The Lying Liar Strikes Again

Bush recently decided (he is the decider, after all, right?) to change basic economics and history with his latest statement that his tax cuts helped shrink the federal budget deficit. One of the great Republican lies that Republicans continue perpetuating. Of course, it turns out that even his own Administration's economists do not agree (if you read further in the article). I guess some of his economists have managed to avoid the Kool-Aid for the day. They'll probably be fired tomorrow and replaced with people more incompetent. Certainly wouldn't want anyone showing up the president.

Sorry one more

I remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan's saying, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." This one applies to Bush and supporting conservatives. Certainly, one is free to argue about troop levels in any way one wants -- but you gotta do it with the real facts. Not your own wishes and dreams.

And another column (a rather long one) that goes through exactly how Bush is a lying liar (based on his speech last night). I presume conservatives will continue to buy into Bush's nutcase version of reality, although, to be fair, not all do so. As I mentioned, George Will doesn't seem to buy a shred of it, but Charles Krauthammer is still drinking the Kool-Aid.

This makes me wonder about something: What is it about conservatives that make them "follow the leader" right over a cliff (metaphorically speaking)? I mean, if Bush declared Canada Enemy #1 and threw them into the "axis of evil", would conservatives jump on board? When it comes to Iraq, it isn't just the lack of evidence for Bush's version of reality that's bothersome -- it's the complete evidence to the contrary that is so disturbing. So back to my question: Why do conservatives not engage in a little critical thinking on this issue? Clearly, between conservatives and liberals, authoritarianism is not balanced equally across the spectrum (and, no, I'm not going to go to the extremes of Communism and Nazism -- they're the extremes that prove the saying "Opposite extremes produce like effects". I am merely looking at the American liberals and conservatives, who, in the grand scheme of things, actually fall in a relatively narrow part of the spectrum). Does that explain it? Are conservatives just, on average, more enamored of authoritarianism and, thus, more willing to accept the "commander-in-chief"'s claims? Certainly, they didn't mind using the argument that we shouldn't question the commander-in-chief during a war back in the 2004 presidential campaign.

I also feel quite safe saying that liberals are, on average, less enamored of authoritarianism. Frequently, conservatives make fun of liberals for having so many different directions. The presidential primary system is famous for having the Republican Party come up with one guy early on, while the Democrats go in a million different directions, listening to no one in particular. This election season may be a bit unusual in that respect.

Could this explanation really be it? I hope not. It's a bit disturbing because it suggests that these guys still supporting Bush don't think. I wonder if they've ever thought a thought in their entire lives -- certainly, they've never thought one that requires any sort of critical thinking.

Since we're on the subject . . .

of the "surge", I might as well post one more time about the topic, especially since Bush gave his much-awaited speech on Iraq and the surge last night. One of the important things that must be done with any Bush speech is to determine how far from reality he deviated and whether such deviations are trivial or critical to the arguments of the speech. As usual with Bush, he deviated quite a bit and on issues critical to the overall points he was trying to win with the American public.

The Washington Post actually ran a "fact-check" article just to go over the things that Bush got wrong. For a newspaper that unequivocally supports Bush's Iraq plans, this is rather amusing. Essentially, they knew that Bush was a lying liar and that he would lie his way through his speech last night. So, they got prepared to comb through his speech and find all the glaring problems. I'll let you read the article to see the biggies, but surely one of the most obvious was his assertion that "Iraq's national leaders are getting things done", a critical assertion because the overall goal of the "surge" was to give said leaders "breathing room" to get "things done". (It is the lack of a political reconciliation that makes the "surge" a failure, according to Bush's own standards set out last winter.) Unfortunately, his example of sharing oil revenue was absolutely incorrect and, as of today, no deal exists on that issue.

But perhaps most deceptive of all was his statement that the surge-level of troops could be reduced due to the successes of the surge itself. This is utter nonsense as commentators on both the left and right pointed out, as in fact, the surge level of troops could never have been more than temporary due to deployment schedules. Analysts pointed this out last winter and spring after Bush proposed his surge. Therefore, had the surge NOT worked, troop levels still would have been reduced to "pre-surge" levels. Even the Post editorial supporting Bush (with both fingers in their ears and a third hand covering their eyes) acknowledges this.

More than that, though, is the utter lack of logic in Bush's statement on reducing the surge back to pre-surge levels. If the increase in troops has brought about an important increase in security missing at pre-surge levels, wouldn't it be logical, therefore, to argue for KEEPING the extra troops in Iraq? I mean, if pre-surge levels aren't sufficient, then why return to those levels? The whole Bush argument is absurd. In fact, if Petraeus and Crocker are right that we need these levels of troops to prevent the return to sectarian violence, doesn't this mean that Bush believes his top general and top civilian in Iraq are just plain wrong? At least Petraeus and Crocker are consistent -- yes, if you want to keep the reversible gains that you have achieved, then you will need to keep the circumstances in place that have produced those gains.

But, of course, my argument is naive. As I mentioned, Bush never had any intention of keeping the "surge" going -- deployment schedules would have made it impossible, unless Bush chose to extend deployment times dramatically. That, however, was politically unpalatable and would have sent his own party into a massive intra-party war and eventual tailspin (as if the 2008 elections won't produce enough of a loss of Republican senators). Such a step would have been, as the Post calls it, "politically explosive". At least, it would have been honest and logical.

Ouch!

I should also mention this column by Eugene Robinson. He goes into greater detail and criticism of the "kicking-the-can" phenomenon which has been the Bush Administration's playbook for Iraq for quite a while now.

Post-Petraeus Report (oh, and Crocker, too)

So, we've now made it to September -- that month that loomed in the back of our heads that was supposed to tell us everything. That month that President Bush promised would provide us with the much needed info on the Iraq "surge" (if a roughly 25% increase in troops can be considered a "surge", especially when original military estimates for occupying the country were closer to a 200-300% larger force than we had pre-surge). That month that Bush asked the country to be patient for. Well, it, and the Petraeus Report, arrived. And, we were told to be patient -- again. To paraphrase Dick Cheney, victory is just around the corner.

Except that it isn't. Petraeus, and to a greater extent, Crocker admitted that the problems lie on the political side. No, not our political side -- the Iraqis'. Ultimately, this is the same problem that I've mentioned before. "Victory", or at least "success", as originally envisioned by Bush, depended on the actions of the Iraqis. This is an unfair burden to place on our troops and our government, as we have no control over the Iraqis.

George Will wrote a very good column that summarized my views so well. Read it. It's short and worth it. As he astutely points out, by the original metric, the surge has failed because the ultimate consequence was supposed to be some sort of grand political reconciliation.

This is not to say that the military has not reduced violence, although the GAO appears to disagree with the military's reports on this issue. The gains in the Anbar province, it should be noted, however, are due to Petraeus's far more intelligent reading of the situation than his predecessors rather than due to the surge. In fact, the surge's goal was to reduce violence in Baghdad and its environs, which it has (admittedly unevenly). The success in Anbar was unrelated to the troop increase and related to Petraeus (and others) convincing the Iraqi Sunnis and insurgents to turn against the non-Iraqis (i.e. terrorists & al-Qaeda in Iraq). However, I seriously doubt that the Sunnis suddenly feel warm, brotherly love toward the Iraqi Shiites, particularly when the Shiites have done such a good job cleansing Baghdad neighborhoods.

To sum up my views on all that has been reported, I have no doubts about Petraeus's integrity. Moreover, I think he was probably the man for the job back in 2003. The problem is that it's 2007 and a different ballgame. In reality, it may have always been a different ballgame and the chance for a unified, democratic Iraq may have always been nil, regardless of who was in charge of our troops. The president appears to have subtly shifted to a stance that accepts a looser confederation in Iraq. Unfortunately, however, the president's plan appears to be to dump the whole thing into the next president's lap, leaving no good options for the next one (whether he/she is a Democrat or Republican).

I know I've been away

But I've been busy -- my wife had a baby. Needless to say, I haven't had much time on my hands.

However, with the latest Republican debate (this one in New Hampshire) behind us, I read a devastating critique of the Republican candidates' plans (well, "plans" is a rather loose description) for the Iraq War. Joe Klein, in his blog, pointed out that none of the candidates appear to be on planet Earth with the rest of us. He doesn't think much of most of the Democrats' plans, although I know, from previous columns of his, that he thinks Hillary gives a reasonable answer to the Iraq question, in large part due to her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Nonetheless, he thinks the Republicans are even more detached from reality. Interesting column by him. Read it.

More Rehab

Apparently, Tom Geoghegan, Floyd Landis' former manager, has decided to enter rehab after threatening Greg LeMond with revealing that LeMond had been sexually abused as a child. He joins a growing list on my blog, including Mark Foley and Gavin Newsom, who enter rehab as soon as their indiscretions make it into the news. Absurd, amusing, and pathetic, all rolled into one.

Religious Discrimination on Campus? Or in Newspapers?

In a provocative article, the question of whether evangelicals face discrimination on university campuses is raised. The article begins with the story of a junior majoring in social work at Missouri State University who, during a socail work class, objected to an assignment that included writing a letter in support of something that violated her religious beliefs. After she refused to sign the letter, she had to go before a judicial panel at the school on charges of discrimination.

Or so the article would lead you to believe. The article states all of this as if it were facts. In reality, that summary of what happened to her is just her perspective of what happened, based on her lawsuit. However, the article does not say that. Rather than throwing in the usual phrases, such as "as her lawsuit alleged" or "as she claimed" after each statement, the article states these things as if they were facts stipulated by both sides. In the last three paragraphs of the relatively decent length article, the article suddenly suggests that there is another side to the student's story -- the professor's side. Who knew?!? According to the professor, he is a former pastor from a Pentecostal church and hardly anti-religious. Moreover, he claims never forced anyone to sign the letter.

Now, whether the professor or the student is correct in their accounts is beside the point. The problem is that the article does little-to-no justice for the professor's point of view. Not only does the article wait until the end to discuss the professor's side of things, it opens with the student's story in such a way that it appears that the student's story is FACT -- disagreed upon by no one. This is rather ironic as the much of the article focuses on people pushing for respect for divergent opinions and beliefs.

Clearly, if I were as absurd as paranoid right-wingers, I would loudly decry the obviously pro-evangelical, anti-university bias that this newspaper (the Washington Post) has. Unfortunately, I'm much more understanding than those paranoid wackos. I just think it's bad reporting.

The Truth and Questions about the Equal Rights for Women

There has been a recent push for a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights for women. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) nearly passed enough legislatures a few decades ago to become part of the Constitution but just missed. Now, backers are pushing the Women's Equality Amendment (perhaps WEA is more persuasive than ERA?).

Now, I want to be clear about my position on this: I have no opposition to the concept of a Constitutional amendment on this issue. I'm certainly no Phyllis Schlafly and don't really buy into her belief that a bizarre set of unintended consequences (e.g. unisex bathrooms) would occur due to the amendment, though I acknowledge that at least some small ones could occur. The American court system has never held that any right is truly universal and absolute, and so I don't worry about the courts engaging in absurd interpretation of such an amendment.

A recent op-ed piece by Martha Burk and Eleanor Smeal attempts to make the argument for the amendment, but I was irritated by their entire article and was left unpersuaded. Specifically, they argue that, although women's rights are, for the most part, guaranteed through federal and state statutes, we still need a Constitutional amendment. In fact, the sub-headline to their op-ed piece reads, "The Gender Gap Runs Deep in American Law", suggesting that the "gender gap" is enshrined in our laws. So, they say, "Why is the amendment needed?" They then list the reasons and here are they are, with my comments in italics:

1. Twenty-three countries -- including Sri Lanka and Moldova -- have smaller gender gaps in education, politics and health than the United States, according to the World Economic Forum. This statement, while perhaps true, is rather vague. What is the "gap" in education? We have more women going to college than men and yet we have a gap that's negative for women? In terms of health, don't women live longer and isn't lifespan the ultimate measure of one's health (certainly, if one is dead, one cannot be "healthy"). Moreover, this complaint does not in any way implicate American laws as the cause of these "gaps", and I really don't see how an amendment could fix this.
   
2. We are 68th in the world in women's participation in national legislatures. What does this mean? What would be perfect? Exactly 50% of the legislature being women? While that may sound nice, the reality is that, in a democracy, people can vote for whomever they want and so it seems to me that our women's participation rate in Congress is NOT the fault of our laws but rather the fault of our people. How could an amendment fix this?
3. On average, a woman working full time and year-round still makes only 77 cents to a man's dollar. This is one of the most over-cited yet misunderstood statistics out there. This gap is almost entirely NOT due to discrimination (see here). More on this later, but again, how could an amendment fix this if discrimination isn't the problem?
4. Women hold 98 percent of the low-paying "women's" jobs and fewer than 15 percent of the board seats at major corporations. The first part of the sentence is circular logic. If something is defined as a "women's" job, it stands to reason that most of the people holding such jobs are women. Why call something a "women's" job if men held 75% of such jobs? The second part is, again, unrelated to anything in American law. So, how could an amendment fix either of these "problems"?
5. Because their private pensions -- if they have them at all -- are lower and because Social Security puts working women at a disadvantage and grants no credit for years spent at home caring for children or aging parents, three-quarters of the elderly in poverty are women. Here, they might -- MIGHT -- have a point, though I don't understand the intricacies of Social Security enough to say for sure. However, my understanding is that Social Security law is based on years worked -- not gender. While perhaps unfair to stay-at-home women, this could only be fixed by statute and not, in my opinion, by amendment.
6. And in every state except Montana, women still pay higher rates than similarly situated men for almost all kinds of insurance. Huh? Really? They must not mean car insurance, which is just the reverse. Homeowner's insurance has nothing to do with your sex. Health insurance, at least through group plans, is exactly the same for each sex. Life insurance? Long-term disability or care insurance? Perhaps they mean individual health plans? It's not clear. I'm not sure whether an amendment could "fix" this.

They end their litany of criticism with: "All that could change if we put equal rights for women in our Constitution." I doubt it. Their statement is massively at odds with their litany. That list of problems never once criticizes American law for enshrining discrimination against women. So, how an amendment could "fix" our "women's participation rate" in Congress is unclear to me. I could go through each point on the list and tear it apart for paragraph after paragraph, but suffice it to say, I think it's clear that these two women are very upset about perceived "gaps" between men and women and, for some bizarre reason, think a Constitutional amendment could suddenly fix such gaps.

Their thinking is rooted in the same philosophy as that of Communists. Specifically, these women believe in the equality of "sameness" rather than the equality of opportunity. Communism, in theory, fought for the idea that all workers were the same and should be given the same of everything. American values, however, have traditionally held that everyone should be given equal opportunity, though each person may end up achieving different amounts. This amendment would clearly fall into the latter category as it is simply guaranteeing the same opportunities already afforded men. Therefore, it is unclear how such an amendment could possibly create these women's utopia of sameness for all.

Moreover, the writers argue that, although we already have statutes in place to prevent discrimination, these could easily be overturned (yeah, I'd like to see THAT happen!) and, therefore, such rights must be enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, if women are already protected by these statutes, how could their list of complaints possibly be true? Or, better yet, how could an amendment, which just enshrines the foundation of these statutes into the Constitution, possibly accomplish what these statutes have NOT accomplished? Ah, if only these writers understood that enshrining rights into the Constitution does not suddenly make everyone EXACTLY the same.

A Column by Colbert King

I just read a fascinating and enlightening column by Colbert King. Actually, the main purpose of the column was not enlightening because I already knew about the major issue. The main purpose was to drive home a point about Hillary Clinton's accepting $800,000 in money through a fundraiser held by Timbaland, a rap/hip-hop producer. Clinton decried Don Imus's remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team but has no problem accepting money raised by a hip-hop producer who has no problem using the same and even worse words as those used by Imus. I couldn't agree more with King about the hypocrisy of this move. He also should have mentioned that Bararck Obama has met with Ludacris, another purveyor of offensive rap lyrics (though I don't think Obama has raised money through his association with Ludacris).

What IS both fascinating and enlightening is the list of excerpts of responses that King got following last week's column about Don Imus. To read such insulting and racist messages is to know that the worst kind of racism still exists in this country. And, no, such racists are not ignorant and living in some backwater area, at least based on the Post's readership. They are, most likely, at least somewhat educated and, more important, well informed about the world. They are well read and do not get by on just reading racist rags. They try to stay well informed enought that they even read Op-Ed pieces by Colbert King -- they're not just looking for the sports and comics. In other words, they're anything but "ignorant". It's just disturbing on so many levels to know that such people still exist and are willing to spew out their vitriole.

The Forgetful Administration

What has become clear from the hearings with Attorney-General Gonzales is that the man is an amnesiac. During the hearing, someone in the audience was keeping score on a little sign for the number of times Gonzales said, "I don't recall". Overall, it added up to 70+ times (according to NBC Nightly News).

And of course, the particularly strange thing about his lack of memory is that his amnesia has not been for small, trivial things such as the exact words someone used during a conversation. Rather, he initially claimed he wasn't involved in the firings. Now that his subordinates have even contradicted that, as well as emails, he admits he was involved. Nonetheless, at his hearing, he still couldn't remember much about what he had done in the past few months. And it's not as if firing 8 U.S. Attorneys were some minor trivial action. It was quite important and, in fact, 7 of those firings had been stewing for a year. The eighth (Julio Iglesias of New Mexico) was added after Iglesias refused to bring indictments against Democrats in New Mexico despite Sen. Pete Domenici's and Rep. Heather Wilson's phone calls to him. (Domenici then called the DOJ and, two weeks later, Iglesias's name was added to the list).

Amnesia appears to be a serious problem for this administration. Gonzales is certainly not the first to have trouble remembering important facts. Perhaps they should check the water in D.C. Of course, it's also possible that Gonzales is lying, but we know that a good guy like George Bush would never put up with the nation's top cop lying in such serious ways. And, as Bush is, in fact, putting up with Gonzales, we must reasonably conclude that Gonzales is an amnesiac.

Therefore, we have to ask: Would you want your Attorney-General to be an amnesiac? It seems to me that, if I were president, I'd like the nation's top cop to have some memories. I think that such things as memories are tremendously useful when doing one's job. So, thus, if Bush actually believed in the DOJ doing a good job, he would fire Gonzales right now simply for having no memory. But what's the chance that Bush would fire an incompetent guy? It only took 6 years to realize that Rumsfeld wasn't any good. Gonzales has only been Attorney-General for a little over 2 years.

Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don't

In the wake of the VA Tech shootings, people are questioning whether the university did the right thing in responding to the various complaints about the shooter's behavior in the preceding years at the college. Apparently, he engaged in inappropriate contact with two girls, wrote disturbing plays, and was generally regarded as a problematic guy in one of his English classes. However, if you look at the details of these complaints, it becomes clear that none of them met a particular threshold that warranted stronger action. At one point, he became suicidal and, with the aid of a roommate and police, voluntarily went to a mental institution but he denied having suicidal thoughts and the doctor and judge released him.

The issue of what colleges should do with such students is far more complicated than it would seem. Following the shootings, people are asking why the college didn't do more -- e.g. kick him out of school. However, as this article makes clear, colleges have absolutely no guidance as to their role in dealing with students who have mental health issues. The article cites the case of GW University which was sued because it asked a student who had become severely depressed to leave. On the other hand, MIT was sued when a student there committed suicide.

Moreover, the colleges' hands are tied by a variety of laws, including those dealing with privacy and the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, just this spring, Virginia's legislature passed a law preventing public colleges from expelling suicidal students. Schools cannot summarily kick students out -- the students must have their "due process". The current state of affairs screams out for better guidance from the government as to what schools can and should do.

However, on a bigger scale, what this whole situation REALLY screams for is a society that doesn't constantly look to place blame on greater authorities for individuals' actions -- and better yet, courts that do not tolerate absurd lawsuits that hold universities responsible for individuals' suicides (e.g. MIT's case). Once again, as with the MySpace lawsuit that I blogged about earlier, if MIT is responsible for not preventing someone's suicide (what should they do? Put video cameras on every student 24/7?), then aren't the parents even MORE responsible? Shouldn't the parents be even MORE knowledgeable about their kids than the colleges? So, doesn't it seem a little absurd that the parents get to sue MIT for this?

The problem with our society's attitude toward colleges, and even, to some degree, pre-college schools, is that we send mixed signals. We don't want schools to act in loco parentis -- except when we do -- and we only know when we want them to AFTER the fact. Thus, GWU's actions were wrong because they weren't treating the student like an adult, whereas MIT's actions were wrong because they WERE treating the student like an adult.

Personally, I would prefer that schools NOT act in loco parentis and that we acknowledge that students are, in fact, adults and, therefore, are responsible for their own actions. But, regardless of which way we go, it's wrong for society not to choose. I suppose now all we have to do is wait and see how long it takes before someone sues VA Tech for not "doing something" about the shooter, as if all bad or criminal actions were preventable.

Freedom of Speech and What It Really Means

Don Imus, radio "shock jock", has recently gotten in trouble for his racist remarks regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team. Although this is not his first offensive set of statements made (see here), these remarks have certainly garnered him the most negative attention. Moreover, they have led to some punishments by his employers as well as forced him to recant, apologize, and do the usual mea culpa walk.

What I have found particularly interesting has been the ensuing discussion about "freedom of speech". I find this rather odd because, if any of the idiots talking about freedom of speech actually knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't have raised it in the first place. The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". As Congress has yet to weigh in on Imus or try to pass a law regarding his kind of speech, I see no relationship between the freedom of speech discussions and Imus's comments.

I have read several columns in which the writer starts off by saying that they believe in free speech. Then, depending on the writer's eventual conclusion, they argue that Imus is free to say whatever he wants and should (not) be fired. That both sides of the debate cite free speech and support free speech should make it clear that the issue of the freedom of speech has nothing to do with this debate as to whether he should be fired.

Case in point: A column by Michael Meyers appearing in the Washington Post. In this column, Meyers argues that those who want Imus fired or want the advertisers to pull their support are wrong and are violating our "free speech culture". I'm not going to argue as to whether Imus should be fired, but I take strong issue with the idea that Imus should not fired because we have freedom of speech in this country. This freedom is merely freedom from the government's ability to restrict my (or your) speech. The 1st Amendment does not, however, in any way, demand that a business permit any and all speech (when its business is, of course, speech). Or, for that matter, that a company could not pull its advertisements for a show that it finds offensive. Or, for that matter, that people can't call for someone else to be fired or for advertisers to pull their support.

Meyers calls those he disagrees with censorious pressure groups. However, the groups cannot be censorious as they do not actually control the airwaves. If any of these groups call for FCC action (as Meyers asserts Al Sharpton is doing), then I would disagree with that course of action. However, I have yet to read anyone's opinions calling for that.

In fact, what makes freedom of speech work in this country so well (and much better than countries like Britain and France, where there are restrictions on speech and yet where they have serious racism problems that racial issues look simple and easy in comparison) is that, when we hear speech we don't like, we can work to end such speech. I don't mean that in some 1984 manner. Rather, I mean that we can use the powers of the marketplace and mass opinion to force change.

The logic (or illogic) of Meyers's argument is that, if someone is not allowed to broadcast their messages over the radio, that person's "freedom of speech" has been violated and their thoughts have been censored. I assume, therefore, that this means that my freedom of speech has been violated, as I do not have a radio show. It seems that Meyers believes not only are we all allowed to have our soapbox for us to proclaim our ideas, but that we all are entitled to a business providing that soapbox for us. This is absolutely absurd, and I'm getting really tired of people's defense of others' statements being centered on free speech. Freedom of speech only works as a defense when the government is trying to restrict it. The people are free to work their own power through whatever (legal) means excluding the government they want.

Gingrich's Comments on Citizenship and English

In a recent speech, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich lambasted bilingual education and the use of non-English languages for printing of government documents, specifically election ballots. His criticisms, however, were WAY off the mark and were, in fact, based on an incorrect understanding of the laws of this country.

His first criticism suggested that bilingual education was teaching the "language of living in the ghetto." I assume that he must be referring to Spanish speakers and the use of Spanish and English in the education of children who only speak Spanish because I know English-speaking children who attend foreign-language immersion school and only learn English for the sake of English (i.e. not learning history in English but in the foreign language). And I don't think he's referring to French as the "language of living in the ghetto". So, already, there appears to be some sort of nationalistic and anti-Spanish streak in his talk.

However, the main problem with his criticism of bilingual education is that he suggests that immersion is better than bilingual education. The pro-bilingual people, however, argue that bilingual education does a better job because the students learn English but don't fall behind in their basic academics. One might think that this is a pedagogical issue worthy of study and informed debate, but Gingrich uses this as a way to blast bilingual eduation as a sort of anti-English force, when nothing could be further from the truth. All immigrants want to learn English and, in particular, want their kids to learn English because they know that English is the key to success (one point Gingrich did get right). To suggest that bilingual education is trying to devalue the place of English in our country is just plain wrong. Interestingly, the immigrants I know are divided on this issue, although, from my days in psychology, I remember reading that studies had suggested that bilingual education works better than immersion for non-English speaking children. So, I assume that it is on the basis of such studies that educators have concluded that bilingual education is the best way to mainstream such students. Of course, it should be noted that schools do not usually intend the students to remain in bilingual education forever -- just until their English is sufficient.

The nationalistic intent of Gingrich's speech is clear from the fact that he also blasts the printing of ballots in languages other than English. To support his argument, he states that citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English (I don't know whether he addressed the issue of immigrants have semi-fluency but not having enough fluency to get through some of the crazy ballot measures that are put on the voting ballots -- frankly, I have trouble sometimes deciphering the meaning, intent, and impact of the measures).

However, he could not be more wrong. I am a citizen and I have never had to take a test in order to achieve citizenship. In fact, I doubt he had to take a citizenship test either. Moreover, I have voted and never had to prove I could read English. How could this be? Oh wait, that's right: Newt doesn't know what he's talking about. There are many ways to become a citizen of this country, only of which (the naturalization process) requires a citizenship test. You could also be born on American soil (which includes American military bases and embassies in foreign countries, as well as the numerous territories and commonwealths, such as Puerto Rico, of the U.S.). Also, you could be born to an American parent. These do not require passing a citizenship test and, therefore, it is entirely possible that you have not learned English. Your American parent could have taken you overseas and never taught you English. Who knows?

In fact, the original reason for the federal laws requiring ballots in languages other than English stems from the Hispanics who lived in the Southwest and the Native Americans in a variety of states who did not speak English (or at least, not well). These were people who lived on land in the U.S. prior to the U.S. owning the land (or, I should say, their ancestors lived on the land). These people were often discriminated against and, generally speaking, were alienated from much of society. However, they were (and are) citizens of our country and, based on our laws, have the right to vote. To disenfranchise such people is simply wrong and against the kind of values we have developed over our country's history. Most important, many of these people, especially Native Americans, may still not have good English.

Gingrich also said that bilingualism poses long-term dangers for our country. Huh? What are you talking about, Newt? Have you talked to the Bush administration about the fact that so few people in this country know foreign languages fluently? Have you asked them how much it hurts our abilities to fight terrorists, fight international organized crime, or simply engage in the world? Have you talked to the county sheriffs in Tennessee who are battling Mexican methamphetamine smugglers but are facing serious hurdles simply because none of them know Spanish (I was just reading about this problem)? Clearly, the man doesn't know what he's talking about.

Again, some of his comments might be interesting were they given in an academic manner, but mostly, Gingrich's goal for his speech seemed to be to throw red meat to his audience and rouse their nationalistic tendencies while engaging in subtle anti-Hispanic racism.

The Attorney General and American Idol

If you've been keeping up with the firing of the 8 U.S. attorneys, then you know it has recently centered on Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the U.S. (i.e. secretary of the Justice Department). I've found the whole affair to be rather disappointing due to the recently acknowledged increasing politicization of the U.S. attorneys' positions. A blog on the Washington Post has decided to lay out the case against Alberto Gonzales in a rather damning (though not criminal) fashion. It's a rather interesting, if not depressing, read.


On a completely separate note, American Idol was on tonight, for the first time with just the 12 finalists for this season. Everyone had to sing a song from Diana Ross's songbook. In terms of guests and guest songs, Diana Ross was a great choice. She's been around forever, singing songs the whole time, and her early work with the Supremes should be required musical knowledge for any modern pop musician. That said, why the heck did so many of the people choose such crappy songs from her past???!!!?? I mean, seriously, why in the world did they choose BORING songs? She's got so many great songs, and yet so many of them chose poor songs. In general, her songs from her time with the Supremes are better because they have more energy than her songs from her solo career, but she still had some good ones from when she was solo.

A better question might be: Why the heck did they give the guys all the good songs? Anyone who watches American Idol this season knows the guys suck. True to form tonight, they butchered Diana Ross's songs. The first singer of the night sang "Can't Hurry Love", a great song from the Supremes, and he turns it into one of the most boring renditions I've ever heard. Simon called him a backup singer, which is an insult to the backup singers who actually did a better job than him when they helped out with the song. Lakisha, who definitely has one of the best voices in the group, covered Diana covering Billie Holiday. While I think Lakisha is great, she should NEVER try covering a Billie Holiday song again. Her voice is more Whitney Houston (which she covered last week with "I Have Nothing" very well) than Billie.

I don't know remember his name, but one of the loser guys sang "Keep Me Hanging On", which should have been covered by the rocker chick. Why? Because the rocker chick would have sung it in a far better way. The guy completely changed the song into some sort of weird modern, slightly discotheque sounding version. It sucked. As the judges said, it's a classic and you should just sing it the way Diana sang it. Or, if you're going to change it, give it a rock edge. It's a bit of a hard-edged (for the Supremes) song and can be given a nice up-tempo but harder sound.

Anyway, I'm a Motown fan and I just couldn't stand listening to these loser guys butcher the great Supremes' classics. All the guys should be kicked off for screwing up all her songs, especially that guy Sanjaya who sounds like Michael Jackson with no energy (you know, high-pitched and boring).

Who knew?

Apparently, the word "vagina" is so offensive that three girls were suspended for using it in an excerpt from the play "The Vagina Monologues." Apparently, they had agreed not to use the word "vagina" when doing their excerpt from the play. Does anyone see anything absurd going on here? They were reciting from a play CALLED "The VAGINA Monologues" and they weren't allowed to use the word "vagina". I'm laughing out loud as I write this.

Whether the girls deserve a suspension for breaking the agreement to use the word is a separate issue (it seems a bit harsh to me for saying a word that's just the proper anatomical term for a part of the body). The question is why the principal ever saw a problem with the word "vagina" in the first place. I mean, if the subject matter from the play is the problem, then he should have simply not permitted the excerpt in the first place. But to ban the use of the word "vagina" suggests that he's just a puritanical idiot. To help him, I'm going to write some words for him to practice saying in a mirror:
Penis, penis, penis, penis.
Vagina, vagina, vagina, vagina.
Clitoris, vulva, breast.

Latest from the FDA

The FDA unveiled new rules for fruit and vegetable processors (presumably in response to the great E. coli spinach outbreak).

Oh, wait, let me correct that: The FDA unveiled new voluntary rules. Which . . . makes . . . no . . . sense whatsoever. What, exactly, is a "voluntary rule"? Some sort of paradoxical oxymoron that we're supposed to ponder to distract us from the multiple failings of the Bush administration? I've noticed the Bush administration likes these kinds of "rules". Of course, who wouldn't like rules that you don't have to follow? Well, I guess those people who end up suffering due to people not following the "rules" might dislike these kinds of rules, but they're just whiners anyway.

The Second Amendment: D.C.'s Gun Law Struck Down

The city of Washington, D.C., has long had one of the nation's strictest (if not the strictest) gun laws in place. Specifically, unless someone in D.C. has a handgun that was registered prior to 1976, handguns are banned. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit struck down that provision, declaring that it violated the Second Amendment. The court said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads,

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This has always been a thorny issue for this country, as people have disagreed as to the exact meaning of the amendment. Some have held that, as the amendment refers to a "militia", this does not mean an individual necessarily has the right to a gun. Others, including the court in this opinion, have interpreted it to mean just the opposite.

On balance, I find that the amendment appears to read more closely to those who believe that an individual does not have the right to own a gun. This does not mean, of course, that a state (or any part of the government) could not permit individuals to own guns. Therefore, I've always found the arguments of the NRA and similar groups to be a little exaggerated, as most states do little-to-nothing to prevent any kind of gun ownership (heck, even the federal government has allowed its assault weapons ban to lapse). Moreover, the majority of people appear to be opposed to strict bans on guns (except for the assault weapons ban, which was allowed to lapse anyway).

However, the strangest part of this, I find, is that the groups are reversed on their interpretation of the amendment. Liberals want a strict interpretation -- the word "militia" is taken literally for their understanding. Conservatives, on the other hand, want a looser interpretation, in which the original intent of the amendment is clearly tossed aside. I mean that last part rather seriously because the original intent of the amendment is laid out rather succinctly by the framers in the opening clause of the amendment (i.e. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"). This does not mean conservatives are wrong; I would just like it if they admitted that they are not actually strict constructionists. Now, perhaps, someone could engage in a little semantic sleight of hand to try to carry the strict constructionist argument, but the problem with that is that any such rhetorical tricks are precisely the opposite of strict constructionism.

Having read enough George Will and Charles Krauthammer to know how much they despise the supposed invention of the "right to privacy", I would like them to write columns hammering on the individual right to own a gun as an invented right. Of course, the right to privacy is not an elucidated right. Rather, it is an inferred right and, in fact, certain parts of the Constitution (e.g. a ban on unreasonable searches) would make little sense if people did not have the right to privacy. Similarly, one could argue that it is not clear who would belong in the militia, and thus could own guns, and who would not, as we no longer have "militia" in the sense that the original founders did.

It would, therefore, be tremendously valuable and helpful if people stopped pretending that they interpret the Constitution according to some high and mighty principle and, similarly, stopped accusing courts of engaging in judicial activism (wouldn't today's ruling fall under that category?). Such "principled appeals" and absurd accusations are almost always based on the desired outcome, rather than any serious principles, of the person claiming such principles or leveling such accusations.

You mean it was all lies?

Well, at least dubious claims at best. As we all may recall, back in 2002, the Bush administration said that North Korea was enriching uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement that the Clinton administration reach with North Korea. As a result, Bush ended the accord, North Korea built up some plutonium, and North Korea set off a nuclear test this past fall. This, of course, has led to a giant stalemate and fears of what North Korea will do as it is becoming a nuclear power.

It turns out, however, that perhaps none of this ever should have happened. The original evidence that Bush based his accusations on now appears to be somewhat dubious. In fact, the administration is backing away from those initial claims, as a new agreement with North Korea (and the possibility of inspections revealing the truth about the country's uranium enrichment) is in the near future.

Of course, it still remains possible that the original claims were right, but David Kay, the administration's man in Iraq who looked for WMD's following the initial phase of the Iraq War, appears to believe that the original claims were based on rather flimsy evidence. Assuming I've got this all straight, what I hear is that:
a) All the criticism of the Clinton administration was wrong. As I recall, everyone was saying that the Clinton administration was a bunch of fools for trusting North Korea. Of course, aren't we also a bunch of fools for trusting the Bush administration? Over and over?

b) North Korea probably would not have gone on its plutonium/nuclear weapons spree if the U.S. hadn't suddenly broken the accord and gone all bellicose on them.

c) Our current problem with North Korea is, in fact, rather self-induced.

Frankly, I don't trust anything from this administration simply because what they say appears to bear no relationship with the truth. If they said the sky was blue, I would assume that there was no more evidence for the blue color of the sky than for the purple with pink polka-dot color of the sky.

Bush had better hope that these inspections show their original claims were, luckily, right. Of course, that means the Bush administration takes the shotgun approach to accusations -- make enough of them against enough countries and, well, you'll turn out to be right at least once.