Gun Control in the US

A good article by T. Noah at Slate:

The political reality is that, for the various reasons outlined by Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, gun control is a dead letter, even though polls consistently show that a majority of American voters support it. (Blame the anti-majoritarian Senate and Electoral College. A plurality of American voters chose Al Gore to be their president in 2000, but that didn't happen, either.)

And then:

We value the lives of Mary Read, Ryan Clark, Leslie Sherman, and all the rest, but we value more their killer -------'s untrammeled right to purchase not only a Glock 19 and a Walther P22, but also the ammunition clips that, according to the April 18 Washington Post, would have been impossible to obtain legally had Congress not allowed President Clinton's assault-weapon ban to expire three years ago.

I am censoring the killer's name: he does not deserve the publicity.

Rewarding the psychos

One of the (possibly many) things that terrorists and deranged lone killers have in common is their thirst for one thing: PUBLICITY.

So, shame on all the web pages, newspapers, TV shows and other media that have had a field day with the images that the Va. Tech killer manufactured himself, for posterity. Not only are his wishes being fulfilled, but it can only help encourage the next nutcase. Well done, media!

(And it applies to publications both on the "left" and the "right": I guess the sales and ratings are too tempting to give up, uh?)

Update: A psychiatrist states that showing the videos is a "Social Catastrophe." And continues:

"It's not an issue of blame. It's an appeal. Please stop now. That's all," he said. "If you can take [talk show host Don] Imus off the air, you can certainly keep [Cho] from having his own morning show."

His reference to the movie, "Natural Born Killers," is an apt one. The movie is meant to satirize the symbiotic relationship between psychos and the press---but it's a fine line between that and a product that actually reproduces and validates that relationship.

"I promise you the disaffected will watch him the way they watched 'Natural Born Killers.' I know. I examine these people," he said. "I've examined mass shooters who have told me they've watched it 20 times. You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message."

The Virginia Tech Tragedy

What can one say?

Interesting how the bloggers are adding politics to the analysis:

Some argue that lack of gun control is the problem. Others, the exact opposite. My own take: while letting more people carry guns might be a good thing in exceptional circumstances such as this one --- who would not want one of the victims to be able to shoot back? --- it is likely that, in the long run, more people would die if more people were allowed to buy and carry guns.

(The fallacy is reminiscent of the justifications for torture: Sure, if we knew that torture was the only way to prevent a nuclear explosion in a city, we would approve of it. But how often would that actually be the case? And why would that mean that it is justified in general?)

Other bloggers have pointed out that while 32 dead in a single incident is horrifying in the US, and worthy of extensive media coverage, it has been an almost daily par for the course for Iraq (with less than 1/10 of the population). And yet Bush complains that the Iraq violence is covered too much.

Andrew Sullivan makes the point particularly well in this post.

p.s. An update: Surely enough, the next day we have 171 dead in Iraq, mostly civilians, including children.

It all depends on what the definition of "Improper" is

From AG Gonzales' second Washington Post op-ed piece about the "overblown personell matter":

I have nevertheless asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to further investigate this matter. Working with the department's Office of Inspector General, these nonpartisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation so that Congress and the American people can be 100 percent assured of what I believe and what the investigation thus far has shown: that nothing improper occurred.

So, the DOJ will investigate itself. But the boss has already reached a conclusion.

Connect the dots

A Time magazine article about the leaked announcement of earlier and longer tours in Iraq ends with this paragraph:

Of course, soldiers and their families weren't the only ones surprised by the Pentagon announcement. Just hours before the news leaked out, President Bush complained about Democratic congressional foot-dragging that has held up approval of a $120-billion-plus supplemental war bill. "The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines," Bush told an American Legion audience in suburban Virginia. The next day, his Pentagon did it all by itself, without any help from anyone of either party on Capitol Hill.

Notice that the Democrats have not refused to fund the troops---they just want a funding bill that starts bringing the troops back home soon. Bush's statement is extraordinary in how it fails to explain how (a) Congress is failing to fund the troops, and (b) How the longer wait would follow.

Now, as others have suggested, two remarks are in order:

(1) It seems reasonable to assume that the Pentagon has known, for a while now, that these extensions would be necessary.

(2) Bush's statements seem to be preparing the ground for this scenario: (1) The Democrats passs the funding bill; (2) Bush vetoes it; (3) The Pentagon announces the extended tours of duty; (4) Bush blames the Democrats, saying "I told you so".

Looks like the leak has ruined this gambit for them...

The Cost of Politics

A very disturbing NYT story about bogus voter fraud claims, and Josh Marshall's analysis of it.

If true, it means that the White House is not only willing to play politics with the Justice Department for electoral advantage, but also willing to upend the lives of a few powerless folks as a result.

On a related note, Jon Rauch at the National Journal notes that President Bush has underused his pardon powers, ignoring some very deserving cases for which Presidential pardon is the last resort. He writes:

Here is a fact that historians may note with puzzlement: Bush, who is obsessively protective of unilateral executive power in every other sphere, has all but abandoned the most unequivocally unilateral power that the Constitution gives him.

Meanwhile, RNC emails get conveniently lost...

Czar Emergency

You know things are bad in DC when they start looking for a "Czar" to try and solve an intractable problem. From the Washington Post:

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

As Marshall and a reader note in a classic post, this is reminiscent of an article from The Onion. Except it's for real. Slate summarizes here.

George W. Bush, summarized

Joe Klein's column in that rabid, left-wing media operation, Time Magazine:

When Bush came to office--installed by the Supreme Court after receiving fewer votes than Al Gore--I speculated that the new President would have to govern in a bipartisan manner to be successful. He chose the opposite path, and his hyper-partisanship has proved to be a travesty of governance and a comprehensive failure. I've tried to be respectful of the man and the office, but the three defining sins of the Bush Administration--arrogance, incompetence, cynicism--are congenital: they're part of his personality. They're not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.

Quite the op-ed piece

A British op-ed piece, related to the discussion of whether 650,000 is an accurate number for the dead in Iraq since the invasion. Nobody is sure what the number is, though apparently this number was arrived at by established methods. (That nobody knows, and fewer care, is part of the problem.)

To quote from its last paragraphs:

At a time when we are celebrating our enlightened abolition of slavery 200 years ago, we are continuing to commit one of the worst international abuses of human rights of the past half-century. It is inexplicable how we allowed this to happen. It is inexplicable why we are not demanding this government's mass resignation.

Two hundred years from now, the Iraq war will be mourned as the moment when Britain violated its delicate democratic constitution and joined the ranks of nations that use extreme pre-emptive killing as a tactic of foreign policy. Some anniversary that will be.

· Richard Horton is a doctor and the editor of the Lancet

From Bush-Gore 2000 debate

This ranks up there with George W. Bush's claim of "I'm a uniter, not a divider" in the 2000 campaign.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power.

More Banana Republic evidence

Sullivan and Marshall have recently made the analogy as well. Sullivan, in regards to the application and normalization of torture. Marshall, in regards to the politization of justice:

It's yet another example of how far this White House has gone in normalizing behavior that we've been raised to associate with third-world countries where democracy has never successfully taken root and the rule of law is unknown.

The revived Giuliani-Kerik controversy is also a good reminder of the cronyism and incompetence of this administration. This was the person that Bush wanted as Secretary of Homeland Security? A sign of how seriously President Bush took Homeland Security, indeed.

On the other hand, as some have pointed out, perhaps the Mob is the go-to organization as far as securing your Homeland is concerned.

I'd say that the biggest difference between first-world and third-world countries is good governance. Not that it is perfect anywhere, mind you, but the rule of law and competent administration count for a lot. And the US seems to have taken a large step backwards in the last 7 years.

The "Clinton Did It" defense

Don't let dishonest commentators (including Bill O'Reilly last night, and a Republican senator on NPR this morning) fool you when they point out that all 93 Federal Prosecutors were replaced by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno in 1993.

Every administration replaces all, or most of, the Federal Prosecutors when they come in. What is highly unusual is to pick and choose some to replace in the middle of an administration; even more so, when it seems based mostly on partisan considerations.

To pretend otherwise is part of the Big Lie. Here's a good blog post on the matter.

p.s. It appears that two prosecutors were fired under Clinton. Why? From this blog:

As it happens, the Congressional Research Service has just released a report on this. It appears two resigned under pressure – one because he grabbed a TV reporter by the throat on camera, and the second having been accused of biting a topless dancer.

What happened in Texas...

A depressingly revealing blog entry from the Washington Post, describing Gonzales' previous work for Bush while in Texas...

The AG's defense

Gonzales' press conference today: Mistakes were made, I did not take part in them, and the guy who made them has quit already anyway.

Right. Once can smell Karl Rove's imprint on this from a mile away, a carefully planned and coordinated political move, to politicize the justice system. Rove... what a pernicious, damaging influence on the way politics works in the USA.

It is also interesting to revisit Gonzales' op-ed in USA today defending this "overblown personnell matter". "Related to performance, not to politics"?

Salon don't like it either

From Salon (Joe Conason):

Loyal dissemblers like Gonzales can be found in every royal court and indeed are essential to the smooth functioning of any autocracy or banana republic. They are not, however, well-suited to overseeing the pursuit of justice and the enforcement of law in a democracy.

The Other Side of the Banana

We've heard about the fired prosecutors, who "lost the confidence" of Attorney General Gonzalez, some after disappointing Republican Senators by not bringing up Democratic indictments in time for the elections. Now folks are asking what the ones who were *not* fired were up to.

Looks like Democrats have become 7 times more likely than Republicans to become targets of local investigations - an old Rove trick, now institutionalized and enforced from the top?

How the Banana Republic works

Congressional hearings have produced interesting results.

See also this editorial in the New York Times.

No one is quite sure how the provision for letting the White House replace Attorney Generals without Congressional approval made it into the "Patriot Act" bill, but it looks like White House operatives were involved. Nice separation of powers, as Slate points out.

Dow Jones Industrial average waste of time

I generally like to listen to NPR, and can be described as a news junkie.

But why, oh why, do they (and most other outlets) insist on wasting precious seconds of their broadcasts telling me how many points the Dow Jones Average has gone up or down----especially if it is just two points out of 12,000? And why would I want to know about this every hour?

Today's 3-or-4% loss is a good ocassion to make the obvious points: First, if you reallly think that I need to know how this number changes from day to day, please tell me the *percentage* that the thing won or lost; at least that saves me from having to do the math in my head, assuming that I actually knew the last day's closing price.

Second, only is news when the loss or gain is bigger than a certain percentage. What should the threshold be --- 0.5%, 1%? I don't know... but the implicit agreement should be that if the Dow is not mentioned in the hourly news, then it did not change that much. And then, maybe on Friday you can tell me how much it changed for the week.

Banana Republic Watch, February edition

And here's something that you only used to see in third-world "democracies" of dubious character:

The executive branch arbitrarily firing attorney generals who happen to be conducting sensitive corruption investigations, and replacing them by political operatives and hacks. All of this, made "legal" by an obscure provision slipped at the last minute into a "patriotic" bill.

Banana Republic Watch: Shameless Sophistry

It might be time for any US citizen of any political persuasion to get worried:

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

“There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering.

“Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Gonzales continued, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.

“You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,” Specter said.

Book titles

I've been collecting the titles for some books by relatively well-respected, and certainly well-publicized, "pundits" from the right. The titles alone are quite revealing, and say volumes about their authors' intellectual honesty and nuance levels, not to say anything about their estimation of their target audience. Here it is:

"Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton," by Jonah Goldberg.

“The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life,” by Ramesh Ponnuru.

"Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism," by Sean Hannity.

"Godless: The Church of Liberalism," by Ann Coulter.

"Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports," by Kate O'Beirne.

"State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America," by Patrick J. Buchanan.

"Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party," by David Limbaugh.

The latest entry into the list, which makes this post complete, is:

"The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11," by Dinesh D'Souza.

This last one is particularly unbelievable: The terrorists have indeed won.

Unclear on the Concept

From the NYT article:

The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism said in an interview this week that he was dismayed that lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.

As the corresponding NYT editorial points out:

It does not seem to matter to Mr. Stimson, who is a lawyer, that a great many of those detainees did not deserve imprisonment, let alone the indefinite detention to which they are subjected as “illegal enemy combatants.” And forget about the fundamental American right that everyone should have legal counsel, even the most heinous villain.

See also the Washington Post editorial.

Besides the apparent fact that the guy in charge does not seem to understand basic concepts of the rule of law in a civilized society, I also find it interesting, and apalling, that he resorts to the extortive threats that have been proven to stifle free speech in nominally free societies: If you do/say something we don't like, you won't get business from the big companies that keep your law firm/newspaper running.

Adios a Pinochet

Christoper Hitchens is also glad to say goodbye:

There were those who used to argue that, say what you like, Pinochet unfettered the Chilean economy and let the Friedmanite breezes blow. (This is why Mrs. Thatcher was forever encouraging him to take his holidays and shopping trips in London; a piece of advice that he may well have regretted taking.) Yet free-marketeers presumably do not believe that you need torture and murder and dictatorship to implement their policies.

Historically, the moderate left has not been given much of a chance to try new things out in South America. In the long run, there is nothing wrong with letting leftist populists either (a) prove that their policies work, or (b) discredit leftist populism when they don't.

(Venezuela might be an exception, since the government has lots of oil money to spare.)

The same principle should apply to the right-wing policies too. Just as long as it's not "one man, one vote, one time."

Life imitates Onion

Two days ago, Nancy pointed out to me one of the best headlines in The Onion in a long while:
Rebels Immediately Regret Seizing Power In Zambia. (Apologies to the real Zambia, by the way.)

Today, I see this real headline: Fiji coup chief runs ads to fill Cabinet.

Movie-related Quote of the Day

From the Washington Post:

"What if you showed the ancient Maya 'The Passion of the Christ'? They'd freak out."

- Stephen Houston, professor of anthropology at Brown University.

The Borat Memo

Continuing with the New Yorker crutch (it's easier to link than to write original posts!), this short bit of satire summarizes what for me were some of the more disquieting things about the Borat movie.

Lessons of Vietnam

I was going to write a post about President Bush's remarks in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago, but The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has done a pretty good job already:

In Hanoi, which under its nominally Communist rulers is more vibrantly capitalist than Ho Chi Minh City ever was when it was called Saigon, he [President Bush] was asked if the American experience in Vietnam offered any guidance about Iraq. “One lesson is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while,” he replied, and added, “We’ll succeed unless we quit.” What did he mean? That the peaceable, bustling, unthreatening (if unfree) Vietnam of today represents an American success, made possible by the fact that we didn’t quit until fifty-eight thousand Americans and three million Vietnamese were dead? Or that it represents an American failure, which would have been averted by another decade of war, another fifty-eight thousand, another three million? Who knows? And who knows, really, what this President has been taught by this month’s election? The present President Bush, after all, is a decider of decisions, not a learner of lessons. And he likes to decide that he was right all along.

The Baker-Hamilton Report

I skimmed the report this morning on the train, and I must say that it is much better than I expected.

It is a breath of fresh air, a welcome dose of reality. Even if that reality is not pretty and, as the report states, there are no flawless options to pursue. I think it can also serve as a good primer for the American public to understand the complex forces at work in Iraq - infinitely more nuanced than just repeating "Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror".

A good sample paragraph:

Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of Iraq’s condition and the country’s vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy.

Read: it was a war of choice, and the US must get it right. But is it too late now?

Rumsfeld's memo

Juan Cole has a good analysis of Rumsfeld's memo. This stood out:

Rumsfeld spends more time plotting out how to manipulate the American public than how to win the war. Everything is about spin, about giving the image of progress even in the face of a rapid downward spiral into the abyss.

It's the FOX-news, Michael "how do I look on TV during Katrina" Brown, Big Lie style of Government.

The Big Lie

In previous posts, I've compared the Bush Administration's policies in the "War on Terror", and the mentality of its defenders, to those of Third World dictators. This provocative, and thought-provoking, article on Slate goes one further than that.

The article has helped me cristalize why Fox News, and the likes of O'Reilly, bothers me so much: it's the culture of the Big Lie, very dangerous indeed. Sure, there are left-wing fundamentalists as well, spouting much nonsense. But they don't get away with stating blatantly false and illogical "memes" repeatedly, as Fox News does. And call themselves "Fair and Balanced," after that.

(Case in point, the "War on Christmas." Silly, yes, but symptomatic.)

Only bad options in Iraq?

This post by James Fallows explains how there's mostly only bad choices left in Iraq.

But one thing is clear: no matter how it happens, if things end badly, they will be blamed on the "liberal" media, the Democrats, the fickle American public, and the Iraqis themselves.

On a related note, NPR just ran an interview with two Iraqi exiles in Jordan this morning. Both well-educated, with excellent English, had to leave the country due to very serious threats on their lives and those of their families. One worked for the US occupation authorities; the other had the ability to borrow and pay $25,000 after being kidnapped, thus becoming a marked man.

Again, one would think that the self-proclaimed "law-and-order" Republicans would be the ones to understand how you cannot have a successful country, much less a "Democracy", without some law and order.

The Blame Game, continued

A good blog post from Marshall on the deflection of blame...

Blame the Victim

Last night's Talking Points by Bill O'Reilly had some classic quotes. As with Ann Coulter, this is commentary that might perhaps be best ignored, in the hope that it would just go away - but it is representative of what a large segment of the US population is being fed.

The appetizer:

The Iraq War has morphed into a number of conflicts, much like the chaotic Baltic situation under President Clinton.

He then argues that it should not be called a "Civil War". Perhaps: it might be worse than that. Baltics? Did he mean Balkans? But why bring it up, other than to mention Clinton? But that was clearly a civil war, by anyone's definition. (Of course, he ignores the obvious fact that Clinton did not exactly trigger the civil war by invading the Balkans - or Baltics, at that, but was one of the few Western leaders to do something to stop the Balkan conflict.)

And then:

The problem in Iraq is not American. The problem is the Iraqis themselves. They're not fighting for their freedom in a way that puts the bad keys [sic] on the defensive.

There is only so much the USA can do. If the Iraqi people are unwilling to challenge the bad guys, the bad guys will win — period.

Hmm, I thought that the Iraqi people had corageously challenged the bad guys when they voted in the elections, with a turnout much larger than in the US. Also, when they rose up against Saddam in '91? And what about the Kurds?

The conclusion:

If the Bush administration will not consider dividing the country into three autonomous regions, then it must consider allowing the Iraqi military to run the place, much like Musharraf runs Pakistan. Yes, that would be brutal, but clearly, the Iraqi people are not embracing freedom. So imposing order through a military strong man might be the only way.

Of course, the American media is not helping anyone by oversimplifying the situation and rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq. And that is what some media people are doing.

Hmm... Wasn't the original intention to spread Democracy in the Middle East? If we end up with a dictator, wouldn't that be akin to losing? Bill, it looks like you want the US to lose!

As for not embracing freedom, some 2003 quotes by Donald Rumsfeld come to mind:

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things... Stuff happens."

Banana Republic Watch: Ed Meese

GQ's interview with Ed Meese, a member of the Baker Iraq Study Group, summarizes many of the problems with the Bush administration's thinking about military tribunals and "illegal combatants". What these folks don't seem to understand is that this path leads directly to dictatorship, or, at least, a Banana Republic. Here it is:

-----

Q: Let's move to the Geneva Conventions. A lot of people are concerned that terrorism suspects don't have any kind of habeas corpus.
A: In order to be covered by the Geneva Convention, you have to fulfill certain requirements. Number one, you have to be in uniform. Number two, you have to be part of a military unit subject to military discipline. Number three, you have to be engaged in combat with other military units and not primarily striking at civilians. So there are a number of criteria in the Geneva Convention that are not met by everyone on the battlefield. Then there's another category of people going back to the Revolutionary War—people who were in those days called spies. If they were not in uniform, they were subject to being summarily executed.

Q: You mean they were executed without even a military tribunal?
A: I think there were some. Also, a "tribunal" could be a military commander ordering the hanging. I think that's what happened to some of them.

Q: You're advocating summary execution.
A: Well, yeah, that happens in the military. Illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Q: So we call them "illegal combatants," without using any legal basis to determine whether they're illegal or not.
A: Well, we do. We have military tribunals.

Q: But not always, apparently.
A: My understanding is that illegal combatants are subject to military tribunals. But in any event, they have been captured on the field of battle, and anyone captured on the field of battle is either one of these two categories. And both categories can be detained until the end of hostilities.

Q: When we talk about being detained until the war is over, we're talking about a war that could go on for half a century.
A: Absolutely.

Q: Doesn't detaining someone that long compete with some of the values in the Constitution?
A: No, it doesn't.

Q: We value a speedy trial, as a culture. That's why we put it in the Constitution.
A: We value a speedy trial for criminals. But a person who's been apprehended and captured on the field of battle, that status itself identifies them as either a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant.

Q: Unless they live there.
A: Well, how many people do you have standing around the field of battle?

Q: It depends the battle. Certainly it's possible.
A: And of course, that's why the president has applied the military tribunals. So that people have the ability, if they claim their innocence, to demonstrate it. But the reason why you detain the people is that you don't want them going back and taking up arms against our soldiers.

Q: Shouldn't we extend them the right to a public trial for that purpose?
A: Why would we? Why would you do that to somebody who's not entitled to it under any law? Why would [we] extend the laws to people who are trying to kill Americans?

------

As the interviewer points out later, many criminals in the US are trying to kill Americans as well, yet they have the right to a fair trial. And without a fair trial, how is one to know if that's really who they are?

These are the same arguments that tin-pot dictators all over the third world have made over the last 50 years: "our enemies don't respect human rights, why should we?" "You have no human rights when you're dead." And so on. Resistance to these arguments, even in the face of terror, is what distinguishes truly civilized, democratic societies. You can respect human rights and still be strong and ruthless your pursuit of the bad guys; in fact, violating them is a sign of weakness.

Andrew Sullivan also points out Meesese's disingenuousness with respect to torture, in the same interview. Sullivan also links to this great speech, worth quoting again:

This week, again, the Government of the United States, a land founded on a commitment of justice for all - my country - tells us that detainees in its campaign against terror have "no rights." ... The act abolishes the writ of habeas corpus, which Thomas Jefferson called one of the essential pillars of the American Republic. It gives the president the potentially despotic power to remove anyone from the protection of the law simply by carving upon his body a label � the words "unlawful enemy combatant."

.... Once more, the model that is adhered to is not the rich criminal or military justice system of the United States, but the model of Franz Kafka's Penal Colony. What attitude towards justice does this reveal?

I am not here to argue for release or freedom for those detained in the campaign against terror. I am arguing for justice. That is something quite different. It may well be that Majid Khan is a serious criminal responsible for crimes against humanity. It may well be that he used or promoted the use of terror as a device. If that is so, he should be charged and given a fair chance to defend himself. This trial, fairly run, will vindicate my nation's counterterrorism efforts. It will show those who are held for heinous criminals, if they are heinous criminals. It would promote the view in the world that my nation has and pursues a just cause, and treats those in its power with justice, though the justice be severe.

Finally, as pointed out in TPM:

Meese is not a has-been from the Reagan years. He has been a key advisor to the current White House on the nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This is a man who is widely considered to be at the pinnacle of the powerful conservative legal movement. This is what we have come to.

The Baker Comission/Study Group

As pointed out here, the "Iraq Study Group" has a lot of studying to do, since it does not have any Iraq experts, or even Middle East ones. Here's a good article by Michael Kinsley at Slate, about why such groups are really formed.

There are many reasons to be cautious about this team (the presence of Ed Meese being only one of them). The New Yorker's George Packer writes:

The Republicans had their neoconservative spree and emerged this month from its smoking wreckage, in Iraq and at the polls, with nothing to steady them except the hope that two aging condottieri from the first Bush Presidency, James A. Baker III and Robert Gates, can lead the way out. These are the same men who, fifteen years ago, abandoned Afghanistan to civil war and Al Qaeda, allowed Saddam to massacre his own people, and concluded that genocide in the Balkans was none of America’s business

Christopher Hitchens also makes a good argument for why Baker might not be the best man for the job. And also recalls:

For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it.

In all of this, one must feel truly sorry for the Iraqi people, who suffered through Saddam Hussein, the absurd Iran-Iraq war (back when Saddam was on the US side), the Gulf War, the supressed insurrection at its end, the UN sanctions, the 2003 invasion, and then this bungled occupation, which might lead to even worse to come. And sorry for the Iranian, Kuwaiti, and American victims of the entire thing too.

Finally, here's one of those "what-if" questions: Would Saddam have been dissuaded from invading Kuwait, back in 1990, if the Bush I administration had been really clear about the consequences? Instead, we had these quotes from the US embassador, meeting with Saddam shortly before the invasion:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

How many lives might have been saved?

Fun with Electronic Voting Machines

Salon has an update on the Florida 18,000 missing-votes-mess.

How appropriate that it was Kathleen Harris' old district. And no paper trail. They had 6 years to get it right, but didn't.

Simpson and The Simpsons

So it turns out that Rupert Murdoch got the killer's interview killed. (Somehow, Fox News still does not have anything to do with Fox TV, and claims credit for the cancellation too.)

But only when it was clear that this was not going to be good for the bottom line, let alone whatever reputation they might still have.

Simpson and "The Simpsons" teach some interesting lessons about the Free Market (Milton Friedman, RIP):

Sometimes it leads to good results: Bart, Lisa, Homer and Marge, in a witty and subversive extended run on FOX TV.

Sometimes it gives us OJ interviews. Or at least, it tries.

"What God wants, God gets, God help us all". - R. Waters.

Robert Altman, RIP

Never got to be a big fan, but enjoyed his unique approach to moviemaking, especially in "The Player" and "Short Cuts".

Just yesterday, saw his last movie, "A Prairie Home Companion" again on a plane (a "minor work"), and it is made rather explicit that death is hovering over all the participants, which Altman conveys with a sense of nostalgia, acceptance and peace.

Banana Republic Watch

From the Washington Post:

Former attorney general Janet Reno has taken the unusual step of openly criticizing the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy -- joining seven other former Justice Department officials in warning that the indefinite detention of U.S. terrorism suspects could become commonplace unless the courts intervene.

....

In their brief, Reno and the other former Justice Department officials said: "The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally -- perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons."

David Lynch campaigns

Much of the news, even the so-called "entertainment news," is depressing these days. One must ask: where is the joy? Must be out there somewhere.

So some much needed levity here: David Lynch's campaign for a best-actress Oscar for Laura Dern. I look forwards to seeing his latest, "Inland Empire".

Quick scoring of Lynch's ouvre I've seen:

- Mullholland Drive: A. Great performance by N. Watts.

- The Straight Story: A+. Produced by Disney, G-rated, excellent.

- Lost Highway: The first half of the movie gets an A+; the second, a B- or worse.

- Wild at Heart: C+. Don't know why this got top prizes at Cannes. Almost a self-parody.

- Blue Velvet: A. A revelation, when I saw it in the theaters in 1986.

- Dune: B+. Not so bad, watched on a decent home theater. Much better than the rather boring mini-series that was made a few years ago.

- Elephant Man: A+

- Eraser: B-. Points for atmospherics, being a "cult movie". But didn't get it, I guess.

"Twin Peaks" deserves special mention: the first season gets an A+; the second season gets a B- except for the A+ first episode and the Lynch-directed one that reveals the killer; the movie, "Fire Walk with Me", gets an F.

Politics and the English Language

This New Yorker's comment on Bush's use of "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" reminded me of the famous "Language Memo", allegedly written by Newt Gingrich, which circulated among Congressional Republicans in the 90's. (Aside: from the Web, it is hard to tell what year this memo was written, when it was circulated, and who actually wrote it. I'd also like to know if the title came with the original: Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.)

Both, of course, remind one of Orwell. Click here for his famous essay of the same name.
(Update: a better-formatted version is available from Russia.)

This is one of the things that the GOP has done better than the competition: It's not the "estate tax," it's the "death tax". (I myself prefer to call it the "Paris Hilton tax".) Not logging, but "healthy forests". And so on; not just with names or words, but, in general, "talking points" and "framing the debate". If you get to frame the debate in your own terms, your chances of winning are greatly improved.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, another classic case: "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Of course, it is less attractive to be "anti-choice" or "anti-life"...

FOX and OJ: O'Reilly should boycott FOX

I started this posting with this: hope that the self-proclaimed "culture warriors" at FOX News call the upcoming FOX-OJ Simpson production for what it is.

It turns out that Bill O'Reilly is suitably outraged: but he's not calling for a boycott on FOX, and actually said:

For the record, Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel.

What a coincidence, then, that they share a name! One of them should sue the other.

I just hope that whatever money is made from this, it all goes to the victims' families. Not just OJ's, but also the money that FOX makes. Fat chance...

A recent New Yorker profile of Rupert Murdoch appears to confirm that he cares more about power and money than ideology, and is now starting to hedge his bets with the Democratic candidates for 2008. As with most of the media in most of the world (and, especially, in the US), he certainly cares more about money than good taste, common decency, or justice. The OJ thing is just the latest proof of this.

El Cucuy

From an interesting New Yorker article on El Cucuy de la Mañana,
the radio host of a very popular Spanish-language morning show:

The Hispanic locutores of today—like immigrant radio hosts from the past—both strengthen the culture of origin and help to hasten assimilation. “This kind of thing—I hate to use the words ‘multi-cultural diversity’—in broadcasting is unique to the United States,” Henry Sapoznik, an American cultural historian, said. “There is no corollary, even in Canada or England or other countries with big immigrant populations. In every other country, to get access to radio, you needed political power. Here all you needed was money.”

I'm not sure that they translated "Cucuy" properly, though...

Botero and Abu Ghraib

Slate has a slide show on Fernando Botero's Abu Ghraib paintings. (Warning: disturbing images.)

These are the (unintended?) consequences of authorizing torture. We will see if the secret White House and Justice Department memos that authorized it are ever made public.

Fair and Balanced

A very interesting Fox News Memo, from the Vice President of News:

The elections and Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world. The war on terror goes on without interruption. Jennifer Griffin sent in info on Hamas' call for attacks on American interests. And let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.

Actually, if I were an insurgent, I would be thrilled at how divided, blind, and ill-informed the American public might be, with this kind of media in charge. Could it be any easier to manipulate? (Just issue some threat, and you'll get coverage 24 hours a day.)

The Fox story about that Hamas threat is here. One would think the bigger story, at that point in time, would be Israel's tragic mistake, which killed 18 civilians, including children. (In the US media, it was drowned by the elections.) Just the steady toll of a conflict for which that US has all but abandoned peacemaking efforts in the last 6 years.

Bad AP writing, and uninformed readers

When the 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon ended, the AP put out this story, which was posted at Yahoo, among many other places. Here's how it starts:

"Truce will be Israel's last, Lebanon envoy declares"

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Lebanon's UN ambassador bitterly slammed Israel's month-long bombardment of his country ahead of a hard-won truce, and vowed that the treaty would be Israel's last with any Middle East country.

"Lebanon will be, I think, the last state to sign a peace treaty with Israel," UN ambassador Nouhad Mahmoud told CNN television's "Late Edition" program, without explaining the remark.

He called the agreement a "crucial" test for all the parties involved.

Without yet venturing any opinions on the Middle East conflict, let me just say that this is a classic case of very, very bad writing on the part of the AP, bordering on the irresponsible.

The AP writer cannot tell the difference between a truce and a peace treaty, which is crucial in the Middle East. There have been lots of truces, but fewer peace treaties. Israel has signed two peace treaties with its neighbors so far, each of which was a considerable achievement: with Egypt in 1979 (with Carter's help), and with Jordan, in 1994 (with Clinton's help). Still pending: Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon.

The ambassador was simply saying that Lebanon would be the last to sign. He might have been echoing a column by Tom Friedman, which, if I remember correctly, argued that while many people expect Israel to sign a peace treaty with Lebanon before it does the same with Syria, the reverse would be more likely.

As it turns out, the first time I visited a well-known right-wing blog, I happened upon a discussion of this piece. The blogger, and most of the readers, took the AP report to mean that the Lebanese ambassador had threatened to destroy Israel!

How terrorism works, and what Al-Qaeda wants

Stating the obvious:

How does Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization, measure success? Their "metric" is not necessarily the number of people that they kill. They do want to achieve the maximum "effect," and spectacular attacks that kill lots of people are a part of this. But what, really, are their ultimate goals?

This, of course, depends on the particular group; but it seems that, in general, one of these goals is to get their enemies to do stupid things in reaction to the terrorist threat. The cliche, "when we give up our civil rights, the terrorists have won", can be quite true.

And it seems clearer every day, that in invading Iraq, the US walked into a trap, especially, given the mismanagent of the post-war invasion.

We can argue endlessly about the rationale for the invasion - the WMD stories, the cherry-picking of intelligence, the shifting justifications, etc. Among the confusion, we can find good reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and good intentions for the future of Iraq.

What is really inexplicable, and unforgivable, is the bungling of the occupation once the decision to invade was made. (Reports of Donald Rumsfeld threatening to fire the next person who brought-up the need for a post-invasion plan are quite disturbing.)

It was as if, having decided to jump into the deep end of a swimming pool, one neglected learning how to swim.

As a good blogger analysis of what Al-Qaeda points out:

The sad irony of the last five years is that al Qaeda gambled and lost. Their attack offended more Muslims than expected and their military position in Afghanistan folded like a house of cards. Then, unbelievably, with bin Laden’s outfit on the ropes Bush gave them exactly what they wanted.

Namely, the chaos in Iraq. There's also a provocative prediction, which could also explain why there have been no attacks in the US since 9/11:

What happens next? In my understanding, nothing as far as America is concerned. Notwithstanding mutations like Zarqawi’s former organization, which view killing (Americans, Shiites, whatever) as an end in itself, the terrorists got what they needed from us. Assuming that the old Al Qaeda has any influence relative to strategy-blind mutations, the folks who probably should worry are US-backed regimes like the al-Sauds and Murbarak who will turn to us in the face of a growing insurgency and find no help forthcoming. And, ultimately, Israel.

Those Electronic Voting Machines

Nice: a Florida Congressional House seat is contested by a margin of 386 votes, and there are 18,000 voters whose House candidate was not recorded. Apparently, the machines had a touch-screen interface that did not always offer the proper choice of candidates.

Paper trail? There doesn't seem to be any. Hey, just ask the computers to count the votes again.

Update: see here for more details, and comments from CS profs. Dill and Jones.

Coffee rant no. 1: Starbucks sizes

My friend Kristen has asked me to write a rant about Starbucks coffee sizes, which apparently annoy her as much as they annoy me. Not surprisingly, a little web research shows that the complaint is widespread.

First, the facts: The coffee sizes at Starbucks are called: "Short," "Tall," "Grande," and "Venti". Now, how the hell are you supposed to remember which is bigger, the "Tall", or the "Grande"? Especially if you speak enough Spanish to know that "Grande" means "big". Which is larger, "tall", or "big"?

My research has just informed me that "Venti" is "20" in Italian ("veinte", En Español). At least this conveys some useful information: size is 20 ounces. But still, who's to say that "Venti" has to be bigger than "Grande"? In mathematical terms, this is an attempt to specify a total order using three different types of units. That is, it makes no sense, except for the "Short" vs. "Tall" comparison.

One of the underlying reasons for this silliness is that Starbucks (along with every other food and beverage company in the US, it seems) does not want to use the word "small". The solution, as pointed out in many web pages, is for us customers to rebel and use the words "small", "medium," and "large". Dave Barry puts it best:

Just say you want a large coffee, people. Because if we let the coffee people get away with this, they're not going to stop, and some day, just to get a lousy cup of coffee, you'll hear yourself saying, "I'll have a Mega Grandissimaximo Giganto de Humongo-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong decaf." And then you will ask for the key to the AquaSwooshie.

And when that happens, people, the terrorists will have won.

(A correction to Barry's column: Seattle's Best is actually owned by Starbucks, since 2003.)

Finally: This article at Slate explains why the smallest sizes at Starbucks are not advertised - and how the smaller capuccino is better:

The difficulty is that if some of your products are cheap, you may lose money from customers who would willingly have paid more. So, businesses try to discourage their more lavish customers from trading down by making their cheap products look or sound unattractive, or, in the case of Starbucks, making the cheap product invisible.

Note like the "small" capuccino is that cheap - "$2.35 instead of $2.65." I'll expand on how the smaller coffee drink is usually the better one in a future post!

More about Spain

See here for more more debunking the right-wing meme that the Spanish voters did the terrorist's bidding in 2004; you can also find more heated discussion here.

It is easy to see how the Spanish case can be certain people's worst nightmare: a well-informed voting public, punishing an incompetent government that cynically exploits the terrorist problem. For a sample of the distortions, see this column by Charles Krauthammer, before the 2004 elections. As I have pointed out before, most of this is nonsense:

1. The most important fact behind the Spanish case is ignored (the Government's lies about who perpetrated the attack).
2. Just because terrorists are perceived to favor one result does not mean that the elections should be canceled and victory handed to the other side.
3. How easy for an embattled government to say, "Vote for me, or the terrorists win."
4. Whether Bin Laden wanted Bush to win or lose in 2004 is, actually, in doubt. There are good arguments as to why he might have wanted Bush to win, and the timing of a video he released a few days before the elections has been offered as evidence. The mismanagement of the Iraq invasion was a gift to al-Qaeda. See, for example, Richard Clarke's book.
5. Withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq might actually hurt the interests of Islamic terrorists in Spain.
   

Consider this quote from Krauthammer:

A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As Sept. 11 showed, attacking the U.S. homeland would prompt a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide.

Gimme a break. "America is not Spain"??? I hope that in America, the result would not be a landslide if the President lied about the attack for political advantage and people found out.

In short, these arguments are insulting to the Spanish people. If the Conservative Prime Minister, instead of blaming ETA, had come out with a strong statement against terrorists in general, faced honestly the possibility that it could have been Islamic terror, and promised never to yield to it, he would have had a very good chance of winning the elections. And, who knows? That might have been the result that the terrorists intended.

Borat saved by House

Indeed, truth can be stranger than fiction:

BORAT star Sacha Baron Cohen was beaten up by a passer-by after he tried to play a prank as his alter ego....
He was rescued by actor pal Hugh Laurie who had been on his way to a New York bar with Cohen.

Of course, it could just be tabloid fodder. But a good story nonetheless.

Concert: Aterciopelados, Slim's

Saw Los Aterciopleados, the best-known (and probably the best) rock band from Colombia, at Slim's. I first saw them at the same venue some 5 years ago; both concerts were excellent.

I also caught their free appearance at Amoeba Music on Saturday. The setlist for that was:

1. Complemento
2. Que te Besen
3. Don Dinero
4. Cancion Protesta
5. Oye Mujer
6. Bolero Falaz
7. Baracunatana
   

They also played these songs at Slim's, and a bunch more. The lead singer, Andrea Echeverri, can out-hippie any San Francisco hippie, any time. She had, as always, great energy and charisma, and went onstage with the most gorgeous dress I've seen any rock player wear (sorry, didn't bring a camera). Colombian fashion doing well, as usual!

Any band that can write a song like "Bolero Falaz" (from their second album) deserves serious consideration.

For the Slim's encore, they did a slow-burning version of "Florecita Rockera", plus "Baracunatana," which is a cover a classic Colombian oldie. "Cancion Protesta" was directed against Plan Colombia, which uses US funds to fumigates coca plantations in Colombian National Parks, against other things. (Noam Chomsky has asked whether this might mean that Colombian airplanes can fumigate tobacco plantations in Kentucky; but that is a matter for another post.) I would just add that we need to condemn the drug traffickers as well, who slash down unreplaceable native forests and jungles to grow the coca, which will then be fumigated.

The song from Buitrago's solo album, about flying over Bogota, was quite good.

The opening band, Rupa & the April Fishes, did well, with french-folk-type songs in French, English and Spanish.

I like how this paper puts it:

One cultural theory holds that energy and change move from the center of a system to the periphery.

Outlying areas change, then surpass the center. This is the case with rock en español, which lately outshines American rock. Colombia's Aterciopelados ("Velvety Ones") makes the case.

Movie: The Departed

Just got back from watching The Departed. Indeed, as the critics say: Martin Scorsese is back! It's no Mean Streets, but I liked it even more than Goodfellas. (I didn't care much for Casino or Gangs of New York, and missed The Aviator.)

Violent? Yes, but not unnecessarily or sadistically so (unlike many other movies in theaters these days). What I liked the most was the acting, with some of the best that Hollywood has to offer: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, all do great work. Among all that testosterone, the one female lead, Vera Farmiga, does quite well too.

I thought the movie was near-perfect for its genre. A couple of Scorcese's more annoying traits from previous movies are absent: the overuse of rock music, and the Joe -Pesci-psycho-comic-type character. (The music was fine: a very appropriate "Gimme Shelter," plus, I was actually pleasantly surprised to catch the Van Morrison rendition of "Comfortably Numb," from Roger Water's The Wall in Berlin, also tastefully used.) And hey, Nicholson did not overact as much as some reviews accuse him of doing!

Academy, listen up: this is your chance to finally give the man the Oscar for Best Director, with no embarrasment for anyone involved. DiCaprio should get some Oscar or other as well, while we're at it...

Time of War

From President Bush's radio address this weekend:

Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.

Wow, I hadn't quite thought about it up until I read this, but it is indeed quite an achievement. Let me take the opportunity to congratulate, from among the following list, those countries that have had elections since 2003:

Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

Yes, it's the Coalition of the Willing. Oh, and Afghanistan too - a real achievement, truly.

All snarkiness aside, two things come to mind: First, perhaps this is not best called "a time of war," for many of the reasons that "War on Terror" is not the best name. I think that the United States is currently not at war with any nation state, with the possible exception of North Korea after the armistice of 1953. Second, that Bush's words would have more resonance if he had asked for some sacrifice from the US population, except, of course, for those in the Military. (Gas tax? Conservation? Any tax? Nope...)

Who's writing the President's speeches these days? Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter, left in the summer of 2006...

Concert: The Bad Plus

This is a good weekend for music. On Friday, I got a chance to see The Bad Plus at The Independent, in SF. This band can best be categorized as an instrumental jazz trio: piano, upright bass, and drums. But it is not your usual jazz trio. A simplistic but useful way to describe the difference is that the music is played with a rock attitude.

Jazz drummers are better than rock drummers, which is why the best rock drummers, such as Bill Bruford, would like to do Jazz. This drummer, David King, is like Bill Bruford on speed, if you will. Dangerously close to a circus act, but not there, fortunately.

Again, this is jazz played with a rock attitude, whereas Bruford/Wetton-era King Crimson is rock played with a jazz attitude. I like Bruford best when he is playing rock - he brings something unique to it; similarly, I'd say that David King is bringing some unique things to jazz drumming.

Important note: None of these two bands or styles should be confused with that often wretched thing called "jazz fusion," mostly seen in the 1970's.

The show included feats of synchronization and, as expected, fun and interesting covers of pop and rock tunes: Tears For Fears' "Everybody Wants to Rule the World", Interpol's "Narc", which I liked better than the original, and, most enjoyably, Rush's "Tom Sawyer". Such covers are more and more common these days, to the displeasure of some critics. I am not bothered by them. What are "Autumn Leaves" and "My Funny Valentine", if not pop tunes? If those can be standards, why shouldn't a Radiohead song be one?

You can see them doing a decent version of Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit here:
TBP still lacks some of the maturity of a well-developed jazz ensemble, and has some to learn from Brad Mehldau, whose Radiohead covers are excellent ("Paranoid Android", "Exit Music", and "Everything in it's Right Place").

At home, revisiting the albums by The Bad Plus, I conclude that these is one of those bands that sounds best live and in person. Catch them if you can!

Civil Unions in Mexico City

An interesting development in Mexico City:

Mexico City's assembly has backed a law recognising same-sex civil unions, the first such move in the country's history.

The ruling stops short of enabling gay couples to get married and will only apply to the estimated nine million inhabitants of Mexico City.

This, while several states in the US are doing the opposite. The good news: one state, Arizona, was the first to reject an anti-gay referendum. Update: a Slate article argues that it was the ban on all civil unions that brought down that referendum, rather than the marriage part.

Ed Bradley, RIP

From the New York Times:

But Mr. Bradley’s life off camera was often as rich and compelling as his life in the studio. Having begun his broadcast career as a disc jockey in Philadelphia, Mr. Bradley was an enormous fan of many forms of music — particularly jazz and gospel. He counted the musicians Wynton Marsalis, Aaron Neville and George Wein among his friends and made regular pilgrimages to the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. At his death, he was also the host of “Jazz at Lincoln Center Radio With Ed Bradley,” broadcast weekly on 240 public radio stations.

I remember seeing him at the 2005 Jazzfest in New Orleans, introducing Aaron Neville.

That was a memorable jazzfest, my first: great food, music, and company. Nancy and I caught an interview and solo performance by Randy Newman, who as his last song played a moving version of "Louisiana 1927." That was May, 2005. In August, hurricane Katrina hit.

Rumsfeld post-mortem

A good article over at Slate about Rumsfeld's job performance. Excerpts:

Iraq dominates the list of Rumsfeld errors because of the sheer enormity of his strategic mistakes. Indeed, his Iraq blunders should have cost him his job long before the 2006 midterm elections. From tinkering with troop deployments in 2002 and 2003, which ensured there were too few troops from the start, to micromanaging operations with his famed "8,000 mile screwdriver," to pushing for the disastrous twin policies of de-Baathification and disbandment for the Iraqi army, Rumsfeld's failures transformed the Iraq war from a difficult enterprise into an unwinnable one.

And:

Notwithstanding the spectacular violence of the Sept. 11 attacks, America might have done better had it not chosen a war paradigm to fight terrorism and instead chosen to employ a comprehensive array of diplomatic, intelligence, military, and law enforcement approaches. Doing so might have encouraged more of our allies to stand by our side. It might also have put America on a better footing to sustain its efforts for what promises to be a generational struggle against terrorism.

Better than Times Select?

I was eager to read the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's interview with Tony Snow, also referenced in this Slate page; you know, the one where White House Press Secretary Snow says of the Democrats,

"You gotta wonder if they're a serious political party," and

"Democrats tend to have a view of the military that is not always fully respectful and even when they say they're supporting them, they're undercutting them … constantly trying to undermine public confidence in that military by describing defeat what people on the ground see as hard-won victory."

It turns out that I have to join Rush 24/7 to read it. It reads:

What if you're not a member?
Click here to join Rush 24/7 and change your life.

Wow. And only $6.95 a month!

Now he tells us

From President Bush's press conference today:

While we made some progress on changing the tone, I'm disappointed we haven't made more. I'm confident that we can work together. I'm confident that we can overcome the temptation to divide this country between red and blue.

I guess he's back to being a "uniter, not a divider", after 6 years of dividing.

Bush also pretty much admits lying when he said last week, before the elections, that Rumsfeld would stay on for the next two years. My take is that it was a conditional lie: if the elections had gone well for the Republicans, Rumsfeld might have stayed on. His answer was probably part of a Rove-ian strategy to project total confidence before the elections. Another thing: I'm not sure that "the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."

And then there's this:

And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- you know, they care about the security of this country like I do.

That was not the message he was sending during the campaign!

Recounts and electronic machines

Among many complaints: Reports last night said that the Montana senate count was taking longer because they were having problems with the electronic machines.

As for the Virginia recount, it seems that there is no paper trail for the individual ballots? If this is the case, all that can be done is to add the sub-totals again.

I believe I heard a Diebold representative say this on the radio, once: if you want a recount (when there's no paper trail), just ask the computer to count again.

One might say that a decent, reliable voting system does not exist for the same reasons that New Orleans did not have decent levees: because the US government does not want them. Not a big conspiracy, necessarily, just an appalling lack of political will. Both can be achieved with less money than what a month's occupation of Iraq currently costs.

Recommended: VerifiedVoting.org's site, for example.

Conservative Magazine: GOP must go

Interesting, what a magazine called The American Conservative has to say about President Bush:

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country’s reputation for a long time.

They are speaking of Iraq, mostly. But Bush's position on immigration has riled them up considerably too. (Immigration is the one issue where most rabid conservatives actually disagree with Bush.) They didn't even get to discuss spending and the deficit...

Quote of the (Election) Day

From a letter from President Bush to GOP voters:

There are fundamental differences in this election. Our country cannot afford to elect a Democrat Congress that would abandon our strategy for victory in the War on Terror and raise taxes to pay for their reckless spending.

Laura and I urge you to vote Republican and to ask all your family and friends to go to the polls. The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.

Indeed, there are fundamental differences. But "reckless spending?" I would also like more details on the "strategy for victory," too.

Note also the word usage we've remarked on previously: "Democrat Congress", when "Democratic Congress" would have done just as well.

Free Friedman

This week, you can read it for free: Tom Friedman's column at the New York Times (and other Times Select material). To quote:

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Here's Krugman's, also free.

By the way, ever since that Times Select thing started, I've found it strange that the NYT is charging for opinion columns. Are they really making more money than they could from ads?
(A friend argued that the op-ed columns are the most unique product they have to offer—most of the news content is syndicated for other news sources. But, still, I don't like it! :-)

Dirty tricks, the media, and the obvious

The latest GOP dirty trick is a thing of beauty: lots of annoying automated phone calls, which seem to come from the opponent at first, but really slime the opponent if listened till the end.

It's being very well-documented by Josh Marshall, who has also realized the obvious, thanks to the media's apparent lack of interest in this story. (CNN is picking it up, but it might be too late.) As Paul Krugman writes:

The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle.

They will also choose to devote humongous amounts of time to any missing white woman or child, Michael Jackson, serial killers, and troubled celebrities. Darfur? Congo? Honest discussion of the deficit? I guess that does not sell...

It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is

Only one reporter has had the opportunity and the presence of mind to ask President Bush, directly, if he thinks water-boarding is torture: Bill O'Reilly. Sullivan analyzed the transcript, also available from FOX news here. Let's just focus on this part:

O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?

BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.

O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

So much for the "no-spin zone." Not only did Bush not answer the first question, he did not answer the second one either. The implicit answer is: "Trust me." (And I thought that in the US, it was conservatives who did not trust the Government, and did not want to give it unfettered powers.)

Bush's excuse for not answering question No. 1 does not make sense either: it's not like the question was, "tell me what techniques you are using to interrogate suspects". It was about a very specific method. Any terrorist watching will have to conclude that yes, waterboarding is indeed used, and might consider "training" for it. (It appears that such training is, actuallly, impossible to do, since the method relies on triggering basic reflexes and a sensation of drowning.)

So what is the reason for not answering the question, other than the political embarrasment that a straight answer might cause?

The only one I can think of is that perhaps it's all a very clever plan to get terrorists to train for waterboarding, and then use some different technique on them when they are captured, thus wasting the terrorists time! Still, other governments do use waterboarding, and some are the receiving end of "extraordinary rendition" by the US. So it seems that a terrorist would be well-advised to "train" for waterboarding anyway, just in case (again, if such a thing were possible). Thus, I see no strategic advantage in either case.

Back to the question: is waterboarding considered torture, or not? Memos from the Bush White House and Justice Department would seem to indicate that it does not fall under their rather narrow definition of torture, since it does not cause permanent organ damage or failure. This lets Bush say that "we are within the law" and "we do not torture:" the law he signed got to re-define what torture is.

Leaving aside the morality of such practices, there are many doubts about their practicality: it is not clear that good intelligence is obtained in this way. The victim will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear. (One example of this: the main source for Saddam's supposed al-Qaeda links was tortured in Saudi Araba, and apparently made it all up.)

Movie review: Borat

What can I say? Its current Rotten Tomatoe-meter indicates a 96% level of freshness, unusually high for any movie. I guess I agree with the critical consensus, with some caveats: I would have liked to see more of the fearless sociological explorations (the rodeo, the religious meeting), and less of the borderline-mean cases (the opening caricature of Borat's town, the antiques shop and the fancy Southern dinner at Secession Drive, up until when the uninvited guest shows up).

As for the wrestling scene: priceless. It is not often that the "No. 1 movie in America" features such moments of poetry.

Given how much money the movie is making, I am afraid we can expect a few knock-offs in the future - a Jackass-style franchise, until it gets old?

Update: click here for a well-informed dissenting view.

Lifestyle choice, blame the wife?

A classic: Seattle Pastor blames Haggard's wife for her husband's lifelong homosexuality, denial, and deception. Dan Savage's reaction is, as usual, hilarious and on-the-point.

This piece of (attempted) rationalization from David Frum at the National Review is also a classic. One man puts his wife at risk for HIV/AIDS and lies to his children, friends and congregation. He also uses religion to mobilize politically against letting openly gay, commited couples marry. "The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution." Frum asks: Which man is leading the more moral life? Well, sir, we disagree.

From Haggard's letter of apology:

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life. For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me.

And then these folks argue that it's "a lifestle choice"? Why would you choose to be gay, rather than straight, and make your life so much more difficult?

Update: Andrew Sullivan discusses this quote, with more, um, personal insight than I can ever hope to have.

Democracy and honesty

A good essay by Michael Kinsley in the NYT Books in Review:

The biggest flaw in our democracy is, as I say, the enormous tolerance for intellectual dishonesty.

Not sure if it's the biggest, but it's a flaw amply demonstrated by the Kerry silliness, the Foley and Haggard scandals, and so many other recent news items...

Impossible competence

This October 8 Washington Post note did not make much of a mark on the media, in spite of being a secret Rumsfeld memo leaked by Bob Woodward. The item I found most interesting, and worrysome, was this proposal (emphasis added):

3. A Goldwater-Nichols process for the national security portions of the U.S. government. The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols legislation led to greater jointness and interdependence in the Department of Defense among the 4 services, but it has taken 20 years to begin to fully realize its potential. The broader [U.S. government] structure is still in the industrial age and it is not serving us well. It is time to consider a new Hoover Commission to recommend ways to reorganize both the executive and legislative branches, to put us on a more appropriate path for the 21st century. Only a broad, fundamental reorganization is likely to enable federal departments and agencies to function with the speed and agility the times demand. The charge of incompetence against the U.S. government should be easy to rebut if the American people understand the extent to which the current system of government makes competence next to impossible.

Does Rumsfeld really think that competence in National Security is "next to impossible" under the current system? Rather scary, from someone in charge of running the Defense Department. But then, wouldn't this also absolve him, in his mind, of any responsibility for how things go?

A classic: the White House releases FEMA federal funds for Missouri, for storms back in July, the day before Bush visits to support the GOP "embattled Senator". As summarized in Salon:

As we noted the other day, the White House authorized federal funds for storm relief in New York last month just in time to give Rep. Tom Reynolds something to discuss that wasn't the Mark Foley scandal.

Now, as George W. Bush heads for campaign stops in Missouri, the White House is announcing federal aid for storm relief there, too. As the Note notes, the timing is just a little peculiar: The storms in question hit Missouri in July.

Limbaugh and the President: "Democrat" vs. "Democratic"

It is instructive to take a look at Rush Limbaugh's interview with President Bush. As a quick check, I searched for the word "Democratic" in the text: zero matches. For "Democrat", there are 8. Masterful!

This is a Bush trend recently noted by The New Yorker: never say "Democratic;" say "Democrat" instead. Sample quote:

RUSH: When you go out on the campaign trail or when you're in your private moments, do you think of the consequences of governing with a Democrat majority in either the House or the Senate when it comes to things like tax cuts and the war on terror?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I really don't think about the idea of having a Democrat-led House and Senate because I don't think it's going to happen.

By the way, I'm not sure this is the answer that Rush was expecting (note his helpful mentions of tax cuts and the "war on terror"). It is interesting that the President claims not to think at all about something that is actually very likely to happen (but by no means certain).

I also like how the button for listening to the conversation reads: "Listen to Rush Conduct Broadcast Excellence."

What it really says

Andrew Sullivan has a good reaction to the Kerry silliness:

I know it's politics. I'm not naive. But it's also revealing about someone's character that he could authorize and exploit such a thing. Most fair-minded people will have to concede that, in retrospect, this was a very, very, very low blow. It hadn't sunk in for me till last night how low. In retrospect, this incident says much more about Bush than about Kerry.

I would also add, that the incident is very revealing of the US media, how it operates, and its relation to the current powers that be.

An Update: Kerry Apologizes

Finally, it seems, an apology that will work. But look at the caption of the CNN article, under Kerry's picture:

Sen. John Kerry is the subject of fierce criticism after telling college students they'd get "stuck in Iraq" if they didn't study hard.

The obvious bears repeating: this is conceding the very point that Kerry disputed.

How the World Works

Could this be why Air America (the "Liberal" talk-show radio network) is going broke?

An internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates.

Just one of the many practical problems with the promise of "free speech". Compare and contrast with Fox News' financing, bearing in mind their interviews of Clinton and Bush, as pointed out in this Washington Post Media Notes article.

The Silly Kerry Mess

A classic case of bungling on the Democratic side, and projection/sophism on the Republican. What a difference a word ("us", in this case) can make! What Kerry said:

"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

What Kerry says that he meant to say (and the prepared text confirms):

"... you get us stuck in Iraq."

Memo to John Kerry: It is, in fact, possible to apologize for something you did not say, or you did not mean to say. Just say: "what I meant to say was X. If it came out as Y, or if someone interpreted it as Y, then I am reallly sorry."

The Republicans seem to be adopting the strategy of not accepting the apology unless Kerry actually says that he meant to say Y. Could they be so shameless?

[An update: I thought they had managed not to go over that line, but I was wrong. Look at this election-eve interview with Karl Rove, also discussed here:

HUGH HEWITT: Do you believe [John Kerry's apology for his botched Iraq joke] was an apology, Karl Rove?

KARL ROVE: Well, I’m going to take it as such. But you know, I thought it was interesting that he couldn’t bring himself to come out and face onto the camera and say you know, I made a mistake, I’m sorry, I apologize to our men and women in Iraq.

HH: A lot of military have not accepted it as such, but I’ll leave it up to them.
]

Kerry is actually helping the Republicans with his later remarks ("I apologize to no-one"). Looks like he'll get Swift-Boated again! And it looks like Swift-Boat II will be enabled by Kerry's anger at Swift-Boat I. Fascinating, if it wasn't so depressing.

By the way: look at how an AP wire describes this:

What triggered it was Kerry's comment, to a group of California students on Monday, that people unable to succeed in the U.S. educational system would likely "get stuck in Iraq."

Isn't this pre-judging the point?