't Republicans pick up more black votes? Surely, it is not purely socioeconomic, as the number of blacks who have moved into the middle and even upper classes has increased dramatically since the 60s. Such blacks continue to vote for the Democratic Party (see Prince George's County, MD). Certainly, whatever appeal the Republican Party has for socially conservative, rural, poor whites in the South should have the same appeal for socially conservative, rural, poor blacks in the South, right? The answer is, quite obviously, no.

First off, that line of thinking assumes that Black Americans have no memory whatsoever. For 350 years, Black Americans suffered entrenched and legal slavery (250 years) followed by entrenched and legal segregation and oppression (100 years). The past 40 years have been a slow, uneven march away from that, but that does not mean blacks have forgotten this past. Moreover, blacks are well aware of the Southern Strategy, of hearing "states' rights" praised by Republican politicians in the South, over the past 40 years and know that this comes from the Republican Party. Many of these old-timer politicians may have once been Democrats, but blacks are clearly well aware that the same faces have just switched parties. For Black Americans, this history is the defining feature of what it means to be a "Black American". It explains why recent African immigrants find little in common with Black Americans. Similar levels of melanin mean nothing beyond that. So, why should blacks suddenly jump from the party that has pushed for them and their causes and NOT used race against them in the past 40 years (i.e. the Democratic Party) and jump to the party that has done the opposite (i.e. the Republican Party)?

Mehlman would, most likely, argue that the Republican Party has changed and that their economic message should mean something to Black Americans and should capture a portion of their vote. However, before any message of economic prosperity or social conservatism reaches them, Black Americans are surely going to determine whether the message-bearers are not racist throwbacks. It is in that realm that the Republican Party fails utterly, regardless of whether blacks like the other messages from the Republican Party.

Here are two examples of how the Republican Party still doesn't get it. First, in 2002, Sen. Trent Lott (R- Miss.) made the following remarks:
South.
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president [in 1948 as a Dixiecrat], we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Although Lott (a Democrat who turned Republican in the 1970s; coincidence? I think not) apologized, it is simply not clear from the remarks what Lott could have meant by "all these problems" except the "problems" of integration and civil rights. It was, to many Americans, a brief moment when they could see that the inner racist, who had been hiding due to the fact that it was no longer acceptable to say such things, was always there. At this point, Lott was forced to step down as the new Majority Leader for the Senate. One might say that at least the Republican Party punished him for the remarks (but he's still a senator, right?). However, that would be incorrect. For the new incoming Congress, Lott was recently elected Minority Whip by the Republican Caucus in the Senate. Now, what kind of message does the Republican Party think it is sending to Black Americans when they re-elect this guy to a leadership position?

The second example comes from the recent campaign season. Despite Mehlman's apology for the Southern Strategy, his own RNC appeared not to get the message and ran an ad in the Senate race in Tennessee that smacked of racism. The Democratic candidate Harold Ford was black, and the Republican was white. The RNC ran an ad in which a white woman appeared to be suggesting that she and Harold were having a sexual relationship. Although this ad could appear to be ambiguous in its racial overtones to someone unfamiliar with American history, the fact is that race-baiting has often taken the form of suggesting that black men will steal white women, rape them, impregnate them, etc. At a minimum, race-baiting has often been used to remind racist whites in the South of the possibility of racial mixing, a great fear among such people. This ad smacked of all the implicit racism used in the Southern Strategy and outraged Black Americans (even Republican former Senator William Cohen called it a "very serious appeal to a racist sentiment"). The Republican candidate Bob Corker, of course, denounced the ad, but the RNC refused to pull it.

Out of the 9 competitive Senate races in 2006, the Democrats won all of them, EXCEPT for Ford's race in Tennessee. The ad proved decisive, as Corker's poll numbers improved following the ad and he never lost his lead. Once again, Mehlman could apologize for the Southern Strategy, but as I said before, it's easy to apologize for how you run a race AFTER you win. It's also easy with our compartmentalized system for the candidate himself to appear as a good guy (denouncing the ad) while simultaneously benefiting from the racist sentiments.

So, what can we conclude from all this? The Republican Party will NEVER appeal to a significant number of Black Americans, regardless of their platform's message, so long as they continue electing racists or using race-baiting as part of their campaigns. I could list more examples of the Republican Party's racist undertones, but this post is long enough and the examples given should suffice to show what I mean. I believe that, essentially, the Republican Party consists of three elements with regard to race. First, you have the closet racists -- their true feelings slip out every now and then (Trent Lott, George Allen). Second, you have the apologists -- they defend the closet racists by saying they were just innocent mistakes (and do things like make Lott part of the leadership again) and they claim not to see racism in the all the apparently racist symbols around (the ad against Harold Ford, the Confederate flag). This second part also doesn't mind benefiting from racial undertones in elections (Ken Mehlman). Third, you have the true non-racists. This third part used to be a much larger part of the Republican Party but has significantly diminished and, as shown by Lott's selection as whip, does not have the clout to force down the other elements.


Thursday, November 16, 2006

Pelosi's first mistake

Before the Democrats have even officially taken over Congress, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has already shown a tremendous lack of political acumen. In 2001, Pelosi beat out Steny Hoyer to be minority leader. Hoyer had been around longer, but apparently Pelosi had accumulated more chits. Since then, Hoyer has been minority whip and, following the elections of 2006, planned to run for Majority Leader, second-in-command to Speaker.

However, Pelosi decided to write a letter of support for John Murtha and, more than that, apparently tried to strong-arm various Democrats to support Murtha. Today, thankfully, Murtha lost in a landslide to Hoyer and Hoyer will be the new Majority Leader.

So, what's the problem with all this? Well, let's see. Hoyer has put in the time and service and served a faithful fellow Democrat in the leadership. He's polished and a relative moderate in the Democratic caucus. In other words, he would be an excellent Majority Leader. Murtha, in contrast, has not been in the leadership, has been to the left on Iraq, and has a rather unsavory past stemming from the Abscam scandals of the early 80s. Moreover, he has opposed important bills that have tried to stem the tide of corruption in Congress. If the Democrats are trying to look like the clean uncorrupt party, nothing would look worse than electing someone like Murtha to be Majority Leader -- he would smell an awful lot like Tom Delay.

However, Pelosi believes that loyalty to her matters far more than anything else and, therefore, was willing to go to great lengths to have Murtha elected because Murtha served as her campaign chief when she ran against Hoyer in 2001 for minority leader. While loyalty deserves a certain amount of respect, it is truly awful that Pelosi couldn't see the damage that Murtha's election would cause to the perception of the Democratic Party and, therefore, to their chances in 2008. Instead, she operated quite a bit like President Bush, who has also shown that he values loyalty above all else, often to his own detriment.

Thankfully, the Democratic Caucus saved Pelosi from her own stupidity and elected Hoyer, leaving Murtha without a major post. I have no misgivings about Pelosi's ethical status (currently), but I'm baffled as to why she can't see the ethics issues with those around her. For some reason, she thinks that personal loyalty to her will somehow overcome the clouds hanging over others. Nancy, what were you thinking? PLEASE consult with those outside your little circle and try not to embarrass the Democrats in Congress before 2008. Otherwise, I'm going to have to suggest that we get a new Speaker ASAP.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Politics and Christianity

I read a rather interesting blog post here. In it, Balmer points out that many of the right-wing "Christian" organizations have become political to the point that, in fact, they have clearly lost their sense of Christianity. For his example, he looks at the issue of torture and tries to get several right-wing Christian groups to state their position on torture. Of the groups he contacted for their position statements, only two replied -- both defending the Bush administration's position on torture. Clearly, regardless of one's position on torture, it would seem that torture is at odds with the basic fundamental principles of Christianity. Or, at least, one would think, but obviously these organizations disagree.

I could not agree more with his assessment of Christianity and politics. In particular, what concerns me is that such marriages between "Christian" groups (when they aren't even really Christian) and political power only encourage those in this country who are adamantly anti-religion. I have met such people and heard their viewpoints, which typically include some sort of statement about how religions (particularly Christianity, but often all religions) are the root causes of all sorts of problems, including wars. In fact, one person, whom I otherwise admire, stated that religion is responsible for more killings and wars than anything else. It seemed futile to point out that, for the most part, 20th century wars have been secular in nature and have also led to far more deaths than wars in any preceding centuries (probably combined, though it's impossible to say). It would also seem silly to point out that avowed anti-religion atheists in Communist countries (think Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China) have killed roughly 30-40 million of their own citizens. But, obviously, the truth can be such an inconvenience.

Nonetheless, these anti-religion people are not coming up with their ideas from thin air. In fact, they perceive the hypocrisy of the outspoken Christian Right correctly and are appalled by them. What they do not see is that this is not the fault of Christianity but the fault of politics and power. For three centuries after the death of Christ, Christianity was an ignored (at best) or persecuted (at worst) religion. Christians were routinely killed for their beliefs, leading to the term "martyr" for them. (Note: Such martyrdom in which the martyrs are killed simply for holding to their beliefs is rather different from the current vogue of labeling Islamic suicide bombers and others as "martyrs". Frankly, I'm offended by the use of "martyrs" for people who try to kill others and die doing it.) Early Christians followed the teachings of Jesus regarding love, peace, and "turning the other cheek".

It was not until politics and power began to wear the mantle of Christianity (beginning with Emperor Constantine) that people began to use the name of Christianity to commit un-Christian acts. Slowly, over time, "Christianity" became the reason for many horrible crimes such as the massacres of Jews, Muslims, or anyone whose beliefs differed from one's own. However, it must be stated unequivocally that Christianity is not the problem. Rather, it is the intrinsic desires (in this case, bad desires) of human beings, particularly those with power, that lead them to commit horrible things in the name of "Christianity". Such desires exist within all people -- regardless of the popular religion in their society. Nonetheless, the use of Christianity in justifying doing wrong is an embarrassment to all Christians and tarnishes Christians worldwide. It encourages anti-religionists with their own developing prejudices and, as seen in the world, makes the "Christian" U.S. look bad.

To bring it back around to torture and imprisonment, Andrew Cohen has written two posts about horrible torture cases here in the U.S. (here and here). To summarize, Cohen reports on court cases involving two prisoners (just regular prisoners -- not even terrorist suspects) who were treated like dogs in prison. Chained to the floor, sleeping on bare slab, given little to eat, forced to endure horrendous temperatures. You get the picture. Many people in this country, however, countenance such treatment by saying that these are horrible people who don't deserve the "easy life", as if being in prison with the basic necessities and not being treated badly were a walk in the park.

However, Cohen makes the perfect argument about this. How we treat prisoners says NOTHING about the prisoners and their moral state -- no, rather it says who WE are as a people, as a country. To which, I must add that, if most Americans believe they are Christians (which, according to polls, most do), they should be ashamed of how these prisoners were treated because it says everything about them as being anything but Christian.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Space Shuttles and Pork

I read an interesting article on the Hubble Space Telescope and whether it will be repaired or allowed to die. The Hubble, originally put into space in 1990, has provided a great deal of knowledge and images of the universe, particularly from the universe's early days. Some of these pictures have been spectacular and have captured much of the public's imagination. However, a couple years ago, the Hubble was put onto the death track. NASA was going to let the Hubble die, rather than repair it, as is required every few years.

"Why?" you might ask. Well, quite simply, NASA's funding priorities have shifted and the long-term plan for NASA doesn't focus on these kinds of explorations. Instead, as we all know, Bush has ordered NASA to prepare for a mission to Mars, which will be considerably expensive. In addition, NASA is trying to finish the International Space Station and eventually retire its fleet of space shuttles.

This brings me to my major point: NASA has become nothing but a giant pork-barrel agency. The space shuttle and the international space station serve nothing except to provide a means by which Congress can appropriate billions upon billions of dollars for the building and buying of parts for the shuttle and space station. After the Columbia disaster several years ago, I read an article examining why the shuttle program, despite all its flaws, was still around. Succinctly put, a majority of Congressional districts contain companies that are involved, in some way, with production of things for the shuttle program.

The shuttle program itself is useless. It was invented as a cheap, reliable, and quick-turnaround way to go back and forth to space. Instead, it has been expensive and unreliable and the delay between each shuttle trip is MUCH longer than originally planned, making the whole thing a giant waste of government money. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that the amount of knowledge being gained by shuttle trips, vis-a-vis things like the Mars rovers, is considerably less than one would hope for that amount of money.

So, now, of course, everyone says that we need the shuttle program to finish the space station, but I want to know why we need the space station. It seems to me that we have a piece of circular logic here. The space station was created in order to have a mission for the space shuttle (rather than being, say, an expensive ferry for satellites, which could be blasted into space by unmanned rockets). Now, the space station serves as a reason to keep the space shuttles around.

I realize that I'm rambling a bit here, but, to be frank, I'm baffled as to why all this money is poured into these things. We have tons of problems here on planet earth that a few extra billions could put a dent in. Our federal government is hemorrhaging money (due to the unnecessary reductions in taxes by the Republicans), and, despite this, we have a president who thinks it's a good idea to send a manned mission to Mars. What the %*#$ is going on with these people?

This is a complete and total waste. We have rockets that can ship things into space more cheaply and without the loss of life. The shuttle and station accomplish nothing more than serving each other. Mars provides no tangible benefit to our society except to drain away our money. Moreover, we now have private companies expressing interest in reaching space, even bringing up space tourists.

I think that what would be better is if Bush, in proposing we go to Mars, were to ask all Americans whether they want their taxes raised by "X" annually to support such a mission. It is absurd that we borrow the money to pay for such extravagant expenses, expecting future generations to pay higher taxes to pay back the money. What is wrong with the Republican Party?

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The Right Strikes Back

In a stunning move, Rush Limbaugh has attacked actor Michael J. Fox for . . . having Parkinson's disease. Yes, I know, it seems ridiculous, but today, Limbaugh blasted Fox for exaggerating the effects of his disease in a recent commercial and called Fox's uncontrolled movement "purely an act". Fox is appearing in ads supporting candidates who support stem-cell research.

Let's set aside the obvious: a pathetic bloviating radio show host attacking a popular actor and genuinely good human being for uncontrollable movements, despite Limbaugh's own disease (drug addiction) causing him to do uncontrollable and, in his case, illegal things. (Perhaps Limbaugh, in his revenge on Fox, should start doing commercials where he uncontrollably pops pain killers and gets illegal prescriptions.)

I really don't understand how the right can sink lower, and yet they keep doing it. Fox suffers from Parkinson's disease, a movement disorder that results in tremors and an inability to make controlled movements. The extra movement that Limbaugh sees in the commercial is actually due to the effects of the drugs Fox takes to treat the disease: specifically, l-DOPA. Over time, l-DOPA leads to the opposite effects of the disease itself and, unfortunately, as time progresses, it is impossible to find a dose of the drug that alleviates Parkinson's symptoms and does not lead to its own motoric side effects.

I watched a very touching interview with Fox several months ago. During the interview, it was clear that he has a lot of uncontrolled movements that, he explained correctly, were due to the drug treatments. He also mentioned that sometimes he delays his next dose of the treatment just to relax. Although that means he cannot engage in any purposeful movements, he finds it to be a little helpful in recovering from the uncontrolled movements he has while on the drug.

So, let's face it: Parkinson's disease is a truly horrible neurodegenerative disorder that slowly robs you of your ability to engage in purposeful movements, while leaving most of your thinking and cognitive abilities intact. What's worse is that our best treatments (l-DOPA) create their own set of problems. To attack Fox for these uncontrolled l-DOPA-induced movements is beyond unsympathetic -- it's simply cold-blooded, cruel, and morally repugnant.

Moreover, Limbaugh didn't even get his criticism right. He said that Fox was either faking or didn't take his medication. On the contrary, Rush, you ignorant idiot, Fox must have taken his medication in order to have those movements. Without the medication, Fox would have had tremors but wouldn't have been able to speak much or move much. Idiot.

Finally, I also take issue with the idea that Fox was suggesting that opposition to stem-cell research was causing him to deteriorate. He doesn't say that in the commercial and he's not that stupid. In fact, I believe that Fox is doing absolutely the right thing if this is what he believes in. The promise of stem cells has always resided most prominently within those diseases, such as Parkinson's, where neurodegeneration has led to a loss of a specific group of cells. In theory, stem cells could be used to replace such cells. Therefore, it's not exactly a stretch to believe that opposition to federal funding of such research is slowing down the potential discoveries of new treatments, especially considering the central role federal funding plays in the biomedical world.

Monday, October 23, 2006

If only he could keep his story straight

So, for many, many months now (is it years? I can't keep track), Bush has been dividing the debate about Iraq into a simple binary choice: "cut-and-run" and "stay-the-course". He has accused Democrats of being "cut-and-run", due to their suggestions for alternative courses. This, of course, completely ignores the fact that Democrats' suggestions span a rather wide array of what should change -- i.e. "cut-and-run" is both an oversimplification as well as wrong. Moreover, this ignores the calls by some Republicans for a change in the course.

Ironically, it is now Bush saying that he never said that we should "stay the course" in Iraq. (Here's the interview with Bush where he denies saying it. To quote
BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been stay the course). Unfortunately, Bush does not seem to realize that we have invented video cameras that record the use of such phrases. Here's the link with him using the phrase -- over and over and over.

Based on the interview, it appears that Bush believes that changing tactics is equivalent to not staying the course. It's unfortunate that A) he denies using the phrase, especially since he used it to malign those who disagreed with him and set up straw-man arguments against them and B) that he doesn't understand the difference between tactics and strategy. Certainly, when people discuss "staying the course" in opposition to "cut and run", no one is suggesting a difference of opinion in tactics. In fact, I don't think I've ever read much debate about the tactics used (though I've seen a little discussion of it -- just no real debate -- I mean, who's going to tell the Marines that they're fighting wrong?). So, Bush needs to have a basic lesson in strategy and tactics and needs to stop equivocating on these terms.

This problem of equivocation on Bush's part has been a major force in this war, and it greatly bothers me. It is a way of shutting up those who disagree with you and it is a way of claiming progress when none is being made. It is a way of saying that you've always held to position "A" when you used to make fun of your opponents for holding that position. It is a way of changing the rationale for the war post hoc. Ultimately, it is a way to be disingenous about this war even as soldiers die or as far more soldiers are injured (often for life) at an alarming rate.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

What IS the goal in Iraq?

I've been wondering about this for a while now. Recently, there were rumors circulating that President Bush was about to change his strategy in Iraq. However, according to an article yesterday and Bush's own words, that is not the case. According to Bush, "victory" has always been our goal in Iraq and always will be. Well, that's certainly good to know. I was worried that Bush wanted "defeat" to be our goal. I mean, really, why are so many people enamored of such enormously stupid things coming out of his mouth?

So, my question is: What is the actual goal of our troops in Iraq? It's hard to know, as the rationale for invading Iraq and staying in Iraq has changed repeatedly. If victory is the goal, what are the benchmarks by which we decide whether we have achieved that goal? There is no government to surrender to us nor specific people who must be captured or killed. Rather, there is a giant mess in Iraq.

Most likely, if this question were to be asked of Bush, he would say "victory over the terrorists", but such an answer is, as all should realize by now, incredibly misleading. The "terrorists" are but one group among several in Iraq engaging in violence, unless of course "terrorists" include anyone killing other people in Iraq. However, if we define them that way, then we have to acknowledge that most of them pose no threat to the U.S. (i.e. unlike al-Qaeda). Of course, this is the problem with the misuse and overuse of the word "terrorist". Most of the fighting in Iraq is being committed by Sunni and Shiite factions, aimed primarily at each other's populations. The non-Iraqi "terrorists" are just another group thrown into the mix. So, who precisely do we need to be "victorious" over and how do we know when we've done that?

The article goes on to mention that Bush says that commanders are always changing things on the ground to reflect the situation in Iraq. I assume he means that tactics change, but the larger question is what is our strategy? Yeah, I get that our troops change their tactics for fighting enemy combatants, but it's not clear what our overall strategy is to achieve our goal (if we knew what that goal was). Ostensibly, it's to get Iraqi forces to take over for our troops, but the past few months have demonstrated (for the umpteenth time) that Iraqi troops are in no position to do that. In fact, we have retreated from the Anbar province (main Sunni stronghold) and have focused on the previously calm (relatively speaking) Baghdad. Recent news indicates that Moqtada al-Sadr's militia is becoming active again, in fact briefly taking over a town that the Brits recently turned over to the Iraqis. George Will, in his continuing criticism of Iraq, points out the need for a government that these Iraqi forces are connected to. Quite frankly, a government without its own forces to govern its land is a government in name only, much like the exiled government of Somalia.

The lack of a government raises yet another issue. One of our goals in Iraq was to create a democracy. Sure, we've gotten people to vote, but that doesn't exactly make a democracy if the government can't govern. So, what are we left with? Our troops continue to defend a government that appears to have little likelihood of ever being able to govern.

So, Mr. Bush, what is our strategy in Iraq? Troops keep dying and getting injured, yet we have no realistic achievable goal or a strategy to reach such a goal. The problem, in my opinion, is that these goals set by the Administration have never been truly achievable. Their probability of being achieved has always depended less on what we do and more on what others choose to do. One of the most important life lessons anyone can learn is that the only person we can control is ourselves. We cannot control others' decisions or behaviors. This is important in relationships, from the romantic to the platonic to the foreign country-to-country relationships. Yet, our goals and strategies in Iraq have always depended on the hope and wishful thinking that Iraqis themselves would choose to do "A" over "B" and "X" over "Y". Our military can accomplish military aims, but this war in Iraq has always set aims far beyond what our military can accomplish -- not because our military is lacking in some way but because these aims have never been within our control.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Follow up to ADHD Post

Here's one article suggesting that ADHD is not overdiagnosed and, among select populations, is actually underdiagnosed. I realize it's from 2002, but this controversy has been going on since the mid-90s. I also don't have the time to do more thorough searches on this.

Of course, at this point, it's important to point out that proper diagnosis depends on a child meeting the diagnostic criteria set (I presume from my days in psych classes) by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (probably version IV -- though it may be IV-R by now -- I don't know off the top of my head and I don't feel like figuring it out ). So, it is possible for someone to disagree with the criteria themselves. However, in that Washington Post article I refer to in an earlier post on this, Roberts certainly does not take that approach. Rather, she just blatantly states that children are being overdiagnosed without any evidence to back her up.

As I mentioned, it has become popular sentiment for people to say that ADHD is overdiagnosed. However, assuming that that is not the case, I think the real problem may lie in our discomfort with the idea of children having psychiatric problems -- or as Roberts labels them "mental illnesses". Obviously, the use of such labels carries negative connotations and "mentally ill" is normally reserved for more serious problems, particularly those in which the patients are not fully in touch with reality. Roberts uses this term to pull at people's emotions because no one likes to think of children with ADHD as "mentally ill" or even of having a psychiatric disorder.

Perhaps what would be best is to do away with such terms. These terms create a false dichotomy between "normal" and "abnormal". They fail to take into account that brains, even those without psychiatric disorders, are not all the same and each has its own quirks. Some quirks are more serious than others and impair people's abilities. Some are so serious that people are no longer able to function within society. When we consider that such "quirks" of the brain are creating problems for people, then it seems reasonable to determine whether we can treat them. This certainly applies to ADHD as much as it applies to more serious disorders such as schizophrenia.

I also believe that people believe ADHD is overdiagnosed in part because it did not used to have such prevalence. Mostly, that's due to the fact that psychiatry, as performed in a more rigorous, scientific, criteria-driven manner, is actually a recent phenomenon (~40 years old). Without the ability to simply peer into someone's head to see what's wrong and with the vast array of possible things that CAN go wrong in someone's head, it's not surprising that so many diagnoses have been created in the past 40 years (or less). It's also not going to be the least bit surprising to me that such diagnoses will be refined and changed as knowledge of the brain becomes better.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

I Thought I Was Done with the Foley Scandal

However, it turns out that things have gotten even crazier. It now appears that at least on Republican congressman knew of Foley's behavior in 2000 -- 6 years ago! Here's the latest.

I really can't believe that Republicans are continuing to try to blame Democrats for this. There could be no Democrats left on this planet and yet, somehow, the Republicans would rationalize their misbehavior as the fault of the Democrats. Essentially, the Republicans are upset that their misbehavior has been found out. It reminds me of a man/woman getting caught cheating by their spouse and getting upset at the spouse because they didn't think the spouse should have found out. Yeah, it doesn't make any sense to me either.
Science and Opinion

I was reading an opinion piece in the Washington Post about medicating (or overmedicating) children for a variety of psychiatric problems, including ADHD, bipolar, and Asperger's syndrome. It was written by Elizabeth J. Roberts, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in California. Her argument is that too many children are being diagnosed with psychiatric disorders when the problem is actually bad parenting.

I have several problems with argument. By far, the largest flaw in her piece is the lack of evidence. This is a common technique used by people giving their opinions on various topics. They make a variety of statements without backing any of them up with evidence. This is particularly true for those who are "experts" in their field, as if their qualifications mean we should just believe what they are saying. In Roberts's case, she doesn't even make an attempt to cite any studies suggesting what she says to be true. She uses no statistics whatsoever and has only a couple anecdotes (based on hearsay) to back up what she's saying.

Her column, most likely, appeals to readers because it addresses a subject that has become a popular sentiment in the U.S. -- namely, that we're "overmedicating" our children. This has arisen following the increase in prescribing various medications to treat psychiatric/behavioral problems, most notably ADHD. There is a problem in this logic, however. The increased prescription rate may be due (and I strongly suspect is due) to the increased availability of drugs for treating such problems.

Nonetheless, the most important piece of information on this subject is missing: evidence that children are being misdiagnosed and given medications that they should not be taking. However, such evidence is deemed unnecessary by the Post editorial board for publication of this column. Why? I suspect it is because it has become such a popular sentiment that it is now just an accepted, yet unexamined, truth. Of course, if this belief is true and we all "know" it be true, then where the heck are all these doctors, psychiatrists, school teachers, and parents coming from? If Roberts is so right, then all her colleagues must be completely off their rockers. So, according to Roberts, she's just a voice in the wilderness -- a lone beacon of truth. Yeah, right.

Somehow, despite her idiotic article's assertions, I doubt that is the case. Why in the world would her colleagues continue to misdiagnose children despite her knowledge of the "truth" regarding this? Why don't they know what she knows? At a minimum, why don't they at least follow the brilliant Dr. Roberts's advice on this? Roberts doesn't answer this question in her column. I suspect that is because, if she knows the answer, she wouldn't want to write it.

The reality is, and her colleagues probably know this, systematic studies of this issue have found the perception of overdiagnosis of ADHD does not mesh with the reality. Studies suggest that most of these diagnoses are correct. Although there are some incorrect diagnoses, these are made up for by the kids who SHOULD be treated for ADHD but aren't getting such treatment. Unfortunately, such studies don't make for interesting newspaper reading. Basically, it flies in the face of popular belief and does little to outrage readers.

As for Roberts's other diseases (bipolar disorder and Asperger's), I know very little about the overdiagnosis of bipolar -- never heard about it before as a problem in children. For Asperger's, though, I find it interesting that she mentions it once at the beginning but then never again in her article. Why? I suspect it is because there are no medications for treating it. It's on the autism spectrum of developmental disorders. So, why the heck then did Roberts include it in her idiotic article? I have no idea, though she may have been trying to broaden her article beyond ADHD (and the out-of-left-field bipolar).

So, let's see how Roberts did in her treatment of this science subject. She used all opinion with no evidence to back anything up, except for a couple random anecdotes. She mentioned unrelated diseases that don't even fall under the idea that she promotes in the article. Finally, evidence does exist on her subject matter, but it contradicts her and she chose to ignore it. I can't believe the Post wasted space in its Opinion section on her.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

This Just in on the Party of Corruption

According to this article in the Washington Post (picked up from the AP), a congressional aide warned aides to Speaker Denny Hastert about Mark Foley's behavior THREE YEARS AGO. This case just becomes more and more troubling. The evidence continues to mount that the Republicans are more interested in saving themselves and retaining power than in investigating and dealing with sexual predation by one of their own. It remains shocking to me that Republicans even continue to exist in this country.

On a related note, Republicans have been defending their party's handling of this by saying . . . that the Democrats have their own sex-page scandals . . . from 23 years ago. Of course, as I have said, I do not hold the Republican party responsible for an individual member's actions -- rather, my problem with the Republican party is that the Republican House leadership swept the whole thing under the rug and has essentially hidden Foley's sexual predation from outside investigation.

So, how did the Democrats handle the sex-page scandal from 23 years ago (which, by the way, actually involved two Congressmen - one Republican and one Democrat)? It turns out they handled it in the best possible way. One of the outside investigators brought in to look into this scandal 23 years ago (Joseph Califano, Jr.) wrote a nice op-ed piece explaining what happened then, in comparison to now. Then, everything was opened to the public, information was shared between parties, and every little piece of dirt was thoroughly examined. Of course, back then as well, the Democrats made sure that they had a working ethics committee. As everyone knows, Republicans have rendered the ethics committee completely impotent and silent.

Frankly, everyone should have figured out several years ago that the Republicans must be corrupt simply based on the fact that the Republicans shut down the ethics committee. When there's no light shining on you, it's easy to engage in illegal or unethical behaviors. It's sort of like when a dictator shuts down all the newspapers and kicks out all the journalists -- you know things are about to get ugly.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Foley's Folly

Well, it appears, based on information since the Foley scandal unfolded, that Foley has checked into a rehabilitation center for alcoholism treatment. Moreover, according to the latest "breaking news", Foley was once sexually abused by a priest. You may wonder: What exactly is going on here?

Really, it's quite simple. Foley has taken a page straight from the Hollywood playbook. When you get in trouble/do something stupid, you must declare yourself an addict of some kind, typically an alcoholic. You must then immediately check yourself into a treatment center (for Hollywood types: the Betty Ford Center is best) and have your spokespeople offer your (or their) sincerest and deepest apologies and regrets for your actions. You do this in hope that, someday, people will see you as "courageous" for "taking on" your addiction.

Unfortunately for Foley, the American people aren't really willing to let sexual predation of children slide due to alcoholism. Moreover, people can't even see the connection between the sexual predation and alocholism (I mean, what the heck is the connection? It was just a non sequitur that I don't think the media even knew how to handle it).

So, realizing this, Foley and his handlers decided to explain that he had once been sexually molested -- by a priest. Isn't it amazing and shocking that the priest sex scandal of just a few years ago would be resurrected in the current one? What an amazing coincidence that the two seemingly unrelated events could be connected! See, this whole thing isn't really Foley's fault -- it's those evil priests from a few years ago and those bishops who protected them. It's their fault!

Frankly, this is now just absurd. If Foley was actually abused, I have the deepest sympathy for him for that. No one should ever be sexually abused. And perhaps, if he's in a court of law or facing God, this may be a mitigating factor for his punishment (not an absolution of his potential crimes -- just a mitigating factor in deciding his punishment). Nonetheless, these revelations of his smack of playing the victim and passing the buck. First, he's a just a victim of his disease - addiction. Then, he's a victim of sexual abuse himself. Somehow, this last piece of information is supposed to explain his actions, but mostly it seems to suggest that the truly evil person -- the "source" of the evil -- was a priest from his childhood and that he is not fully to blame.

I'm not buying it, though. It sounds a little too convenient for me. Perhaps, in his next revelation, we'll find out about the guy holding the gun to his head while he wrote those IM exchanges.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

More on the Republican Sex Scandal

Well, it seems that the Washington Post has followed up a little on the sex scandal and written an article addressing the fact that the Republican House Leadership KNEW about Mark Foley. However, the leadership is, of course, not taking any sort of responsibility and is merely passing the buck among themselves.

CNN and MSNBC have, however, apparently forgotten about the whole thing, at least as of 5:40 PM on Sunday. Fox News, surprisingly, is still covering it, though they don't lead with the part about how the leadership knew about Foley since at least last spring (and up to 11 months ago). Oddly, the NY times has a similar take as Fox News.

Is it really too much to ask the news media to recognize that the fact that the House Leadership KNEW about Mark Foley and, therefore, was complicit in covering it up is absolutely disgusting? I mean, really -- this should be a no-brainer. These House leaders (Hastert, Boehner, et al.) are morally bankrupt. When it comes to many issues, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt on my disagreement with people, but this is not one of those issues. Anything of a sexual nature between a Congressman and a minor (and, in this case, there appears to be more than one) should be treated with the utmost seriousness. All allegations should be thoroughly investigated and dealt with. Moreover, the country should be informed about this -- not kept in the dark.

Basically, what we have here is a leadership that was more interested in sweeping the story under the rug to protect their members than in protecting children from a sexual predator. To all you Republicans out there: How do you vote for this in good consience?

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Well, I Was Wrong

The Republicans can get more corrupt. It turns out that, in regard to their pervert-extraordinaire Mark Foley, the Republican House Leadership was AWARE of inappropriate contact, according to several accounts I have found, including this one. So, let's see. That means the House Republicans are willing to protect a pedophile within their ranks in order to maintain their majority. Absolutely disgusting. Will you hear Fox News talk about this or Bill "I'm a blowhard" O'Reilly go on about this? Of course not.

Democrat Nancy Pelosi offered a resolution to have the ethics committee investigate what the leadership knew about this and what they did about this problem. However, the Majority Leader John Boehner blocked this move. Apparently, Republicans don't even want to find out exactly how much they protected a child molester. It really is disgusting that the Republicans would rather sacrifice children than risk having one of their members exposed.

Obviously, before I found out about the House Leadership's role in this, I would not have blamed people for voting Republican this November, at least in regard to pedophiles. However, since every Republican representative votes for the House leadership, I suppose now I can conclude that anyone who votes for a Republican U.S. Representative is supporting the leadership's protection of pedophiles. So, we'll just have to see how the Republicans do this November to figure out exactly how many Americans believe in protecting pedophiles.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Technorati Profile
Can the Republicans Become More Corrupt?

Again, this is a fair question in light of this most recent information (also see this). Every time I turn around, the Republicans show a new low in their corruption. Apparently, Republican Representative Mark Foley of Florida is into boys -- 16 year old boys, to be precise. He had an email conversation and IM exchange with a former page at the Capitol. Here's part of the exchange (originally from ABCnews.com and through cnn.com):

ABCNews.com posted these instant message exchanges:

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

ABCNews.com also cited this exchange:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

A third example from ABCNews.com:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

Now, at this point, I hope -- no, I HAVE to believe that there is a decent Republican somewhere in this huge country of ours wondering what the *%&# is wrong with his party. Let's just add up the facts: We've got Rep. Mark Foley -- pervert extraordinaire (potentially a child molester), Rep. Bob Ney -- who was the "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Abramoff scandal, Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- who engaged in some of the most basic and dumbest graft imaginable, Sen. Conrad Burns -- also connected to Abramoff, and, finally, the now-gone-but-still-on-the-ballot Rep. Tom Delay -- the "Hammer" who led his party to the ultimate game of partisanship and, in the process, turned Congress into the biggest group of do-nothings and rubber stamps imaginable.

As I said, I have to believe that there is a decent Republican somewhere who is disgusted by this. I could be wrong, though. Republican candidates have shown a tremendous knack for winning despite the obvious protrusion of two horns from their heads. I suppose this November will tell us whether Republican voters in this country can finally see some of those horns.

Pro-Torture Bill Passes

So, as a follow-up to my previous post, it appears that the Senate has come up with, and passed, a detainee bill that enables torture. I say that it enables torture based on the way it was written. This bill bans torture but allows Bush and his administration to define torture. Wasn't this the problem before? Wasn't Bush the one who refused to call what the CIA did to the detainees "torture"? Didn't he relabel it "alternative" or "tough" interrogation techniques? From where I stand, Sens. McCain, Warner, and Graham capitulated. They can go home, touting their independence at standing up to the administration while allowing Bush to continue his "tough" interrogation techniques, thereby making conservatives happy.

Do these senators really expect Bush to stop his prior torturing of detainees? Let's look at Bush's choices. After signing this bill into law, he can call waterboarding and other techniques "torture" and, thus, prevent the CIA from using them. However, in doing that, he will be admitting, by logical extension, that his administration was, in fact, torturing detainees prior to the passage of this bill. We know this administraion and we know that ain't going to happen.

His other alternative is to exclude the already used techniques from the definition of "torture". In so doing, he can claim that his administration does not, nor ever did, torture detainees.

How convenient of the Senate, particularly McCain, Warner, and Graham, to hand him the English language on a platter for him to redefine words as he sees fit. If only we could all do that. The Senate's plan on this is analagous to handing a known cheater a blank rulebook and saying, "Now you write the rules and make sure you follow them!"

As I said in previous post, it does not matter how you label these techniques. They are torture and they are wrong. No matter how minor or major the torture, it is still wrong. What will happen a year from now when the media report that the Bush administration is still permitting waterboarding and other "questionable" techniques? Will the Senators feign shock and surprise? Claim to be outraged? Most likely. Will they engage in any sort of self-examination? Absolutely not.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Have Bush and his supporters gone crazy?

This is certainly a legitimate question. Frankly, I'm completely blown away by Bush's desire to permit torture by the CIA. And, yes, I will call it "torture". Bush has insisted on calling it "alternative interrogation" techniques. However, I doubt that John McCain would have referred to his treatment by the North Vietnamese with such neutral terms. "Torture" by any other name is just as horrible and morally repugnant. Therefore, regardless of how you term it, let's just say that, among other techniques, waterboarding violates the Geneva Convention (which we have signed). There are at least four major reasons for opposing torture. Here they are:

First, torture does not produce reliable confessions from prisoners. Bush's one and only argument for permitting torture has been that confessions elicited from tortured prisoners has thwarted attacks. The reality is, though, that torture produces a mountain of information -- most of it of very little use. (As an example, read this editorial by the Post. A Canadian man was taken by American authorities and sent to Syria, where he was tortured and confessed to being at al-Qaeda camps. Except that it turns out that his confessions were not true -- he was, in fact, an innocent man caught up in this web.) It turns out that normal interrogation techniques produce much better and far more reliable information.

Second, torture violates the law. We signed the Geneva Conventions, and we have our own laws on this issue. This should be a no-brainer.

Third, we don't want our troops to undergo "alternative interrogation". One of the major reasons for the Geneva Conventions, and for upholding our end of the bargain, is that we could expect similar treatment of soldiers captured by the other side. Although al-Qaeda may not treat our troops that way, a breakdown on our part could easily allow other countries to begin to slide on how well they uphold the Geneva Conventions.

Fourth, and by far most important, torture is simply morally wrong. Conservative supporters of torture have repeatedly argued that al-Qaeda does far worse than anything we do to detainees. However, I should hope that our moral standards are not set by comparing ourselves to al-Qaeda. To say, "Well, at least we're better than al-Qaeda" should be a massive embarrassment. Torturing other human beings, regardless of what they have done to you or what value you may think their confessions will have, is simply wrong. It may be tempting for a multitude of reasons, but it is still wrong. I am thoroughly baffled as to how Bush can claim to be a Christian and yet support torture. I am even more baffled as to how the Christians in this country can stand by Bush on this -- how they can't speak up about the immorality of such actions. Torture flies in the face of what Christianity is about. Where are the conservative Christians in this country right now? Is their Christianity subservient to their political ideology? Aren't they always writing about how Christians should let their religious beliefs influence their political beliefs? Obviously, they're all just hypocrites (which, ironically, was how Jesus insulted the Pharisees and others who were opposed to him -- it's not too far a stretch to say that the Christian right are those Pharisees of today.)

I hope that there at least a few more Republicans (besides McCain, Graham, and Warner) in the Senate who have the backbone and the moral integrity to stand up to Bush on this.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Follow-up to Iraq post

I just want to point out an excellent editorial by the Washington Post that points out some of the fundamental problems with Bush's plan to deal with terrorists, although I myself do not quite agree with the Post and their agreement with Bush about the exact nature of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. They view the terrorists as totalitarian threats to take over the world (to be fair, the Post only says that it mostly agrees with Bush). That's a bit hyperbolic, as we certainly don't face a threat by bin Laden marching on Washington and taking over the country. In fact, the whole point of terrorism is that one side lacks the military means to accomplish anything even close to that and thus resorts to terrorist actions. This isn't to say that the threat of terrorism isn't real or dangerous, but let's face it, it doesn't exactly have the military power or the substantial backing that Nazism and Communism had.
Iraq the Distraction

When I read articles about the fight against terrorism, I become depressed and, with today's article, that's certainly no exception.

The article is rather long, but I encourage you to read it. You may become even a little bored, but I think that it is absolutely necessary for Americans to understand these kinds of things in order to have a better sense of what's going on the fight against al-Qaeda.

To boil the article down to its main parts, here's what it says. There have been no good leads in the search for Osama bin Laden in two years. The last good knowledge about him, though, was when he left Tora Bora in 2001, which the U.S. screwed up by not being heavily involved in the battle there, thus allowing him to escape. After that, he's been assumed to be hiding just across the border in Pakistan. His #2, Zawahiri, has also been similarly difficult to track.

However, what is also clear from the article is just how much we probably missed in finding these guys and fighting al-Qaeda by diverting resources to Iraq. In the lead-up to Iraq and in the ensuing aftermath (which is still going on), both hardware, such as CIA drones, and personnel have been shifted to Iraq. Intelligence resources for fighting al-Qaeda diminished greatly.

I find this to be one of the most depressing aspects of the political discussions regarding Iraq. Bush et al. insist that Iraq is a part of a broader struggle against terrorism and have connected al-Qaeda to Iraq, both explicitly and implicitly for years now. However, it should be clear to any, but the most obstinate fools, that the two are separate and, in fact, that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al-Qaeda. Whatever "terrorists" are now in Iraq are the direct or indirect results of, not the cause of, the U.S. invasion -- i.e. they wouldn't be there for us to fight if we hadn't invaded. Moreover, most of those "terrorists" are not actually part of al-Qaeda but are Sunni insurgents who lost a great deal when Saddam fell and probably would be uninterested in attacking the U.S., except for attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.

One more aspect of this article deeply bothers me. The article notes that, in the last three months, Bush has ordered a massive flooding of resources to be devoted to finding bin Laden. So, in the past 4.5 years, Bush ordered a dramatic decrease in resources for finding bin Laden and then, suddenly, reverses course. You might ask why. Is it because al-Qaeda has committed another terrorist attack against the U.S.? Not that I know of. In fact, bin Laden, according to reports, has been mostly cut off from actually managing al-Qaeda. Moreover, until Bush's speech this past week, he rarely even mentioned bin Laden.

So, what's going on? Well, Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet and mid-term elections are coming up. Democrats are poised for some major victories and, so, talking about bin Laden may work a great deal to inspire fear among the voters, especially as Bush combines this with talk about how Democrats would weaken the war on terrorism. Moreover, if bin Laden could actually be caught, Bush's approval would probably go up, and the Republicans might avoid major losses.

Frankly, I find this kind of politics to be disgusting. It was Bush and the Republicans (with some Democrats at the time, just due to fear of being trounced in elections) who shifted resources AWAY from al-Qaeda and toward Iraq. There were many Democrats at the time who deplored this action and said that going after al-Qaeda and bin Laden was far more important and that Iraq would direct our attention away from what mattered -- all of which ended up being absolutely true. Now, Bush is shifting back to al-Qaeda being important and saying Democrats are the problem. How long will it be before he claims that Democrats shifted the government's attention away from al-Qaeda and onto Iraq?


Thursday, September 07, 2006

Hard Drives and Horses

I'm sure that my two readers have been wondering where I've been. Well, Tuesday morning, I turned on my laptop to be led to a blue screen of death (I have a Dell, FYI). After restarting a couple times, I was eventually able to get to my desktop by starting in safe mode. After restarting again, I was even able to get to my desktop in normal mode, but things were definitely not working right. So, I spent roughly two hours on the phone with tech support, after which the tech concluded that my hard drive was dying. Because my computer was still under warranty, he ordered up a new hard drive for my computer.

I don't want to drag my story out too long, but I have a couple complaints about things. First, I got the hard drive but no instructions for how to install it. While I'm not afraid of computers, I don't have that kind of knowledge about hardware. So, I called tech support and it was certainly easy to install. After reinstalling Windows and everything on the two CDs that came with my hard drive, I found that I couldn't connect to the internet. So, I called tech support again. Apparently, I didn't have the drivers for that. Why? Because they didn't send me a CD with the necessary drivers. I was supposed to go to dell.com and download them. Hmm, does anyone see a problem here? Luckily, I was at work and had access to other computers, but nonetheless, this is a stupid problem.

So, I wasted much time this week both at work and at home dealing with everything related to my hard drive. And I'm still not finished. Uggh.


On to a more serious matter: the slaughtering of horses. Yes, I know, this subject has certainly been at the top of your agenda, as well as everyone else's, for years now. Iraq? Massive budget deficits? Nuclear proliferation? Such worries are only for those of small minds. No, Congress, with only 15 legislative days left in the year (don't you wish you had only 15 workdays left in this session?), has decided that it must work to ban the slaughtering of horses for meat. Great. Fantastic. There goes my horsesteak burger I was planning on having.

To be a little more serious on this subject, I am actually bothered by the passage of this bill. I first learned about it from Andrew Cohen's blog on the Washington Post. He also wrote a rather emotional opinion piece on this as well. What is clear from his blog and his responses to the people making comments is that Cohen's opposition to the production of horse meat is rooted in a belief that horses are "special" and, therefore, not only should other people not produce meat from them, but Congress should specifically ban the production of such meat.

In the past, I have found Cohen to be a reasonable guy. He's the Post's legal/constitution blogger. This time, however, he's violated one of the principles that he usually espouses -- namely, that the government shouldn't interfere with people's business unless said business interferes or affects others. I, for one, agree with such a principle. To say it in another way, my rights extend until they begin to infringe or interfere with your rights. At that point, the government can step in. To be clear, I don't want to push this principle too hard, but I think it's an excellent starting point for evaluating laws that regulate people's behavior.

So, let's look at horse meat production. Much of Cohen's objections is centered on the method of killing the horses. He finds the method to be inhumane. Fine. But if the issue is the inhumane method of killing, shouldn't he just be pushing for rules that make sure the killing is done in a more humane manner? Unfortunately, despite his readers' question on this, he never explains this issue. Instead, one can only guess from his column that, in fact, he objects to the production of horse meat in its entirety, regardless of whether the methods of killing are humane.

It is that last part that violates how I believe Congress should legislate behavior. While I don't eat horse meat, I don't see why I should infringe on others' rights to eat horse meat or, in this case, produce horse meat. For the most part, people's arguments on this point have centered on the idea that horses are "special". Apparently, cows, pigs, ducks, chickens, rabbits, deer, bison, turkeys, and many other animals are lacking in this "specialness". Some have argued that horses are "pets" and that we don't eat pets. To that, I have to ask: Do you think that the people who sold their horses to the slaughterhouses regarded them as "pets"? If the statement "we don't eat pets" is true, then it seems unlikely that these horses were regarded in such a way.

Some have argued that horses are "special" in our country's history and, therefore, should not be used for meat. Well, OK, I'll let George Washington's horse have a pass, but why does this apply to these horses now? Moreover, does this mean the turkey (which Ben Franklin wanted to be the national bird) isn't important? Really, aren't any animals that we rely on for food important? Cattle and bison are unimportant? Again, this is a silly argument to make.

One could argue that eating any animal is wrong. If, however, one believes that, then this principle should apply to ALL animals. Although Cohen never explains, he appears to be specifically against the production of horse meat. The House of Representatives appears to be in a similarly unprincipled place.

People have made other spurious arguments for banning horse meat production as well, such as the meat is being produced for consumption in other countries (a complete non sequitur if I ever heard one) and the government is subsidizing the horse meat production industry (uh, can't that be fixed without banning things? -- isn't the subsidy Congress's fault in the first place?).

Frankly, I could argue ad nauseum agsinst every one of the points being made by people against horse meat production, but ultimately, what these people's arguments show is that THEY regard THEIR horses as things that they would not want to be eaten. Such preferences and viewpoints, however, should not be foisted on others. BTW, I own two rabbits and I'm not supporting the banning of the production of rabbit meat. Does this mean I don't regard my rabbits as "pets"? Is there something wrong with me for not trying force everyone else to follow my own personal regard for my rabbits?

Ultimately, as I do not have any overall objection to the consumption of meat, so long as horses are killed in a humane manner, I see no reason why we should ban the production of horse meat. If someone has a clear, logical, cogent, principled, consistent argument for such a ban, I'd love to hear it, but frankly, I doubt anyone could meet those five criteria.