Thursday, January 30

Finally, along the lines of the previous two posts, I offer this link to a recent episode of This American Life on the Iraq question. (thanks to Chrissy) It is, in my thinking, far better than anything the pundits offer on all this:
From WBEZ in Chicago | This American Life
click on the real-audio for "Why We Fight, Dec. 20"

This is Eric Alterman's reaction to Safire- stated much better than mine, so check it out: Eric Alterman: Altercation

The link below is to Safire's column in today's New York Times. His point is to wake up the war-dissenters and paint a clear picture of the present scene- he does this with dueling scenarios:
1) if the "hawks are wrong"- millions of Iraqis will be nonetheless freed because of all the hubub
2) if the "doves are wrong"- millions of Americans may be killed by an empoweed Hussein

Safire has assisted my own thinking on the situation by revealing how the pro-war-now (note the 'now') side has simplified the situation.

Safire's reasoning is problematic on too many levels to confront fully here. It rests on such a pre-Safire-determined set of events that it is more akin to having your palm read than hearing sound reasoning.
1) what does he mean by "wrong"? the use of wrong, here, suggests the Iraq question is a yes-or-no proposition. While the White surely has tried to make it such (either you support our effort to disarm Iraq by any means or you don't)- the situation is not simple. For example, one CAN be in favor of a de-weaponized Hussein and not be in favor of unilateral U.S. invasion. In other words, one can be in favor of solid defense without favoring offense, despite Bush's assertion to the contrary.
2) Is it necessarily so that millions of Americans will be killed if we don't support war-now.
3) Is it necessarily so that the worst that can happen if we don't have war-now is the freedom of Iraqis?
Let me offer another scenario: We invade now with the support of Blair and a handful of others. With the "collateral damage" of thousands of Iraqi civilians, bombs blow up what the U.S. figures are the locales of chemical plants and so forth. But after the initial "success" and the invasion into Bahgdad begins, intelligence informs us that Hussein is no longer in Iraq. We nonetheless secure the cities and impliment our favored new leader of an Iraqi democracy. Meanwhile, Hussein has formed a massive terrorist network and plots a major attack on U.S. cities. He is beat to this destruction by Osama bin Laden, who had been able to recruit more than ever before the young zealots that hate American imperialism.
I am being far fetched with a purpose- and that is: we have no idea what the future holds. But we do know that our action as a nation has repercussions. Safire ignores that fact.
The Mourning After

Tuesday, January 28

Senator Inhofe appeared last night on Crossfire. In discusing N Korea, Inhofe starts to discss Clinton's intellegence group's prediction on N Korea's missile capabilities, saying:

Inhofe: It was your guys back during your president, Bill Clinton's time in 1998...
Begala: He was your president too, we're all Americans.
Inhofe: Well, you make that determination...
Begala: I just--you look like American to me. United States senator.

SO, is Inhofe questioning his own Americanism, or Clinton's presidency? And is it very patriotic of him to question the leadership of his commander in chief? Dissent is fine, Inhofe, but allow it both ways.

Crossfire Transcript:
CNN.com - Transcripts

Friday, January 24

The following link is to a debate a few months ago on Science Friday. Listen if interested in education policy regarding the modern debate of Inherent the Wind. November 8, 2002, Hour One: Evolution in the Classroom

Thursday, January 23

go here, The New Republic Online: &c. and scroll down to the discussion of David Wessel's column from the WSJ. just a nice, quick summation of republican dishonesty.

Tuesday, January 21

in honesty, i only found this upon direction by josh marshall- a reader on North Korea, Pakistan, and why Bush has treated the issue in the ass backwards way we've seen. The New Yorker: Fact

Friday, January 17

Archive - Future of Intellectual Property on the Internet
Here's the Lessig-Valenti debate. Enjoy.

read over this Alterman reminder of Bush's non-answer (and the public's apathy towards substance) Eric Alterman: Altercation. Then, when you've got awhile, go to the debate (link above) between Professor Lessig and Jack Valenti. There's a bit, somewhere in the middle of said debate, where Larry, and the entire Harvard audience, demand a straight answer from Jack- who avoids any honest straight-ness like the plague. I see this as a troublesome trend.

Thursday, January 16

this [Lawrence Lessig] is a testimonial by Professor Lessig on his (failing?) faith in the Supreme Court's judicial process. The heartwrenching climax: by what right do the five justices that argue for staunch protection of state's interest have to pick and choose their battles? read this.

Michael Moran, on his msnbc blog, rightly calls attention to this[ Times Online ] article by John Le Carre- from the Times of London. Read it. The last clause is, in my mind, the worst reflection on our culture- and perhaps proof that we treat real world politics no more seriously than we do entertainment.

But, of course, its Iraq we've really got to worry about. I predict (or, at least, hope) the strange inconsistency in our foreign policy will soon come to full light--and I further hope the president will apologize for dragging our troops to the lesser threat.
Death, terror in N. Korea gulag

Wednesday, January 15

Quicker than I thought, out has come the opinion on Eldred v. Ashcroft. No suprises- even to the certainty that Stevens would dissent.
ELDRED V. ASHCROFT

Tuesday, January 14

an essential site for those seeking education, and me practicing the "blog this" feature...thanks for the indulgence.
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Monday, January 13

btw, the Times article is in the Sunday edition- called the Triumph of Hope over Reason, I think. The TNR blog page is

The New Republic seems intent to argue against the David Brooks article, from the Sunday Times. While the TNR criticism does well to point to some assumptions that damage the primary thrust of Brooks' article --why do middle class folks vote for tax cuts that we "know" slant unfairly to the rich-- there are points in the article that should not be so quickly dismissed. Namely, the sociological points.
To wit- it would be instructive to note Brooks' findings on the world view of the middle class.
1) While the TNR blog points out that Bush is not explicitly pitching the tax cut as a boon to the rich, let's consider the popular view of the propsed tax amendments. That view is that taxes will be lowered- in some cases deleted. The lower taxes will have some effect on middle and low class tax; and the rich will see an even greater effect. It is my assumption that no matter how Bush sells this- his plan will be seen as friendly to the rich.
2) Now, the Brooks article. The question posed is: why do we not grow infuriated at the "obviously unfair" tax cut- or, as Brooks asks, why do we vote as if we're the upper class that benefits from upper-friendly tax cuts? The body of Brooks' answer deals with the sociological question: Why do we admire, rather than feel cheated by, the richest class? Or, as a former Democratic nominee may ask, after exposing the gross inequity of a tilted tax plan, "why didn't they listen?"
Brooks' answer: because the Democrats asking these questions aren't seeing the same world as do most Americans. I say, if the Democrats can realize that they are speaking nonsense to most folks when they frame arguments on class, the Democrats may learn, finally, HOW to communicate to the bulk of U.S. voters. Such communication has been mastered by the likes of Rove, for good or ill, in that Rove and friends use a vocabulary that conforms to the world view of voters.
Democrats need to find that vocabulary if their plans are to have a chance.

Thursday, January 9

hello world...this is my example of the ease of blogging. do it now. www.blogger.com