Political Argument

Where's the Evangelical Candidate?

2007-04-30T23:00:00.000-05:00

For the past two elections, the evangelical constituency has backed President Bush, even as their opinion of him has declined. While he has yet to do anything concrete to forward the evangelicals' agenda, he remained the evangelicals' choice for president given his sense of religiosity and the values that he espoused. Since the election of 2004, the evangelicals' opinion of Bush has further diminished, and it is impacting their entire view of the GOP. Although Bush is not a candidate for the 2008 election, due to his performance the evangelicals have become disenchanted with the Republican Party. While it is unlikely the evangelical bloc would switch to the Democratic Party, this group of voters is reaching the point where they are threatening to stay home from the polling booths in November 2008. Although the evangelicals are disillusioned with the Republicans and the current potential nominees for president, in a recent interview, Dr. Richard Land, the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), indicated that "with Hillary Clinton looming on the horizon, electability is a very important issue." Thus, the evangelicals might be driven to the polls not because they want to directly forward their own agenda, but they want to prevent a more liberal one from becoming viable. However, even if they were to vote Republican, who would be their candidate?
In an article in OpinionJournal, the candidates thus far are presented as "Rudy Giuliani, a twice divorced, pro-choice, supporter of civil unions; Mitt Romney, a Mormon who as recently as his 1994 Senate campaign against liberal icon Sen. Ted Kennedy was pro-choice and wishy-washy on gay marriage; John McCain, who voted against the gay marriage amendment and who crafted the campaign finance laws that have done much to damage the anti-abortion efforts of religious conservatives; or perhaps Fred Thompson, who supported McCain-Feingold and says that gay marriage is a state issue." Since the evangelical constituency is bonded by their common interest in a socially conservative agenda, all of these candidates are far from ideal. While some candidates have tried to ameliorate the situation by meeting with prominent evangelical leaders, it is still far from clear who will obtain the evangelicals' support in 2008.

Campus Security Issues: Justified Criticism or Glorified "Victim-Blaming"?

2007-04-24T17:44:00.000-05:00

In the wake of last week’s terrible events at Virginia Tech, controversy has been swirling about whether appropriate safety measures were taken by university officials that fateful morning.

Security-threats on campus were certainly not completely foreign to Virginia Tech. An escaped convict months earlier coupled with two bomb threats in the weeks leading up to the shootings had, in some people’s opinion, established worth-while cause to re-evaluate and tighten campus safety measures—something which apparently did not happen, at least not to a sufficient degree. Thus, should we be faulting Virginia Tech for not pursuing a course of action aggressive enough to counter the situation? Or are we, as some suggest, “victim blaming?” Looking to rationalize an impossible-to-digest atrocity by putting its victims in the hot-seat rather than accepting it for what it was, a completely unpredictable terrible tragedy, plain and simple.

Many, including Tech students, have voiced complaints about being alerted to potential danger—via mild-mannered email—two entire hours after the first shootings occurred, by which time the second attack was already underway. Many have wondered why—even if the first shootings were unpreventable—the second shootings were permitted to occur when such a significant amount of time elapsed between the two. Why wasn’t the campus evacuated, may wonder? In the very least, why didn’t they lock it down?

A significant argument questions, however, (as university president Charles Steger has pointed out time and again) that on a campus of 25,000 strong—with a population density comparable to that of a small city—what do you lock down?

Indeed, as Associate Press writer Hank Kurz reports, Edmund Henneke, an Associate Dean of Engineering who was in the building where the second attacks occured, argued that criticism of the authorities' response was unfair. "We have a huge campus," he said. "You have to close down a small town and you can't close down every way in or out."

While no practical option may yet exist to effectively “lock down” a huge, open campus such as Virgina Tech’s, many argue that more effective measures could certainly have been taken to alert the students of possible danger. Yet the question remains, at 8 am with thousands of students spreading out across the sprawling campus on their way to class—spilling out of dorms, parking lots and cafeterias—what feasible way exists to intercept them?

On one hand, Virginia Tech does have an out-door Public Address system that could possibly have been utilized to this end. On the other hand, however, to announce over loud-speakers that a man has just shot and killed two students, is on the loose, and could potentially strike again could very well do nothing—as university officials argue—but promote mass hysteria, causing more harm than good. The question remains, however, are the potential injuries, panic and chaos commonly cited as reasons against making such announcements really more worthy of avoiding than more dead students? Yes, an announcement that there’s a killer on the loose might be less diplomatic and more hysteria-inducing than a level-headed email explaining a “shooting incident,” but very arguably it could succeed in getting more students off campus, and out of potential danger-zones quicker—and isn’t this the all-important goal of campus security measures? To keep students out of harm’s way?

As an alternative option to the PA system, some have suggested a campus-wide text-messaging service that could alert students and faculty of emergencies via their cell phones. Questions concerning privacy then inevitably emerge, however, as the only way for such a system to be effective would entail faculty and students to submit their cell numbers—very private information in the minds of many.

Issues such have these—along with inevitable debates about gun-control—have taken a political forefront as campus’s across the nation, reeling from last week’s tragedy, struggle to put in place security measures that are capable of preventing such shootings in the future.

It should be recognized that a select minority of gun-rights advocates—including Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners America—have decided to argue that it is not faulty security or lax gun-control laws that are to blame for last week’s massacre, but another problem: too FEW guns on campus. At bottom, however, it seems that many members of the American public have taken the events at Virginia Tech as a shocking and tragic indication that our current safety protocols and defense of our “inviolable” right to bear arms are out-dated artifacts from a safer, perhaps dangerously incomparable, time.

Iraq

2007-04-24T12:59:00.000-05:00

The theme of this week seems to be Iraq, so I'm going to propose that it no longer exist. A bit simplistic, but I think it just might work.

The time has come to reevaluate Iraq's colonial-era boundaries, given the seemingly intractable divisions between the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish groups. While the boundaries between the groups are diffuse, they are becoming more defined with every passing day; Shiite death squads push Sunni families out of mixed neighborhoods while Shiites flee Sunni bombers. Furthermore, a new political agreement forced by Kurdish PMs gave Arab families incentives to leave the ethnically mixed city of Kirkuk, originally Kurdish but forcefully Arabized under Saddam. A unified Kurdish bloc is taking shape in the north of the country, while Sunnis are increasingly concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods in Baghdad and the rest of the "Sunni triangle." Shiites, meanwhile, dominate the south of the country.

The only real problem is oil. The oilfields are concentrated around Kirkuk and the southern Shiite territory, leaving Sunnis dependent on a unified Iraq to receive a fair share of the oil proceeds. This suggests a loose federal structure as the way forward, with a central government in charge of distributing oil money on a per-capita basis and little else. Each region already virtually has its own army, and making the boundaries official will allow American troops to take a less prominent role, easing the transition as families relocate (under ideal circumstances this would be voluntary, but little about Iraq is or has ever been ideal).

It is time to recognize that Iraq is not a country capable of governing its disparate population, and has never been. It is an artificial British post-World War I creation which has run its course. Let's acknowledge reality, and try to set Iraq on a viable future course before our troops are inevitably brought home.

Are Insurgencies Beatable?

2007-04-23T22:43:00.000-05:00

This is perhaps one of relevant political-historic questions of today. As the United States military – the stronger one in the world - continues to fight Iraqi insurgencies, more and more people point out to the Bush administration and the General Staff that historically modern armies have never beaten this type of armies. The French lost to FLN in Algeria, the Soviets lost to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and the Americans lost to Viet Cong in Vietnam. While certainly insurgencies have been more common in 20^th and 21^st century history, in Western history, they date as far back as the Spanish guerrilla resistance against Napoleon’s army in early 19^th century. Even Carl von Clausewitz in his classic On War has devoted a chapter to “people’s wars” in the scheme of his more widely read conventional war analysis. More recently, the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War, the only non-American book on the U.S. army officer-reading list. In this book, he advises Western nations to assemble smaller armies that mimic insurgencies if they want to win these types of wars, because Western soldiers are morally discouraged from fighting weaker enemies.

Certainly there is merit in citing Western nations’ bad track record and promoting smaller armies, but overall, the pessimistic critiques of modern armies much too often fail to examine all warfare against insurgencies. When one starts to recollect that Syria beat the Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanon forced out the PLO, among the many non-Western victories over insurgencies, the track record of conventional militaries suddenly dramatically improves. The truth is that insurgencies are weak. They can be beat and they have been beaten before. It’s not an easy task. In case of the Syrians, it takes a massacre of an entire city of Hama to do the job, but nevertheless, it can be done. Unlike the successful non-Western powers, Western nations have lost to insurgencies because of a lack of dedication and will. The French, the Soviets, and the Americans never made it a priority to win in their perspective wars. Even Iraq has been just one of the issues in American politics. What Western nations need to understand is that to win wars against insurgencies they must be devoted: they must be ready to face very heavy causalities among their soldiers and they must be ready to inflict even heavier casualties on the civilians of the opposing side. Just because they are fighting a scattered army doesn’t mean that they can win easily or that the other side is unbeatable; they must treat it as a conventional war, which certainly costly, but winnable. If they start to show weakness by trying to minimize causalities of their army personal and the local civilians, as the Israelis have done in the 1982 and 2006 Wars with Lebanon, they will never achieve their tasks. That being said: is the cost of war against insurgencies worth it? That’s up to politicians and the public to decide. Are insurgencies beatable? Absolutely.

It's not Senator Reid who "Lost" the War in Iraq

2007-04-22T18:27:00.000-05:00

While Senator Harry Reid certainly has the right to practice his freedom of speech and declare that the war in Iraq is "lost," to do so from the position of a United States Senator and as the leader of Democratic Party in the Senate has been lampooned by Republicans as both cowardly and irresponsible. They claim that such statements do nothing but demoralize our troops and strengthen the enemy, making the fight that much harder to win. In this sense, it may be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the U.S. believes the war is lost, then it will more than likely end on terms that could reasonably be called a defeat for the U.S.

But will such a hypothetical future "defeat" be one the United States has suffered, or will it be something that the Bush administration has suffered? For many, there is no disctinction. George W. Bush is the President after all, and that means that whatever he believes in, whatever he chooses to do, whatever the consequences, that is where American goals and policy should be headed. After all, he was elected by the people (and not a friendly Supreme Court, or anything like that, right?).

The sad truth is, the Bush administration never had a plan for "victory" in Iraq, beyond the success of the military invasion and overthrow of Saddam. Surely there was never any doubt that the most advanced fighting force in the world would defeat one lone Middle Eastern dictator with nothing but an ill-trained army outfitted with outdated Soviet technology and not even any WMD's to cheat with. In a fair fight against Saddam, the U.S. was going to come out on top (and in spectacular fashion, after only a few weeks of major combat operations).

However, if that was the only fight the Bush administration was expecting in Iraq, which it seems like it was, then I can barely express my shock and outrage at the criminal level of negligence and myopic planning that has so far proven to be the case. From Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, it becomes shockingly clear how little planning or preparation there was for the post-war operations phase of the campaign. From administration officials refusing to heed the pleas of commanders and soldiers deployed on the ground for money or support, to Rumsfeld's decision that the Iraqi army be immediately disbanded after the war (thus releasing hundreds of thousands of young, disgruntled, unemployed men into the streets, instead of retraining or reconstituting them for reconstruction or police duties), it's obvious the adminstration didn't think Iraq would be a big deal after Saddam. Dictator gone, mission accomplished (look, a banner on an aircraft carrier that I just landed on, how cool is that!).

But you can't take apart a country's leadership and expect things to just be dandy. I am not saying the war in Iraq should not have been fought, I am saying that once the decision was made to fight this war, the amount of planning and preparation for it was absurdly inadequate. Our troops were dropped into a fractured country and left to dry, hanging in the middle of the brutal sectarian violence that was inevitably going to follow. And once it became apparent that the mission was most certainly not "accomplished," it became the Republican rallying cry to support the troops no matter what. I support the troops. I support keeping them alive. I support using them for missions for which they are fully informed, for which they have clear, accomplishable objectives.

There are those out there who would claim that by denouncing the "leadership" of President Bush (in quotes, because in truth, he has not shown anything resembling that quality, except perhaps a naive and foolish stubbornness that some mistake for "determination" and "courage"), I undermine the troops, and abet our enemies. They say that these enemies will go on fighting us, with even more resolve as we lose our stomach for the fight. And I say, why are we fighting them? To defend our freedom? To defend Iraqi freedom? They fight us because we are there, they fight us because they can easily be made to believe that we are the oppressors. The longer we stay, the more innocents will die. They are our enemies, because by being there, our presence has created them. We cannot win this war in the traditional sense, because the longer and harder we fight it, the longer and tougher the resistance to our efforts will be. Republicans happily claim now, with an "I told you so" attitude, that the growing violence in Iraq is proof positive of the extensive Al Qaeda presence there. What they fail to realize, is that Al Qaeda is there, and is stronger than ever before, ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE THERE. They were not there before the invasion, but they sure as hell had plenty of reason to jump in the fray after we did.

And that is what is lost in the senseless yelling in this "debate" on Iraq. This is not the Revolutionary War, and saying that George Washington never would have quit has nothing to do with anything. We are not fighting a just war against an imperial power who threatens to dominate our liberties and our livelihoods. This is not like any war we have ever fought before, because we have no defined enemy. The current troop surge is like trying to knock down a wall with a rubber mallet; it didn't work the first time, so now we'll just swing harder. But the harder we fight, the harder the fight will be. Instead we must be fighting smarter, and if at all possible, not engaging in physical combat at all. In that sense, Senator Reid was right, that this war will need to be won on economic, social, political, and diplomatic fronts, because it cannot be won soley by brute force.

In Defense of Imus

2007-04-17T10:22:00.000-05:00

Given the recent controversy surrounding Don Imus, I’d like to take (what seems to be) the very unpopular stance: Don Imus didn’t do much wrong. I say this for two reasons. Firstly, all he ever did was say something; Imus merely made an offhand remark on air. He didn’t punch anyone or kill anyone, he didn’t do anything physical and his comments didn’t incite any action as well. Imus didn’t call for black female basketball players to be hung, but based on the reaction, you might have thought so. Imus was well within his first amendment rights and he made an off-color joke (or what was intended to be a joke). Not only that, but Imus apologized for the comment within two days and the Rutger’s basketball team even accepted the apology!

Sure, many have noted that Imus has a history of racial insensitivity and this very accusation leads to my second point: why is the public so outraged at Imus when many other talk show hosts make more extreme and detrimental remarks all the time? Take Rush Limbaugh, for example, who gets 13.5 million viewers a week (at least triple that of Imus). Limbaugh has mocked Michael J. Fox’s condition, called the 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the one person effectively off-limits during the Clinton years, the “White House dog,” and has himself made (what many consider) racist remarks, such as when he said Donovan McNabb got too much credit because he is black. He has also said, for example, that “the NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies." But maybe Limbaugh deserves most credit for decrying the supposed immorality of illegal drug use when, it turns out, he was abusing painkillers the whole time!

So it is for these two reasons, that Imus’s remarks were not malicious or didn’t result in anything that harmed the team and that when compared to other radio hosts, Imus doesn’t seem so bad, that I think Imus should have been let off the hook. I am certainly not condoning racist remarks and it is true that Imus has a history of making racist and sexist remarks, but at the end of the day we have to realize that his comment had no real effect on the team other than to stir up controversy. There are other figures I’d rather see taken off the air.

Freedom of Speech Revisited

2007-04-17T00:40:00.000-05:00

The First Amendment of the Constitution states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

What exactly falls within the realm of our frequently-invoked First Amendment? Is it as clear-cut as simply ensuring that people have the right to say whatever is on their mind, whenever they choose? Or is it more limited than people generally give it credit for?

In recent news, Don Imus was fired for using racial epithets on his morning show, and the show was cancelled. Were both CBS and MSNBC justified in firing Imus, or were they actually in the wrong and violating Don Imus’ right to freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is deemed one of a US citizen’s fundamental rights, and the First Amendment was put in place to protect this right from government interference. In order to interfere with this right, the government has to present a compelling reason as to why the restriction is necessary. A popular example is whether or not the government can sanction someone who yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The compelling reason in this case is that this speech would directly and immediately endanger the other people in the theatre; thus it has been removed from the protection of the First Amendment.

Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is one example of a situation in which the government found a compelling argument as to why freedom of speech should be restricted. While similar cases define the circumstances under which freedom of speech can be regulated by the government, it does not follow that anything not explicitly restricted is protected speech since the First Amendment only applies to government action.

For example, on a smaller scale, the speech of employees of private companies is not protected by the First Amendment with respect to consequences created by their employers. Thus, if an employee were to curse at his boss, his boss would be fully within his rights to fire him.

Going back to Don Imus, his being fired by CBS and MSNBC was not, in fact, a freedom of speech issue. Don Imus was fired by his employers after using racial epithets primarily because major advertisers were withdrawing their support, not because of the language actually used. However, even if it were about the language used, since CBS and MSNBC are private companies, the First Amendment does not apply to their actions.

Tragedy in Virginia

2007-04-16T19:49:00.000-05:00

Seeing the news this afternoon, that a shooting had occurred at Virginia Tech, resulting in the killing of over 30 students and the gunman, was, to say the least, chilling. Virginia Tech is a good school - I've got friends there - and, as is sadly the case with many such events, it's just not where you'd expect to see a mass murder. (Which sort of suggests the question "just where would you expect to see a mass murder take place?" but that's beside the point.) We here (I can safely speak for everyone, I think) at Princeton Political Argument send our condolences to the families and friends of those affected by the incident.

As always, this tragedy will not be an isolated event, but will spur introspection from all fronts. Take, for example, that our Class of 2010 Assassins game has been put on hold for a week. It's likely that other topics will come up, and I wanted to discuss briefly one that already has shown up in the news as a reaction to the VA Tech shootings. In the wake of the shootings, gun control activists have already seized the moment to once again call for stricter gun control laws. While admirable in intent (duh, they want to stop violence) I'd like to present a brief argument against gun control, lest we forget our reason in the heat of the moment.

Most arguments (and indeed ones we are likely to hear in coming days) focus on gun control's ability to reduce crime. Statistics can be cited for both sides, and then attacks on both sides' statistics can be cited on and on. There are countries in the world with stricter gun control laws and both higher and lower rates of crime than the US. Crime being such a complicated issue, it is relatively hard to isolate the legality of guns as a variable.

For the sake of argument, it is at least safe to turn to ideas of statistics. If guns are made in some measures illegal or harder to obtain, it is likely that fewer people would possess them. The question to be asked, then, is who is it that will be deterred from getting a gun? The argument that criminals in general will be kept from gun ownership is unfortunately naive. Since guns are still widely available and cheap, slapping regulations on the legal market will only fuel the illegal black market of firearms. Why would a criminal wait for a background check or fill out a long series of forms?

Also easy to see is that guns can indeed increase the safety of a neighborhood whereas gun control laws can endanger it. If a burglar is sure that no law-abiding citizen will have a gun, he can rob with great impunity. If he knows that any given potential victim could be a potential gun carrier, he is much more likely to think twice.

Worth noting is the effect guns have on people's psyches. Gun deaths from children left unsupervised are far fewer than deaths caused by children drowning while left alone in swimming pools. Yet which is more likely to keep parents from letting their child play at a friend's house: knowing the friend's parents have a gun or a pool?

Guns can do terrible things, but, as the cliche goes, if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. If some madman opens fire in Frist, I sincerely hope that someone busts out a pistol and returns fire. While there is clearly a law to be drawn (I don't think we should be allowed to have nuclear bombs) it may be wider than one would think. In whatever debate issues, we need to remember that while tragedies are visible on a national scale, whatever crimes guns prevent are (happily) not so newsworthy.

Sources:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aM9rLMRr4IYs&refer=home
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States
Freakonomics, Steven Levitt

Where have all the e-mails gone?

2007-04-14T20:40:00.000-05:00

An estimated 5 million White House emails have vanished into thin air. Who is to blame? Speculation about presidential advisor Karl Rove misusing the Republican National Committee’s email system had previously raised questions, but surprise surprise-those records have gone missing as well. CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), a liberally driven watchdog group is insistent that a Presidential Records Act violation has occurred. CREW is lobbying for investigation in separate instances; one being the Republican National Committee’s mishandling of the email server and the other being the eye opening 5 million emails missing.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was quick to distance speculation from the outside resource, CREW. “We're checking into them. There are 1,700 people in the Executive Office of the President.” Republican Party campaign account emails have not been saved, which creates a big problem that the White House has already recognized as a ‘screw up.’ This Capitol Hill controversy surrounds email accounts set up for the 22 aids that were supposed to part official business from political work. Senator Patrick Leahy is spearheading the Congressional attack for action to be taken. “You can't erase e-mails, not today, that's like saying, the dog ate my homework.” Leahy has already compared this incident to the Watergate scandal and threatens the RNC with subpoenas.

Although this incident is claimed to be incidental (yeah, right), the Executive Office of the President has certainly not stopped there. A special prosecutor from the CIA leak case has already identified that a gap in saved emails took place in 2003. Democratic officials feel that this is an especially controversial topic because it sparks questions about a lack of information released in the CIA leak case. What does the RNC have to say about it? Attorney Robert Luskin reported that until this month Karl Rove thought his emails were being archived, and that he had done nothing wrong. While the White House may come up with better excuses than Karl Rove, the public may never know the truth about the missing emails.

America's Great Wall of Immigration

2007-04-10T02:49:00.000-05:00

While plenty of attention has been given to the construction of a physical barrier on the U.S.-Mexico border designed to stem illegal immigration, the finer points of the immigration debate are often missed. Just to get it out of the way, I'll state the facts and figures and forget the wall for now: the wall costs between $1 to $10 million per mile, and it would cost several billions of dollars to cover a substantial enough part of the border to matter.

President Bush visited the border yesterday at Yuma, Arizona, to commemorate the opening of a new border guard station, and also to take the opportunity to push for his immigration reform policies. While the bill authorizing the construction of the wall along with other enforcement measures was passed with bipartisan support, Bush stressed that enforcement is only half of the problem. New, comprehensive legislation is necessary to tackle immigration reform, that not only places an emphasis on enforcement, but also on what to do with the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country.

The problem is, here is where that bipartisan support falls apart. Democrats are actually closer to the President's ideas for reform than his own Republican party-mates, which include a temporary guest worker program, and avenues to citizenship for current illegal immigrants. Conservatives vehemently oppose any plan that would allow illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, calling it an amnesty that would reward illegal activity. President Bush's response so far has been to try and sell his immigration reform to Republicans, from whom he lacks support, while counting on the same Democrat support for his plans that he received for an earlier bill that passed the Senate but stalled in the House. However, the more Bush courts GOP support, the more he may alienate his ironically Democratic base on the issue. "For instance, one plan would require illegal immigrants wishing to remain in the United States to return to their country of origin first and pay a $10,000 fine to obtain a three-year work visa. The visas would be renewable, at a cost of $3,500." Such prohibitive costs may end up meaning nothing at all, if these visas become practically impossible so as they might as well not exist.

House Speaker Pelosi has warned the President that Democratic support is uneven, and that any reform legislation cannot pass without significant GOP support. This means the Bush adminstration is going to have to find a way to negotiate over what some conservatives see as an nonnegotiable issue. In point of fact, the difficulties the White House face in brokering such legislation is more a sign of the President's ebbing political capital than anything else. Bush can't afford to have his own way, but any concessions to the right will cost him support from the left, and vice versa. In the end, odds are nothing will be done in the short time frame available, as the looming 2008 presidential elections draw legislators' attention way from the death throes of this President's adminstration. In the meantine, American tech jobs will contine to suffer as highly skilled immigrant labor remains capped at 65,000 visas a year, and legal immigrants will continue to be dissuaded from remaining in the U.S. with the difficulty and enormous backlog in processing applications for residency.

In effect, the U.S. is facing the costs while not being able to enjoy any of the benefits of immigration, legal or otherwise.

Bush: the Worst President Ever

2007-04-09T22:32:00.000-05:00

And now, the long-awaited justification for my coronation of Bush as our nation's worst chief executive:

There are essentially two criteria by which a president should be judged: how they respond to crises, and how long the positive changes they make last, or the negative ones take to undo.

Washington, Lincoln and FDR have to be considered the three greatest, in some order. Washington resisted the temptation to become a monarch in all but name, and by stepping down after two terms set a precedent that was followed until FDR. He also defused the first major national crisis, the Whiskey Rebellion. Lincoln of course brought the Civil War to a close and ended slavery; furthermore, he seems to have had a real shot at bringing the South back to the Union peacefully and in accord with Northern values until a bullet turned the job over to his incompetent successor, Andrew Johnson. FDR brought the United States out of the Depression and through WWII, and while some of his social policies may have been overzealous, he set the United States on an egalitarian course that was unchallenged until Reagan, and of which major elements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) persist today. Reagan also deserves credit for hastening the fall of the Soviet Union and paving the way for the economic recovery of the nineties, though he clearly does not rank among the top three.

Now to compare our unfortunate president against these titans of history may be a bit unfair, so let's take a gander at the bottom of the barrel. Grant and Harding were incompetent; not themselves corrupt, they were totally unfit for office and were ruthlessly swindled by their closest advisers. Fortunately, corruption is quickly remedied by regime change, and their failings were short-lived. Andrew Johnson, on the other hand, seriously botched Reconstruction, but by the end of his career he was so enfeebled by the Radical Republicans that his impact was negligible. Often pre-Civil War presidents such as Fillmore, Pierce and Buchannan are censured by historians for their failures to avert the Civil War, but in my opinion it was sixty-three years in the making and all but unavoidable. Nixon failed to get out of Vietnam in a timely fashion, but his only major failing was Watergate, which despite shaking the nation’s confidence in the presidency was actually rather minor. In addition, his visit to China and steps toward détente were important.

The worst president, until our own, was Rutherford B. Hayes (also, incidentally, a serious contender for the worst presidential name, but the two are probably not related). Hayes was never elected president; only a massively obvious vote fraud put him in front of the Democratic (read Southern) candidate, and to avoid a showdown he struck the most insidious deal in American history. In return for Samuel J. Tilden conceding the election, Hayes agreed to dismantle reconstruction and remove all Union troops from the South, only 12 years after the end of the Civil War. While Reconstruction was flawed, it was making progress; many Southern states have had the only black senators or governors in their history during the post-Civil War period. Through this act and his later tolerance of the Jim Crow laws, Hayes set the stage for ninety years of segregation.

And now, George W. Bush. Bush faced a major crisis early in his presidency, September 11^th (Katrina, in the eyes of history, was rather minor, though revealing). Bush at first responded rather admirably, with an entirely justified and internationally supported campaign against Afghanistan, using minimal American troops and quickly handing power to a relatively democratic Afghan government. Then of course came the Iraq War, which undermined reconstruction in Afghanistan, sent Iraq toward civil war (though life under Saddam Hussein was no picnic), and undermined U.S. credibility for years to come. In addition, Bush used September 11^th to justify the largest assault on civil liberties since World War I.

What is worse, however, is how thoroughly he has eroded the capacity of the United States government to fulfill its primary function, to govern. Bush came into office as a firm disciple of the neoconservatives, who having chafed under eight years out of the spotlight, came back into power with an appetite for vengeance. The neoconservatives held that they wanted to radically change the government, and that the established, professional bureaucracy was their enemy in this mission. They set out to staff all important positions with loyal Republicans in order to carry out this agenda, and as eight prosecutors recently found out, no job was safe. At every level, Bush has made function subservient to ideology and obedience, replacing experienced bureaucrats with incompetent functionaries. A few examples: FEMA director Michael Brown, who in a few short years turned the agency which responded quietly and admirably to Hurricane Andrew into the one which botched Katrina to extent which needs no description; Donald Rumsfeld, who went straight from manipulating pre-war intelligence to mismanaging the war itself thanks to his dismissal of advice from experienced generals; the Department of the Interior (as a whole) which has been staffed by former oil executives intent on signing away as much of our national resources for as little as possible, and the EPA, which has cut environmental regulations and national parks set up by the Clinton Administration.

Bush has damaged our international credibility more severely than even Vietnam could, has turned a record-setting surplus into a record-setting debt, has turned partisan warfare from into an ideal, has wasted thousands of American and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and has gutted our government of those who know how to run it. We can only hope that our forty-third president will always remain our worst, and that his disastrous example is not soon forgotten.

Why don’t the Democrats Party with Osama?

2007-04-09T21:32:00.000-05:00

This past week the Democratic leadership proved to be a disgrace, a group of men and women who should be charged for treason, not lead our nation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is first on the list of the dishonored. Crossing over any line of decency and ethics for small political gain, he met with the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni. The Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamic fundamentalist organization that has caused violence throughout the Middle East in the past and influenced Osama bin Laden to establish al-Qaeda, the group responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks. The organization also supports Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians. In short, the Muslim Brotherhood stands hostile to all U.S. interests in the area. The meeting between Hoyer and el-Katatni itself is harmful because it could have potentially alienate Egypt’s President Mubarak, who is a strategic partner for the U.S. in the Middle East. In addition, lets not forget that Hoyer doesn’t have any constitutional right to conduct foreign policy and shouldn’t defy any pleads from the Bush administration and the Department of State not to conduct controversial and indeed harmful encounters with foreigners.

Hoyer’s partymate in the Senate, Nancy Pelosi, proved to just as dirty. She set off to Israel and Syria as if she was the Secretary of State, trying to serve as a mediator between the two countries by passing, what turned out to be false, messages. She seemed to have forgotten that the United States already has a Secretary of State and that she doesn’t have political power to act as an American foreign affairs spokeswoman. Whatever she said to both Israeli and Syrian leaders could be destructive, since they could have interpret it as official American statements and acted accordingly. Furthermore, just the fact that she is willing to communicate with a country that sponsors terrorism, serves as a satellite of Iran, and arms Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has waged war against Israel this past summer, is disdainful.

One could perhaps argue that Hoyer’s and Pelosi’s meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria were necessary because it’s important to have communications with our enemies. However, this argument doesn’t have a sound basis. If the United States needs to negotiate or communicate with either Syrian or Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, the U.S. can do so through unofficial, secret meetings. It doesn’t need traitors with fancy titles and ill moral to do that work.

Death Penalty Quandaries

2007-04-08T16:17:00.001-05:00

Currently implemented in 30 states, the death penalty was re-legalized by Supreme Court decision in 1977. Since then, 552 people have been executed, while another 3,000 or so remain on “Death Row.” Much of the current controversy over the death penalty surrounds the circumstances where it should be applied—many argue that it has been unjustly implemented insofar as unequal application among racial and socioeconomic classes is concerned. Over 50% of death row inmates are black or another minority—an apparently hugely disproportionate number when one considers this demographic only accounts for 17% of the general population.

I would like to address, however, the merits of the very concept of the death penalty rather than argue merely over its application.

On one hand, it is widely held—both legally and in the court of public opinion—that the death penalty is both constitutional and morally right. When the accused has been convicted of reprehensibly violent crimes, and guilt is well beyond any discernable doubt, many argue that it would be ridiculous to allow the criminal any chance of killing again. While the threat of future crimes is certainly understandable, and in many cases legitimate, two major objections come to mind.

First of all, our criminal justice system is allegedly predicated upon rehabilitation. Capital punishment, quite obviously, leaves no room for rehabilitation. It is the ultimate punishment. No judgment is more final than that needle.

Furthermore, even if it were morally sound and just to decide that men—in certain circumstances—are completely beyond help and incapable of rehabilitation, given that the death penalty is the one irreversible punishment, shouldn’t our courts be proven incapable of error before given the responsibility to determine such a sentence? A system that allows the potential for innocent men to be sentenced to death is conceptually hard to justify.

In the past, we have been able to delude ourselves into thinking that our courts—while occasionally capable of error, as all human constructions are—were by and large sound and reliable systems through which a guilty man is punished and an innocent man is excused. In current years, however, given developments in DNA forensics, countless errors in verdicts of capital punishment cases have been proven. With this new awareness of the frequency of wrongful convictions in capital cases, it is hard to argue that the system should remain in place as it stands. In no just society should men be condemned to death for crimes they did not commit.

Thus, not only is the death penalty apparently applied on discriminatory and racially oriented grounds, but it denies any possibility for meaningful rehabilitation and holds the treacherous capacity for irrevocable error.

El problema De Los Conservadores

2007-04-06T14:51:00.000-05:00

"We should replace Bilingual education with immersion in English, so people learn the common language of the country, so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language [Spanish] of living in a ghetto " shouted Newt Gingrich in a recent speech.

Only days later did Newt Gingrich release a “straight-to-youtube” video (oh! the spoils of generation next, right? ) titled "Mansaje de Newt Gingrich" which was more or less an attempt to apologize for his insensitive comments. In Spanish, he hails the language of Espana and clarifies his assertion that English is the language of progress in America.

The recent debacle over the words of one Newton Gingrich has exemplified the dicey situation the Republican Party has found itself in. On one hand the conservative party wants to reach out to the new kid on the voting bloc, Latinos, and broaden their vision to include the hopes and aspirations of millions of new Hispanic voters. On the other hand, the Republican Party is home to a large contingent of voters demanding border security, English first initiatives, and limited immigration. What’s the right to do?

This just shows how sinuous the debate on immigration and assimilation is for the Republican Party. The party stands to lose if it takes a definitive position on one side or another. If it sides with immigrant rights, bilingual education, and a softer immigration policy it will undoubtedly gain the support of millions of Latinos, and perhaps sow the seeds for Republicanism in the "sleeping dragon" of American electoral politics. However, the party will gain the ire of many of its most ardent supporters, many of whom feel that the Party is losing its ideological fervor.

The party is at a watershed moment where it can no longer tenuously balance its right wing and the desire to incorporate large scale Latino participation. Several key and influential Republicans have been at odds lately over the issue, and many Republicans have time and time again taken spoken on issues only to later retract their words when they realize that they are alienating the other of the two sides. Newt Gingrich’s recent “slip of the tongue” exemplifies this. He obviously holds a position which is in many ways anti-parallel to the desires of many Hispanics in America, and his usage of the word “ghetto” to describe Hispanics who speak only Spanish further details the tension that is possible. His quick and hilariously ironic apology only emphasizes how much he cares about trying to incorporate Hispanics into his political agenda.

In the end the Party has to determine what path it will take. How can one political “group” have voices like Tom Tancredo that advocate strict border control, tight immigration policies, rigid Bilingual education programs, and a decidedly protectionist position when other members like President Bush pursue an agenda that includes guest workers, bilingual education, and a moderately tight position on immigration? Some of the more liberal elements in the Republican Party view the Tom Tancredo’s of the party as excessively xenophobic and protectionist, while others believe that the recent attempt to reach out to Hispanics is a direct assault on conservative values of maintaining the social milieu and propose an argument that allowing so many people to move in weakens the American tradition. Obviously the party needs to determine a directed approach to avoid these kind of personal tirades that leave everyone feeling that the Republican Party is either a bastion of bigotry and xenophobia or a party filled with hypocritical supporters of illegal immigration. Either way the conservative position will be debased, because you cannot ignore the Hispanic vote, but you cannot ignore the vote of the millions of conservatives who hold particularly protectionist views.

Bush's Legacy

2007-04-03T01:06:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I feel bad for our president. There was a time when it seemed like Republicans could do whatever they wanted and get away with it and get the public to side with them. But now it seems like just the opposite: the Democrats are leading the Republicans with 32% of Americans associating themselves with the Republican party and 38% the Democratic party. In fact, 30% of Americans now refuse to identify with either party, a 7% increase from the 2004 election. Bush’s approval ratings are hovering in the low 30’s right now. On top of this, the Senate is Democrat-controlled, the war in Iraq is proving to be a miserable failure (to use a term popular in the blogosphere) and tremendous embarrassment for this country (two thirds of Americans disapprove of Bush’s handling of the situation), Bush’s former Chief of Staff is all over the news… for having been convicted of obstruction of justice, and to top it off, Bush’s Attorney General is being ripped apart in the papers. Bush’s administration completely messed up Katrina, got nowhere with Social Security privatization and Bush made a fool of himself when he rushed back to Washington to sign a bill to attempt to save the life of one human being (Terry Schiavo) — of course he was unsuccessful. Bush’s Federal Marriage Amendment failed but that bill was doomed from the start considering Bush’s right-hand man, Dick Cheney, didn’t even support him. Speaking of Cheney, did I mention that he shot a man in the face with a shotgun?

So why the pity? Well I’ve realized that Democrats have it well these days because the Republican Party has dug its own grave. Back in the day, Republicans could lie to the public, wiretap domestically and cut funding for everything and act like heroes. But I’ve realized that the party has screwed itself over by acting so arrogantly during the times it held such a strong majority. Remember when Bill Frist suggested getting rid of the filibuster of judicial nominees? Those were the days…

The Evangelical: An Updated Conception

2007-04-02T23:32:00.000-05:00

When the word “evangelical” appears in the media, it is commonly associated, or even equated, with the religious right and a socially conservative standpoint. During both the 2000 and 2004 elections, evangelicals were closely associated with opposition to issues such as gay marriage and adherence to traditional family values; due to their strong affiliations with these standpoints, they were credited with turning out in huge numbers to support Bush and, by many, were credited with winning the election for him. Although the social issues most commonly associated with evangelicals are still of significance to them, evangelicals are certainly not, as a group, completely preoccupied with them as is clearly indicated by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).

When looking at the home page for this group, the news is dominated by issues concerned with human rights such as opposition to torture and the modern-day slave trade, not to gay marriage and abortion. Perusing through their values reveals that this group identifies “ministry to the poor” and “cross-cultural involvement” among their top eight concerns. According to one article, the NAE are also expressing a growing concern with global warming. Although not all evangelicals feel that the NAE presents rational standpoints on these issues, it is significant that evangelicals have shifted their focus, and it would be a mistake to predominantly associate them with the social issues that were prominent even just a few years ago in the 2004 elections.

The Right to Bear Arms - Protecting Democracy

2007-04-02T18:23:00.000-05:00

Most of the argument surrounding gun control laws and gun rights argues about the effectiveness of civilian owned guns as a deterrent to crime and the effectiveness of gun control laws in reducing gun violence. The Second Amendment of the Constitution, where the right to bear arms finds its home in the legal world, seems to address a different context.

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Naturally, we couldn't expect the authors of the Bill of Rights to address the modern context in which prevalent gun violence can be a significant concern for the average law-abiding citizen in many urban neighborhoods. So what was their concern? It is that concern, independent of the problems of prevalent gun violence that we face today, that I would like to discuss.

The text of the second amendment addresses not the safety of individuals from criminals, but rather the security of a free State. It appears that the intentions of the authors were to protect the State from outside aggressors (as in foreign attackers) but also to protect the State from a tyrannical government in order for the state to remain free. The context of the time just after the Revolutionary war lends itself to this interpretation. It makes sense too: a well-regulated militia of ordinary arms-bearing citizens would have played a key role in keeping a state free and democratic.

In the case that one adopts the interpretation that the Second Amendment refers singly to the protection of a free State against outside aggressors, one could argue that the modern military makes such a militia unnecessary and frankly impractical. A counterargument to that could very well be that just as civilians bearing arms was necessary then to protect from outside aggressors, today civilians bearing arms is necessary to protect against a different enemy (the perpetrators of violent crime) against which the government's armed forces and law enforcement cannot respond adequately.

(Regarding the gun violence argument , comprehensive studies and research reveals that increased legal civilian gun ownership does not increase gun violence and if anything can decrease the crime rate. Well-publicized mass gun training programs have significantly reduced violent crime rates in the area in question.)

Alternately, another interpretation supports a reading that would uphold the right of civilians to own and carry guns in order to protect against the possibility of governmental tyranny, perhaps through the pretext of a threat to national security and then the establishment of military law and then the long-term extension of governmental power at the expense of individual rights... etc.

Should civilians have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect against the eventuality of a 'hostile' government? On the other hand, should the government have a monopoly on firearms and the power to decide who wields them? If democracy of this nation depends on the government deriving its powers from the people, shouldn't we maintain a situation in which protests cannot be met brutally without retaliation?

I know that the idea of a right to bear arms to fight the government seems not only far fetched but drastic in this day and age, but should we allow the rights that at one time were essential to the protection of democracy to be slowly abridged because political stability has convinced us that such necessities are limited to the 18th century?

Legal Immigration

2007-04-02T16:12:00.000-05:00

The news is awash on and off with debates over the "problem" south of the border. Illegal immigrants are streaming across in record numbers and the methods proposed for handling this range from harsher laws to vigilante militias to real big fences. It's a touchy subject. But in this deluge of immigration worry another type of immigration is being overlooked: the legal kind.

Especially in the technology sector immigrants are of the utmost import to the American economy. Something like 30% of Silicon Valley business started in the past 15 years were run and operated by East or South Asians. About 40% of computer science and engineering PhD students in the U.S. are foreign born. Why is this a problem? Well, of course that fact alone is fine, if not great - the problem is the would-be immigrants that might keep up this trend are finding it increasingly hard to come to the U.S., just as opportunities beyond our borders become more appealing.

While one might think America would welcome these immigrants, the numbers and laws run to the contrary: in 2003 the number of visas available for high-skilled workers was nearly quartered, and the most recent attempt to bring the numbers up to even half of their previous level died in the House. Big technology companies lament these difficulties just as foreign immigrants complain about all the immigration red tape in place. At the same time, other nations have lowered barriers as much as possible to attract skilled labor. The desire to come to America - while perhaps no less compelling to Mexicans - is fed by fewer and fewer opportunities for Asian skill.

This is one of many examples of general principles, enacted on a broad scale by the government (here restriction and fear of immigration) having unforeseen and undesirable consequences. While the issue of illegal Mexican immigration is no doubt significant, our Congress has proven incapable of handing even seemingly simple aspects of immigration well. On this one, I have to go with the conservative position that is skeptical in the government's ability to get anything much done.

Resources:

"The Economist," March 24th-30th 2007 issue, p. 40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B

Gingrich and Bilingualism in America

2007-04-01T19:55:00.000-05:00

While reflecting on bilingual requirements for ballot printing, Newt Gingrich’s comments about bilingual education have sparked controversy about not only about his potentially racist attitude but the issue of the United States making English the nations official language. Gingrich was quoted to say: “We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.” Astonishingly, the crowd at the National Federation of Republican Women event responded with applause. While the issue of English becoming America’s official language is not altogether a racist one, dubbing other languages to be from the ghetto is. In the past, Gingrich has even gone as far as saying that bilingualism threatens the long term fabric of our nation and may become dangerous to our society.

Spanish, the primary language being attacked throughout the controversy is utilized around the nation in ESL (English as a Second Language) programs. This type of bilingual institution places focus on extending knowledge of the English language while continuing to learn more concentrated subject matter in Spanish. Critics of this system claim that international students are not adapting to the American school system quickly enough, but the counter-argument says that an expedited integration into the school system could leave international students even further behind.

In 1981, the first English Only legislation was proposed, which would have virtually banned all uses of non-English language by federal, state, and local governments. Although this was never congressionally voted, it was the catalyst for twenty two other states to adopt variations of the Official English legislation. Even though ratifying a constitutional amendment appeared to be out of reach, English Only advocates continued their effort and proposed a bill that would only require a Congress majority vote. The closest this bill has come to being passed was in 1996, when it passed the House, but not the Senate. The abolition of bilingualism in education and government would render massive repercussions that could even go as far as a stunt in immigration. Although a national English Only bill may never be passed, speculation about bilingualism as a part of our society will remain.

Designer Babies? Ethical dilemmas surrounding Genetic Enhancement

2007-03-27T01:48:00.000-05:00

Imagine a future where you could pop a pill and be able to compose like Mozart. Imagine a future where you could take a shot and gain the speed of not just an Olympic sprinter, but a cheetah. Imagine a future world where parents sit in a waiting room, browsing through a “book of life” to decide the eye color, height, facial structure, intellectual capacity and personality type of their yet-to-be-conceived child. While these are certainly extreme examples, given projected development paths for biotechnology, is nonetheless hard to determine any inherent limits on the horizon. Thus, the question becomes not can we leap to new biological realities, but should we.

Leon Kass, the chair of the president’s council on bioethics, answers utilaterally, “No.” Voicing vehemently the potential dangers of genetic engineering, Kass insists that “we are compelled to decide nothing less than whether human procreation is going to remain human. whether children are going to be made to order rather than begotten, and whether we wish to say yes in principle to the road that leads to the dehumanized hell of Brave New World.” And indeed, federal policy seems to be bowing to these fears; since ’96 congress has prohibited researchers from using federal funds for embryo and germline research. Certainly, many contend that these new capacities subvert our most basic traditional philosophical paradigms, and undermine our standard ethical foundations of “human nature” or “humanity.” As Kass further rants, we are absolutely morally obligated to “speak up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder.”

What Kass and countless others seem to be overlooking however, is the doubtless potential of developments in genetic germline technology to do incredible good. These new technologies could well save millions of children from debilitating, often lethal genetic diseases (Tay Sachs, Down Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis just to name a few). Yet when it comes to consciously manipulating the most elemental aspects of our unborn children, profound and unsettling fears emerge. Are we interfering with nature? Playing God? More concretely, could such therapeutic technologies eventually be used to create an entirely new genetically enhanced ruling class? Out of reach of everyone but the already privileged few, the gap between the have’s and the have-not’s could only widen as the privileged become not just socially and economically, but biologically more advantaged. While these fears are not unfounded, to bow to them would be indicative of a profound distrust in the moral capacities of man. It would imply that our capacities for evil outweighed our will to do good.

At the end of the day, obscure, only dimly discernable monsters will always lurk in the shadows of revolutionary technologies. It is ultimately best, however, to shine a light and expose them for what they are—most likely fearsome projections of our own dark, omnipotent urges which can and should be reckoned with continually, not buried or run from. Ignorance is not bliss, it is a cop-out.

To deny afflicted individuals gene therapy on the grounds that we doubt our abilities to comprehend long-term implications and act discriminately would be nothing short of crippling cowardice. There is no question that forging ahead with our quest to unlock the mysteries of our genes poses real and daunting challenges that are intuitively obvious. And indeed, as scientists and citizens, we have an obligation to be informed and ever sensitive of risks, ever cautious in action. Yet “we mislead ourselves if we imagine that the tradeoff is between meager benefits and great dangers” . Our exploding discoveries in genetics, as long as well guided, bring the hope of affecting miraculous change for mankind that could surely be more compassionate than the mindless randomness of nature.

Has Nancy run out of ideas?

2007-03-26T22:53:00.000-05:00

The Democratic majority that swept into Congress in the 2006 elections claimed a mandate on a broad swathe of issues, from health coverage to the minimum wage. But most importantly, it was elected because of Iraq. There was not a truly unified platform, as Pelosi claimed, nor was there even consensus among the antiwar Democrats about how the war should be brought to a close: some opposed it but believed that it was the President's prerogative to manage, and that there was little Congress could do directly short of cutting off funding, a politically suicidal move. Others believed that Congress should press for immediate withdrawal, while the middle of the party generally supported the idea of setting a timeline for withdrawal.

In the first 100 hours, the House of Representatives hurriedly passed the Pelosi agenda, with almost none of the pledged bipartisanship and debate, most of which was rejected or modified by the Senate, and none of which has yet been enshrined into law. After this triumph, the Democrats got down to the real reason for their majority: Iraq. After rancorous debate, the Democrats narrowly passed a withdrawal deadline for September 1, 2008 attached to an Iraq spending bill, with fourteen defections and only two Republican votes. What did this do? In practical terms, nothing. This bill has no chance of passing the Senate with the deadline in place; a vote in the Senate on the withdrawal deadline alone fell three votes short of a majority, and twelve short of the level necessary to overcome a filibuster.

And if the bill did pass the Senate, what then? Well, assuming Bush refuses to cave, which given his record is a virtual certainty, he would have two options: veto, forcing Democrats (with far less than two-thirds support) to cut off funds for the war or to pass funding without the deadline. Or he could simply accept the bill with no intention of honoring the withdrawal deadline, and in a year and a half, with less than four months left in office, he could simply ride out the Constitutional showdown, which he would probably eventually win in any case.

But the Democrats have made their dramatic show of defiance, and that's what counts. What really worries Democrats now is 2008. They were elected on the widespread perception of Republicans as unable to govern, and if they don't show some concrete legislation by the next election cycle, not only will their tenuous majority be imperiled, but they may be saddled with four more years of Republican presidency. The environment is perhaps the one remaining issue which can unite the disparate Democratic coalition, but even on that issue some are saying better to wait until a Democratic presidency in 08, when more dramatic reform can be passed, while others debate cap-and-trade versus emissions standards, all the while throwing wasteful ethanol subsidies at the corn farmers of Iowa.

Your move, Nancy.

Effects of the Internet on the 2008 Presidential Campaign

2007-03-26T22:22:00.000-05:00

When I was looking at John Edwards’s campaign website, I was surprises to see links on the front page to his account on popular social networks such as Facebook and MySpace as well as websites that I have never even heard before, like vSocial.com. Such links were not as predominately featured on Hillary Clinton’s or Rudy Giuliani’s websites, but were on the front page of Barak Obama’s website. With a creative slant, John McCain’s website proposed users to create an account on McCainSpace, a mySpace-type network for McCain supporters. In addition, McCain posted his own March Madness bracket, which users can compete against to win free “McCain-2008” shirts. This shows just shows a glimpse of the Internet-ization of the 2008 Presidential campaign (WSJ has a interesting article on the subject). Each of the candidates is relying more on the Internet to attract voters, trying slightly different Internet approaches than the others, but overall sticking to the same devices. The question is whether such campaign tactics will revolutionize, or at least change, the campaign process, perphaps like personally addressed mass mail did back in the early ‘80s.

Internet-ization could potentially lead voters to be more informed and to choose candidates primarily based on candidates’ views on issues. In previous election, voters had to predominately rely upon the television for information about the candidates’ views on issues. However, the media more often covers scandals, poll ratings, and campaign day-to-day activities than actual issues. The candidates had websites, but they were substantially less developed compared to the much better designed and maintained websites candidates have today. Voters could easily access such websites, or even better, stumble upon them from Facebook or mySpace, read about the candidate’s views, and formulate their opinions of the candidates based on what issues they support. For this to actually happen, candidates need to have unique, clearly stated views. In real life, though, candidates prefer to have very bland stances on issues that attract the most voters by alienating the minimum number of voters. For example, Giuliani is generally viewed as the most liberal Republican candidate when it comes to social issues, like gay marriage. On his website, it is stated:

“Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not - and has never - supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That's why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.”

On the other hand, McCain is considered a socially conservative candidate. On his website, its written, “John McCain believes that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman. He believes that the courts should respect the right of the people to decide this question.” Just from reading those short sections, one couldn’t choose between the two based on their views on gay marriage. Both say that they oppose gay marriage and it’s not clear whether McCain supports a “legal partnership” for gay couples. Perhaps there is hope that the ever-growing un-official sources, such as political blogs or other politics related websites, will reveal more detail pictures of the candidates’ stances on issues. However, it’s debatable how popular are these sources. After all, will the non-polarized, average Americans bother google-ing for more information on Presidential candidates’ political views or will they just trust CNN?

The second and probably main goal of Facebook-like campaign tactics is to attract more young voters. After all, most of the users of the social networks are young; statistically speaking, many of them don’t usually vote, but potentially could if they started caring about the particular candidates. However, the problem wilh Facebook-like tactics is that most people who are aware of the candidates’ social network profiles are already politically active. Unless one randomly searches for a candidate on Facebook or MySpace, he can only find out about a candidate’s social network profiles either through a candidate’s campaign websites or the news. If he either access campaign website or reads the news and bother to look up a candidate’s profiles, he is politically involved and would likely to vote anyway. Proving this assertion, the exposure of campaign related profiles is very small compared to the total population. As an example, Barack Obama leads all the Presidential candidates with eighty-three thousand MySpace friends, a number way short of the millions of young voters in the U.S. Thus, campaign’s heavy reliance on the Internet will have negligible effect on getting young people to vote. The much talked about Internet-ization is no more than an ineffective fad.

Eight U.S. Attorneys, the Fifth Amendment, and One Attorney General in the Crosshairs

2007-03-26T22:05:00.000-05:00

While the controversy over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys has been brewing for quite some time, new developments in the case continue to stir the pot. With an aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pleading the Fifth Amendment and refusing to testify in Congress, even more questions will be raised. Ms. Goodling, the Justic Department liason to the White House, is contesting the fairness of the panel investigating the firings, and also "cited the possibility that she might be a witness in a criminal inquiry, although there is currently no known criminal investigation into the dismissals." Of course this begs the question, what sort of future criminal investigation could Ms. Goodling be worried about?

The White House and Mr. Gonzales maintain that the firings were based solely on performance, and that the list of U.S. attorneys asked to resign was compiled solely as a list of underperforming attorneys. In a recent NBC interview, Mr. Gonzales emphasized this point repeatedly, although he also made clear that he was not directly involved in the creation of the list. Apparently, Mr. Gonzales was only involved at the end of the process, in keeping the White House up-to-speed on the progress of the review, and approving the final list submitted to him. When asked how he could be sure that the attorneys on the list were there for the proper reasons, Mr. Gonzales became evasive, instead saying, "[w]hat I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked these United States Attorneys to leave." Well if you know, how about letting the rest of the world in on the secret?

With 3000 documents released to the investigation, it would seem that somewhere would be sufficient evidence of "underperformance" if indeed that was the reason for the firings. But the fact of the matter is, these attorneys were for the most part competent, effective U.S. attorneys. The U.S. attorney from New Mexico recently published an Op-Ed piece in the NY Times, in which he stated that according to a 2004 review, he was a "diverse up and comer." He had a 95% conviction rate, prosecuted the biggest corruption case in New Mexico state history, made a record number of overall prosecutions, and received excellent office evaluations. To say that Mr. Iglesias was underperforming would not be mere understatement, it would be a flat lie.

What many of these eight attorneys did have in common was their involvement in politically charged corruption cases. In both New Mexico and Washington state, Republicans were dismayed that the U.S. attorney did not proceed to prosecute corruption cases against Democrats, due to a lack of sufficient evidentiary support.

The White House and the Justice Department led by Mr. Gonzales have both been far from forthcoming with the process, rationale, and motivations behind the firings of these U.S. attorneys. To allow the judicial branch to be co-opted by partisan politics and White House/Republican influence is to start down a very slippery slope.

Washington DC Gun Ban Lifted

2007-03-14T02:59:00.000-05:00

“A federal appeals court yesterday struck down the District's 30-year-old gun ban, ruling that the right to bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not only to militias.

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said he was "outraged" by the court's decision, which overturns a law that "has been unquestioned for more than 30 years."

"Today's decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia," he said. "The ruling also turns aside longstanding precedents and marks the first time in the history of the United States that a federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.” “

A federal court lifted Washington DC’s gun control laws, among the most restrictive in the nation, on the grounds that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. The mayor of DC, Adrian Fenty—a well liked, perceptive, and coherent leader—berated the decision and vowed to appeal. Now this may look like an unfortunate loss for the safety of our urban communities, however, I present to you a twist.
There is some consensus now (at least among the federal appeals court) that these laws are extra-judicial and encroach on the rights enumerated to you and I by the Constitution. Both sides presented legal arguments. However, what about the effectiveness of these laws? Its one thing to have a program work to provide for the security of its denizens and argue its legal merit, its totally another to have a program that has been proven ineffective to be upheld for such a long time (especially in light of the additional judicial concerns).
The DC gun ban was wholly ineffective in preventing firearm violence in Washington DC. In fact with one of the most restrictive programs in the nation, Washington DC is still among the most dangerous cities in the nation—worse yet it actually was the murder capital of the US on multiple occasions in the past 30 years, including 1991 when it saw more than 480 homicides. Communities with much more lax gun control laws exhibited far higher levels of safety and a far lower rate of firearm crime. Now, granted, this debate is very heated, and people often point out extremes in arguments—the Switzerland example comes to mind, in which the nation of Switzerland maintains among the most liberal gun policies in the world and endures some of the least gun crime in the world, but I want to present one of many possible arguments on the dynamic of gun-control.
Many believed that by restricting gun sales to law-abiding citizens, that there would subsequently be less guns on the street and hopefully less gun crime. This line of reasoning was proven wrong through years of empirical data. Indeed, even intuitively, it makes sense why strict gun control doesn’t work. To ban law-abiding citizens to get guns assumes that they commit most of the gun crime. On the contrary, citizens fitting that description commit a disproportionately smaller number of gun crimes. In addition the policy is based on the assumption that the guns would conceivably disappear from communities, but yet again, a misguided assumption rears its ugly head. The demand for guns has changed little, and in some urban locales, it has increased precipitously.
Gun control laws of the sort that Washington DC codified more than 30 years ago, deprive private citizens of any personal security. Evildoers can safely bet that their targets are unarmed, and thus continue to ravage the very urban communities that the law aimed to protect. In addition, the rise of the underground gun market is startling in Washington DC, and highlights one negative byproduct of a gun control law that admittedly was well intentioned, but sadly, ill thought.
The most prudent way to strike at gun-crime would be to facilitate information-swapping with differing jurisdictions, ensuring security in the gun purchasing system, implementing zero tolerance policies toward illegal gun possession, and finally attacking the demand side of the gun market while continuing to identify and eliminate the suppliers in the underground market………

Anthrax and the Government

2007-03-13T00:15:00.000-05:00

60 Minutes did an interesting story just this Sunday on the investigation into the person behind all the anthrax mailings back in 2001. The story is about the main suspect in the case, Steven Hatfill, who was wrongly accused of being the culprit. Now, and this is where 60 Minutes picks up, Hatfill is suing the government (specifically the FBI and the Department of Justice) for defaming him and ruining his career. The story is interesting for two reasons: one because Hatfill is suing the government because the FBI leaked very specific information about the case (a practice that may well define the Bush administration, another great example is the Valerie Plame leak) but also because the story concludes, and it’s all but obvious from the evidence of the case, that the FBI purposely leaked information about Hatfill simply because it had no other leads and wanted to make it seem that the culprit was just around the corner, so to speak.

Regarding the leaking, even (members of) the Congress has come to the conclusion that the FBI was sneaky. The story goes, “Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, has looked into the case and has concluded that there was leaking by top officials and that the purpose was not to shut Hatfill down, but to hide the lack of progress in the case.” While it is still possible that Hatfill was, in fact, the perpetrator, the FBI is split and most of the evidence (including the fact that he would have had to turn the “wet slurry anthrax” available to him into weapons-grade powder) seems to indicate that it was not Hatfill.

Whether the FBI did wrong is a different issue. On the one hand, the government made an effort to cover up what might have scared the general public (that the FBI was clueless). To this end, lying is not always “bad.” On the other hand, this type of behavior is indicative of the larger problem of the Bush administration: misleading the public. While the war in Iraq and this case are very different, they are both examples of this administration’s complete secrecy and willingness to lie to the public.

Ending Prohibtion

2007-03-12T22:48:00.000-05:00

The ACLU recently sent me a poster in the mail. I'm not a member so I don't know why they did that, but the topic is sort of interesting. Apparently there're a whole ream of laws on the books authorizing government seizure of any private property whatsoever with probable cause of crime as the only motivation. (Probable cause leading to arrest I can understand, but seizure of property without arrest...?) These laws were invented to help aid in the war on drugs (one of the many governmental wars, including the war on terrorism and the war on porn ) but, my new poster contends, they have resulted in little more than a breach of basic civil liberties.

In related news, other laws intended for use in the war on drugs put in prison suffering patients no reasonable person would condemn as guilty of any crime.

Many arguments against specific drug prohibition laws center around specific outcomes of the laws being wrong or distasteful. But while many support the relaxation of some drug laws, or perhaps legalization of medical marijuana, or perhaps of recreational marijuana but not harder drugs, the argument should go significantly further: all currently illegal drugs should be legal. Here are some main points to that argument.

For those Mullerian conservatives out there, take a look at the historical record: the so-called "Noble Experiment" of Prohibition failed drastically. Note some of the results: as is usually the case when government outlaws something, a huge black market springs up to fill the ordinary market's void. This black market is dominated by organized crime, providing structure and funding. Organized crime leads to (duh) higher crime. Consider Al Capone's and similar gangs, moonshine, speak-easies, or the fact that murder rates rose 70% during Prohibition, but fell to previous levels once Prohibition was repealed. Alcohol consumption did not significantly decrease and in fact hard liquor consumption increased. Government spending on enforcement increased drastically, and in the name of Prohibition civil liberties were violated, though the newly rising crime rates were not quelled. Social commentators of the day, for example H. L. Mencken, noted that drunkenness actually increased and respect for the law and government fell. Today the case is much the same.

Whatever good may come about from drug prohibition is mitigated by the huge boost to crime provided by the drug black market. Where legal drug sellers compete through lowering prices, crime syndicates, gangs, and individual dealers often compete through violence, and innocents are caught in the crossfire.

What would happen if these drugs were legal? Legitimate industrial competition would quickly put the drug cartels out of business, as happened with Prohibition. The image of back alley drug dealers would fade as quickly as those of back alley abortions did after Roe v. Wade. Currently drug quality varies highly - meth can vary from pure drug to pure poison. This is because of the high risk and low accountability associated with production. Who can consumers hold accountable if their cocaine is toxic? But consider how quickly pharmaceutical drugs are pulled from the shelves when they are discovered to have bad side effects. Making drugs legal would make the streets safe and protect the consumers. Legal drugs would mean legal and safe help for those who wished to rehabilitate

One common argument against is the terrible danger of the addict. And it's true! From that site, it is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. How could this be true? Quite simple - drug addicts are rarely on drugs when they commit these crimes! The danger of producing, trafficking, and selling drugs drives the prices sky-high. Addiction does make people do stupid things, but usually these are well-calculated, soberly-executed stupid things designed to produce revenue for further drugs. Such would be unnecessary if drugs were affordable. Nicotine is more addictive than most controlled substances - including crack - and due to low prices causes nearly zero crime. But what do you think would happen if suddenly, tomorrow, cigarettes were sold for no less than $500 a pack. Would everyone would just quit?

Don't fool yourself thinking that legal drugs would lead to drug lords, crack babies, and general crime. Just look around: as far as it will it already has! There is no government is no dam holding back a flood of evil. It can barely deliver the mail. Uncle Sam can only stop drug use to the extant that he controls every aspect of our lives.

There are the few bad apples who do use drugs irresponsibly and I support full police crack-down on all perpetrators of violent crime. The fact is, if drugs were legal drug-related crime would fall drastically: drug wars would cease, addicts would be able to fund their habits through legitimate means, and users could seek help legally. How many people do you know who smoke pot or do coke? Are they hurting society? The whole second floor of Terrace (and several rooms in other clubs) are full of law-breakers - but a breach of the law is often defined as an act against the People, and what people are the victims of these crimes? No, make drugs legal so the government can focus on the small percentage of the population that actually would endangers us then.

Whatever usage increase legalization might see would be far mediated by the positive effects laid out above. Organized crime and theft go way, way down, industry flourishes, civil liberties are safe, and the world is happier. A century ago drugs were completely legal (cocaine in Coca-Cola, e.g.) and personal responsibility was enough to keep the vast majority of users from harming anyone, even themselves. It's time to end Prohibition again, this time for good. Legalize all drugs.

An Extraordinary Rendition on Power

2007-03-12T10:22:00.000-05:00

“March 10 WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) for introducing legislation to ban extraordinary rendition. The "Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act" would forever stop the federal government from secretly kidnapping people and sending them to torture cells run by foreign governments.”

Where once the executive branch of our government recognized the limitations of its power and the responsibilities of our signed treaties and conventions, our current President has taken a decidedly different approach. The Bush Administrations continued reliance on “The Extraordinary Rendition Program” is a direct challenge to jurisprudence, precedent, and international consensus. Administered by the [in]famous CIA, the government has endorsed a policy of detaining and transporting individuals into foreign countries for the sole purpose of finding a more hospitable locale for torture. This subversive program is not only detrimental to the construct of the American society—namely one rooted in the reverence of liberty, freedom, checks and balances, and enumerated rights—but also weakens the American position in the hearts and minds of the people of the world.

The program, as a matter of fact, was begun by the Clinton administration, an indeed thats where the blame is rooted. However it was Bush and his string quartet that gave tutelage to the monster, and allowed the program to grow and become menacingly pervasive. The program essentially allows the CIA to extra-judicially detain individuals they presume are involved in "terrorism" and then transport them to jurisdictions where torture laws are lax. In addition to being in blatant violation of terms in both the "United Nations Convention Against Torture" and the Geneva Conventions, the program has an inherent tendency for mistake. In whats been termed as "Erroneous Rendition", the clandestine CIA has admitted that some individuals were incorrectly detained and presumably endured torture. Now, this may be an Orwellian abuse of power, but Administration Officials have tried incessantly to emphasize the utility of "Extraordinary Rendition", sighting the 'extraordinary' threat to America's security. Critics both foreign and domestic, have berated the program, lambasting its secretive and subversive conviction to commit wrongdoing in the name of security. However, what is more alarming, some say, is the Administrations "Extraordinary Rendition" on power. This broadening of 'executive privilege', has constitutional scholars guarded. The administration has taken a definitively liberal and constructionist view of its power enumerated in the Constitution. This program is only one of many that leading constitutional scholars have highlighted as possible encroachments on precedent or law.

The "Extraordinary Rendition" program and the 'extraordinary rendition of executive power', are alarming developments, and should be scrutinized with the greatest of energy. Now, protecting America, is a task that is admittedly difficult, but that is the nature of the beast. To begin to use extra-judicial, secretive, and unconstitutional measures to address security is where the problem starts. This administration has shown a blatant disregard for the rule of law and has begun making overtures that attack at the very fabric of our life. While, I, by no means argue that we should take one opposite in the debate over Security and Privacy, I must however emphasize that this "Extraordinary Rendition" program and other constitutionally and jurisprudentially dangerous programs are presenting far different dynamics...............

America: A Christian Nation?

2007-03-11T23:20:00.000-05:00

In “Atheists, Conservatives, and Christianity,” Steve Warshawsky proffers his opinion on Ryan Sager’s book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party. In this article, Warshawsky argues that there is currently an attack on Christianity in this country and that this “attack on Christianity…is contrary to the American tradition.” The support provided for this argument by Warshawsky is flawed to the point of being preposterous. While I will agree with Warshawsky that Christianity did play a central role in Western and American history, there is very little else in his argument that warrants any merit. One of the key premises of Warshawsky’s argument is that America is a “’Christian nation’…since it certainly is not a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist nation.” The underlying assumption that Warshawsky makes in asserting this, is that America must be a religious nation. While it is true that the majority of Americans identify as Christian, separation of church and state insists upon keeping the religious sphere separate from the political one.

In light of his opinion that America is a “Christian nation,” Warshawsky asks “by what political, moral, or logical principle should the views of religious minorities and non-believers take precedence over those of the vast majority of Christian Americans?” By posing this question, Warshawsky makes two major erroneous assumptions. The first is that those who self-identify as Christian actually are actively engaged in being Christian; the second is that this majority of Christians is a cohesive unit.

According to an article entitled “The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong,” Bill McKibben asserts that according to a poll, “only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels.” More surprisingly, McKibben states that “three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that ‘God helps those who help themselves’” – even assuming that all non-Christians answered in the affirmative, they would only constitute a little more than a quarter of the vote. Thus almost 50% of those who responded to this question were Christians who believe that this is actually a Biblical message. If this is the standard of Christianity in America, can it truly be said that America is a “Christian nation”?

Even assuming that everyone who self-identifies as “Christian” is truly following the Christian faith, it is a mistake to see them as a cohesive unit. Although approximately three-quarters of America identifies as Christian, this bloc can be divided into several smaller groups such as Protestants, Catholics, and Evangelicals; the fact that all groups are clustered under the umbrella of “Christianity” does not directly imply alignment of interests, not even social ones. This is clearly highlighted with respect to gay marriage. Although 83% of evangelicals were strongly opposed to gay marriage as of 2003, the issue was not nearly as important to mainline Christians or Roman Catholics. In fact, over the past 7 years, the number of mainline Christians opposed to gay marriage has decreased by 20% while that of Roman Catholics has decreased by 19%. Empirical evidence shows that it is a mistake to treat all Christians as sharing the same views.

Clearly Warshawsky’s argument is riddled with errors. In addition to the errors highlighted above, Warshawsky similarly overstates the unity of purpose and outlook of American conservatives. With both of his key premises regarding Christianity and conservatism lacking any form of concrete foundation, Warshawsky presents an argument that is poorly supported and ultimately unpersuasive.

FBI Snooping and its Fictional Relations

2007-03-11T20:11:00.000-05:00

An internal investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general revealed that the FBI has been impeding citizen’s rights to security. ‘National security letters,’ or letters issued to obtain personal and business information are believed to have been misused in scores of cases. Problems range from improper release of these letters and incorrect citing to obtaining information beyond what is authorized. This hotly debated scandal stems from a clear violation of the fourth amendment.

While many people would feel debased by an illegally ran investigation into their personal lives, this scandal may not be as corrupt as some politicians are saying; over 90% of the letters are used in direct attempt to halt suspected terrorism. Citizens do not want civil liberties to be taken away, but a fine line between right and wrong on this situation does not exist. It is obvious that these illegal searches are not altogether just, but one must look at the possible overall impact created had these investigations not been done. It is possible that one of these unjust letter authorizations has spared our nation innumerable damage.

This situation may sound familiar; it is similar to the one happening on the very popular action drama ‘24.’ The television audience is enduring something much more intense (several nuclear bombs already going off, as opposed to a threat of terrorism), but both circumstances raise the same questions. An ongoing debate about enabling a new act poses a question for the president, at what point can civilians’ rights be taken away? As mentioned before, this position may be much more concentrated, although the same trade-off is involved.

It is easier to judge within the midst of terrorism, but crossing the lines of personal security remains a hotly debated topic. In this certain instance, the institution of personal liberty rose above, as indicated by the statements of both President Bush and FBI director Robert Mueller. President Bush first promised justice for these inconveniences, while Mueller was apologetic. “I am the person responsible, I am the person accountable, and I am committed to ensuring that we correct these deficiencies and live up to these responsibilities.” While it is not definite as to whether this type of personal security breach will stop, it is definite that our people’s civil liberties will continually be put to the test.

Protection for Journalists Protecting Confidential Sources

2007-03-10T16:54:00.000-05:00

The media has fallen a little in the public eye of late, but traditionally has played some very important roles in the interaction of society with the government and the world at large. On a very basic level one might say that the media is responsible for getting the news to the public. Beyond that the media is extremely important for determining what is being thought about. Some say that though the media can’t control what you think (though this is of course arguable), they can control what you think about. Besides setting the agenda, however, the media has traditionally held the responsibility of acting as the government’s watchdog. As much as the government is designed with checks and balances designed to prevent excesses in any given area, a watchdog is necessary to report to the public on actions of the government which are deemed to be improper. Only by the media being vigilant and courageous in both discovering improper governmental activity and reporting that activity honestly to the public can the government be held accountable by the people who theoretically give it power.

One of the most important practices in journalism when it comes to the media’s role as governmental watchdog is the protection of confidential sources. The confidential source is essential to the flow of information regarding improper activity or misconduct. The confidential source is the official who feels that speaking out is necessary but fears political reprisals. The confidential source is the aide or employee who fears for his job. The confidential source is the whistleblower that speaks on condition of anonymity to keep the government honest and transparent.

Traditionally, prosecutors have not called journalists to testify about their sources. There has been, in general, respect for the anonymity of sources and the journalists’ duty to keep the sources confidential. Journalists have been known to go to jail to protect their sources and the integrity of the media’s role as watchdog. Legal precedent has varied, but ultimately has not established an absolute protection for journalists. Guidelines have included versions of a standard which requires that revealing a journalist’s source is essential for the case in question. Furthermore, journalists do reluctantly agree that an absolute protection could be harmful – journalists could generate scandals citing false ‘confidential’ sources.

Recently, in the Libby trial, numerous journalists were pressured into testifying regarding information received from a source that was at the time confidential. Without a guarantee of anonymity, the flow of confidential sources may slowly trickle to a halt, leaving the public at a loss regarding the potential misconduct of the government that represents our nation. A balance must be found that strongly protects a journalist’s right to refuse to testify to protect a source.

Affirmative Action: shades of grey

2007-03-05T23:35:00.000-05:00

When America’s best symphony orchestras evaluate potential members, the candidates audition “blind” – they play behind a screen so the admissions committee is unaware of the musician’s race, gender or appearance – the sole focus of the evaluation is the quality of the candidate’s performance. Auditions are thus a true meritocracy and better symphonies are the result.

It would be nice if everything were this easy.

A society run exclusively around principles of merit is indeed a nice idea. But in the end, that is all that it is, a nice idea. Striving to reach such a lofty ideal would be frustrating in its ultimate and inevitable futility. We cannot live our lives behind a screen. When trying for a position, whether it be a place at an elite university, a spot on the varsity football team, or a position on an organization’s board, there will inevitably be factors other than pure merit that come into play. The question now is, what is the extent to which it is acceptable for these other criterion to exist.

*

George W. Bush is a huge supporter of diversity, he has explained in recent years; he is simply not a fan of the way they promote diversity at the University of Michigan. Calling it a system of “unfair quotas,” the Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan way unconstitutional because of the cut and dry (or black and white, if you will) scoring method it uses for rating the applicants. Namely, African American and Hispanic students receive twenty extra points out of a possible 150 during the administration scoring process simply by virtue of the color of their skin. Awarding minority applicants extra points completely independent of any academic achievement or other merit is deemed by Bush and other conservatives an unfair and discriminatory measure – one that undermines the character of an institution.

In other words, our president condemns any preferential treatment given to students on grounds other than pure academic and character-based merit.
Keeping this in mind, let us focus on the case of Dubya for a moment. George W. Bush started his academic career at Phillips Academy, went on to Yale University, and finally graduated from Harvard Business School. It is certainly safe to say that his education was first-class. Given the illustrious institutions that he had the privilege of attending, one would assume his academic career was one of unblemished excellence. Interestingly enough, however, all the way through junior-high, prep-school, and on to college, George W. Bush earned flat, unimpressive C’s. So, after having been denied admission to St. John’s, a private academy in Houston based on his less than stellar academic performance, how did he get in to Andover, one wonders? That’s easy: his daddy went there. And after having a mediocre at best run through Phillips, how did he get into Yale, one wonders again? Well, his daddy went there too…

Good thing Georgie doesn’t have a very good sense of irony, because if he did, he would find himself in quite a hypocritical bind. The very practices that he has spent much of his presidential term condemning are, interestingly enough, identical in concept to those that consistently helped our fearless leader throughout the term of his academic career. Bloodlines and connections put him through Andover, Yale and Harvard – academic merit it seems had little to do with the equation.

Indeed, it is common knowledge that Universities across the country admit legacy applicants at a shockingly higher rate than those with no legacy. These students who had the good graces to be born into families with history at certain colleges are awarded countless “extra points” in the race toward admission. Curiously enough, however, our president remains silent on this issue of blatant, discriminatory favoritism…

A widely accepted truth, the class of wealthy influential children of alumni at top universities is disproportionately white and it will remain that way as long as this form of “alumni affirmative action” stays in place. It does therefore not seem too off base to put another system into place to at least balance out its outdated counterpart, if not tip the scales a bit in the progressive direction. Thus, Affirmative Action was born.

Unfortunately, however, while he turns a blind eye to the widespread forms of extended nepotism among university admission processes, George Bush does not waver regarding the inherent injustices of Affirmative Action’s place in the admissions race. Along with other opponents of Affirmative Action, Bush argues that the policy gives under-qualified minority students spots at elite prep schools and universities while denying admission to their more qualified white counterparts.

…Images rush to mind of illiterate African Americans pulling chairs right out from under shocked white valedictorians…

Needless to say, the above description is not what Affirmative Action was established to instigate. And if our president’s career can serve as any indication of what goes on during admissions processes, the aforementioned twisted scene is not quite the situation…
Intended at its inception to serve as a catalyst for socioeconomic equality, Affirmative Action was meant to help level the playing fields for people from historically disadvantaged demographics. For a country that has always struggled with linked social, racial and economic stratification, the proposed system seemed like a great idea.

A legitimate criticism, however, of Affirmative Action is that it politicizes life chances and focuses the blame on race. At institutions where Affirmative Action is an established policy, many students of color feel scrutinized – the policy causes the merit of their admission to be called into question. In this way, Affirmative Action can unfortunately serve to perpetuate the tendencies toward segregation and discrimination that it was established to expel. Ultimately, institutions striving for academic excellence as well as a diverse student body are faced with extremely difficult decisions in the admissions process that unfortunately, cannot be dealt with in as black and white terms as, well, black and white

Dismantling the Welfare State

2007-03-05T19:23:00.000-05:00

There is increasingly a basic assumption in America that there are certain things the government must provide. Health care is the most contentious example. Many have written, on this blog and elsewhere, that providing health insurance to all citizens, and especially to children, is a basic necessity, and that the government should do whatever necessary to create universal health coverage. At some point, one has to ask what makes health insurance so special?

For example, picture a middle-class couple in their late twenties, with two kids just entering school. For simplicity's sake, let's say that their choices are to forgo health insurance (for the parents) and send their kids to private school, or to keep their kids in public school and purchase a generous health care plan. When viewed in these terms, what makes health insurance so vital for a healthy couple that it must replace something essential, such as education? A voice from the left might respond that if public education were better, the choice wouldn't be necessary. That's a nice idea, but the reality is that massive increases in education spending over the last decade have failed to produce a discernible impact.

Speaking of education, why public schools? When you want health insurance, you shop around. When you want a car, you shop around. But for most of America, when you want education, you're stuck with whatever is in your neighborhood. If you live in Princeton or Riverdale, this is pretty good, because the high property-tax revenue has boosted per-student spending to near private-school levels. If you live in Trenton or the South Bronx, that option is not so good, prompting many parents who can ill-afford it to send their children to Catholic prep schools. What if, instead, we gave each family $10,000 (or so) per school-aged child, and told them to spend it, and more if they desired, to send their children to the school of their choice. I'm speaking, of course, of school vouchers, which virtually every educational group (except the teachers' unions) has endorsed. With such a system, instead of being trapped in overcrowded public schools over which they had no control, parents could send their children where they wanted. This could also reduce the de facto segregation that rich communities practice, where they must keep out poor families in order to keep public schools well-financed.

As unpopular as dismantling pillars of the New Deal is on the left, it is time to find sensible alternatives to the bloated, ineffective government of the last few decades. Such reforms should not be seen as caving to income inequality or as a victory for the rich, but rather as a sensible way to give poor and middle-class families power over their own lives.

Will Slavic Studies be once again a Popular Concentration at Princeton?

2007-03-05T18:45:00.000-05:00

About a week ago, the Daily Princetonian featured a cartoon in which a Slavic studies professor wished for the days of the Cold War when the student enrollment in Russian-related classes was sky high. To his disappointment, Princeton students are now learning Arabic and Chinese, hoping one day to be on the front lines of combat or collaboration with the rising “powers.” However, when one-steps back from the daily news about Ahmadinejad’s denouncement of the Holocaust and the ever growing trade deficit with China, one will likely see that the days of overcapacity in SLA 101 (Slavic Studies 101) are not so far away.

When Communism in Russia finally fell in 1992, the country embarked a rough transition into capitalism. The local tycoons grew richer, corruption surged, while the commoners’ standard of living didn’t improve. Then came Putin. A “dark-horse” with a vision, Putin aimed to reinvigorate the Russian economy and placing the country back on the map as a superpower. Fighting the country’s problems with very strong non-democratic means, Putin started replacing the country’s chaotic business environment with a more structured one and made sure the country’s enormous resources were utilized to produce strong economic growth.

Naturally, Putin’s politics and its aftereffects have not been restricted to internal affairs. The growth and normalization of the economy led to a rise of businessmen interested in foreign investment and American outsourcing, hoping Russia will become the next India or China. While this aim may not seem too hard to achieve since Russia has a much better educated labor force than both India and China, Russia’s global image as a country returning to totalitarianism is a major obstacle. Understanding this, Russia’s businessman have been attending conferences and other events to try to redefine the world’s perception of the Russian economy as a legitimate and lasting capitalistic economy

Not worried so much about the country’s business friendly image, Putin has been trying to counterweight Washington’s international policies, particularly in the Middle East. Not only making numerous anti-U.S. speeches that were jokingly termed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as “Cold War Rhetoric,” Putin has been selling weapons to Syria and protecting Iran against harsh global measurements. With likely escalation of events in the Middle East, Russia could once again become the player it was in the 60’s and 70’s in the region. Of course, not everything is set in stone. Putin plans to step down in 2008 and he doesn’t yet have a clear predecessor, and Russia doesn’t yet have the capability to challenge the United States.

Considering the potential rise of superpower Russia, if Princeton’s students truly want to understand and influence international development in the next half a century, they shouldn’t chase the goldfish, but go after the shark. Don’t worry about Arabic; it’s once again time to learn Russian.

Sources: "Russia Turns to Spin to Redefine Itself and Reassure the West” & "Post-Putin"

Thank God (or Someone) for Freedom of Speech

2007-03-04T23:14:00.000-05:00

At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter decided to exercise her constitutional right to make a fool of herself:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards..."

While we're all certainly entitled to our own opinions about the sexual orientations of presidential candidates, it is apparently a fetish of the conservative right-wing to speculate publicly about the matter. Calling John Edwards a "faggot" may surprise some people, but really this is nothing new from the right-wing publicity machine. There was Ed Klein's book The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, and then there was Rush Limbaugh raving about Ed Klein's book (back in June 2005):

"'I've got some interesting, juicy details on this book on Hillary by Ed Klein, but I'm not going to be the first to mention them,' Limbaugh told his listeners the other day. 'It will come out eventually. It has to do with sexual orientation, and I'm not going to be the one.'"

(apparently Klein was insinuating that Hillary was surrounded by lesbians and lesbian culture in college, which then rubbed off on her)

So maybe Rush was a little more subtle in calling Hillary a lesbian, but could someone explain to me why the conservatives have such a fascination with this subject? Last time I checked, both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were married to members of the opposite sex, right? If this is the sort of strategy that conservatives feel they need to pursue in order to win, then I can only place my faith in the American people to realize that a party that starts accusing everyone it feels threatened by of being a homosexual is seriously in need of a good lesson at the polls... and therapy.

If it weren't for freedom of speech, I'd never hear how absurd, fanatical, and downright bigoted these people were. So thank you Mr. Bill of Rights. Without you, these people might actually have been forced to keep themselves quiet, by law if not by sheer prudence.

Where is the love?

2007-03-01T10:07:00.000-05:00

"The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found.

Based on the latest available US census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars -- one half the federal poverty line figure.

For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.

"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005," the US newspaper chain reported."

America's excursion in social stratification and polarization continues to deepen as recent reports detail a country whose poor keep slipping further down the slippery slope of poverty. Granted, America does not face the daunting socio-economic divide assailing Brazil, India, China and Nigeria, but one has to wonder, in such a nation blessed with an economic output outmatched by none, why does this problem continue to linger?

America is not some borderline third-world country with low wages and high aspirations, neither is it some European haven of social welfare. However, America's problem with poverty and social stratification exudes a history and circumstances which can leave one in a dazed state of confusion. Despite rhetoric and iconography of a country where opportunity is abundant, work plentiful, and quality education accessible; America is still gripped with areas of deep, ingrained, and painfully repressive poverty. Appalling as it is to have so many stuck in a perpetual state of poverty, worse yet is the continued erosion of opportunity. Where there are rich there will inevitably be poor, however, when the keys of opportunity no longer open the right doors, and social mobility begins to collapse--America as an ideal begins to crumble.

Our recent sojourn with the Grand Old Party, has heightened the disparity between perception and reality. Conservative economic policy may be inherently chilled towards the ails of poverty, but much of the tenants of contemporary conservatism ardently hail the need for equality in opportunity. But where has the message gone? In many schools, it is business as usual--every child left behind. Harsher yet, medical care and social integration in much of America's underbelly is ghastly. Poor communities are not receiving the aid they need to ensure that they remain beacons of hope for the underclass to climb the difficult ladder of mobility. Moreover, with the continued loss of manufacturing jobs--education becomes more important than ever, but with a nation still relying on a bamboozling plethora of school districts and funding from property taxes; schools in the communities most affected continue to struggle to meet the needs of an underclass in dire straits. Lets make one thing clear though, the left has only been nominally resolute on addressing the problems of poverty and education. Perhaps the inexplicable transfer payments to the poor are admirable, but they do nothing to preserve the ideal of equality in opportunity that America must adeptly hold fast to. The perpetual decline of education and of many communities highlights the need for American politicians to stop the incessant sound byte war between donkeys and elephants, and concentrate more on educating and alleviating the problems of the underclass. We need our leadership to put education reform and poverty on the same pedestal as fighting dictatorship and addressing campaign finance reform. To stop headlines like that above from appearing, America needs to confront the issues facing the poor and stop playing partisan politics and suggesting band-aids with the aims of garnering marginal support for the next general elections..........

Same-sex Marriage and Hypocrisy

2007-02-27T03:03:00.000-05:00

Less than a week ago, the first couples in New Jersey joined in a civil union ceremony. With this reminder close to home it would be interesting to look back at the issue from an ethics standpoint and from a political standpoint.

From a purely Utilitarian perspective, the advantage is obvious: gay marriage would give legal and civil rights, and much joy, to those who wish to bond for the rest of their lives. Many have noted, however, that marriage is a religious institution that is defined as love between a man and a woman. This claim is not unfounded but if such is the case then ought marriage as a governmental institution to be abolished as per the Lemon test? Conservatives and liberals alike have suggested this option and I would not be opposed to it. The more equality the better.

On a more political discussion now, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party is made evident by the issue of same-sex marriage. Cheney has come out and said that he thinks gay marriage ought to be decided by the states. Of course this really means that Cheney is having difficulty reconciling the anti-gay line of the Republican Party (and that of his partner-in-crime George Bush) with his own experience — his lesbian daughter. The hypocrisy, of course, is that the Republican Party with its “compassionate conservatism” has managed to screw over every minority group possible and the only issue where Cheney diverges from the party line is the one that affects him personally. This hypocrisy is not new, either; Nancy Reagan came out in support of stem cell research. Ronald Reagan would clearly not have supported such. Moreover, Nancy Reagan’s personal experience is the only thing driving her support of such anti-Republican values.

SCHIP

2007-02-26T23:15:00.000-05:00

On February 5^th, President George W. Bush presented his $2.9 trillion budget proposal for the 2008 fiscal year. Prominent in his proposal was a promise to eradicate the budget deficit by 2012; Bush proposed to do this while simultaneously establishing permanent tax cuts for the upper echelons of society and increasing spending on defense and homeland security – but while concurrently decreasing domestic spending, including health care plans. Were his proposal to be passed, this would prove to be a huge problem for programs such as the joint federal-state State Children’s Insurance Health Program (SCHIP) whose funding is already insufficient and which is looking to expand its coverage; one estimate claims that SCHIP needs over $800 million just to cover its deficits. As a direct consequence, the medical coverage of the 6 million children already covered by SCHIP would be endangered and the potential for millions more children, and adults, to receive coverage would be eliminated. SCHIP was begun in October 2007 with the intent of providing healthcare coverage to low-income children who were not eligible for Medicaid. Now that SCHIP’s 10 year plan is coming to an end, they are seeking reauthorization; while both Republicans and Democrats alike believe that SCHIP should not be allowed to expire, “Bush's proposed 2008 budget… would only expand funding by $4.2 billion over the same period.” Bush’s proposal would also cut out parents and pregnant women from being eligible to receive this healthcare unless they were under 200 percent of the federal poverty line.

The less than $5 million expansion of funding that Bush proposes to spend on SCHIP over the course of 10 years, does not even begin to cover what advocates of the group are seeking. Bush’s position is ludicrous as the ultimate goal should be to guarantee healthcare insurance for the children of America. According to United Press International, “more than 60 child health organizations have signed on to a letter to Congress calling for $60 billion in additional funding for the program over the next five years to sustain current enrollment and fund proposed expansions” -- clearly Bush’s proposal does not even begin to cover the funds that are needed. SCHIP should receive the funding that it requests as it is doing tangible good; in 2006, a study indicated that despite the numbers of uninsured people nationwide, the number of uninsured children had decreased by 20% since SCHIP’s inception. There are concrete benefits of medical insurance. For example, uninsured children are two as likely “not to receive any medical care in a given year compared to children with insurance”; additionally, the number of uninsured children who do not have a personal doctor or nurse is nearly triple that of those who are insured. Having the ability to receive medical care from a medical practitioner with whom you are comfortable is invaluable and given the Democratic stance in favor of SCHIP’s proposed expansion and given the federal majority of Democrats, SCHIP will hopefully be able to receive the funds to further pursue its mission.

Green Blues

2007-02-26T22:43:00.000-05:00

Al Gore's recent Oscar win for "An Inconvenient Truth" has some activists calling for him to enter the 2008 presidential race. Ironically, his agenda seems to have shifted toward the single-issue party platform of diehard Green Party members that may have cost him the 2000 election. The recent surge of environmental activism is obviously of great importance to many, but much concern and energy is misplaced.

The headlining issue of global warming is of course no stranger to the front page. But some hot air could due to be released from the general situation. By most measures the average global temperature has increased about a degree over the past century, with human effects responsible for no more than half of that. Many apocalyptic models of future global warming scenarios rely on levels of accuracy that are simply ridiculous by any good standards of statistics. A recent USA Today article claims to know the average global temperature of the world to within .001 degrees, for every of the past two thousand years. Additionally, the global temperature has grown over the past century, but by many historical accounts similar phenomena occurred in the Middle Ages and before. Moreover, if the global climate is changing it is almost a certain thing that the changes will bring increased prosperity to some regions, no matter what the causes are. The upshot is, skeptics of the data in support of past, present, and future global warming have decent reasons to be so. The data is far from conclusive.

Another environmental issue is much closer to home - in the grocery store, in fact. The ubiquitous labels of organic foods or locally produced foods are not as cut-and-dried as one might think. Although organically grown foods do not (duh) use chemical of any sort, because they do not use special fertilizers and pesticides they require about three times as much land to grow. Thus, if current world food output is to stay organic, farm land would necessarily need to triple - an event that would likely have hugely detrimental effects on certain locales. Another food topic is the locally grown foods, which are either supposed to cut down on green house gas emissions from being transported from far away, or are supposed to help local farmers. Both of these issues are not as beneficial as they might seem. First of all, supporting local farmers is similar to the old and defunct arguments for protectionism. Secondly, a recent study in Britain showed that most "food miles" were not even used in farm-to-store transport, but rather in store-to-home transport. Locally grown foods travel less efficiently, cutting down on any travel reducing benefits they might have.

Concern for the environment is certainly warranted now as much as ever, but a more prudential approach would likely lead to less panic and smarter policy.

Sources: (the 'link' function was broken)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/26/politics/main2517329.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-06-01-wine-warming_x.htm
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/07/a_skeptics_prim.html
"The Economist," December 9-16 issue

Campaign Finance Reform

2007-02-26T20:17:00.000-05:00

The United States of America is supposed to be a democratic republic with a system of government emphasizing basic democratic values. That each individual citizen has an equal say in choosing governmental representation is essential to the democratic nature of a democratic republic. Additionally, certain individuals outside of the government should not have disproportionate influence on governmental policy that effects everyone. Each person should have equal influence as governmental policy should act for the greater good of everyone, not favored individuals.

All of these factors are foundational to the argument for campaign finance reform. The fact that significant efforts to reform campaign finance regulations have been undertaken repeatedly in our government is alone indicative of the merit of the argument. Theodore Roosevelt asserted that "contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law." Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to eliminate unregulated ‘soft money’ contributions.

When our political campaigns are funded by an array of private individuals (often effectively representing certain interests or organizations) that unfortunately serves to work against the two values establish above. In that a richer campaign is a more successful one (while not necessarily true, if money is spent reasonably well then a campaign with more economic resources will be better equipped to swing public opinion in favor of its candidate), those candidates that are backed by individuals with more money to give will have a better chance of winning (or of increasing his or her odds). In that sense, those with more money have more say in who is elected for a given office than those with less money. Likewise, because candidates with more donations do better, elected candidates are automatically indebted to those hugh campaign contributors that may represent special interests. In that sense, those who do give more money can subtly have a greater influence on the policy decisions of a candidate after he or she takes office.

The “limits” placed on campaign finance by laws that are already in place are relatively insignificant – the people running these campaigns find loopholes for a living. In order to level the playing field when it comes to political campaigns and democratic government, campaign reform in which no individual can donate more many than another would be necessary. Two Yale professors, Ackerman and Ayres, proposed a plan under which every voter would be given $50 to donate to candidates (broken down into $10, $15, and $25 chunks to donate to House, Senate, and Presidential candidates respectively, in whatever way he or she wants to). Furthermore, all contributions would be entirely confidential. Unless you saw a given voter check the box or fill out the form, there would be no way to track who donated to whom. Unfortunately, Ackerman and Ayres plan still leaves plenty of room for private donations under the condition that they are entirely confidential and processed through the FEC (Federal Election Commission) so that a candidate would truly have no way of really knowing where the money was coming from. This seems to leave room for richer individuals with special interests to give more money to a candidate representing their interests than a poorer individuals to give to a candidate representing their interests which is still reflective of inequality in political clout. By removing the weight of private donations a relatively foolproof system could be formed. Such a plan would eliminate the inherent inequalities that result from campaign financing as we know it and lead to campaigning and government that serves everyone in the country better and more equally.

This site has some good background information on the history of campaign finance reform.

This site outlines and persuasively discusses the details of Ackerman and Ayres.

Draft War Resolution

2007-02-24T17:22:00.000-05:00

Democratic senators Joe Biden (Delaware) and Carl Levin (Michigan) are spearheading a movement to amend the 2002 war resolution. Changing the resolution is centered around the military agenda in Iraq. In accordance with the new draft, troop engagement in Iraq would be limited to fighting al Qaeda terrorists, training Iraqi forces and helping Iraq defend its borders. Consequently, this trimmed involvement would lead to the return of many troops. Biden supported the original resolution (which passed with a 77-23 vote), while Levin voted against it.

Politicians in disagreement with the old resoluton cite the disparity in situations between the 2002 invasion and the current occupation, claiming that the 2002 resolution is now irrelevant. Tony Fratto, white house spokesperson defiantly spoke out against this opposition.

"The president said this isn't the fight we entered in Iraq, but it's the fight we're in, we went in as a multinational force under U.N. authorization to take military action in Iraq. We were there as an occupying force, and now we're there at the invitation of the sovereign, elected government of Iraq."

While it is evident that it will be very tough for this proposal to be upheld (at least 10 Republicans would have to support it), it will likely be the first of many attempts at reform in Iraq. The situation in Iraq and the Middle East will play a massive role in the 2008 presidential election, and Biden's position in the race could either be bolstered or hampered these stances. No formal action has been taken by either Biden or Levin at this point, but it is believed that the resolution may be introduced or moved through the Senate in the coming future. The aforementioned projected failure of this proposal could change at any moment due to the unstable situation in the Middle East.

Stem Cell Research: Is the Risk Worth the Reward?

2007-02-20T00:13:00.000-05:00

In 2001, President George Bush endorsed very limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Today, proponents of the cause say this is not, and will never be, enough to efficiently make productive medical progress in the field. Opponents say that any funding at all is immoral and an inappropriate use of tax-payer’s dollars. Layered and controversial, this issue has pitted the scientific community against religious leaders and deeply divided the American public as people grapple for some concrete boundaries in this morally hazy and liminal space.

Essentially, a stem cell—found in the human embryo—is a generic or “undifferentiated” cell that has the potential to develop into any type of cell in the body: lung cells, kidney cells, heart cells. In their research, scientists endeavor to control completely the development of these cells. If they were able to manipulate a group of stem cells into pancreas cells, for instance, we might be able to save thousands from the quick and painful death almost surely wrought by pancreatic cancer. Indeed, scientists hope, and many are convinced, that stem cells could unlock the secret to cures for legions of terrible diseases, from crippling cancers and heart disease to even degenerative brain diseases, like Lou Gerig’s and Alzheimers.

Because harvesting stem cells effectively destroys the embryo, however, the debate over embryonic stem-cell research has become embroiled in the abortion debate. Opponents argue that such harvesting is wrong because it destroys human life, and many maintain, is tantamount to “playing god”—a game which, they argue, we neither have the judgment nor the right to play. Supporters contest, however, that the embryos in question—mostly surplus from fertility clinics— were going to be destroyed anyway and there is no harm at all in taking advantage of our resources, especially if it means possibly saving thousands with newfound cures for previously debilitating and/or fatal diseases. Indeed, proponents of stem-cell research argue that the relative risk of infringing on a moral gray area is far outweighed by the possible rewards stem-cells could offer in terms of clinical breakthrough, medical miracles.

While some scientists, as a way around the abortion issue, have attempted to use adult stem-cells—found in bone marrow—for similar causes, the results are not promising; adult stem cells, it seems, are far less malleable and much harder to manipulate than those found in human embryos. Concordantly, in a recent bioethical debate at Harvard, molecular biologist Kevan Eggan acknowledged that “adult stem cell research is important and must go forward," but maintained that embryonic stem-cell research possessed higher potential for real scientific breakthroughs.

And ultimately—barring privately funded radical research—we are talking about embryos produced in fertility clinics that are being discarded as surplus anyway, or, alternatively, embryos cultured in laboratories with the express function of harvesting cells; a child is not being deprived of life, the embryos in question are slated to be destroyed no matter what they are used for. In this light, it seems clear that, as Eggan insists, “the moral obligation we have to treat diseases and relieve suffering outweighs any obligation we may have to the human embryo.”

The New United Nations

2007-02-19T22:39:00.000-05:00

The United Nations is an utterly defunct institution. The Security Council, while occasionally effective, is too exclusive and too often held hostage to the interests of the major powers. The General Assembly is useless, and is most productive as a forum for criticism of Israel, which is routinely discriminated against, most egregiously in a 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. The Human Rights Council (and its previous incarnation the Commission on Human Rights) has handed forty percent of its condemnations to Israel, while despite recent reform countries such as Cuba, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia sit on the council. While the United States simply ignored the U.N. in invading Iraq, what is more depressing is China’s ability to work through the Security Council to protect the genocidal regime in Khartoum.

What is to be done about this sad state of affairs? The problem, unfortunately, cannot be solved through structural change. Any body that seeks to represent every nation of the world must, at the present, admit that a number of them will be corrupt, morally bankrupt dictatorships that simply do not deserve a voice on the global stage. Rwanda was allowed to sit on the Security Council and delay debate as it massacred its minority Tutsi population, yet this was viewed as mere coincidence, not egregious failure. What the democracies of the world need to realize is that they do not need to include murderous regimes in the important task of global cooperation.

What is needed is a new United Nations, but one that consists solely of established democracies. The Community of Democracies is a good step in the right direction, but in addition to its somewhat lax membership standards, it seeks to work within the broken framework of the United Nations. A U.N. that consisted entirely of democracies, in addition to being a much more responsible global body, could incentivize democratic transitions by holding out rewards (developmental aid, free trade, etc.) for membership. Such an institution, instead of being held hostage to the interests of anti-democratic governments, could function as the League of Nations and the United Nations were intended, to make the world a safer and more humane place.

There are problems with such an approach. One of (and perhaps the only) strengths of the United Nations is that it is a forum for discussion among all nations, and helps to prevent warfare by engaging the most belligerent nations in diplomacy. Ultimately, I see little reason to believe that this approach has been successful over the last fifty years, as nations large and small routinely thwart the U.N. with scant consequence. Another possible protestation is that whatever its failures, the U.N. is an established framework for international cooperation, and its institutions should not be so lightly cast aside. To this I would reply not only that the institutions are all either defunct or easily replaceable, but also that the transition would be gradual, as members of the democratic body participated in the U.N. as well, gradual usurping its importance.

The United Nations has had its successes, but it is difficult to find an example where democratic and anti-democratic nations have cooperated successfully. It is time to acknowledge both the failure of the U.N. and its source, and create a global body that we can be proud to be a part of.

Balancing Modernization and Tradition

2007-02-19T16:00:00.000-05:00

As I was browsing the Internet, I came across an article in the Washington Post that slightly deviated from the common repertoire of today’s political pieces and made me think hard about the balance of modernization and tradition. “Planned Tower Splits Venerable Russian City” by Peter Finn describes a quarrel between Gazprom, a Russian state-owned oil company, and many citizens of St. Petersburg regarding Gazprom’s plan to construct a 77-story modern complex along the Neva River in St. Petersburg. The riverbank in St. Petersburg, Russia’s second largest city, is one of the most glorious and historic sites in the world. Alongside it stands The State Hermitage Museum, one of the largest and oldest art museums in world, and the Winter Palace, Tsar’s magnificent winter residence, among other famous palaces. Surely, the modern Gazprom complex will heavily clash with the neoclassical architectural style of the Hermitage and the rococo style of the Winter Palace, as many of St. Petersburg’s citizens claim.

Of course, this is not the first time there is a resistance against the construction of modern structures in historical cities. The most famous of such confrontations was against the construction of the Eiffel Tower in Paris in 1889, a hundred years after the French revolution. The tall, metallic structure seemed to many as a foreigner among Paris’ grandiose, historic buildings such as the Louvre. However, today, many consider Eiffel Tower the symbol of Paris.

Two hundred years after the French Revolution, in 1989, the Louvre itself had been a center for debate between the preservers of tradition and the promoters of modernization. Aiming to bridge traditional and modern architecture, I.M. Pei’s glass pyramids were to be built as the new entrance to the Louvre. According to many, these metallic and glass structures had no place in front of the centuries old museum, but since then have become one with the historic palace.

The Gazprom complex debate led me to question whether one should be conservative when choosing what to construct in historical settings, favoring tradition against modernization, or should he promote novelties, with a belief that cities are living bodies, rather than decaying skeletons, that require progress. The successes of Eiffel Tower and the I.M. Pei pyramids lead me favor the later over former view. However, I stand opposed to the construction of the Gazprom complex. Unlike the construction of the Eiffel Tower and the I.M. Pei pyramids, both of which were aimed to decorate Paris and to glorify French history, the Gazprom complex is meant to show the strength of its owners. Approved on the basis of corruption rather than expertise of local architects and designers, it will likely be a disaster to St. Petersburg’s historic riverbank. One must look at the motives, not just the ends, because from evil nothing good ever results.

Why Even a Democratic Congress Can't Stop President Bush on Iraq

2007-02-18T19:22:00.000-05:00

Despite the failure of a non-binding Congressional resolution that opposes President's Bush's plan to send over 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, Democrats say they will find new ways to challenge the troop increase. The House of Representatives passed the measure, but Senate Republicans succeeded in blocking the resolution using procedural rules. Now Democrats are considering other Congressional measures, including modifying the original war authorization Congress (overwhelmingly) passed in 2002. Specifically, Democrats want American troops to be limited to support missions, taking them out of active combat roles; they claim that the U.S. military was never intended to intercede in a civil war. Other proposals include cutting funding for the Iraq war - effectively preventing President Bush from sending more troops or prolonging operations in Iraq, attaching conditions to future military operations (as Congress did for the first Persian Gulf War, for Clinton's deployment of Marines to Haiti in 1994, and for the U.S. bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999), or, ironically, capping troop levels.

Historically however, Congress has never been able to effectively halt a war, especially one which it has previously sanctioned (such as Vietnam and Iraq). For every measure Congress has tried to adopt to limit U.S. involvement, loopholes have been found and exploited. In 1970 the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, originally passed in 1964 authorizing Kennedy to escalate the war in Vietnam, was repealed; that move obviously did not end the war. In another example of the executive branch dodging the legislative, the Reagan administration used profits from arms sales to Iran to illegally fund Nicaraguan Contras, circumventing a Congressional ban on official U.S. funding in 1984. When Marines were sent to Haiti in 1994, Congress passed a non-binding resolution (hey, sound familiar?) that called for their return "as soon as possible"; Clinton shrugged this off, and U.S. troops stayed for another five years under U.N. provisions.

So, has the founding principle of checks and balances in the American political system just gone out the window? Well, Congress learned its lesson from Vietnam and in 1973 passed the War Powers Resolution, which "requires the President to report to Congress whenever he introduces U.S. armed forces abroad [for combat operations]."

[S]ection 5(b) requires the President to terminate the use of U.S. Armed Forces after [60-90] days unless Congress (1) has declared war or authorized the action; (2) has extended the period by law; or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack on the United States.

Section 5(c) also requires the President to remove the forces at any time if Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

While the original authorization for the Iraq war remains in effect, the War Powers Resolution is not applicable. Thus, Democrats are trying to modify that resolution, and possibly force a withdrawal. However, such a tactic is unlikely to succeed even if attempted, as the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution has always been questioned. A 1983 Supreme Court ruling also cast doubt on the Congressional power to demand a troop withdrawal pursuant to section 5(c) (see the "Legislative Veto" section of the linked article for more information).

As for other options, cutting funding is unattractive among politicians because such a vote could be construed as trying to undercut the troops and put them in additional harm (though even the Republican Congress back in 2002-2003 could not provide adequate body armor for the troops). Proposing a cap on troop levels would be more of a symbolic gesture than anything substantive (like a sham Republican counterproposal in 2005 that literally called for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, after Democrats first proposed setting a six-month timetable). And given President Bush's single-minded determination up to this point, it's unreasonable to expect that any Congressional conditions on future military operations would have much effect.

Simply put, President Bush is effectively on a one-man crusade in Iraq as his administration faces record-low approval ratings, and a Democratic Congress arrayed against him. But the scariest thing is, even at this point it doesn't seem that anyone or anything is going to stop him.

Restrictive English-only Laws are Detrimental and Unfair

2007-02-12T23:59:00.000-05:00

Despite the USA’s history as a country of immigrants from many countries that spoke many languages, political bodies from city councils to state and federal congresses continue to consider “English-only” legislation. These laws range from identifying English as a common and unifying language to mandating that all government business and publications (including tax forms and voting ballots) use English and only English.

There is an important distinction to be made between those two general categories of language legislation. Many examples of such language legislation, such as an amendment to California’s constitution passed in 1986, only identify English as a common and unifying language, or even as an official language, but do not contain any restrictions on the use of other languages in governmental or other business (a copy of the amendment is available at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/prop63.htm).

The other category of language legislation does indeed specifically seek to restrict the use of non-English languages in governmental business and publications, from ballots and governmental forms to public schools (e.g. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/10/12/family_adjusts_to_english_only_law/). These laws actively restrict the access of certain groups to the government, an act which has been found unconstitutional in a number of specific cases, such as with legislation in Alaska and Arizona (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/langleg.htm).

The more restrictive pieces of legislation are motivated primarily by the idea that bilingual governmental business encourages immigrants to avoid linguistic assimilation and therefore work to prevent social assimilation and that by providing governmental publications and conducting business in only English (especially in schools, for example) will help speed linguistic assimliation. Unfortunately, much of the other motivation is based on primarily prejudicial negative attitudes towards immigrants in general and seeks to discriminate against them unconstitutionally.

The USA has always been a country of incredible linguistic and cultural diversity. Furthermore, from the earliest days of our formation, government publications have been available in non-English languages. Evidence shows that even if or when such restrictive legislation is passed, enforcement is extremely limited (http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_1150425.php). Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that restricting government business to English will help speed linguistic assimilation, but the first-hand evidence is overwhelming that such restrictive legislation will reduce access to government services and prevent residents who are not fluent in English from interacting with the government and related services in ways that serve not only to benefit themselves, but also society in general (e.g. social education, voting on propositions, etc).

Courting the Religious Right

2007-02-12T23:28:00.000-05:00

As the 2008 presidential election draws near, potential candidates are vying for voters’ support; in a country where 83% of the population identifies as Christian and 37% of this group describes themselves as evangelicals or born-again, it is easy to see how Republican candidates could perceive the religious right as an important voting bloc. John McCain certainly seems to be embracing the notion whole-heartedly as he prepares to be the keynote speaker for the Discovery Institute, which is “the most prominent creationism advocacy group in the country.” Despite a history of waffling back and forth on whether or not intelligent design should be taught in schools, McCain appears to have finally taken a definite stance in favor of a radically conservative social agenda. This is a tactical mistake.

The importance of the religious right seemed to be verified in 2004 by the national exit poll, which revealed that the “most important” issue to voters was “moral values”; consequently, the religious right was hailed as the decisive voting bloc in the initial analysis of the election. Soon thereafter, however, this belief in a “moral values” and religious-right victory for George W. Bush was debunked upon closer inspection, and studies pointed towards an increase in support from blocs of moderate voters as the decisive factor in 2004. By agreeing to be the keynote speaker for the Discovery Institute, McCain is making a blatant appeal to the conservative evangelicals, and he is at definite risk of alienating large blocs of his potential voters. Ever since Darwin’s theory of evolution began being taught in the classroom, conservative evangelicals have been pushing to get creationism taught in the classroom as an alternate, but equally plausible, theory; however, a poll conducted by the People for the American Way Foundation found that a vast majority of Americans want evolution taught in public schools, and a very small minority want creationism taught as science in the classroom. Although the evangelical right was definitely a crucial component of Bush’s voting constituency and represented approximately a quarter of Bush’s supporters in 2004, they were not the decisive vote that swung the national vote in Bush’s favor, and McCain cannot afford to alienate the rest of his potential support. While showing some alignment with the social agenda of the religious right is crucial for a successful right-wing campaign, McCain has chosen to champion a cause that does not resonate with as broad a support base as issues of morality such as gay marriage or the right to life. Ultimately he is establishing a platform that will have a very narrow appeal, which will be a shaky foundation for a presidential bid.

Biden on Obama

2007-02-12T23:10:00.000-05:00

In this very new and uncharted territory of the 2008 presidential race (one female candidate and an African-American candidate, both very serious runners), one man has already slipped and there are doubtless more blunders to be made. Joseph Biden’s recent evaluation of Barack Obama is a telling sign of the unconscious racism in the current political scene. Biden is quoted by the New York Observer as saying:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

One might say that Biden was simply adorning Obama with compliments but to call him articulate is certainly an act of unconscious racism. The comparison may have been to admittedly eccentric past black candidates such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Nonetheless, Biden would have never used such an adjective regarding a white politician. It is clear that Obama is a competent contender and so it goes without saying that he is articulate. No candidate (without the help of Karl Rove) could get anywhere in politics without some ability to speak well. The adjective “clean” didn’t help Biden much either; he clearly messed up his entrance into this race.

Biden apologized soon after his remark but he’ll have to climb out of the hole he’s dug himself unless he wants to go the way of George Allen.

Iranian Weapon Aid

2007-02-12T22:43:00.000-05:00

Ongoing investigation over Iranian weapon assistance claims has sparked much debate and speculation in regards to the United States ensuing moves. The Iran dossier has not yet been released but assumptions about the derivation of Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP's) are very clear. The American Defense Intelligence Agency has traced many of these weapons back to the Iranian government. If Iran is playing this part in the war, it is an unquestionable, fatal act against the United States that requires our attention. While confidentiality-related issues have prevented this file from being released, it has certainly not stopped constant dispute over actions that the United States should and should not take. The majority of the opinions and proposals are based around the option of going to war with Iran.

The foremost motivation for going to war with Iran is quite obvious; theoretically, Iran is openly supporting our Insurgent enemies in war. The EFP weapons are the most deadly form of an improvised deadly explosive that our troops have seen in Iraq. One soldier is quoted as saying, "They're (EFP's) focused and they're aimed. ... It's going to take anything out in its way, go in one side and out the other." This assistance of the Shiite Insurgents is directly correlated to American deaths in Iraq.

While this insubordination could be a distinct cause for war, however, there are clear faults involving a lack of physical power and convicting evidence, tied to lessons learned in past experiences. These shortcomings strongly outweigh the reasons towards extreme action. One outstanding hurdle in a decision towards war would be a glaring deficiency in available soldiers. Consequently, Congress would have to re-instate the much maligned draft to vastly increase the numbers. The Weapon's of Mass Destruction (WMD) blunder that occurred several years ago still shines brightly in the eyes of many. It is sensible that this proclaimed evidence will be received with much scrutiny for its obvious parallels to the WMD claims. Until any skepticism or doubt is erased, it is feasible that no extreme action be taken. In addition, in contrast with the Iraqi occupation, Iran is a much more dangerous foe for reasons such as fighting prowess, various allies, organization and sufficient preparation time.

Minimum Wage Laws

2007-02-12T21:22:00.000-05:00

A bill proposing to raise minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 recently passed the House and is currently up for debate in the Senate. Minimum wage is a law often taken for granted as a sound economic and social tool, so I thought it would be interesting to put forward some classical arguments against it. These arguments are much the same as those against tariffs and price-fixing, and in general can be found in the short book Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. For the sake of classification, Hazlitt's views are fairly Libertarian. He is also frequently grouped as a member of the Austrian School of economics.

Anyway, here are the arguments. One perspective that is rarely stated clearly is that a minimum wage of $7.25 makes it illegal for someone to work for less, even if he wants to. For example, if Adam's labor has a market value of $7, a minimum wage set at $7.25 may have the effect of putting him out of his job. So long as there are people available, say, Bob and Cindy, whose labor is valued at or above $7.25 there will be no incentive for anyone to hire Adam. Prior to this wage law Adam could have competed with Bob and Cindy by working for less, but now it is illegal for him to do so! Unless there is a large shortage of labor it is difficult to force employers to pay workers more than the workers' market value. And even in a shortage, the value of labor would tend to adjust itself.

But even in a situation where companies have no choice but to pay higher wages, there are compelling downsides to a minimum wage. A company that is already operating on a sufficiently thin profit margin, if forced to pay higher wages to its workers, will go out of business. That raising the cost of business can, in fact, hurt business is rather obvious but often overlooked. Or consider - if minimum wages are raised, driving the cost of labor up, alternative methods of production may seem attractive to employers. A factory owner who would not have previously considered mechanizing his workforce with high-tech robotics, for example, may be enticed to do so now, if the new cost of human labor is comparatively more expensive.

Both of these examples are demonstrated well in this case study. Though the writer of that blog is unequivocally Libertarian, his personal experiences stated in the article are factual, so I think his credibility is still good. A nice one-liner from the article is "If the government set a price floor for gasolene, say at $3.00 a gallon, would anyone out there argue that people wouldn't use less gas?" This seems similar to something Hazlitt points out: wages are no different than any other price of any other commodity and it is unfortunate that we think they can be handled on a separate basis.

Of course, some might say, most companies, if they must, will be able to raise their wages to the legal minimum. But even this dubious assertion overlooks a few things. As a result of higher wages the companies will not be able to grow as quickly or produce as much as before; and indeed, if they want to maintain their pace of growth they will have to raise prices. So the prosperity that is passed to the workers is borne by the consumers at large and by anyone who would have benefited by these companies' continued expansion (e.g. the unemployed). The losses of the consumers and the still-unemployed are much harder to notice than the gains of the workers, but they are no less real.

This argument has brought forth some key reasons why minimum wage is ineffective as both a tool of charity and a stimulant of growth. Changing the owners of money is not what helps an economy; increasing material wealth is the only true improvement. A worker's value, and hence his real wages, rises when he is able to produce more - not when the government declares him to be worth more. To truly help raise wages a government should enact policies that encourage growth and increased efficiency, not the opposite.