Newt Gingrich's response to the pirate in Somalia is typical:
The correct answer to piracy is to destroy it not negotiate with it Seals can retake the lifeboat Track every boat leaving SomaliaWow! Has Newt ever seen a foreign policy issue that didn't require war and death? This neo-con ideology is unsustainable, as it would require us to wage war with everyone!
Charles Krauthammer's op-ed in today's Washington Post is petty and disingenuous. But, I can't say that I fault Charles too much. After all, it is a tough time to be a Republican. Yesterday, the economy saw an uptick, and Wells Fargo reported on its huge quarter earnings. Cite. These facts speak well of Mr. Obama's economic policies, which Charles and other GOPers have spent months bashing. Also, the poll numbers for Mr. Obama are strong, while the same polls show a strong rebuke of the GOP.
In light of all of this, there is no doubt that Charles is having a hard time coming up with worthwhile critiques to lob at Democrats. Thus, Charles had to resort to this loser...
Our president [went to Europe] bearing a basketful of mea culpas. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own people for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness, for genocide, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantanamo and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.This deception is shameful! When Charles's cherry-picked accusations are read in context, it becomes clear -- objectively, verifiably, factually clear -- that Obama was not "indict[ing] his own people." Instead, he was meeting the world half-way -- i.e., compromising (something that Republicans believe constitutes a mortal weakness, apparently). For instance, let's look at Obama's "arrogance" comment to which Charles referred:
In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.Far from constituting an "indictment," Obama is attempting to heal the divide between Europe and America. Does Charles presume that America can force Europeans to follow us? I hope not. Instead, it takes a partnership, which Obama is attempting to build. Notice how immediately after Obama delivered the "arrogance" comment, he criticized Europe. Interesting how Charles left bit of crucial info out!
But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad.
On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth.
President Obama recently announced his intent to undertake immigration reform. I applaud his courage and values, and I thank him for refusing to heed the GOP's claims that he is "doing too much." However, engaging in an immigration debate in our current economic crisis seems a bit dangerous, for the following reasons.
One hears far too often the ridiculous cry that "the immigrants are taking our job." While such rhetoric may have some merit (though I doubt it), it is impossible to deny that such rhetoric is often a pretext for racism. What's worse, this type of speech creates a snowball effect: the more that people speak in such terms, the more that other people will be convinced of the supposed accuracy of that sentiment, etc. Soon, large segments of the public hold an unhealthy disdain for immigrants, and these haters can fall back on the "taking our jobs" argument to justify their irate feelings.
This snowball effect will be exacerbated in our current economy. One of the largest negative consequences -- or is it a cause? -- of the economic crisis is unemployment. The American people know this. Thus, Americans are more likely to guard their jobs jealously, and are thus more likely to speak out against immigrants.
When you combine this snowball effect with the economic crisis and high unemployment rate, it creates a dangerous combination. Now that Mr. Obama is talking immigration reform, immigration issues enter the forefront of America's consciousness, making things even worse.
Let me be clear: I do not think that this is sufficient reason to shy away from immigration reform. For centuries, America has served as a beacon for those seeking freedom, prosperity, and basic human dignities. We desperately need a new immigration system that will permit immigrants to enjoy the fruit that our great country offers, but we need comprehensive reform to accomplish this goal in a responsible manner. I believe that these values outweigh the need to avoid anti-immigrant rhetoric and racism, and hence we should undertake reform.
But, we must also be aware that these unique circumstances will cause a spike in anti-immigration speak that can often serve as a pretext for racism. We should be prepared to stamp out such racism when it arises.
Currently pending before the Supreme Court is Nw. Austin Municipal Util. Dist. 1 v. Holder, wherein a group in Austin, Texas has argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. I just read the NAACP brief in the case, and I was genuinely shocked by the voting discrimination that exists in this country. In my opinion, it is quite clear that Section 5 is still needed and, in fact, is essential.
Section 5 of the Act requires that any change in "standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting" receive preclearance from the Attorney General or the U.S. District Court for D.C., if the jurisdiction is a covered jurisdiction within 4(b) of the Act. Covered jurisdictions are those jurisdictions that, when the Act was adopted, utilized certain tests or devices that traditionally were designed to disenfranchise minorities, such as sham reading tests. In sum, if the Attorney General determined that a jurisdiction should be classified as a covered jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction must submit a request for permission to the Attorney General or U.S. District Court for D.C. before making changes with respect to voting laws. This description is extremely basic and underinclusive, but you get the basic gist.
As noted, in Holder a group from Texas is challenging the constitutionality of Section 5. The thrust of their challenge is that Congress lacked the authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment or Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment to reauthorize the Act. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment permits Congress to pass laws needed to enforce equal protection, due process, and other protected rights under the Amendment. Section 2 of the 15th Amendment permits Congress to pass laws needed to protect citizens from being disenfranchised on account of race or other, similar characteristics. If Congress had the constitutional authority to reauthorize Section 5 of the Act, then that power must have come from the 14th or 15th Amendments. If the challengers in Holder can show that there is insufficient evidence of discrimination in voting to warrant Congress's reliance on the 14th and 15th Amendments, then Section 5 of the Act must fall as unconstitutional.
In other words, the case comes down to this: If there is evidence of significant discrimination in voting, then Section 5 of the Act is constitutional. Otherwise, it is not.
It seems to me that those challenging the law are mounting a silly argument, as the NAACP brief amply demonstrates. When Congress reauthorized Section 5, it compiled a significant amount of evidence demonstrating the discrimination that still exists with respect to voting. For instance, in Texas, there is a 16% gap between the voter registration rates of Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. The brief also noted that "no African-American ha[s] ever been elected to statewide office in Mississippi, Louisiana, or South Carolina." (emphasis added) These facts, and many others contained in the brief, make a strong case for the existence of wide-spread discrimination.
But the most compelling evidence of discrimination proffered by the brief is as follows... When a covered jurisdiction wishes to change election laws, it must obtain preclearance. If the Attorney General believes that the request violates Section 5, s/he may interpose an objection. Here is the evidence:
[The] DOJ interposed more objections between1982 and 2004 (626) than between 1965 and 1982 (490), including objections to at least one statewide change in every fully covered State and in most partially covered States; that between 1980 and 2000, 421 objections were lodged on the basis of DOJ’s determination that the proposed voting change was motivated by a state actor’s discriminatory purpose; and that DOJ has objected to more proposed changes from Texas than from any other State.(citations omitted)
Abortion is not an issue about which I have much to say. It is too sensitive, and it is no longer conducive to intelligent, thought-provoking dialog.
That said, you just must see this debate between Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O'Donnell on tonight's Hardball with Chris Matthews. It pertains to Catholic pro-lifers' objections to Obama's forthcoming address at Notre Dame. Never have I seen a total annihilation on a news program quite like that levied by O'Donnell upon Buchanan. Divorce yourself from the sensitive subject matter, and just observe the total domination:
Wow!
As has been widely reported that in the sea surrounding Somalia, pirates hijacked an American ship and now hold its captain hostage.
During this a.m.'s Morning Joe, a guest requested that we cease calling the hijackers "pirates" and, instead, refer to them as "terrorists." Perhaps my objection is frivolous, but I disagree with the suggestion that we call these rouges terrorists.
Terminology packs an initial punch, but can quickly fade. Take the so-called War on Terror. That label was designed to evoke a feeling of extreme danger and imminence and full-blown war. And at first, the term accomplished just that. However, when you use a label like that, you are asking people to experience those high-stress emotions each time the label is uttered, which is asking too much and is unrealistic.
First, humans do not wish to experience such emotions constantly. Second, the long-term repetition of the label enables listeners to grow accustomed to the label's effects. Third, long-term repetition of the label allows listeners to practice suppressing the label's effects. Thus, we become desensitized to the label's desired impact. By extension, suddenly the matter for which the label stands becomes less serious.
To some extent, this has happened with the War on Terror. Notice how Secretary Clinton recently announced that the label would no longer be used. This is some evidence that the label no longer serves a useful purpose. That is, we have become desensitized to the purposes behind the label, and it is at least arguable that we Americans have become desensitized to the idea that the War on Terror is a war and not a matter for criminal investigation.
If we take the extreme step of labeling these hijackers "terrorists," instead of the more natural label "pirates," the same might occur. After all, these hijackers have not conducted themselves as threateningly and dangerously as terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Thus, the extreme label "terrorist" is likely to grow tiresome, making Americans take the very real threat presented by these pirates less seriously.
Today, I engaged in a debate with a classmate regarding global warming. The crux of my opponent's argument went like this: even if there is alarming warming, it is all part of the natural cycle; in the past, the earth has been much warmer and much cooler; thus, there is no reason to suppose that humans are the root cause.
I see much wrong with this argument. If the temperature change is merely part of one big natural cycle, we should be able to find the natural cause of the cycle. After all, if external forces are constant, the temperature will remain constant. As you probably guessed, despite the best efforts of scientists, they can not ascertain the "natural" force causing this "natural" cycle. This failure suggests that there is no natural cause and, instead, the cause is man made.
Scientists have, however, developed a working, consistent model that actually predicts the climate changes that we are observing. This model correlated the temperature change with the 35% increase in greenhouse gas, which, of course humans caused.
Thus, the "natural cycle" proponents can not offer a workable model for their assertion. Yet, global warming proponents have developed a consistent, workable, and predictive model, and it is grounded in humanity's impact upon its environment.
The weight of the evidence is against the global warming skeptic.
Source.
Here are the shocking results of a Rasmussen poll:
I am quite surprised by this! I suspect that either (a) the poll is wrong or (b) the poll is tainted by the economic downturn, which has people angry at the free market. But -- people!! -- the economic downturn could have been prevented in a free market society via more, smarter regulation.Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Here is an interesting CNN poll (link is to the WSJ). It discusses Americans' view on Obama's recent overseas trip, including American's views of Muslim nations in general and Turkey in particular. It's worth a read.
The Bush administration took a lot of heat for asserting the State Secrets privilege. Now, the Obama administration has asserted the privilege. Thus, it is important to understand the privilege and its implications.
The leading case is U.S. v. Reynolds, which is a 1953 Supreme Court case. There, the Court was presented with a civil action brought by the widows of civilians who were killed while passengers on an Air Force plane, which crashed. The Secretary of the Air Force sent a letter to the trial court, stating that the crash occurred during the testing of secret electronic equipment, and that the disclosure of certain documents would frustrate national security. The trial judge denied the request for non-disclosure, and appeals went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The High Court allowed the U.S. to assert the privilege, which is now known as the State Secrets Privilege. The Court in that case was careful to note that its decision was not grounded in the Constitution. That is, the privilege upheld in that case is not constitutionally-based. Instead, the Court found that a long line of case law had established the existence of the privilege.
It was declared that "[j]udicial experience with the privilege which protects military and state secrets has been limited in this country." But, the Court said, the privilege is "quite clearly" established in the "available precedents." The Court continued that "[t]here must be formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter." Also, the "court itself must determine whether the circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege, and yet do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the privilege is designed to protect."
The problem with this privilege is not its mere existence. Surely, some matters are so top secret and sensitive that they should not be disclosed in court, lest our security efforts be compromised. The problem is that the Executive Branch will abuse the privilege, asserting it too often and for self-serving purposes.
How could we know whether the privilege is being abused? As noted in Reynolds, it is up to the courts to guard the fine line between meritorious and frivolous assertions of the privilege. But, there is probably no way for a court to ever be certain whether or not the assertion of the privilege is appropriate, because the court will not be privy to the sensitive information.
Only the following can be said for certain: The privilege is not inherently evil, but it should be of limited application. The Bush DOJ used it quite often, which suggests that at least some its assertions were inappropriate. And, finally, it remains to be seen how often the Obama DOJ will assert the privilege.
As has been widely reported, an American ship was hijacked by Somalian terrorists. This incident was, in part, precipitated by American military actions in the region, and it highlights the unforeseen collateral consequences of war. I will argue that, as a general rule, these collateral consequences outweigh the benefits of going to war.
Under Bush, the first solution to international threats was military in nature. The thought-process behind this approach is that we are "tough" and therefore deter further attacks against America. I will leave for another post the argument over whether such an approach to foreign policy actually deters terrorism against America.
My point here pertains to the collateral consequences of war. There is no doubt that, when a nation takes military action abroad, it effects both the target country and the surrounding countries. Unfortunately, if the invader does not understand the geopolitical and psychological make-up of the surrounding regions, the invasion constitutes a reckless, irresponsibly blind action that can actually make us less safe.
Take for example the war in Iraq. Whether or not we are successful in that country, a central consequence of the war is the solidification of Iran. Iraq and Iran were competitors in the Middle East. They acted as checks on each other, preventing either from becoming too powerful, and preventing either from concentrating too much attention on the West. But the war in Iraq changed all of that. Iraq no longer presents a threat to Iran, and Iran is no longer concerned -- well, no longer as concerned -- with Iraq. Thus, during the past seven years, while Iraq was concentrating on its internal strife, Iran built itself into a more powerful global player. Now, Iran more aggressively harbors terrorists and actively seeks nuclear weapons.
It appears that we failed to understand -- or care -- about the collateral consequences of our invasion of Iraq. It is quite likely that, even if the Iraq war reduced the threat presented by Iraq, our overall global danger has increased because Iran is much more powerful.
The same can be said for Somalia. A few years ago, American-backed Ethiopian forces overthrew the Islamic government in Somalia. As with Iran-Iraq, it appears that our government failed to understand the collateral consequences of this aggressive act. This removal created a power-vacuum in Somalia. Some organization or organizations had to fill the vacuum. Unfortunately, the vacuum was filled by organized crime units. What is more, many of these organizations are Islamic extremists with connections to Al Qaeda! That is, our decision to help Ethiopia wage war in Somalia spurred the creation of terrorist organizations.
Military officials probably thought they were making America safer by helping Ethiopia overthrow the Somali government. But that is not the case. Now, several years later, we are left to deal with a lawless region of radical Islamic thugs.
Military action has consequences beyond the area in which the action is taken. This is a lesson we are yet to learn, or to take seriously.
Sorry I haven't blogged much today! I have been in meetings all day, and now I am rushing out of town to make another meeting. I will try to make some posts tonight, as I have several thoughts brewing. In any every, I will be back in full blogging action tomorrow!
What is the most cited judicial opinion of all time? I would have guessed Brown v. Bd. of Educ., or perhaps Roe v. Wade. But, I would've been wrong!
Drum roll please.... The most cited opinion is....
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. This opinion, wrote by J. Stevens, established the two-pronged method of ascertaining the validity of regulations. I suppose, upon further reflection, it is understandable that this is the most cited opinion, because this is an issue that crops up in law review articles and cases so often. After all, more and more our society is controlled through regulations, not statutes.
Merriam-Webster defines "progress" as "a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal)."
I feel that this definition perfectly highlights the basic decision one must make when aligning with a political ideology -- if one is to be a "progressive," then one will be principally motivated by a desire for changes that push society positively forward. Alternatively, if one is to be a conservative, one is disinterested in pushing forward, presumably because the conservative believes that the past or present is ideal.
But how can the past or present be ideal? Shouldn't we hope for, and work toward, improvement?
This argument is quite simplistic, and on its surface appears to be a strawman. But, at its core, I think this argument has some merit.
(This post, of course, discounts moderates)
Dilip Jeste, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and chief of geriatric psychiatry at UC San Diego[,] [says] ["]our research suggests that there may be a basis in neurobiology for wisdom's most universal traits."
...
[Jeste et al.] conclude that several common brain regions appear to be involved in wisdom, and suggest that the neurobiology of wisdom involves a balance between more primitive brain regions (the limbic system) and the newest ones (pre-frontal cortex.).
In case you don't know, Paul Krugman, 2008 Nobel Laureate, has a great blog on economics, to which he posts regularly. I get much of my info regarding economics from Paul's blog and NYT op-eds. It is a great blog, and worth your time.
As reported by The Washington Post, today the D.C. City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages formed in other states. Link.
This decision comes on the heels of the Iowa supreme court's invalidation of an anti-same-sex marriage law under the state constitution, and the Vermont legislature's allowing same-sex marriage, both within the past week. Further, as recently as 2008, Connecticut's supreme court held that same-sex marriage is protected under its state constitution.
This is an obvious trend, and I wonder: what is causing this trend? Have gay rights advocates convinced the public of the value behind their agenda? Unfortunately, that is doubtful, considering the success of Prop 8 in California (an extremely liberal state).
The more likely explanation is that these states are piggy backing off each other. In other words, no state wanted to be the first, because it would have brought about considerable national attention, much of it negative. (See Massachusetts) But, once one or two states took the leap, other states were willing to follow, because the PR ramifications were slight.
For the legislature that so acted (Vermont), this is understandable, because legislatures are accountable to their constituents, and rightfully consider public opinion. I wish that legislatures would look less to opinion polls and more toward doing what is right; but, I can understand their concern with public opinion, and I do not fault them.
However, it is shameful for a court to refuse to recognize a right -- like the right to marry a person of the same sex -- until it has gained popularity. Courts, after all, are intentionally designed to serve as counter-majoritarian entities. They are supposed to protect politically powerless or unpopular minorities from the majority's whims. Courts are designed, in a sense, to make an action when the action is most unpopular, not when it is trendy!
However, I do not want to be too harsh. It is essential that all citizens have the right to marry the person of their choice. I applaud those courts that have recognized this right to same-sex marriage, even if the recognition is far too late.
Today's Washington Post contains an article entitled Report Calls CIA Detainee Treatment 'Inhuman.' The report was authored by the Red Cross, and it details our horrific, immoral treatment of military detainees. It is a very important -- but very sad -- article, but I suggest you read it. After pondering this article, I developed the following argument.
Neo-cons, like Frank Gaffney, constantly parade evidence of immense danger in the face of the American public. It is said by Gaffney and others that there are unimaginably horrific dangers facing our country, and thus we are justified to engage in torture, because it makes us safe.
I seek to establish the following: neo-cons and other hawks are simpleminded and shortsighted. They wrongly assume that taking aggressive, torture-like actions in the present -- which might possibly make us safer in the immediate present -- translates to greater national safety. On the contrary, such torture programs simply do not make us safer, and in fact they makes us less safe. The neo-cons make this error because they are so obsessed with national security, that they can not see past the immediate threat to our long-term safety. I will establish these points in the paragraphs that follow.
It has been widely reported that a large part -- or, perhaps the largest part -- of Obama's recent mission overseas was to improve America's tarnished moral status in the world. For years, we were highly regarded in the international community for our commitment to human rights and general moral uprightness, but no longer.
This moral uprightness had tremendous practical significance in the context of national security -- i.e., it made us more safe. For instance, in Operation Desert Storm, droves of Iraqi soldiers willfully -- eagerly -- surrendered to our forces, because the soldiers were certain that they would be treated humanely. After all, America, it was thought, adheres to the Geneva convention, and is the archetype of a progressive approach to human rights and dignity. Thus, our position of moral authority in Operation Desert Storm made us more safe.
There are, of course, many other advantages to our previous moral superiority. To provide another example, before Bush II, we could credibly demand compliance with international agreements regarding human rights, because there was no doubt that we adhered to the same conventions. Thus, our word on such issues carried tremendous weight worldwide.
But these international benefits of moral uprightness no longer apply to America. The entire world knows that America tortures. Years after Obama's presidency ends, foreign countries will still suspect that we engage in torture, no matter how much headway we make cleaning up our image. Gitmo will always be used as a recruiting tool for terrorists. Our Bush-era interrogation programs have galvanized our enemies and will continue to encourage previously non-militaristic peoples to take up arms against our country.
And there are yet more examples of the danger torture programs have put us in. Gitmo is abhorrent to Europeans. Our actions there were reviled, and the bitter taste it put in Europeans' mouths sustains. As a result, Americans are a target of ridicule, making travel abroad for Americans less safe.
Further, it is much harder for foreign, European leaders to muster sufficient public support to back American calls for assistance. By way of example, last week, Europe largely rejected American calls for assistance in Afghanistan. At least part of the reason is that European leaders can not convince their citizens to stand behind our goals in Afghanistan, because Europeans do not want to support torture. It is much more likely that Europeans would support our prosecution of the war on terror if we had not committed atrocities of torture, which has tainted all of our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In other words, we are no longer the objective, credible moral arbiters of human dignity and peace. Thus, we can not reap the benefits of this status, making us less safe. Further, our engaging in torture caused affirmative, heated ire toward our country, making us less safe. Thus, at the risk of repetition, torture made us less -- not more -- safe in the long run.
The neo-cons, like Gaffney, do not consider these long-term effects of torture when they debate national security issues. Instead, the hawks only look to the immediate present. That is, the neo-cons would thwart the next attack at literally any cost, no matter how high. Irrespective of this approach's impact upon our immediate safety, it undoubtedly makes us less safe in the long-term, and therefore less safe overall.
The neo-cons' arguments are too simpleminded, and too shortsighted. They make us less safe.
Vermont is the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage, with Massachusetts, Iowa, and Connecticut being the other three. Vermont is the first state to do so legislatively. Link.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled a sweeping overhaul of the Pentagon's top weapons priorities...
....
The ambitious shake-up, a combination of defense contract cutbacks and policy changes, will stoke a smoldering debate in Congress about the importance of weapons manufacturing jobs and may mark an inflection point after the industry's record run during the Bush administration
