It's time for some more political stuff.
(P) I have been accused of being a policy wonk, and the alleger was worried I would be offended or take insult :) I did appreciate the show of concern, but there's no need for it. If the descriptor does not apply to me, I'm really not sure who out there would qualify as a policy wonk.
So here's my unorganized, not focused, lacking all themes, drive an English major nuts rundown on what's been happening while I've been off wishing my roommate a good last few days in StL.
1) Heat waves have been killing people from the East Coast to Arkansas. These can't possibly be related to global climate change, though, so no need to worry.
2) The AFL-CIO's meeting is actually having real drama. Could it be that labor wants to be a national player again? I was just beginning to enjoy the low salary, long hour, no health insurance lifestyle preferred by our corporate aristocracy. Of course, the politicians who allow this are uniquely exempt from the conditions. POTUS has a cool health plan and takes ridiculous vacations!
3) The Bush Administration is doing everything it can to make it look like there is a huge scandal unfolding. I don't know what Mr. Rove and Libby and McClellan and Fleischer et al have been up to the last couple years, but they're sure acting like they have something to hide. Actually, they're acting like they have a lot of somethings to hide. Throw in questions about what Condoleeza Rice and President Bush and Vice President Cheney knew and didn't know, did and didn't do, and it gets even more interesting.
4) When you cross energy firm greed with Tom Delay political corruption, you need even more powerful comparative adjectives to describe the incredible degree of scale the absurdity of the Energy bill is. Most recently, $1.5 billion got added, unprecedentedly, after the bill had gone through committee. Our tax dollars essentially will go to an energy consortium in Tom Delay's district that will give the money to members of the consortium, and Congress wasn't even informed of the Amendment.
5) The Italians are actually investigating real criminals. Oh, scratch that; the 19 warrants they have issued are for US spies who illegally kidnapped and then rendered for torture a suspect from Italian territory. Oops. The CIA station Chief there has actually gone silent.
6) We are getting more confirmation that military lawyers strenuously objected to civilian leadership guidelines allowing systematic torture techniques from Cuba to Iraq to Afghanistan and elsewhere.
7) Some newspaper editors pulled a Doonesbury cartoon for using a legitimate nickname employed by President Bush for his advisor Karl Rove. It's a good thing we have people to protect us from the truth, particularly when it happens to be entertaining at the same time.
8) The White House was just a tad disingenuous when they hoped people would think Supreme Court nominee Roberts wasn't a member of the radical Federalist Society--he, uh, can't remember if he was ever a member. In fact, he actually turned out to have served on a steering committee for the organization. But no worry, people will forget about the slight deception in a few days. Oh, and people won't care that the White House is withholding documents normally provided publicly for important nominations. It's not like the guy is interviewing for a lifetime position or anything. Again, there may be nothing wrong with him, but it sure makes you wonder what on Earth they are trying to hide that they fear wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny. What an incredible lack of trust in us, the citizens of our country, the people for whom they work.
9) CAFTA's gonna be law. Woohoo, more legislation that neither institutes real free markets nor provides real worker and environmental protections.
10) A small minority of control-freak religious and conservative leaders continue to try to thwart the will of the American people to promote stem cell research.
11) Secretary Rumsfeld visited the troops in Iraq for the ninth time. Of course, the security situation is so bad it also happened to be the ninth time he did it as a surprise. All those permanent concrete bases we're building against the will of the Iraqi people look like they're gonna be real safe.
12) The Network of Social Progressives got started with their conference out at Berekeley. Accepting religion always seems to be the task that most stretches the willingness of some liberals, particularly those on the coast, to be tolerant of others different from themselves. It'll be interesting seeing what happens with them.
A dozen sounds good for now.
I can't believe Doug is leaving in two days now. And Adrian and Lauren not much after that.
12 comments:
Nate--You aren't an indentured servant are you? You do have choice for who to work for, I assume?
Take This Job and Shove It--Johnny Paycheck
I'm sorry, I don't get where take this job and shove it comes from. Are you offering me a $50,000 a year, 40 hour a week position? I left a job where people were making $75,000+ after a couple years because it wasn't the right place for me.
Or are you saying I should just quit and hope I win the lottery or something? I'm not trying to be smart with you, I just don't understand what you are proposing.
Nate--The song is just an anthem from back in the day. Meaning, if you don't like what your company is up to or its policies, what's keeping you there?
If your magic number is 50k, there might be some swallowing to do on your part.
Or you could curtail your lifestyle, live within your means, and volunteer even more. Now that would be truly long hours with low pay, wouldn't it?
1. I wish all manner of weather incidents could be ascribed to global warming. Just what the hell would you do about it? Move the planet? Stop burning fossil fuels? Doesn't quite fit how you live does it?
2. Finally, the labor unions are seeing the writing on the cave wall. It's either evolve or become extinct. You want to know why prices are high and jobs are going overseas and to illegals? Hoffa knows.
3. Joe Wilson is a liar. Plain and simple. If you don't start there with this story, then you shouldn't comment on it.
4. We need new energy options. That's what the consortium is charged with doing. You do want us out of the Middle East at some point, right?
5. Your lack of appreciation for what the CIA does for our country is stunning and breathtaking. I suppose you would want to abdicate to Osama or Mugabe or Castro too?
6. When is the use of torture legitimate? War time? Peace time? Or never?
7. If you want truth, stick to Dilbert. Newspaper editors have a responsibility to their company's bottom line. If a significant portion of your reader base thinks Trudeau is a commie, pinko, fag--then pull his shit everytime so you don't lose subscribers.
8. Unless you bring up Ginsburg confirmation as a parallel to how the Roberts confirmation is going, then it may be you who is being disingenuous.
9. What is wrong with upgrading the economy and possibly stemming the tide of illegals?
10. You mean those people who believe in the sanctity of life? The will of the American people would be more trustworthy if the majority of those people even knew what the moral/ethical issues are that are at stake. Again, you can't look around at your fan-base and say that's the face of America. There are a lot of red-state folks out there who find stem cell research objectionable in any case.
11. Again, I'm speechless at the cavalier attitude you have toward what our military is doing.
Just eleven for me. Let me know if this little parry and thrust thing we have going is growing tiresome for you. I enjoy it because it gives me a good idea of how people think that don't necessarily think and see things the way I do.
Plus, I'll be in Jax in the next few days and they have a Dave and Buster's and I had forgotten what a delightfully cheesy place it is.
Take care. Do good things. Charles
Note: some of this is in response to 7/22. Also, Eric is coming over, so this will be an incomplete post until I have time to finish it.
First, let me again be very clear that I am not making a Christian argument; I am making a secular one. The Christian story is very easy. We are called to love, not judge. Forgive, not punish. Be quick to hear and slow to anger. (Also lots of other fun policy areas, like communal sharing of resources, protecting the socially outcast, and not charging poor people interest, but that's for a different discussion.)
I don't claim to be an expert on the differences between teenage women, those 20-35, and those over 35. But I can point to studies revealing that the earliest age of sexual activity is rather low, and that it does not vary much among industrialized nations, regardless of their respective levels of spirituality. By age 20, something like 80% of people have been sexually active. It's also impossible to stop; the only sane response is to provide accurate information and easy access to safe medical practices. Also, Christian (and other) notions of things like not having sex before marriage and not cheating on a lover don't seem to stop a lot of people from doing it anyway. Is your solution to lock them up in prison? I don't even think one can claim the right to judge that action by someone else wrong. The people involved in the situation are the ones that must decide on appropriate conduct. (But of course friends and parents and others should be involved in decision-making.)
Yes people's lives get ruined by all manner of things, particularly drugs and sex. You seem to be thinking I'm saying that's ok. I'm saying something entirely different. I'm saying that when the government makes and enforces laws prohibiting activities between consenting adults, even more lives are ruined. The act of state enforced prohibition itself is very bad, much worse than the original problem it is intended to solve. You're saying that government needs to step in to protect people from these evil things like drugs, yet when people do these things you label them as evil criminals unworthy of a position in society. The categories of "people worth protecting" and "people who commit crimes" are very much overlapping, not mutually exclusive. The answer to the question why shouldn't the government be interested in pushing back the tipping point is very simple. When government acts to prevent consentual acts, it excaserbates rather than ameliorates, the situation. We have years and years of detailed research proving this. Whether we are talking loss of life, loss of property, tax dollars wasted, undermining the rule of law, breaking apart families, strengthening large criminal organizations, or any of a hundred other criteria, laws that punish perpetrators of victimless crimes end up causing more of the harm they are intended to solve. If you really don't believe me and the overwhelming evidence, I would urge you to try to find a positive report on alcohol prohibition. The 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was so awful that it had a whole other amendment, the 21st, devoted to overturning it.
When I say that the criminal justice system needs to be objective, independent, equitable, and such, I mean there should be a professional approach not controlled by victims or finger in the wind politicians. It is precisely because the desire to exact punishment by victims is so strong and universal that they should not control the sentencing process. And it is precisely because politicians can win cheap points by demonizing marginal groups in society (often hypocritically exempting the better connected constituents who commit the same supposedly dastardly act) that laws should only exist to protect people from other people who infringe on their rights.
Economic justice is the idea that people who work hard and contribute to society should be able to share in the economic rewards of society. EPI, Fair Economy, and CEJ give you some more detailed insight into that position. It's not saying that all people should have equal wealth, but rather it focuses more on setting a basic standard of living below which no productive member of society should have to live.
I almost laughed at the socialist question. No, I'm not. Socialists believe that some industries should be nationalized and that generally the state should play a large role in the economy. I generally believe that government should stay out of the economy, aside from creating the basic conditions necessary for economic activities (things like national defense, schools, infrastructure, protection of property rights, risk sharing, and so forth). It is that rather small government interference, relatively speaking, that makes me a lower case liberal rather than, say, an anarchist, a fascist, or laissez-faire capitalist. From Adam Smith to Michael Porter, my understanding of economics is pretty clear that a strong government is critical for laying out the ground rules, but that government is not good at actually executing the day to day transactions which in aggregate create and define our society.
Yes, my focus is very much on policy. In other words, not particular anecdotes and situations, but the larger picture created by millions of stories. But I'm going to take aim at your claim that advocating absence of governmental regulation is immoral. My position is that it is immoral to support policies that hurt families, hurt communities, hurt children, hurt respect for the rule of law, hurt all those things that we both agree are worth protecting. Absence of regulation does not condone an activity. In fact, I think that's a rather absurd position. Do you think that people think society condones affairs because they're not illegal? Or that society condones obesity because it's not illegal? Separately, I would argue that supporting authority itself is immoral; individuals are always better decision-makers and their sovereignty should only be challenged when there is great need (ie, murder or tax fraud or market failures or child abuse); a tie goes to the citizen, not the state. I also think there is a reason we live in a republic, not a democracy. Many aspects of running society require technical and professional aptitude, not constantly changing political forces. Or to put it differently, more Americans believe in UFOs than support any of the major policies of the Bush Administration. The issue isn't what do 100 people think. The issue is cause and effect. What would the world be like if we outlawed drugs and imprisoned millions of Americans. And what would the world be like if we didn't. The better of the two worlds is the moral choice. (And I would argue that the reason many people think of drug users as evil criminals not worthy of society is because a whole generation of politicians and businessmen have gotten elected and rich, respectively, by demonizing them to be seen as "tough on crime" and to get access to lucrative prison contracts, respectively.) When there is education and informed debate, more reasonable drug laws actually become quite popular. For example, about a dozen states have, in the face of blistering federal opposition, already passed enabling legislation to legalize medical marijuana.
Children are a different issue because there is established legal precedence that minors are not capable to make all decisions for themselves. I'm not sure there is an exact age; the biggest suggestion I would make is that we should be consistent in how we raise children. Anyone old enough to be tried as an adult, to go to adult prisons, to even be eligible for the death penalty should certainly have the right to vote, drink, smoke, and do just about anything they want to their bodies. From a practical standpoint, it's also much healthier for children to be comfortable with moderate use of chemicals. For example, in France alcohol is part of family meals from a very early age. People learn moderation and as a result they do not have nearly the problems with alcoholism, binge drinking, drunk driving, and abuse that we have in the US.
As far as voting, I sympathize with your perspective, but the problem I see is that it has no acceptable logical conclusion. We've al done things counter to society before. Who gets to determine how bad it is, or whether it warrants disenfranchisement? And more to the point, how does it help those of us that aren't hardcore criminals? You ask what I think is a very pertinant question. What does a 16 year old know? Or a 20 year old? Or a 35 year old? Or an 80 year old? Should government protect people from their own ignorance, stupidity, short-sightedness, and harmful desires? I think it is both wrong and bad policy.
The problem is that the category "bad guys" is very very large. Your children will be responsible for a very large portion of somebody else's food, lodging, medical care, court costs, and lost productivity. I know the NEA is a favorite posterchild of what's supposedly wrong with liberal governance, but they're so not in the same league I'm not quite sure what you are arguing. I would gladly accept a rider on the next appropriations bill saying the NEA budget can be no larger than the costs to society of prohibiting victimless crimes like drug use and prostitituion and vice versa. That would be the biggest victory in the sensible drug policy movement since the end of alcohol prohibition. The entire NEA budget is a rounding error compared to the DEA, and the DEA only represents one small portion of the total costs to taxpayers and society at large.
I obviously can't guarantee my policy positions won't change when I have a family, but that doesn't negate the evidence behind my claims. Of course I don't want any of my relatives to have a drug problem. But that's a red herring; if anything it supports my contention that government should not interfere. My kids would be worse off with prohibition, not better. End of story.
Yay, time to go point by point. Organization is always good.
1) a. Interesting that you assume I think it's a huge problem. I was largely going for sarcasm, but the more biting kind as people really did die. In fact, my literal comment was that they couldn't possibly be related, with the added punch that therefore this meant what causes heat waves to kill people isn't worth looking into.
b. I do think climate change is an important issue. Historically, climate has played critical roles in the development of living things, both human and not. In the present, we are not so dependent on mother nature's cooperation, but we still spend considerable resources keeping a leash on her.
c. But not because I'm particularly worried about North America. Only about 2 to 3 percent of our economy is climate based, and in fact warmer temperatures will likely mean more tropical agriculture may spread farther north. Canada in particular might be a net gainer from global climate change. We would likely need to devote resources to defending certain cities, like New Orleans, and helping relocate people displaced by flooding and drought, but on balance we probably wouldn't notice climate change much. (unless there is a dramatic shift in something, in which case who knows what might happen)
d. I very much agree with an article I read in my environmental policy class (yeah Professor Pollack!) that the real way to think about global warming is as a foreign aid issue. The people who will suffer are in places like Bangladesh that are both highly affected by climate and too poor to provide the massive capital necessary to build protective infrastructure and respond swiftly to large-scale emergencies. There are already serious problems related to water rights in the developing world that climate change will likely exacerbate. Aside from the moral issues involved, it also affects us because instability around the world has a direct effect on the security and economic condition of the US.
e. A lot of people have this idea that whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is important. I think that's absurd. It's not a blame game; it's science. That's the biggest crime that the large energy companies have committed, one of convincing people in their PR not just that they're not responsible at all but also that if humans aren't causing it, it isn't worth studying. That's like saying we shouldn't worry about hurricanes because energy companies aren't responsible for them.
f. As far as solutions, I would advocate a combination of reasonable cuts in fossil fuel combustion, increased energy efficiency, and alternative energy. Unlike the majority of the environmental movement, I don't have any problem with nuclear power for electricity. It's incredibly safe; for all the havoc that a major meltdown could wreak, it is chemical plants and oil refineries that tend to blow up in the United States. Ask the Navy how they manage to get sailors to live on the flying death traps that must be Los Angeles submarines and Nimitz aircraft carriers. We of course need to figure out what to do with the waste, but I'd rather have a potent waste in a small space than a dispersed poison over a much larger area. US nuclear energy also has nice side benefits like making sure other countries don't build reactors that are less safe (we have one of the best records in the world, much better than the Russians and Japanese) and burning fissile material from Russia that we would rather not let fall into the hands of terrorists. Before GWOT, the CTR (or Nunn-Lugar), was working with the Russians to secure the dangerous materials of the regime. [side note, if you recognize this part of the story, you either 1) lost a debate round to us or 2) are one of my Clayton kids who have found my blog. congrats] Other alternative energies also have their place, such as solar for less grid-dependant electricity, and even wind has some potential in certain areas. Perhaps the biggest thing I would do is simply stop giving extremely profitable oil companies huge government subsidies and weird exemptions from environmental regulations (like declaring SUVs light trucks). These are things that would encourage domestic job growth in environmental and energy technology while making our country safer and our environment cleaner and probably even reduce corruption in our government and our ridiculous network of bases in hundreds of countries around the globe, some of whom are run by brutally violent autocrats.
g. It actually does fit how I live. One of the first things my dad did when he bought his house was double the insulation. It saves money and protects the environment. That's a win-win, except of course for the energy companies who lost revenue because my dad doesn't have to heat the house as much; it's ridiculous that we give an industry preying on its own consumers this incredible veto over our energy policy. Those companies play an important role, but they have clearly shown they are willing to say and do whatever is necessary to make ever more money even if people die because of it. I drive a small four door car, and I prefer taking the metro whenever I can. I'm a huge fan of bike paths because they're nice for cyclists and because exercise should be encouraged and because it's gets 'em off the road.
h. This point gets overlooked sometimes, but one of the biggest reasons to seriously address our use of fossil fuels is because we need them very badly. Conserving something that is a necessary resource in production isn't anti-capitalist; it's good business sense. I don't have a problem with dependence on foreign oil; I think we should buy everything they'll sell us. Unfortunately, energy companies play the protectionist card very well and have convinced people they should actually be given tax dollars to use up a resource we just may want for ourselves down the road.
2) a. I would actually take issue with the prices high sentiment. Inflation has slowed down in recent years (the real problem is stagnant real wages for the bottom 3/4 of the country, but that's a separate issue). From semi-conductors to Wal-Mart, prices in most industries have been very reasonable. Exceptions are those that get un-capitalist treatment, particularly pharmaceuticals and energy. Both industries are allowed basic market failures on a grand scale, and high prices and high profits are the natural result. Consumers lose so a few fat cats can accumulate more resources. Crass, yes, but essentially accurate.
b. I'm not a protectionist, and I'm not a liberal simply pretending to have gone to business school. I think the general process of sending jobs overseas is not only natural but, dare I say, even desired. Virtually no American would want to be doing what their relatives were doing in 1905. I would shoot myself if I had to farm or work in a coal mine or an industrial factory. That's how progress works.
c. The problem is that these transitions are costly, and when they happen too quickly society's ability to assist people who lose out in a changing economy gets overwhelmed. That's why I think social insurance, far from being communal, is actually a critical component to the dynamism of a capitalist system. We shouldn't be spending dollars supporting corporate agribusiness, from cotton farmers in Mississippi earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies to sugar companies that actually get to sell their goods to US consumers at a markup above market prices. We shouldn't be writing arcane technicalities into free trade legislation requiring foreign garment makers to buy pockets made in the US. Instead, we should provide the education and training necessary to let people move on and become even more productive doing something else. It's productivity more than anything else that drives our standard of living. Protecting workers usually means shafting consumers, and on balance it's usually a net loss to society.
d. Immigration is incredibly important to the US economy. That's why business leaders are always noticeably absent when conservatives decry how easy it is for all those dangerous Mexicans to cross illegally into the country. I think it should be easier for students and workers to get into the US, and in the long run stabilizing migration in Central America requires raising living standards throughout the region.
e. I interpreted the tone of your comment to mean you think unions are worthless and perhaps even un-American. Here I would disagree strongly. Two of the biggest market failures encountered in large corporations that are inherently centralized, command-driven operations are the loss of costless bargaining and imperfect information. Unions act as a mechanism for organizing people and spreading information. Those are both important projects. Also, they're really the only institutional advocate for a decent working environment. It's not that managers are evil, it's just that the undemocratic structure of corporate governance leads to abuses of the two market failures I mentioned. Partly, unions get a bad rap because the most famous ones are for movie stars and athletes, and it's naturally harder to sympathize with people making 6 and 7 and 8 figure salaries.
3) a. What did he lie about?
b. The Administration has admitted it was a mistake including the reference to the forged Niger documents in the state of the union address.
c. Iraq really did disarm its WMD. Unlike, say, the US and Israel and North Korea and a bunch of other places.
d. Later, you claim I'm not appreciating the CIA. Which is it; are they liars or am I disrespecting them?
e. I find it rather offensive, actually, that you would later say I don't appreciate the CIA when in fact it is the civilian leaders in Washington that purposefully misused intelligence and ignored caveats and qualifications that seasoned CIA professionals attached to their assessments. The sole reason the Office of Special Plans was set up was to lie (sorry, 'deceive' or promote 'misconceptions' and 'untruths'). We knew years ago they were disarming; that's why Bush pulled the weapons inspectors. He knew Ritter would report Iraq doesn't have WMD. And the CIA knew it too. They were right; the Administration was wrong, knew they were wrong, and still had the gall to blame the intelligence community once we learned what they had been up to.
f. I have no intention of defending Ambassador Wilson, who seems to like the attention, or the CIA in general, which has a long history of death, destruction, and overthrowing legitimate governments. My point was that in this particular case, there have been huge transgressions against the security of the United States. All I did was say people were acting like they had things to hide. It is our duty not to cower before them but to question them, to ask who, what, where, when, why, and how. They work for us, not for the enrichment of themselves and their cronies at Halliburton and elsewhere.
g. I really have no idea where you are coming from on this comment. What are you talking about?
h. It is a really important question to ask who is responsible for forging the Niger documents in the first place. Why would you not demand answers?
4) a. The Consortium is not about new energy options. It's about funneling taxpayer dollars directly to highly profitable energy firms.
b. One of the most serious problems with this is the tactic involved, slipping it in at the very last moment. That is clearly not governing in good faith. The reason the Republican leadership did that is because they know the amendment would fail miserably given an open debate on the merits.
c. How severe would corruption and pork barrel politics have to be before it bothered you? This is a group in Delay's district that is made up of people to whom the money can potentially flow, not to mention about 10% in administrative costs get to stay in the organization.
d. Yes, I want our military out of the Middle East. This has nothing to do with that. The energy companies are the ones begging for us to use taxpayer dollars and Army boots to go protect pipelines and refineries all over the world so they can reap the profits. This drain on our treasury is incredibly bad for the country (not to mention the various moral qualms involved). Would you feel good if a Democratic congressman got the government, at the last minute, to give $1.5 billion to a gay group to study family issues or Greenpeace to research rainforest destruction?
5) a. This relates to number 3. You can't have it both ways, attacking my position on defending the CIA when their operatives are compromised yet also attacking my position when their operatives are caught doing things they shouldn't do (well, at least things that are illegal to do; "shouldn't" is a loaded word).
b. Are you disputing the fact that the Italian court system is investigating an illegal act committed by a team of CIA operatives in Italy? You appear to be completely ignoring the situation and merely attacking me, ad hominem style.
c. I'm not sure what you mean by abdicate, but it is incredibly outrageous that you would use Osama bin Laden in defense of the CIA. They are responsible for him, at least the him that has the organizational resources to threaten us. They literally paid for the money that built the caves in Tora Bora. Not to mention that members of the current Administration supported the Hussein regime and then, years later, shifted focus away from bin Laden to Hussein. That's what should be scrutinized; why has Bush gotten away with letting bin Laden disappear? These aren't phantom connections. US policy from the 1980s affects us today.
d. No matter how bad Castro may be, sanctions only make it worse. Trade is essential to basic necessities and raising living standards, not to mention providing the contacts that stimulate discontent with authoritarian regimes.
e. I have a much larger appreciation of our intelligence services than the civilian leadership in Washington has shown. But they exist for us, not the other way around. When clandestine activities are undertaken in our name, we as citizens have a responsibility to uncover and deal with breaches of conduct or accept the consequences from those who feel slighted. The US isn't the only country with a 9/11. Long before 2001, the Nixon Administration led the CIA to undertake an absolutely terrible overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government on September 11, 1973. John Negroponte has yet to answer for the human rights abuses in Guatemala in the 1980s. Even then-Vice President Bush possibly knew about what was going on. Do you really condone that kind of activity? Do you really think that simply because the CIA did it, it must have been a good thing?
6) a. I don't think torture is ever justified, from domestic prisons to international prisoner of war camps.
b. First, it's morally wrong. But again, I am trying to avoid this kind of argumentation because it doesn't disprove someone else's worldview, namely, "no it's not".
c. Second, it doesn't work. In the short term, it's counterproductive. The CIA has known for decades that the threat of torture is far more effective than torture because torture actually makes people resist. It's amazing what the body can withstand when provided the necessary motivation, which torture tends to provide. In the longer term, it creates a tremendous pool of recruits, both those hurt themselves and those offended by the torture, among whom people preaching hate and violence may find new members.
d. Third, it is incredibly dangerous to US military personnel. Anyone advocating torture is either not taking into consideration the effects that policies of torture can have on captured American prisoners or simply doesn't care whether Americans get tortured as well.
e. My key premise is that peace is good, that we value being able to go about our lives with our family and friends doing the things we want to do. If you really want a world of ceaseless hate and violence, advocating torture is a great way to get there.
f. I would also add that there are serious legal concerns involved. According to the Constitution, when the US signs treaties they become federal law, subject only to the Constitution itself. We don't have a choice about whether to follow the Geneva Conventions or other treaties governing the conduct of military engagements. We could choose to bring about a much more chaotic, anarchical world, but my contention is that we are the ones who benefit most from the current world order. Why on Earth would we want to disturb that?
7) a. Perhaps I worded my sarcasm incorrectly. The real issue is not editors who dropped the cartoon but those who ran an edited version of it. If you don't like it, don't run it; don't change the author's work and then pass it on as the original.
b. It's their paper, so they can do what they want, but we're the consumers, so we're free to disagree with them and make fun of them when they make dumb decisions.
c. It can't be overemphasized how dumb the controversy is, and how hypersensitive it shows supporters of the Administration have become. Not only was the nickname not very offensive, but it was true, as well! That really is something Rove gets called in the White House. Bush has a much dirtier mouth than "turd blossom". Do you disagree with my sentiment that it feels like media feel like they have to baby us, to protect us from things we might find "offensive"?
8) a. Again, what's with the ad hominem attacks to completely ignore the issue? The issue is that the Administration, rather than being upfront about things, is trying to slide things under the radar. They didn't make the case that the Federalist Society is good experience for a Supreme Court Justice; they tried to hide the fact that he had anything to do with the Federalist Society. They are refusing to release documents ranging from those commonly released for nominations to those written explicitly while working for We The People. We are the clients; we have the right to know. That disdain for openness and accountability permeates every aspect of the Presidency. I'm not claiming the guy would be a horrible choice, I'm claiming it's ridiculous and raises serious questions that there are such concerted attempts to withhold information from the public.
b. It is not being disingenuous to question things. That is a real problem I have with authoritarian figures like those found in the Administration. They refuse to allow critical analysis because they know that they often take unpopular decisions that wouldn't stand on the merits; a PR war is the only way to go. In fact, I think it is our duty to question things. Don't you ask questions of the sales guy when you're buying a car? Choosing a Supreme Court Justice is incredibly important. I don't need to know if he got any oral sex along the way, but anything having to do with the influences he may have on his decision making as a Justice should be thoroughly explored. If you don't want that, don't apply for the job.
9) a. I agree with improving the economy, and you can see my opinion on immigration in 2d.
b. You didn't answer my post. My problem with CAFTA is that it isn't free trade and it doesn't protect workers. We have rich farmers and large agribusinesses living off taxpayers. They're the real 'welfare queens'. For political reasons we insist on protecting textile jobs. See 2c for more on where we have a lack of free trade. This of course doesn't even touch on my feelings about sanctions and illicit drugs.
c. I believe international barriers to trade should be about what they are at the state level. Basic protections for workers, the environment, product safety, patents, copyrights, and so forth, but generally speaking the free movement of goods, services, people, and capital. Missourians and Texans benefit from free trade; it's not a zero sum game. CAFTA is not anything near that.
10) a. I'm not talking red-state, blue-state, one-state, two-state. I actually really detest that simplistic "us vs. them" visual. I'm talking about American citizens who appreciate the ethical concerns but nonetheless support research that could lead to decreased pain and cures for diseases, not to mention nice side benefits like making sure the US continues to be the center of the scientific world.
b. President Bush's decision was a wishy-washy unethical choice; he didn't ban all stem cell research and the destruction of embryos, but he didn't let the science proceed unhindered, either. With practical issues, I of course encourage this kind of centrist moderation. But the whole point of the pro-life community is that embryos are people, or at least the moral equivalent of people. Therefore, it either needs to be outlawed as murder, or that entire premise needs to be rejected. Personally, I don't think embryos are people. But if you did, you would have to go much farther than simply stopping most stem cell research. A huge genocide, according to that definition, is underway in fertility clinics.
c, The House has already passed a bill regarding stem cell research.
d. No doubt, you have by now read that Senator Frist came out in opposition to the President's position on stem cell research. Republicans haven't shown this much dissention in the ranks about anything under President Bush.
e. There are people in tremendous pain and anguish. Are you really comfortable condemning them?
11) a. I think you are mistaking the sarcastic nature of my whole post for a cavalier attitude.
b. Do you dispute the facts, though? Our Sec Def hasn't felt comfortable announcing his visits to his own military forces. Doesn't that say something to you?
c. We are constructing multiple permanent bases, not to mention the largest US embassy in the world. Our President is single handedly determining US troop deployment and foreign policy entanglements for years to come. Don't you think that should be discussed under intense public scrutiny?
d. It shows just how entrenched the US military is around the world that even discussing whether it should build bases in yet another country is taken as being somehow anti-military. In fact, I think our military personnel would be better off if we brought essentially everybody home (I'm not just talking Iraq here) and did what they are best served to do: defend us. We should pay soldiers more and not kick them off healthcare at the first opportunity. We could easily defend the country for half what we are spending now, and that would still give us the best offensive force in the world.
Ok, I feel the need to expand on 6). Call it part g.
6) g. The original point of my post wasn't so much that torture is bad, it was that there has obviously been a concerted cover up to keep dissenting viewpoints from being heard by the public. The Administration viewpoint is extremely controversial, and we the public deserve to know that. I would be quite comfortable if we had an open and honest debate about the role of torture and if, in the end, policy makers decided to abuse prisoners. But that's not what's happening. Abusive practices are being hidden precisely because the political leaders know that most Americans would come to realize they are wrong and ineffective. It's the attempt to squelch and silence dissention that I think is the biggest part of the story, and the fact that despite such a highly charged atmosphere professional soldiers are willing to stand by their beliefs even in the face of tremendous disapproval by their civilian bosses. Time and again, military personnel have been silenced and punished for speaking truth to power in this Administration.
Nate--This is truly the "shock and awe" style of debating! I think by just the sheer volume of information that you bring forth, any opponent, that's not a serious policy wonk (smile), would have to wave the white flag.
In fact, not being a policy wonk at all, I can't respond to any of what you have to say EXCEPT to ask what you thought of the Clinton administration. That might have been a time of budding wonkiness for you so it might not be a relevant question, but to me, you seem to take issue with most hierarchial organizations--especially our government.
Was it so when Clinton was in office or was that a liberal utopia for you? Do you think Kerry or God forbid, Dean, would be doing a better job than GW?
To go point by point with you right now would exhaust me beyond repair. Debate really is a young man's sport! Suffice it to say, a lot of your points are well taken, but in my opinion, the brashness of some of your policy stake-out points are said without a real-world sense of how things really work. But that's just me and my work and life experiences talking and not so much deep diving into the deep tank of public policy.
One more question: Tell me your views on affirmative action at the college level and what you think of diversity quotas.
Waving the white flag,
Charles
Exhausting is a good word for it, I like that. I would add that for me, discussing these kinds of issues is also exciting, so that tends to cancel out the fatigue. As far as style, the debate kiddies call it spreading when the tactic of sheer volume is employed. I like to think it's quality and there's a lot simply because there's a lot to talk about. But people are free to disagree. Of course, it's my blog, so my money's on me getting the last word, but ya never know.
That was a budding time for me, actually. Some of my friends are children of the 80s, but I am definitely a 90s child. If I made a list of things I disliked most, it would include the watered down way Clinton went after healthcare issues, the continued support for a very militaristic foreign policy (I'm not a pacifist, but I think on balance our military forces are overused), support for and extension of economic sanctions, his inability to be faithful to his wife, and the support for and expansion of the war on drugs. I'm also disappointed that after essentially 12 years of leadership by a certain worldview that there wasn't more willingness to explore big picture vision questions, about the prison system and the tax code and support for education and energy policy and trade policy and things like that. Also, I'm afraid Clinton solidified the influence that big business would have over the Democratic party establishment, preventing serious alternative challenges to the corporate order in the short term. Competition, whether of goods or ideas, makes a system stronger.
Generally speaking though, I was comfortable with the policies and leadership offered by the Clinton Administration. I'm not so comfortable with the Bush Administration. I voted for then-Vice President Al Gore in 2000 because I was a policy nerd. I thought foreign policy and terrorism and energy policy and things like that were important, precisely the areas he had the most experience compared to then-Governor Bush. Of course, I assumed those were largely academic; I had no idea so many of the areas would become essential policy discussions in the coming years. The Clinton years were a time of much more transparency, accountability, and criticism; that environment has been virtually smothered out of existence over the last five years. I think Kerry would have made a better president than he made candidate because I place a lot of faith in that steady, methodical approach so common among good prosecutors. But, in the end, he's another patrician Yalie; he wasn't really offering anything beyond "at least I won't be quite as bad as George". I would have liked to have seen a Gephardt presidency because it never hurts to have the chief from your own backyard, but I think he didn't get much energy because he couldn't figure out whether he wanted to run as the champion of the working class or if he wanted to get the establishment endorsements in the party.
The more I learned about then-Governor Dean's candidacy, the more I liked him. Only in America can an NRA approved fiscal conservative be labelled a radical liberal. Dean did two things for me. First, he was willing to speak his mind, which is very refreshing as a leadership quality. For example, media reform is an extremely popular topic, but it is obviously difficult to get access to the media if you're saying the owners have too much power. He was willing to make media consolidation a signature issue. His most well-known example, of course, would be his signature opposition to the Iraq war. Second, he built a power base outside of the establishments of either party. He demonstrated in deed as well as word that citizens at large really were his constituencies, and he proved they could be organized powerfully. Cool stuff.
As far as brashness, I trust that anyone still reading this doesn't need the stuffy formality of dissertations and diplomatic language. I can be serious and professional, but I prefer being serious and sarcastic. I trust that readers will give me the benefit of the doubt and I the same.
Affirmative action at the college level is a pretty ridiculous idea, or at least the way it's practiced. I think diversity is a worthy ideal. But skin color is, quite frankly, a rather poor criteria for diversity. Status in society, life experiences, motivations and ambitions, passions and pursuits all make much better correlators for a diverse grouping. Of the goals that our higher ed system should pursue, I think diversity is pretty far down the list. I think if you're pursuing educational goals, diversity will be a natural outcome anyway. Practically speaking, I think things like low interest government loans and private scholarships are much better approaches than quotas and 'bonus points' for certain demographic characteristics. Every time I talk to somebody who's like, "I couldn't have gone to (x) school" if it wasn't for whatever benefit they got for not being a white male, I think to myself gee, there are a lot of poor white males just as deserving, too, who coudn't go to said school. Blind admissions policies are the only way to go (with exceptions, of course, for specific reasons, like an all female college or something like that). Do I get to hear your thoughts on the issue?
Nate--Nice blog, and very informative. Good grief, you write a lot. See you soon, brother.
First of all I want to thank you for your blog. It is important to speak about this in an open forum like this.
Drug and alcohol rehabilitation and addiction treatment is vital for long term recovery. A holistic model treats the mind body and spirit of the addict utilizing traditional and alternative methods of treatment. For more specialized information see: cost drug rehab
Addiction and substance abuse can be devastating to individuals and families. Long term sobriety is dependent on the strong development of coping skills through a strong treatment program. For more specialized information see: addiction houston treatment
Post a Comment