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.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
How to Lie about Poverty
I read an interesting column by Nicholas Eberstadt about the measuring of poverty in this country. The major point of his column is that the way in which we measure poverty is deeply flawed. He goes on to explain that, despite the apparent increase in the poverty rate when comparing 1973 to 2005, the poverty of 2005 just ain't the same as the poverty of 1973. He points out that, by many measures, the poor of 2005 are better off than the poor of 1973. I myself have often wondered whether serious abject poverty is truly as prevalent as it used to be.
However, there are serious problems with his analysis. First, we must address his bias. He's from the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that is devoted to conservative ideals and has supplied the Bush administration with many of their public policy ideas. Certainly, the man has a major interest in showing how poverty did not increase in 2005, though oddly enough his statistics always use 2001 (2001 was a recent high point in American wealth).
Now, let's look at the premises he uses to advance his argument. He writes, "To understand the problems with the official poverty rate, compare the America of 1973 to the America of 2001. In 2001, the country's per capita income was far higher than in 1973 -- according to the Census Bureau, roughly 60 percent higher -- and unemployment rates were lower. In 2001, only one in six adults lacked a high-school diploma; in 1973, two-fifths had not finished high school. And government anti-poverty spending was more than twice as high in 2001 as in 1973."
As any student of statistics and income measures knows, looking at the average income is a horrible way to assess the wealth of a society, particularly if one is interested in the distribution of wealth or income. As income curves skew toward the right (i.e. there are some VERY, VERY wealthy people in this country), the mean is pulled toward the right. The median income (the halfway point in an income distribution where half of people make more and half of people make less) is a far better single measure of income. So, the fact that our per capita income is higher tells us absolutely nothing about the actual poverty rates (which are just a measure of the distribution of people living in poverty).
He also notes that unemployment rates were lower in 2001. Of course, as anyone paying any attention to current politics knows, the minimum wage has not been raised in roughly 10 years and a family of four living on a minimum wage income is most certainly living below the poverty line. Therefore, employment does not equal "not being in poverty". In fact, if one takes into account inflation, it's safe to say that making minimum wage now makes you poorer than making minimum wage in 1973.
In his next point, he explains that more people have finished high school in 2001 than in 1973. However, once again, that does not relate to the poverty rate. In 1973, there were far more jobs that did not require a high school degree and, thanks to unions, these jobs paid a living wage. Now, there are many fewer such jobs and, with the few that remain, the unions have been so punished by the ascendancy of the Republican party that these jobs do not pay nearly as well as they used to (inflation-adjusted, of course). So, in other words, just to keep up with inflation and the job market, it became necessary to achieve more educationally. I don't believe this is a bad thing (I'm always in favor of finishing high school and college), but it certainly doesn't mean fewer people are in poverty.
And, finally, he says that government anti-poverty spending is twice as high in 2001 compared to 1973. If the other two measures (unemployment rates and educational degrees) were unrelated to poverty, then this statement is a complete non sequitur. First off, is it twice as high with or without adjustment for inflation? We don't know because he never informs us. Assuming it is adjusted for inflation, you would think that this fact indicates that either poverty is twice as prevalent or the various governments are now twice as generous. It's hard to know. Frankly, the suggested relationship between anti-poverty spending and the poverty rate is completely opaque to me, though in a logical world anti-poverty spending would correlate positively with the poverty rate, not negatively as he suggests.
Eberstadt goes on to several more arguments that assert that the living conditions of the poor have improved since 1973. He cites better nutrition, more material belongings (such as televisions and phone), and better infant mortality rates and lifespan. Unfortunately, he doesn't always state whether these have improved for the poor or just in general for the country (e.g. it could be just like per-capita income -- more for the haves and nothing more for the have-nots). Moreover, it's extremely easy to argue that some of these are a direct result of government's anti-poverty campaigns (e.g. better nutrition through free breakfasts and lunches at schools). So, in other words, many of these "improvements" that he is suggesting indicate people are no longer poor are really just the government's support of the poor -- i.e. it's not that the poor themselves are no longer "poor".
In fact, ironically, he rarely addresses the basic definition of being poor -- a lack of money. Instead, he talks about quality of life conditions, which are somewhat correlated (but not perfectly correlated -- see Europe as an example of lower average income but better quality of life standards) with income. The closest he comes is when he discusses the purchasing of various material goods. He points out that, in reality, income tells you nothing about people's lives because economists have shown that people spend more in a year than they make. Apparently, poor people support their material belongings through credit cards and other debts. This clearly is worse than just being poor because poor people will now have to pay the usury-like interest rates on their credit cards while still actually producing very little income, but Eberstadt isn't really interested in making that point.
Based on Eberstadt's column, what can we conclude? Virtually nothing about the poverty rate, based on the evidence presented. Certainly, I must assume that, if he had better evidence, he would have produced it. And if this is the best he can produce (a tangle of misleading statistics and non sequiturs), I have to assume that his overall assertion is simply wrong. In particular, he appears to suggest that poor people are less poor than they used to be. Now, however, with such poor evidence to support that suggestion, I am forced to wonder whether the opposite is true. I do not disagree that measuring poverty is difficult or that it is essential to combatting poverty. However, the use of truth and the best available statistics is far preferable to engaging in the kinds of arguments made in Eberstadt's column.
I read an interesting column by Nicholas Eberstadt about the measuring of poverty in this country. The major point of his column is that the way in which we measure poverty is deeply flawed. He goes on to explain that, despite the apparent increase in the poverty rate when comparing 1973 to 2005, the poverty of 2005 just ain't the same as the poverty of 1973. He points out that, by many measures, the poor of 2005 are better off than the poor of 1973. I myself have often wondered whether serious abject poverty is truly as prevalent as it used to be.
However, there are serious problems with his analysis. First, we must address his bias. He's from the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that is devoted to conservative ideals and has supplied the Bush administration with many of their public policy ideas. Certainly, the man has a major interest in showing how poverty did not increase in 2005, though oddly enough his statistics always use 2001 (2001 was a recent high point in American wealth).
Now, let's look at the premises he uses to advance his argument. He writes, "To understand the problems with the official poverty rate, compare the America of 1973 to the America of 2001. In 2001, the country's per capita income was far higher than in 1973 -- according to the Census Bureau, roughly 60 percent higher -- and unemployment rates were lower. In 2001, only one in six adults lacked a high-school diploma; in 1973, two-fifths had not finished high school. And government anti-poverty spending was more than twice as high in 2001 as in 1973."
As any student of statistics and income measures knows, looking at the average income is a horrible way to assess the wealth of a society, particularly if one is interested in the distribution of wealth or income. As income curves skew toward the right (i.e. there are some VERY, VERY wealthy people in this country), the mean is pulled toward the right. The median income (the halfway point in an income distribution where half of people make more and half of people make less) is a far better single measure of income. So, the fact that our per capita income is higher tells us absolutely nothing about the actual poverty rates (which are just a measure of the distribution of people living in poverty).
He also notes that unemployment rates were lower in 2001. Of course, as anyone paying any attention to current politics knows, the minimum wage has not been raised in roughly 10 years and a family of four living on a minimum wage income is most certainly living below the poverty line. Therefore, employment does not equal "not being in poverty". In fact, if one takes into account inflation, it's safe to say that making minimum wage now makes you poorer than making minimum wage in 1973.
In his next point, he explains that more people have finished high school in 2001 than in 1973. However, once again, that does not relate to the poverty rate. In 1973, there were far more jobs that did not require a high school degree and, thanks to unions, these jobs paid a living wage. Now, there are many fewer such jobs and, with the few that remain, the unions have been so punished by the ascendancy of the Republican party that these jobs do not pay nearly as well as they used to (inflation-adjusted, of course). So, in other words, just to keep up with inflation and the job market, it became necessary to achieve more educationally. I don't believe this is a bad thing (I'm always in favor of finishing high school and college), but it certainly doesn't mean fewer people are in poverty.
And, finally, he says that government anti-poverty spending is twice as high in 2001 compared to 1973. If the other two measures (unemployment rates and educational degrees) were unrelated to poverty, then this statement is a complete non sequitur. First off, is it twice as high with or without adjustment for inflation? We don't know because he never informs us. Assuming it is adjusted for inflation, you would think that this fact indicates that either poverty is twice as prevalent or the various governments are now twice as generous. It's hard to know. Frankly, the suggested relationship between anti-poverty spending and the poverty rate is completely opaque to me, though in a logical world anti-poverty spending would correlate positively with the poverty rate, not negatively as he suggests.
Eberstadt goes on to several more arguments that assert that the living conditions of the poor have improved since 1973. He cites better nutrition, more material belongings (such as televisions and phone), and better infant mortality rates and lifespan. Unfortunately, he doesn't always state whether these have improved for the poor or just in general for the country (e.g. it could be just like per-capita income -- more for the haves and nothing more for the have-nots). Moreover, it's extremely easy to argue that some of these are a direct result of government's anti-poverty campaigns (e.g. better nutrition through free breakfasts and lunches at schools). So, in other words, many of these "improvements" that he is suggesting indicate people are no longer poor are really just the government's support of the poor -- i.e. it's not that the poor themselves are no longer "poor".
In fact, ironically, he rarely addresses the basic definition of being poor -- a lack of money. Instead, he talks about quality of life conditions, which are somewhat correlated (but not perfectly correlated -- see Europe as an example of lower average income but better quality of life standards) with income. The closest he comes is when he discusses the purchasing of various material goods. He points out that, in reality, income tells you nothing about people's lives because economists have shown that people spend more in a year than they make. Apparently, poor people support their material belongings through credit cards and other debts. This clearly is worse than just being poor because poor people will now have to pay the usury-like interest rates on their credit cards while still actually producing very little income, but Eberstadt isn't really interested in making that point.
Based on Eberstadt's column, what can we conclude? Virtually nothing about the poverty rate, based on the evidence presented. Certainly, I must assume that, if he had better evidence, he would have produced it. And if this is the best he can produce (a tangle of misleading statistics and non sequiturs), I have to assume that his overall assertion is simply wrong. In particular, he appears to suggest that poor people are less poor than they used to be. Now, however, with such poor evidence to support that suggestion, I am forced to wonder whether the opposite is true. I do not disagree that measuring poverty is difficult or that it is essential to combatting poverty. However, the use of truth and the best available statistics is far preferable to engaging in the kinds of arguments made in Eberstadt's column.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Is Pluto really something that we need to protest over?
I mean, really, folks, things are a little out of control when it comes to this issue of Pluto's no longer being a planet. These people actually protested that Pluto was no longer being labelled a "planet". Andrew Cohen wrote a great satirical piece about people's bizarre obsession with Pluto's status.
Of course, before the decision to relabel Pluto, the astronomers had been discussing keeping Pluto a planet but adding three more planets, but they decided against that. The problem is that Pluto, as well as these other objects, does not really behave like the other planets. Frankly, it seems to me that, if terms like "planet" are to have any real meaning, then it is necessary that there be rules regarding what gets categorized as what. This is like getting upset that giant pandas aren't really bears.
I think the more interesting, but underplayed, aspect of the entire story is that there are so many different objects of different sizes orbiting the sun. Before the discovery of these other objects, it just seemed that we had these nine random bodies going around the sun. Now, we know that there is a whole breadth of objects in our solar system, from small asteroids to super-planets like Jupiter.
But back to the main part of this post: Don't people have better things to do than protest these things? Like, oh, I don't know, working at a homeless shelter? Picking litter off the highway? Gazing at their navels?
I mean, really, folks, things are a little out of control when it comes to this issue of Pluto's no longer being a planet. These people actually protested that Pluto was no longer being labelled a "planet". Andrew Cohen wrote a great satirical piece about people's bizarre obsession with Pluto's status.
Of course, before the decision to relabel Pluto, the astronomers had been discussing keeping Pluto a planet but adding three more planets, but they decided against that. The problem is that Pluto, as well as these other objects, does not really behave like the other planets. Frankly, it seems to me that, if terms like "planet" are to have any real meaning, then it is necessary that there be rules regarding what gets categorized as what. This is like getting upset that giant pandas aren't really bears.
I think the more interesting, but underplayed, aspect of the entire story is that there are so many different objects of different sizes orbiting the sun. Before the discovery of these other objects, it just seemed that we had these nine random bodies going around the sun. Now, we know that there is a whole breadth of objects in our solar system, from small asteroids to super-planets like Jupiter.
But back to the main part of this post: Don't people have better things to do than protest these things? Like, oh, I don't know, working at a homeless shelter? Picking litter off the highway? Gazing at their navels?
Friday, September 01, 2006
Are journalists anti-religion?
So, I found this article on the Washington Post, though it was actually carried by Reuters. The article deals with evolution and the Catholic Church. At first, I thought I would discuss evolution and intelligent design, but then I realized that this article really irritated me. It is precisely these types of articles that make religious people believe that journalists are anti-religion.
The article's headline is "Pope to debate evolution with former students". One might suspect that, based on such a headline, the Pope was going to take a side in an evolution debate with former students or that the Pope was going to go back and forth with his students on the "pros and cons" of evolution. In reality, though, what did the article actually report? Merely that the Pope and his former students were going to their annual meeting where they talk about an interesting/relevant topic every year. This time, they were planning on discussing evolution and how God fits into that. In fact, the article goes to great pains to point out that the Catholic Church has never opposed evolution. So, what gives with such a headline?
My thinking about journalism and religion is that religion simply does not lend itself to the short "news" articles (or stories on TV). Religion does not follow the 24-hour news cycle, with sudden and unexpected events occurring throughout the day. Heck, sudden and unexpected events rarely occur at all with any major religion, particularly one that's been around for 2000 years. Obviously, though, the WashPost had to come up with something sensational to sell the story. So, why not just write a bit more of an eye-grabbing headline, even if it stretches the truth well beyond reality?
So, I found this article on the Washington Post, though it was actually carried by Reuters. The article deals with evolution and the Catholic Church. At first, I thought I would discuss evolution and intelligent design, but then I realized that this article really irritated me. It is precisely these types of articles that make religious people believe that journalists are anti-religion.
The article's headline is "Pope to debate evolution with former students". One might suspect that, based on such a headline, the Pope was going to take a side in an evolution debate with former students or that the Pope was going to go back and forth with his students on the "pros and cons" of evolution. In reality, though, what did the article actually report? Merely that the Pope and his former students were going to their annual meeting where they talk about an interesting/relevant topic every year. This time, they were planning on discussing evolution and how God fits into that. In fact, the article goes to great pains to point out that the Catholic Church has never opposed evolution. So, what gives with such a headline?
My thinking about journalism and religion is that religion simply does not lend itself to the short "news" articles (or stories on TV). Religion does not follow the 24-hour news cycle, with sudden and unexpected events occurring throughout the day. Heck, sudden and unexpected events rarely occur at all with any major religion, particularly one that's been around for 2000 years. Obviously, though, the WashPost had to come up with something sensational to sell the story. So, why not just write a bit more of an eye-grabbing headline, even if it stretches the truth well beyond reality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)