Growing Blogroll: the Carpetbagger Report

I'm pleased to announce the addition of the Carpetbagger Report to the blogroll. In my standing tradition of saying a few good and bad things about the site. Actually, the good and the bad are rolled into one: This is a fiercely Democrat muckraking site. However, it is in my opinion a very accurate, well-informed, tenacious muckraking site. And moreover, it is one that develops a lot of stories that no one else even whispers about. Were it not for this blog I would have never known that the FDA had considered appointing a male veterinarian to head it's Women's Health Office. That's a detail you can't find just anywhere.

So maybe it's a bit sensationalized, and maybe I'm past my quota of Democrat links, but this stuff is too good to pass up. Besides I'm curious what these guys are all going to write about when the tide comes in for the Democrats. I imagine they aren't too worried about it.

Kamikazee Congressional Ice-Cream Trucks

Here's an article in which 3 Congressmen were in a high-speed collision on some road in Iraq. Evidently the standard operating procedure for transporting high-value diplomats is to stuff them in an armored vehicle ("ice-cream truck") and drive like hell up the middle of the road.

This is so wrong on so many levels I'm not even going to get into it.

Politics of disaster: Fighting Fire with Water

Even as the GOP capitalized on Bush's finest moments of popularity by holding the 2004 Republican convention in NYC, it looks like the Dems have decided to hold their 2006 convention at the site of one of Bush's biggest failures, New Orleans.

A curious contention

TigerHawk was kind enough to feature a few of my words the other day, if only to dispute them.

I claim:

Of course Clinton wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Most former presidents wouldn't have (including 41).

And he claims:

Setting aside Bush 41 and Clinton, I submit that virtually all American presidents prior to Jimmy Carter would have invaded Iraq under similar circumstances.

In the spirit of civil discourse, I'll let Tiger of the hook for calling me "Leftish" though I usually object to that term. And since he pretty much called for one, I gave him a proper response in the comments.

Was the Iraq war a purely logical consequence of our circumstances, or was it unique to a visionary named GW Bush? Think about it yourself. For my part, I've come to the conclusion that it's silly to argue what a bunch of dead white guys would or would not have done in similar circumstances. Kinda vague and pointless.

Unless, of course you're into constitutional law...then it makes perfect sense.

Clarifying the libertarian divide

So evidently Sony has been incorporating spyware on their CDs for years. Here’s the question: From a libertarian stand-point, is that a matter of “caveat emptor” or “Don’t tread on me!”? Some libertarians will tell you that companies are justified in doing anything they want that isn’t against the law, and that the government should not be making laws that regulate business. Other libertarians will tell you that as much as people need to be free from government, one's personal freedom from unaccountable corporate interests shouldn’t even be in question. At least government is representative and necessary.

In a curious deviation from the general mantra of "that government is best which governs least", I hope Sony gets nailed for messing with our privacy.

“Don’t mess with Texas computers.” – I love that. 200 redemption points to Texas.

Thoughtful conservatives agree

Says Lee at Right-thinking.com:

Who woulda thunk that the first MBA president could fuck up the deficit this badly.

I would have. This is what happens when you focus on image rather than substance. Still, he fooled the stockholders long enough to get reelected, didn't he? (Little secret: Bush doesn't care about the longterm value of our stock, he just wants some fast dividends.)

Timelines and exit strategies...for graduate school.

Now that I'm in my fifth year of grad school, more and more people are talking about my exit strategy and whether I have a timeline. Most of the people are well-intentioned, (though some are malicious) but what they need to understand is I cannot set a timeline, because then the experiments win! Every day I struggle with these experiments, struggling to get the cells to express the proteins I want and to supress the ones I don't. It's a very detailed process, central to the cell's way of life, and is a very complicated process. It's a very cellular process. I have to maintain the cells in sterile culture, continually guarding against foreign bacterial and fungal contaminants. Moreover, there is a natural tendency within my cells to differentiate and lose the characteristics that make them usable. Only a strict regime of feeding them everyday and providing them with their every need can prevent an insurgency of differentiated cells.

I can't underscore enough that the research effort is multi-factorial, and not well understood by say- those who served in the thermodynamics research of the 60s. Bioresearch is not another plastics boom. Bioresearch is more personal and specific, and harder to wage. And besides this isn't just about changing genes in my cells, it's about changing genes in all cells. This is part of the global war on bad genes. I'm really fighting the bad DNA in these cells so that someday we can fight the bad DNA in our cells. This research is vital for our defense, and also my thesis defense. If I give up and graduate, then the bad DNA wins. If I give the cells a timeline, then they won't have incentive to fix their DNA, because they know I'll be gone in a few months. That's why it's important to not have a timeline. Furthermore, my adversaries who suggest I need one are being unscientific.

(Oh graduation...how I long for you. Speaking of timelines, I have another 2 hour procedure before I can go home. Hasta.)

Metrics II : dental

This falls into the general category of Lanky's crazy tangental theories:
I wonder whether there's a correlation between terrorism and dental care. Nothing I know of makes people grouchier and meaner than tooth pain.

Are we winning the peace? (whatever that means)

RedState.org takes a argues against metrics in Iraq (anyone want to guess their position on timelines?) . I'll second the general notion that we don't really know what to measure, nor what it means. For instance if we kill twice as many insurgents as last year, are we winning because we've killed twice as many, or losing because there are more insurgents? The usual suspects on both sides will argue their spin. The best bit of the post:

This war is a political endeavor. It will not be won or lost based on hospitals opened, roads secured, KwH generated, clean water produced, or vaccines administered. It is going to be won by Iraqis stepping forward to support their government, by voting, by filling the ranks of security forces, by starting businesses, by investing money in their own country. In these measures, we are winning... and that is why no one who is screaming for metrics is talking about them.

Certainly during our revolution and early development no one was expressing our viability as functions of infrastructure. On the other hand, when you're unemployed in the Iraqi desert without electricity or running water...well you're likely to be miffed. Especially when you had them regularly pre-invasion. Look how NYC freaked out last year when they lost power for a few hours. Anyway, I do approve of keeping metrics, I'm just leery of trying to interpret them. Maybe if we go on a binge of nation-building-exercises we can ascertain which metrics are valuable and which are not. Imagine: learning.

What ever happened to intelligent discourse?

I read a pretty good letter to the editor in the Daily Pennsylvanian. I'm impressed enough to replicate it in it's entirety.

To the Editor:

The 2005 election has come and gone, and both major political parties will no doubt look at their respective gains and strategize for next year. But in truth, it doesn't matter which side "wins" the election, because either way America loses.

In George Washington's farewell address, he warned about the dangers of political parties, stating: "they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government."

Remember, this is a man who didn't really want to be President but accepted the role as his civic duty. It is clear he cared deeply about his country, and didn't want the ideals of our nation, which he helped found, to be desecrated by power-hungry individuals. It saddens me to say that his fears have become reality.

Just take a look at Congress and you will see enough childish squabbling that it would make you think you were watching a sports rivalry, rather than our government at work. What ever happened to intelligent discourse?

Accusations are thrown right and left with neither party missing a chance to disparage their opposition. It is clear that these politicians care only about their own personal agenda, and are sacrificing the goals of our country so that they can remain in power. Politicians frequently defend their colleagues' illegal or immoral activity for fear of weakening their party's image.

These political parties no longer represent the people and serve to divide our country needlessly. If they can't start passing more bi-partisan bills with the aim of improving our country as a whole, it is our duty to stop supporting these parties that long ago stopped supporting us.

Jonathan Gershon

College '08

Pretty astute for a sophomore.

For the most part the stuff that flies around the punditry is even worse (google John Stewart's "hurting America") and bloggers are no exception. I think the annonymity of bloggers actually exacerbates their radical views (or possibly it's a matter of there not being editorial selection). Anyway, it is a very valid question, "What ever happened to rational discourse?" I'm sure people of various political stripes will blame others of different stripes ad infinitum, but part of the issue is the use of political mechanisms to enforce party-line voting. There is now a problem, and it's getting worse. Even basic news comes in different political flavors.

Question two: what should we do about it? Although it may never have the cult-of-personality of either the Right or the Left, there is a rising Centrist movement in the blogosphere. Now the thing about centrists, is they're likely to disagree over a number of topics, on the other hand, the good thing about centrists is they are disproportionately powereful, those rare "swing votes". More on this later.

Contemporary Adages

You can fool some of the people all the time.
You can fool all of the people all of the time.
You can fool 51% of the people for just short of 5 years, but when they finally figure out what happened, a lot of them want some retribution.

Fool us once, shame on you.
Fool us for 5 years, and even Virginians start voting Democrat.

Powerful senate staffer attacked in attempted homicide

Read it here.

This past weekend I was talking with my father about how I've always wished I had grown up in the 1960's. It seems like so much was going on then, things that could change the world. My father shook his head and said "No you don't." By comparison, the 70s 80s and 90s were boring.

And now we have new days of war and political assassination.

Cheney told republicans what?

So there's a bit of a stir over the leak that the CIA has interrogation camps in some East Block country. Frist and Hastert were talking about an investigation, and the CIA yet again had to go to the Justice Dept. Scuttle has it that the camps are run out of old Soviet SS installations. Obviously, this isn't the best thing to announce to the world, that we're secretly holding ghost detainees in former Soviet camps. It's damaging, and it's damaging because it's an immoral action that we pay for with our tax dollars. Personally, I'm glad it was exposed. I hope they track down the perpetrator and I hope he/she can articulate why they leaked this information. I imagine it's because they didn't like the US committing atrocities with our tax dollars. I hope the responsible party is tried by a jury of his/her peers, and I hope those peers keep an open mind. Realistically, we'll probably have a situation where another reporter goes to jail.

But here's a new twist:

Earlier Tuesday, Republican congressional leaders asked for an investigation into the matter, and Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi suggested his own GOP colleagues could be to blame for the possible leak.

Lott told reporters the information in the Post story was the same as that given to Republican senators in a closed-door briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney last week.

Let me get this straight...Cheney is sharing news of the US running CIA camps in Eastern Europe with a closed-door caucus of Republican Senators? What else are they privy too that our other elected officials are not? Are there other government atrocities they are aware of? Did they tell only Republican Senators before the war that there were no WMDs? What other ghastly secrets do they keep from the American people and their Democratic peers?

If it was a Republican leaker I hope it was one of my Senators. (realistically it was probably a staffer...under the direction of a senator) Standing up to torture would even get me to vote for Santorum (shudder). It's really that important to me to have transparency and accountability from our elected officials. Bush says the US does not torture. Then why do we need ghost sites in other countries? A prison in DC, or a military base in Nevada would work just as well. Of course nothing can be proven without leakers breaking the law, but these "black sites" scream shady. In the meantime, I hope more details (hopefully not classified ones) slip about who says what in these secretive meetings.

It remains to be seen how this plays out. If the Republicans have a rat, they'll want revenge. On the other hand, this is only going to underscore the secret US torture advocacy and that's ugly ground for Republicans. Says one:

"Never get into a pissing match with a skunk," said one senior House Republican, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid crossing the leadership.

And then you have this from Chris Shays :

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said investigating the prison leak would be acceptable, as long as Congress also investigates the secret prisons themselves. "If you want to investigate everything and not be selective, that would make sense," he said.

Shays is a blue-state republican best known for crying out against DeLay's ethics rule changes. Sounds like he's on the side of those who want some truth. Either he has true integrity, a chip on his shoulder, or an election strategy. He might well ride this consciencious Republican thing through elections next year. It works on me: I would vote for him.

And last but not least, we have a fine quotation from Senator Roberts, who up until last week had been stonewalling investigation of the pre-war intel.

Roberts said his committee "stands ready to be of service," but that he had "not received any marching orders from the leadership."

What a puppet. Stop sucking up and lead your committee. PS: it's your job. Roberts is an embarrassment, even to Kansas, which has new things to be embarassed about everyday.

Sympathy for the DeLay

Via Josh Marshall and the Associated Press:

There have been a lot of political gambits on the part of both DeLay's lawyers and Special Prosecutor Earle. Here's a new one:

Defense attorneys argue that DeLay has been vilified in liberal Travis County, which was split into three different congressional districts as a result of a redistricting map DeLay engineered.

Aww...poor DeLay...worried about vengeance from people he's marginalized.

God only knows what hoops they'll jump through in the actual selection of the jury.

Philly Blogging

The workers of the South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) picked the most unexpectedly nice week of the year to go on strike. A lot of people have probably been happy walking this week. Speaking of nice, I ate dinner at a sidewalk table tonight. Eating on the sidewalk in Philly in November is pretty bizzare. Global warming?

The wine under the "premium wines" sign at the South Street liquor store is cheaper than the regular wines. Is that disorganized signs or is "premium" code for cheap booze?

And a not Philly tidbit: it's punkin chunkin weeked! Not this year, but someday I will make it there.

Colorado Tax Reform

Not much time to post this week, so I'll just link. This is one of the best arguments for statism and against libertarianism that I've ever read. So obviously the legislation was stupid, but was it stupid in concept or in execution?

Reid would rather dance than fight...

Today, out of nowhere, came this ballsy play by the Senate Minority leader Harry Reid. He forced the Senate into a secret closed session to talk about whether or not the Bush Administration lied to Congress about the Iraq War. Politically bold, yet politically savvy: extra secrecy guarantees the press will fixate on what may have been discussed. Too many liberals have focused too much on the President's 16-word "yellowcake" reference in the 2003 State of the Union. Yeah, it could be he lied to the American people. Hello, politicians lie to the American people all the time. It might be rude, but it's par for the course. Lying to Congress on the eve of a war vote is another issue entirely. That's unethical, abusive, and possibly treasonous.

Up until last month I didn't think the administration had it in them to lie that baldly. I thought it was another instance of TigerHawk's razor: When a person's actions or statements force you to conclude that they are either nefarious or stupid, the most probable explanation is that they are stupid. Thus, I imagined Bush et al were as bewildered as anyone else when Saddam had no WMDs. on the other hand, Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby have been lying, fairly convincingly, about this Plame issue since day one. After carrying that lie cleanly through a re-election campaign... yes, I think they had the motive and ability to lie to Congress. That doesn't mean they did, but I do hope Congress looks into it. All of Congress can be divided into three parts: those who advocated unilateral war because they just simply wanted war with Iraq, those who were misled into believing it was a just war by virtue of protecting the US, and those who opposed the war. I think the vast majority were in the second category (see again TigerHawk Razor), and those people should feel like fools that we didn't find WMDs. I would be ashamed, and frankly I'd want to know how it came to happen. The point being, yes, I believe there should be an investigation, and it should be by the Senate and not the Justice Dept. But I've digressed...

Today's hardball is surprising, but how it comes about is not. Here Reid describes the state of communications with the White House on filling the Supreme Court vacancy.

"I really am impressed with the consultation of this nomination. Let me tell you what it consisted of. I was at the Rosa Parks event last night, which was a solemn occasion and very nice. [White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card walked up to me and said I am going to call you at 6:30 in the morning. I said, "That is too bad," because I knew by then they had already picked someone.... He didn't call me at 6:30 [but at] about quarter to 7. The conversation lasted maybe 10 seconds. He said, "You have already heard?" I said, yup, and that was it. That is the consultation. With [Judge John] Roberts we had consultation, with [White House Counsel Harriet] Miers we had consultation, with Alito zero, nothing."

From Kevin Drum:

Frist is pissed. Really pissed. Reid did this without warning him. So is this something real, or is it a way to get Libby and Fitzgerald back on the front page? Or was it deliberately designed to make Frist lose it?

Fair enough, no consultation deserves no consultation.

The first passage comes from the Christian Science Monitor. It's a good piece if you have time to check it out. You might expect CSM to be skewed a little to the right, but Reid actually gets a somewhat positive profile. Evidently, the lore of Harry Reid includes this timely quote: "I would always rather dance than fight but I know how to fight."

More References: CNN story (check out the movie too). Note CNN gives time to Frist, but not Reid. Fox has a lot too.