Lets Go Mets Go!!!!

In honor of opening day, the Lets Go Mets Go video from the 1986 World Champion Mets

Science Fiction Predicts The Future

As I have written elsewhere, I am a huge fan of Science Fiction. Good science fiction provides insight into the human condition. It can also provide interesting glimpses into possible futures. Of course it can be really funny to look back at older science fiction and compare their predictions of the future to our real life present. For instance, last time I checked the moon was not rocketed into outer space in 1999, ala Space 1999. The 1968 SciFi show UFO (pronounced YoooFo) was set in 1980, and featured a lunar base where the uniform for women consisted of a silver mini-skirt and a purple wig.

Of course sometimes science fiction gets it (at least partially) right. Popular Mechanics Magazine has an article entitled “The 10 Most Prophetic Sci-Fi Movies Ever”.

Here is the list.

1. Gattaca
2. Minority Report
3. The Road Warrior (Mad Max 2)
4. The Truman Show
5. Destination Moon
6. The Running Man
7. Blade Runner
8. Soylent Green
9. Short Circuit
10. 2001: A Space Odyssey

Gattaca got the number one spot because the issues of genetic profiling and bioethics are with us today and seemingly will only get more complicated. You can read the article to find out why each film made the list. I will comment briefly here about a few of the films.

Destination Moon was made in 1950 and written by my favorite author Robert Heinlein based on his story. It features a film within a film where Woody Woodpecker explains how space flight works.

It is interesting to look at The Running Man and The Truman Show and compare them to today’s reality shows like Survivor and Big Brother.

Speaking of Big Brother, I was in high school in 1984 and at the time it was all the rage to read George Orwell’s novel (written in 1948). The future that Orwell predicted had not come to pass (though approximations did exist in countries like the Soviet Union). Still, that illustrates another benefit of science fiction. It can serve as a warning. But we shouldn’t let our guard down just because the year something was predicted as passed us by. We may not have had a permanent moon base by 1980, but someday we will. Orwell’s Big Brother may have had two-way television surveillance to keep track of people, but today there are computers…

Don't Play It Again, Madonna

I thought it couldn’t really get any worse than Madonna’s cover of Don McLean’s “American Pie.” American Pie is one of my favorite songs and I thought her version was awful. At the time I thought that such things were simply one of the costs of having a First Amendment. But now, Madonna is reportedly going even further down the road of offensive reinterpretation. Reportedly, Madonna is trying to drum up interest in a remake of the classic film “Casablanca” set in “war torn Iraq.”

As the Daily mall reports:

A source at a major Hollywood studio that was recently approached by the 49-year-old star said: "She is still determined to make it in the movies.

"She and her representatives have been touting around a project which is a remake of Casablanca. The reception has been lukewarm to say the least. No one can understand why she wants to redo what many people consider the greatest film of all time."

In the 1942 original, Bergman starred opposite Humphrey Bogart, who played Rick Blaine, a cynical bar owner in the Moroccan city of Casablanca in the early days of the Second World War. Ilsa is torn between love for her husband, a Czech Resistance leader, and her ex-lover Rick. Madonna is said to believe the film will make her reputation as an actress, after a string of high-profile flops such as Shanghai Surprise, Body Of Evidence and Swept Away, her much-derided 2002 collaboration with husband Guy Ritchie.

The source said: "Madonna is talking about taking the Ingrid Bergman role for herself, even though Bergman was in her 20s when she played Ilsa and Madonna is nearly 50.

Well given that just about every movie set in Iraq has thus far been a commercial disappointment (if not an outright flop), I can only hope that Hollywood decides good taste and profits both demand that this film not be made.

New Clint-On Campaign Video

If you loved Sara Silverman's "I am [bleeping] Matt Damon" video you might like this. Watcth till the end, it gets better.

George Lucas Creates Yet Another Version of Star Wars

Advances in special effects technology have allowed yet another version of Star Wars to be created. I kind of still prefer the original.

Do You Trust The IRS To Do Your Taxes?

I just learned something from David Freddoso’s article about Barak Obama’s IRS simplification plan. In “Obama’s 1040 — 2 EZ 4 Me” he talks about Obama’s plan to have the IRS prepare tax returns, instead of making taxpayers do it. The IRS would simply send you a bill or a refund. Taxpayers could challenge the IRS decision. It would begin with 1040EZ filers and then be expanded. That does sound attractive, but the problem is that too many people might not notice if they are overcharged or be willing to challenge the IRS if they think it’s wrong.

On the upside, Obama’s website claims that this plan would save Americans $2 billion in tax-preparation fees. That sounds great. But if you’re like most people, you get your property tax bill, you groan, and you file it away. A challenge is probably more trouble than it’s worth. And many people will do the same when the IRS overcharges them or sends a smaller refund than they had expected.

By scrapping the adversarial relationship between the taxpayer and the government, the Goolsbee-Obama plan reduces the taxpayer’s incentive to reduce his tax burden and increases his chances to overpay. This means that Obama will soon have the government overbilling millions of taxpayers — some by a lot, some by a little. Many will overpay rather than taking the time to counter-file. After all, is it worth the hassle just to retrieve a few hundred dollars?

“At first, when they only apply it to the simplest returns, they probably wouldn’t have that much more money coming in,” says Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform. “But when they expand it — oh yeah, then they would have a lot more money coming in. People have better things to do than to fight the IRS, and they figure they’ll lose even if they do.”

The problem with the Goolsbee plan is that it simplifies tax preparation, but it does not simplify taxes. It maximizes the government’s role in collecting taxes while minimizing its visibility to the taxpayer. It will make a few taxpayers’ lives genuinely easier, but its true effect will be to narrow the so-called “tax gap” — the estimated $290 billion the IRS claims it under-collects each year (how they arrive at this number, they do not say).

Simplifying the tax code would be a very good thing in my opinion. I also like the idea of not having to fill out a tax return. But if this plan did come to fruition and it did end up collecting more revenue from the taxpayers who use he system then it would if they filed their own tax returns, it really amounts to a backdoor tax increase. It would also be a regressive tax, because wealthier people are the ones sure to still use professional tax preparers to minimize the taxes they pay.

Hillary Wasn't Lying???

What 2008 Looked Like In 1968

Here is a really interesting article from the November 1968 issue of Mechanix Illustrated, entitled What Will Life Be Like in the Year 2008?

Some of the predictions were just a bit off

You slide into your sleek, two-passenger air-cushion car, press a sequence of buttons and the national traffic computer notes your destination, figures out the current traffic situation and signals your car to slide out of the garage. Hands free, you sit back and begin to read the morning paper—which is flashed on a flat TV screen over the car’s dashboard. Tapping a button changes the page.

The car accelerates to 150 mph in the city’s suburbs, then hits 250 mph in less built-up areas, gliding over the smooth plastic road. You whizz past a string of cities, many of them covered by the new domes that keep them evenly climatized year round.
Ninety minutes after leaving your home, you slide beneath the dome of your destination city.

Your car decelerates and heads for an outer-core office building where you’ll meet your colleagues. After you get out, the vehicle parks itself in a convenient municipal garage to await your return. Private cars are banned inside most city cores. Moving sidewalks and electrams carry the public from one location to another.

Others are spot on.

The single most important item in 2008 households is the computer… Computers also handle travel reservations, relay telephone messages, keep track of birthdays and anniversaries, compute taxes and even figure the monthly bills for electricity, water, telephone and other utilities.

Money has all but disappeared. Employers deposit salary checks directly into their employees’ accounts. Credit cards are used for paying all bills. Each time you buy something, the card’s number is fed into the store’s computer station. A master computer then deducts the charge from your bank balance.

I winder what will 2048 be like?

On an even lighter note, here is some video of Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In giving us "the news from the future." Watch for two eerily accurate predictions after Goldie Hawn.

The Passenger Bill of Rights

New York's Passenger Bill of Rights, which would require airlines to provide food, water and fresh air to passengers stuck on the ground and apply to runway delays of more than three hours, conflicts with a 1978 federal law that prohibits states from regulating airline prices, routes or services, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said in a 3-0 ruling. Read the NY Times story here.

There has been a great deal of criticism of this decision with people (including the assemblyman that sponsored the law) arguing that it is wrong for the court to favor the airlines over the needs of passengers. Personally, I agree that the requirements for the airlines to provide water and fresh air to passengers stuck on the tarmac is extremely reasonable and perhaps the bare minimum that should be expected. But the 2nd Circuit was right to strike down the law.

It’s the job of a judge to follow the law, not to do decide what the law should be. The 1978 federal law prevents states from regulating airlines because if that was allowed, there could be different laws in each of the 50 states. That would be confusing, inefficient, and probably lead to higher prices. The proper thing to do here, and something I would recommend, is for Congress to simply pass New York’s law and have it apply nationally.

Obama, Race, and Fathers

Roger Clegg has piece on NRO this morning entitled “Want to Hear a REALLY Honest Speech about Race in America?” The speech has three main points. “First, race relations in this country are good, have never been better, and are improving.” Second “that the government cannot do much more about racial discrimination than it is already doing.” That “[we] can and should continue to enforce our antidiscrimination laws, but any underlying racism that remains must be addressed by all of us — black and white, Asian and Hispanic, American Indian and immigrant — in our hearts. “

His third point is the one I found most insightful.

This brings me to my third point, which is a hard one to make without being accused of “blaming the victim,” at best, or even being labeled a flat-out racist, if you happen to be white. But, to the extent that there is anything brave that needs to be said in this area, it is this point: Racism today is less a cause of our problems than it is a symptom of them.

Illegitimacy, drug addiction, and crime are not just problems for minorities, but we know that these problems are worse for our urban black poor than for other groups. We must admit that it is this disproportion that accounts for most of the remaining racism that exists in our country.

The best way to get rid of the remaining racism is to get rid of the pathologies afflicting so many low-income, urban communities. To the extent there is a problem in race relations in this country, it is a problem about the assimilation of these African Americans — more so, really, than Latinos, and certainly more so than Asians — into the larger American culture.

Let me be even more blunt and specific: The biggest domestic problem America faces today, and certainly the biggest problem that the African-American community faces today, is that seven out of ten African Americans are born out of wedlock. The racial disparities — and any resulting racism — we see all stem principally from this sad fact. When you grow up in a home without a father, you are much more likely to grow up poor and remain poor, and to get into trouble with the law, and to do poorly in school.

In the past I have written about racism and prejudice. It is my belief that a person’s “race” only matters if it matters to that person because of (for example) pride in their heritage or if other people are going to treat them differently because of it. But culture on the other hand matters a great deal. When an African-American student who excels in school is criticized for acting white, young women see it as normal to raise their children without fathers, and it is acceptable for young fathers to walk away from their responsibilities, society is going to have problems. If those problems appear to be more common in the African-American community, those problems will in the minds of some, be associated with African-Americans perpetuating or reinforcing racist stereotypes.

Continuing the discussion of the importance of fathers, Kathryn Jean Lopez has another piece on NRO this morning entitled “Dreams of His Father.” She asks why Obama didn’t say anything about his father beyond he was the son of a black man from Kenya.

He left me asking, “But what about the father? Why didn’t he talk about his father’s abandonment of him and his family, and how that made his later relationship with Wright all the more important in his life?” I suspect that is the reason Obama will never repudiate Wright. The fact is, Obama grew up without a father. And, I assume, Wright for him was a father figure. That may be how Wright got to be such an influence in his life. This would not have answered all concerns about Wright and Obama, but it would have presented a more compelling narrative and, more importantly, he could have delivered an important cultural message about the impact the absence of male role models has on a child.

She concludes:

My problem with Obama’s speech (well, one of my problems with Obama’s speech) is that he didn’t go far enough. He could make history in some pretty dramatic, culture-shaking, and culture-rebuilding ways. He grew up without a father and had some tough struggles, but he overcame and achieved. He could truly inspire.

Obama and I will never agree on all marriage and family issues. He’s radically pro-choice, and he wouldn’t protect traditional marriage in the face of faux marriage conjured by courts and legislatures. But he could be an important voice for men and for families; he could find some common ground with social conservatives who fight for the same. And that would be something audaciously hopeful.

When I was teaching and the issue of having children came up in a discussion, I gave my students (mostly freshman) the advice that they shouldn’t have children of their own until they were at least 10 years older and married. I explained that this had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with economics. But it has to do with morality as well. Everything else being equal, children benefit from growing up with two parents instead of just one. A father is important in many ways that go well beyond a paycheck. This is an issue that affects all races in America. Absent fathers are simply a problem that is more acute in the African-American community.

Leaving aside the issues of abortion and same sex marriage, advocating other conservative family values might be a way for Obama to reach out for the middle of the electorate. The discussion alone might benefit the country.

Saddam and Terror

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an editorial discussing the links between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups. They discuss evidence found in a report on the study of “the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq.” The report itself can be read here.

The Wall Street Journal notes:

Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat's private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose "emir" was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden's second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.

At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly "secular" Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda. A pan-Arab nationalist, Saddam viewed radical Islamists as potential allies, and they likewise. According to a 1993 memo, Saddam decided to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia," where al Qaeda was then working with warlords against U.S. humanitarian forces. Saddam also trained
Sudanese fighters in Iraq.

They state later:

[T]he report offers "evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West." In 2002, an IIS memo explained to Saddam that Iraqi embassies were stockpiling weapons, while many of the terrorists trained in Fedayeen camps were dispatched to London with counterfeit documents, where they circulated throughout Europe.

Deroy Murdoch also discusses the report in a column on National Review Online. Murdoch writes about the report:

Iraq-war critics dismiss all this and focus on one sentence in this 94-page paper: “This study found no ‘smoking gun’ (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam’s Iraq and al Qaeda.” They also overlook this contradictory passage: “In pursuit of their own separate but surprisingly ‘parallel’ visions, Saddam and [Osama] bin Laden often found a common enemy in the United States. . . . Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.”While Saddam Hussein may not have been Islamic terrorism’s Meyer Lansky, he was its Al Capone — a resourceful, cunning, and deadly gangster who America had every right, and indeed a vital obligation, to topple.

Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the September 11th Attacks, but he was supporting terrorism and therefore a threat to the United States and the world at large.

Ronald Reagan with Sonny & Cher

Not His Constitution To Play With

There was an excellent interview with Clarence Thomas in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. I was fortunate to get to speak with him when I was a law student and he visited my law school. I have great admiration for the writing and judicial reasoning of Clarence Thomas, As he said in the interview:

"I don't put myself in a category. Maybe I am labeled as an originalist or something, but it's not my constitution to play around with. Let's just start with that. We're citizens. It's our country, it's our constitution. I don't feel I have any particular right to put my gloss on your constitution. My job is simply to interpret it."

In that process, the first place to look is the document itself. "And when I can't find something in that document or in the tradition or history around that document, then I am getting on dangerous ground. Because that's when you drift so much more towards your own policy preferences."It is the insertion of those policy preferences into the interpretive process that Mr. Thomas finds particularly illegitimate. "People can say you are an originalist, I just think that we should interpret the Constitution as it's drafted, not as we would have
drafted it."

I agree. A judges personal opinion of an issue shouldn’t affect how he or she decides a case. For instance, while I support same sex marriage, I do not think that the Constitution requires it. If all judges stuck to interpreting the law as written, judicial nominations would be far less politically contentious.

Passport-Gate

I was curious and checked with Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. It has a definition for “-gate.” It is defined as “political scandal often involving the concealment of wrongdoing.” It seems America leads the world in “gates.” Now we have another one. “Passport-Gate” comes to us courtesy of State Department contract workers who inappropriately accessed the passport files of Barack Obama (and it seems now Hillary Clinton and John McCain). Obama’s campaign released this statement.

This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an Administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years. Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes. This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach

A full investigation does needs to be conducted. But it seems, despite a great deal shrill rhetoric, that the system of safeguarding privacy actually worked in this case. Occam’s Razor would indicate that the simplest explanation, that some temporary workers abused their access to satisfy curiosity (much as hospital workers peered into the medical records of Brittany Spears and George Clooney), is most likely the case here. That is a problem, but if government employees have legitimate access to private information, there really is no way to prevent them from looking at it. What the system can do is make sure that anyone that looks without a valid reason is punished and possibly prosecuted. In this case 2 people were fired and a third was apparently otherwise disciplined.

It sounds like the supervisor for these workers addressed the situation. But he or she was not politically sensitive enough to realize this could an election issue and therefore neglected to notify their superiors about what happened. If it turns out that one of the people that accessed these files was Karl Rove’s nephew, ok then it might be appropriate to be outraged. But absent that, save the outrage until you actually know what happened. After all, it’s not as though the Bush Whitehouse had requested and accessed the confidential FBI files of prominent Democrats from the Clinton Administration.

McCain Is Surging In The Polls

"According to the latest polls out today, John McCain now in a double digit lead over the Democrats. To give you an idea how far McCain is ahead in the polls, today, Hillary offered him the vice presidency." --Jay Leno

Leno on Sex and Politics in New York

"So, let's see, Jim McGreevey was having three-ways. Eliot Spitzer was having sex with prostitutes. The new governor, David Paterson, was having an affair. You realize the only politician in New York not getting any sex -- Hillary Clinton." --Jay Leno

Racism, Prejudice & “Typical” White People

Racist is a very harsh word. In my opinion, it is one of the worst things a person can be called. But I also think it is a word that is grossly overused. Of course that might simply be a matter of definitions.

I see a difference between being prejudiced and being a racist. Racism, to me, is hating people merely because of their race and/or the belief that one race is inferior to another. I know that there is another definition that requires not only racial animus but the power to disadvantage the other race. By this definition only white people can be racist because only white people have the power to discriminate against other ethnic groups. But I think my definition is much closer to the way most people use the word.

Prejudice means to pre-judge, to (in its most benign definition) have certain expectations before getting all the facts. We all have prejudices, but most of us are not racists. Of course some prejudices can be vicious. For instance assuming that an African-American is less intelligent than a white person is a prejudice, but is also racist. Meeting an African-American and assuming that he or she is a Democrat is also a prejudice, but hardly a racist one.

As I said, we all have prejudices. But ideally when we recognize a prejudice in ourselves, we do our best to prevent that prejudice from affecting how we treat other people.

The other day, Barack Obama gave a truly inspiring speech about race. He did an excellent job of describing the basis of both white and black resentment. Though I disagree with his proposed solution (an expansion of the welfare state) I still found the speech inspiring. Unfortunately, a few days later, Obama may have made a major verbal goof. During an interview on a sports talk radio show, Obama said:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society.

Here is an example of a prejudice that I do not think rises to the level of racism. Almost any statement that talks about the “typical” member of a racial or ethnic group is going have problems. Well maybe saying the typical Orthodox Jew doesn’t eat pork would be ok. But the difference between talking about the typical member of a religious group and the typical member of a racial group is that you can reasonably know something about the beliefs of a member of a religious group, whereas imputing a belief to a person because of his or race is less justified. When I was in law school, the Black Law Students Association and the Federalist Society (a conservative/libertarian legal group) co-sponsored a visit by Justice Clarence Thomas. One thing that struck me during Justice Thomas’ address was when he talked about how he wasn’t “allowed” to have certain beliefs because of the color of his skin.

When I was teaching social studies, many of my students were black-skinned Hispanics and/or multiracial. I remember one girl with skin much darker than Barack Obama stating emphatically that she wasn’t black. The kids would some times appeal to the voice of authority (me) to tell them who was black and who wasn’t. What I told them was that at one point there were laws on the books that defined what it meant to be black, but those laws were no longer in effect. I told them that race really didn’t matter except under two conditions. It mattered if it mattered to them because of (for example) pride in their heritage or if other people are going to treat them differently because of it. Unfortunately, there are still too many people that will cause race to matter for the latter reason.

As for Obama’s comment that the “typical white person” has been “bred” to be afraid of young black men, that is another prejudice. It is assuming something that all (or most) white people are prejudiced against young blacks. That prejudice exists, but is not limited to whites. As Jesse Jackson once said:

There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.

One of the arguments that is made to prove that we live in a racist society is that so many young black men are in prison, parole, or probation. Leaving aside the root causes for a moment, the reason that young black men are disproportionately imprisoned is that they commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Even Jesse Jackson tacitly admitted this in the quote above. Don’t get me wrong; while this particular prejudice if not reasonable is at the very least understandable. But it is harmful. Law abiding black men quite justifiably resent being treated as potential criminals.

The problem as I see it is not just a question of race, but an issue of social class. Race and social class are too closely correlated. African-Americans are disproportionately represented in lower social classes, and therefore prejudices develop that associate African-Americans with the qualities of lower social class. So long as this is true, race will remain an issue.

Barack Obama and I would agree that improving schools and providing quality educations to all students is a necessary step to improving this situation. We might disagree on how to improve schools (I for instance would favor vouchers allowing parents to choose between public or private schools). We would agree on the necessity of providing economic opportunities, but disagree on the best way to provide them. See for instance my discussion of the Laffer Curve.

But there is no magic bullet. Racism and prejudice are not going to disappear in the foreseeable future. But I don’t believe they are as big and obstacle as some people think they are. Whether you are a white person who beliefs affirmative action is keeping you from the job you deserve or an African-American who believes racism is doing the same thing, you have two choices. You can be angry and assume the cards or stacked against you or you can be determined and work harder to overcome these obstacles. Of course, if you have real evidence of discrimination, by all means file a complaint and/or a lawsuit. But otherwise, I encourage you to just work harder and make it difficult or impossible for them to keep you down.

Top Ten Reasons to Watch the New Season of Battlestar Galctica

I am a big science fiction fan. At its best, science fiction is not (just) about space battles and light saber duels. The best science fiction is social commentary, taking issues that effect us today and allowing us to examine them more objectively by putting those issues in a different context. Take for example the Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” where the last two survivors of a war-torn planet are still committed to destroying each other because one is black on the right side of his face, while the other is black on the left.

Battlestar Galactica is a show that has robots and space battles but is really social commentary, dealing with issues such as civil liberties in war time, terrorism, and what it means to be human. Season 4 starts in April. If you haven’t watched it in the past, I encourage you to start.

The Laffer Curve

Arthur Laffer is an economist who became very influential in the Reagan Administration. Laffer is best known for the Laffer Curve, a curve illustrating tax elasticity which asserts that in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues. In other words, tax rates affect the incentives for people to work save and invest, and therefore affect economic growth. That is not to say that tax cuts always pay for themselves, but they do not always “cost” as much in tax revenue as you might expect. For example if you cut marginal tax rates 10%, tax revenue may fall, but it will fall less than 10% and lead to more economic growth in the long term.

I could try to explain this further, but the Cato Institute’s Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation has put together an excellent 3-part video series explaining it.

Part 1: Understanding the Theory



Part II: Reviewing the Evidence



Part III: Dynamic Scoring



I know that Dan Mitchell used a lot of big words and may give the math phobic a headache. But if you can get through it, it will explain why Republicans who favor tax cuts are not looking to give the rich a handout. Economic growth and pro-growth policies favor everyone. It’s unfortunate that explaining this can be more difficult than arguing the rich don’t need or deserve tax cuts.

Profile of McCain's Daughter

GQ has a profile of Meghan McCain, John McCain’s 23-year old daughter. She is socially liberal and voted for John Kerry in 2004, but shockingly is planning to vote Republican this year.

More on Obama's Speech

"The media has hammered Obama over the reverend's comments, putting the senator on the defensive and backing him into a corner -- a corner with five cameras, eight flags, two microphones and 30 minutes of uninterrupted airtime. Right where he is at his weakest." --Stephen Colbert

The U.S. Must Stay In Iraq

Colin Powell once said about Iraq: "You break it you bought it." He meant, of course, that if we invaded and removed the Saddam government we would be incurring a responsibility to the Iraqi people. We have a moral obligation as a country to the Iraqi people.

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who oppressed his people brutally, including using WMD against them. Brutal oppression does often have the effect of imposing relative stability. Removing Saddam allowed ethnic rivalries to erupt into violence. Violence the U.S. initially did a poor job of controlling. Al Qaeda members and sympathizers began pouring over the Iraqi border, seeing an opportunity to wage war on American soldiers. They planted bombs and terrorized Iraqis and basically did their best to cause as much bloodshed as they could.

What the surge, combined with the new tactics of General Petraeus, has done is allowed ordinary Iraqis to feel safer in cooperating with our soldiers against Al Qaeda. Casualties among our soldiers are falling. Violence by the Sunni minority and Muqtada al-Sadr"s Shia fighters has been drastically reduced if not eliminated altogether. The violence that is still ongoing is mostly the result of Al Qaeda. Most Iraqis do not want the U.S. to pull out of Iraq altogether because they fear a return of sectarian violence. Progress toward an inclusive government is proceeding, slowly, but still proceeding.

We all want the violence to end. But the question to now is not whether these casualties could have been prevented if not for George Bush, but whether more Iraqis will die if we leave or if we remain?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton claim that the Iraq War has made Al Qaeda hate us more. But will pulling out of Iraq make them love us? Remember they were at war with us before we invaded. If we leave America will lose credibility. Al Qaeda will take credit for driving us out of Iraq and use that as a recruiting tool. If the Iraqi government fails, the chaos will provide am opportunity for Al Qaeda to train and prosper.

But if we stay, continue to rout out Al Qaeda, and provide an opportunity for the Iraqi people to make political progress (remember it took the U.S. 13 years to go from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution), they might just make progress. A democratic Iraq is both Iran and Al Qaeda’s nightmare. A middle-eastern democracy that isn’t Israel would stand as model for the rest of the Middle East.

I mourn both our slain soldiers and the Iraqis that have died thus far. The cost in blood and treasure has been to high to give up now.

The Invasion Was Justified

The September 11th attacks were a wakeup call and changed the amount of risk the American people were willing to live under. After September 11th the United States stopped treating terrorist attacks as criminal acts that needed to be investigated and prosecuted and began focusing on them as acts of war that needed to be preempted. There was a very reasonable concern that if Al Qaeda were to gain access to a weapon of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear) they would not hesitate to use it. Such an attack could kill not thousands, but tens of thousands and possibly far more.

Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the September 11th attacks. No one in the Bush Administration (to my knowledge) ever claimed otherwise. But Saddam was an avowed enemy of the United States, a person with a history of not only possessing but using WMD, and a person that had supported terrorists in the past.

There is a question about whether Saddam had any connection to Al Qaeda. There were disputed reports of contact between Iraqi intelligence agents and Al Qaeda. But whether or not there was a history of cooperation, the real question was whether or not there would be future cooperation between them. It is clear both saw the U.S. as their enemy.

Saddam provided financial assistance to terrorist organizations that killed Americans. For example, Iraq had a policy of paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers that attacked Israel. Some of these attacks killed American citizens. Further connections between Saddam and terrorist organizations were detailed by Deroy Murdock here.

Saddam also attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States, an act that lead President Clinton to launch air strikes against Iraq. If that former president had not been George W. Bush’s father, I think it would have been cited as a justification for the war.

Some argue that the invasion of Iraq violated international law. This is incorrect.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 which was passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations." Those obligations were set forth in previous U.N. resolutions. (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). Iraq did not comply with these resolutions.

While the U.N Security Council did not vote to authorize the invasion, it did not vote to prohibit it either. Previous U.N. Resolutions did authorize member nations to use force to enforce Iraq’s obligations. President Clinton launched air strikes (clearly acts of war) against Iraq for failing to comply with these resolutions. If the United States was legally authorized to launch air strikes to enforce to the resolutions, they were legally authorized to invade to do so as well.

It can be argued that this was a war of choice, that however justified, was not worth the cost in blood and treasure. While I mourn the loss of life in Iraq, I still believe the war has made us safer. Prior to the war, many people around the world believed that while the United States unquestionably had the most powerful military in the world, the United States did not have the stomach or the will to use that military in such a way that would risk large numbers of casualties. Dictators and terrorists calculated they could survive air strikes alone and need not fear an actual invasion.

War has been described as the continuation diplomacy by other means. In many situations, such as dealing with dictators and oppressive regimes, the only chance for diplomacy to work is if it is backed up by the credible threat of force. The War in Iraq has made the threat of force by the U.S. credible. The U.S. is safer as a result.

Bush Didn't Lie

Today is the 5th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. It’s as good a time as any to discuss why I supported the war originally, and continue to support it.

First, Bush didn’t lie. A lie is a knowingly false statement. Making a statement you believe to be true, that later turns out to be incorrect, is a mistake, not a lie. I know a lot of people don’t believe it was a mistake. But I think it was actually an understandable and reasonable mistake to make.

Certain facts are uncontested. Prior to the first gulf war, Saddam Hussein not only possessed weapons of mass destruction but had used them against Iran and his own people.

After the Gulf War, Saddam agreed to give up his WMD and also agreed to allow U.N. Inspectors. The U.N. inspectors identified and destroyed a great deal of WMD, but in 1998 the inspectors were ejected by Saddam Hussein leaving WMD that had been identified, but not destroyed.

Just about every country’s intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had retained these weapons. President Clinton believed he retained these weapons. France and Germany opposed the U.S. invasion, but they didn’t claim Saddam had no WMD, they simply thought that sanctions and inspections should be given more time.

How could everyone be so wrong? Because Saddam wanted the world to believe he had them. Think about it for a second. You are an intelligence analyst trying to determine if Iraq has WMD. What assumption are you going to operate under? Are you going to assume that if there are WMD Saddam is trying to hide them? Or are you going to assume that if there are no WMD that Saddam is trying to make you think they exist? It’s like being a teacher giving a test. A student keeps furtively glancing at a piece of paper hidden in his sleeve, when you confront him he swallows the paper. Is it possible the student wasn’t cheating? Possible, yes. But it is far more likely he was cheating. Believing he was cheating would not be at all unreasonable. The United States was mistaken about the WMD because Saddam wanted us to be mistaken.

Why would he want such a thing? Because he was more afraid of being invaded by Iran than by the United States.

How do I know this? Because Saddam confessed as much while being interrogated by FBI agent George Piro. Piro gave an interview with 60 Minutes on January 27, 2008. A CBS News story on the interview can be found here. It is really interesting reading as it describes how Piro gained Saddam’s trust over a period of many months. The story includes this exchange:

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.

"Not initially, no," Piro says.

In 2003, in order to believe there were no WMD in Iraq, you had to believe that Saddam had destroyed all his WMD, but had done so secretly, despite the fact that doing so openly would have ended sanctions on his country. Bush made a mistake, but Saddam Hussein made a serious one himself.

Obama is Toast, No Really He Is

Just for the record, I thought Obama's speech was great. He said a lot of really important things. I only wish he was a Republican. But he's not; he's toast, at least on EBay.

See:

There is a very conspiratorial description of how this toast came to be on EBay.

Yesterday morning my wife asked me if I wanted toast for breakfast. I said "sure." Now I wish that I had never said that. Because what appeared on my slice of toast was the strangest image that has the uncanny likeness of Barack Obama. What could this possibly mean? Its not my imagination either, just LOOK at the photograph! ITS OBAMA. I checked my toaster. Its Just a regular old toaster that has never produced anything like this before!

But it doesn't end there. I e-mailed a picture of the wierd toast to a friend of mine, asking him for his opinion. He forwarded it to some Hillary Clinton campaign person and by 4pm I heard a knock at my door. "We'll give you $20 bucks for the Obama Toast." Two men stood in my doorway, both neatly dressed, the older of the two seemed to be the spokesperson. He reached into his pocket and produced a roll of cash. Peeling of a crisp $20, he handed it to me. I almost took it, but then something didn't make sense.

"Who are you and why do you want my toast?" I queried. "Let's just say that we're with the Clinton campaign and this toast with the Obama apparition on it is something that is a little inconvenient right now." "I see." I said as I slowly closed and locked the screen door. "I think I can get a better offer on Ebay."

The men made one more offer of $25, but left unhappily when I suggested they check out my Ebay auction page.

It Ain't Easy Being Green, The Muppets Sing Danny Boy

My Favorite Irish Joke

Why are there so few Irish lawyers?

Because they can't pass a bar.

I can tell that joke because I am an Irish lawyer. Happy St. Patrick's Day!!!

Elliot Spitzer Has A New Job Already

The clip starts after a brief commercial

Will Ralph Nader Affect The Race?

As you may recall if you read the first post I made to this blog, I am proud to say Ralph Nader once referred to me as a “fascist child of the ruling class.” He has never been one of my favorite people, though I did have warm feelings for him when he helped George W. Bush get elected in 2000. Could history repeat itself?

John Zogby has just released a new poll that shows Nader getting at least 5% of the vote nationally in a three way race, whether Obama or Clinton is the Democratic nominee. In a race with Hillary Clinton and Nader, McCain wins 45% to 39%. If it’s Obama it’s 44% to 39% for McCain. Zogby says:

Nader’s presence in the race can potentially turn a lulu of a race into an absolute tizzy. The messages to Democrats are clear – number one, Nader may win enough support to get into the general election debates. Number two, what could be at risk is support among several key constituencies that the Democratic Party candidate will need to win in November, notably younger voters, independents,
and progressives.

Honestly, when push comes to shove, I can’t see Nader getting 5% of the vote. Although, if Hillary is seen as “stealing” the nomination from Obama many disaffected voters may pull the lever (figuratively in states with optical ballots or touch screens) for Nader.

Obama and the Reverend

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr was Barack Obama’s pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ for almost 20 years. Obama has been forced to distance himself from Rev. Wright and disavow certain statements that Rev. Wright made in his sermons. These statements were discovered in a “best of” series of video tapes and DVDs that were sold by Wright’s church. Below are some of those statements.

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people

We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.

Barak Obama has stated that he was unaware of most of Rev. Wright’s controversial statements and was not present in the pews when these statements were uttered.

As I understand it, Rev. Wright served our nation in the Navy and has done a tremendous amount of good work helping poor people in Chicago. I honor and thank him for both. I also can understand why an African-American man born in 1941, who grew up in the 1950’s, and who was an adult in the 1960’s might be angry at America. I am sure he has ample reason to be. Some will argue that he is only speaking the truth, albeit an uncomfortable one. An argument could be made that the U.S. is killing innocent people and that the September 11th attacks were a reaction to U.S. foreign policy. I would vehemently disagree, but the argument could be made. But the statement that the government invented AIDS in order to kill people of color is nothing but a vicious and indefensible slander.

I have no reason to believe that Barak Obama shares these beliefs. He certainly does not come across as an angry man, which is of course a large part of his appeal. Obama is the candidate of hope, a candidate of reconciliation, a candidate that will end the partisan fighting in Washington and unite our country. Ok, I don't believe a candiddate that could end partisanship in Washington could actually exist, but some people feel Obama can do it. My point is I really don’t believe he shares Wright’s views. But at the same time I don’t believe he was as ignorant of these views as he claims.

Wright was not simply the pastor of a church Obama attended. He was a close personal friend and advisor who performed Obama’s wedding and baptized his children. He was also named to an African American religious advisory committee (on which he no longer serves).

So what does this say about Obama? I am really sure what it says about him personally. It might say something about his judgment or perhaps it says something about the fine line Obama has had to walk to appeal to both African Americans and whites. It doesn’t change my opinion of him. I still like him, but I am still not voting for him. But come Fall, I do not look forward to the vicious advertisements that will juxtapose clips of Rev. Wright’s sermons with clips that must exist of Obama praising him. I don’t expect John McCain to run such ads, but someone will. I just hope it doesn’t set race relations back 20 years…

Don Rickles Roasts (Then) Governor Ronald Reagan

Hillary Clinton is not a Republican.

I have been reading quite a few supporters of Barack Obama who argue that Hillary Clinton is actually a Republican. They point to her vote to authorize force in Iraq. They also claim that when Hillary stated that John McCain was more experienced than Obama, she was actually endorsing him. I disagree.

Richard Nixon famously gave this advice to Bob Dole when he ran for president in 1996. You run to the right in the primaries, but not so far right that you can't run back to the center for the general election. The opposite advice would apply to a candidate running in the Democratic Party. Run left in the primaries, but run back to the center in the general election. I think Hillary took this advice to heart but missed a step.

I believe that Hillary has been planning to run for president since before she ran for the Senate from New York. Since taking office she has taken care to vote in such a way that her record would appear moderate to the general electorate. She wanted, understandably, to make it difficult for a Republican opponent to portray her as too liberal the way Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry were portrayed. She assumed it was safe to vote as a moderate because she believed her liberal bona fides were beyond question. Then Barack Obama came along and questioned them anyway. He has been very successful running to Hillary’s left. But when push comes to shove there is not much difference in their positions.

As for Hillary’s “endorsement” of John McCain over Obama, I believe what she was trying to say is that she would be a stronger candidate against McCain. There really is no question that out of the three candidates McCain has the most experience. McCain will attempt to use his advantage in experience against whoever is the Democratic nominee. Hillary was trying to say that the experience argument will be less effective against her. I am sure she would say that experience is not the only thing to consider in choosing a president and that for any number of reasons Obama would be preferable to McCain.

A fair criticism of Hillary, however, is that by making her argument the way she did, she weakened Obama. When McCain makes the experience argument it is likely to resonate more strongly because Hillary made it first. Remember, in 1988, the first candidate to raise the issue of the Massachusetts prison furlough program was Al Gore, not George Bush. Perhaps the Democrats would be better served by following Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican” or in their case fellow Democrat.

No Longer a Brain Dead Liberal

A rich man is heading for the train station when he passes a homeless man who asks for some money to buy food. The rich man replies: “Neither a borrower nor a lender be” William Shakespeare. The homeless man replies: “Fuck you” David Mamet.

I am a tremendous fan of the films and plays of David Mamet. One of my favorite episodes of one of my favorite shows (The Shield) was directed by Mamet. As a Conservative and a fan of films and television, I accepted a long time ago that most of Hollywood has different political beliefs than I do. But I just read a really interesting piece in of all places The Village Voice, that should be required reading for everyone that cares about politics, whether on the right, left, or middle. It is entitled David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'. I highly recommend it.

He begins by talking about his new play, November, currently starring Nathan Lane as a president running for reelection.

The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it's at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention. I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind. As a child of the '60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

He later writes:

I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as "a brain-dead liberal," and to NPR as "National Palestinian Radio." This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong. But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.

He talks about how his rabbi taught that “Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.” Mamet began listening and reading to conservatives.

I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.

I have heard it said that liberals see the world as it ought to be and conservatives see the world as it is. I think that is largely true, but conservatives sometimes fail to see reality for their idealistic visions as well. The free market, for instance, cannot solve all social ills, but government intervention alone often makes things worse.

Mamet concludes:

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.

Again, I highly recommend that you read Mamet’s entire article. Perhaps if enough do, this years political debate can involve people actually listening to each other and making arguments instead of hurling insults back and forth.

Was Geraldine Ferraro's Comment Racist?

Geraldine Ferraro is taking a lot of heat because of what she said about Barack Obama.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

I think the criticism is unfair. I don’t know about her gender comments, but race has certainly been a positive for Obama in this campaign, in large part because he is a candidate that transcends race. Barack Obama is a presidential candidate that happens to be black, not a black presidential candidate as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were before him. Because of his charisma and broad appeal to all races he is the first black candidate with a real shot at winning the White House. That makes people (both Democrats and Republicans, whites and blacks) feel good about America because it shows just how far we have come in the struggle for equality and civil rights.

What Ferraro was saying is that if Obama had exactly the same experience, the same charisma and oratory excellence; he would not now be the favorite for the Democratic nomination. I think that’s clearly true. It is not a knock on Obama. He has a point when he said that being an African-American named Barack Obama would hardly seem to be an asset for a presidential run. But his race has been an asset for him. Early in his political career it was his race combined with his charisma that lead to national attention. It was his race that allowed him to stand out from other state legislators. His race is part of why his candidacy inspires so many and (as Michelle Obama put it) makes them proud of America.

I am proud that race is so much less of an issue than it would have been 10 or 20 years ago. There are even arguments that Barack Obama’s election would ultimately be in the conservative interest. I think Barack Obama is inspiring. But I am not going to vote for him. That’s because I think race shouldn’t matter and I disagree with Obama on a whole host of issues. I like Barack Obama. He is the candidate I would most like to have a beer with. I just disagree with him.

Dave and Jay Talk Spitzer

"I've been thinking about something, do you think it's too soon to be hitting on Mrs. Eliot Spitzer?" --David Letterman

"But here's the lesson, ladies and gentlemen, this is why I always wear a fake mustache and pay cash." --David Letterman

"Maybe some of you don't know the story, today Eliot Spitzer admitted publicly that he was involved in a prostitution ring, which means Hillary Clinton is now only the second angriest wife in the state of New York." --Jay Leno

Elliot Spitzer

Listening to the news this morning, it seems that Elliot Spitzer’s resignation is imminent as a result of his being identified as a client of a high priced escort service.

I really don’t want to gloat at his misfortune, but it’s difficult to resist. Spitzer portrayed him self as a crusading reformer, but I have always seen him as a bully. As New York Attorney General, Spitzer made his name prosecuting (some would say persecuting) white-collar criminals and Wall Street firms. Now, I have no issue whatsoever with people that have broken the law being prosecuted. But Spitzer made a practice of threatening to indict Wall Street firms with flimsy evidence or legal theories and forcing settlements. Some firms who felt confident they would win at trial, settled because the indictment itself carried the death penalty. The problem is that an indicted individual or firm is barred from trading by SEC rules. Sol Wachtler, former New York Chief Judge, once famously said that “a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.” That’s because a grand jury only hears the prosecutor’s case, can consider hearsay evidence, and only needs to find probable cause that a person is guilty of a crime to return an indictment.

Spitzer came to office threatening Assembly Republican leader James Tedesco and warning him that [Spitzer] “was a f**cking steamroller.” Spitzer took office and feuded with Republican State Senate leader Joe Bruno. He then used the State Police to try to investigate Bruno and drive him from office. That was the scandal that should have forced Spitzer to resign. Ironically, if Spitzer, as expected resigns this week, Bruno would rise to become Lt. Governor.

Spitzer patronizing an escort service would primarily be a personal matter, except of course that doing so is illegal. Personally, I believe prostitution should be legal. But it’s not and Spitzer is charged with enforcing the law. He is potentially facing federal charges because by “inducing” a prostitute to travel from New York to Washington D.C. (crossing state lines) he may have violated the Mann Act. Now I believe that the Mann Act was aimed primarily at pimps, not Johns. But Spitzer fits within the letter of the law. Perhaps he could beat it at trial, but of course an indictment alone could end his political career. I don’t feel like gloating anymore. But there are a number of people on Wall Street that feel Christmas has come early.

Rest in Peace Grandma (6/27/1914 – 3/12/2007)

Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of my Grandmother, Anne Schmidt’s, passing.

She was the mother of two, the grandmother of five, and the great-grandmother of one.

She was 92 when she died. It seemed she had made up her mind to live long enough to meet her great-granddaughter, Katie. She died a few months after making the trip to LA for Katie's Christening.

She was a single-mother before it was fashionable, raising 2 young children after her husband walked out on her. She lived with her brothers so that my mother and uncle had male role models, but remarrying was never an option. She was a devout Catholic and remarriage or even dating was not something she would do. She was the sweetest, kindest person I have ever known. I miss you Grandma.

Al Sharpton, Primaries, & Caucuses

Ok. Let me get this straight. Civil Rights Arsonist, err I mean “Activist” Al Sharpton is getting ready to file a lawsuit if The DNC seats Florida delegates. That means Sharpton is seeking to disenfranchise Florida Democrats. Mmmm.

The thing about the DNC “punishing” Florida and Michigan for having early primaries is that I don’t believe they ever intended to not seat those delegates. With Florida and Michigan being battle ground states in the general election, and after the 2000 Florida recount, they wouldn’t risk alienating Democratic voters that way. I think the original plan was to seat those delegates via the credentials committee. But the DNC never expected such a close campaign and never expected those delegates to possibly be the difference in choosing their nominee. Ooops.

It’s interesting to watch the debate between the Clinton and Obama camps. The Obama camp says you need to follow the rules, so you can’t seat those delegates. But when it comes to Super Delegates, the will of the people is what is most important. Super Delegates they say should follow the will of the voters in their states. But of course, the “rules” leave Super Delegates free to vote however they wish.

Another interesting feature of this race are differences between primaries and caucuses. Obama has clearly had the edge in caucuses while Clinton has done better in primaries. Primaries with much larger voter participation are arguably more “democratic.” Caucuses on the other hand measure intensity of support. Voters have to spend several hours (or sometimes longer) to register support for their candidate. Caucuses therefore give more influence to the most passionate voters, those same voters that might become campaign volunteers in the general election.

Clearly Obama has more passionate highly motivated voters, giving him an advantage in caucuses. I wonder if there might not be another reason he does so well. Call it a reverse “Bradley effect”. Because there is no secret ballot in a caucus, do some voters feel a compulsion to vote for an African-American so as to not appear racist?

I will make some predictions. The DNC will work something out to allow delegates from Florida and Michigan to be seated, most likely through a revote. Money is an issue as it will be expensive and the states do not want to pay for a new election. Caucuses would be cheaper, but as discussed above favor Obama and will therefore not be acceptable to Clinton. I would suggest that the cost of new primaries be split between the 2 campaigns (which are setting fundraising records). Regardless, at the end, Obama will still be in the lead in pledged delegates but short of the number needed to clinch the nomination. I think he will win as he is perceived as the stronger candidate. But never count out a Clinton.

Don't FOX me!!!

This is an interesting video. Naomi Wolf is talking about how this is the first primary election in a long time where people don't need "to hold their noses" to vote. Shepherd Smith asks her who she had to hold her nose to vote for, John Kerry, Al Gore etc. She lashes out at Fox News and Shepherd Smith defends the network with Don't Fox Me!

"Universal Health Care" Pitfalls

The problem is not with universal health care. Everyone in the United States has access to health care (it is illegal for hospitals to turn away uninsured people). But of course that healthcare can bankrupt you without insurance. So the issue is getting insurance for the uninsured. But there is a huge problem if this evolves into a (government run) one-payer system.

Our current system is far from perfect, but there are some things that work very well. The problem with a one-payer system is how it rations healthcare. Healthcare is rationed with any system, whether it is by price, covered prescription drugs or procedures, or by waiting lists. In England and Canada, health care is rationed in large part by waiting lists. People wait sometimes months for surgery. My mother, a public school teacher, was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2006, and Sloan Kettering performed surgery on her within less than a week of her first visit. She has been cancer free now for over a year. But in England or Canada it might have been weeks or months before they performed surgery, allowing the cancer to grow and spread.

With a multi-payer system an insurance company’s natural interest in saving money is balanced by a need to keep subscribers happy. If one insurance company refuses to cover a new drug, or provides poor customer service, or whose premiums rise too fast, people and companies can choose to switch to a different insurance company. If everyone gets there insurance from the government you are stuck. Personally, I do not believe that a government run monopoly is going to improve service.

Better to do things to make insurance more affordable such as allowing people to buy insurance plans nationally. As it is right now health insurance in New York State is extremely expensive. That is due in part to state mandates on what must be covered on a NYS policy. I, myself, suffer from a chronic disease (diabetes) and am currently without health insurance. Why not allow people (like me) to buy a cheaper policy from another state?

The Politics of Fear? Or Reality?

I want to talk about fear mongering.

Is it fear mongering when we tell young children they shouldn’t talk to strangers?

Is it fear mongering when news stations warn of a tornado alert?

Is it fear mongering to warn that there are terrorists organizations that are dedicated to striking at the United States?

When FDR said that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he wasn’t talking about the Germans or the Japanese. He wasn’t talking about WWII at all. He was referring to the Great Depression. The Great Depression was due in part to a crisis of confidence in the economy generally, and the banking system in particular. Fear WAS the enemy because people being afraid to spend money or to even put money in the bank made the Depression worse.

But terrorism is different than consumer confidence. The threat is real whether you are afraid or not. Who will do a better job of protecting the country is a legitimate consideration for voters.

People can certainly disagree about how best to protect the country and where to draw the line between safety and civil liberties. But there really is no question among serious people that there is a threat.

I have read comments elsewhere citing statistics about how many people in the United States die each year from handguns or automobile accidents and contrasting it with the “merely” 3,000 people killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Leaving aside for a moment the impact on our economy, the 1 million jobs lost in the 90 days after the attacks, the impact on the stock market, and the cost of rebuilding, can we be sure that the next attack will only kill 3,000 people? Remember the first WTC bombing only killed 6 people. Does that mean that the next attack could kill 150,000? I certainly hope not. But I have no doubt Al Qaeda would not hesitate if it saw the opportunity to kill that many or even more.

Is my citing a potential 150,000 casualties fear mongering? Maybe. We could argue that point. But ultimately the threat of terrorism remains and we need a debate about where to draw the line on interrogations, wiretapping, and a host of other issues. Obama, Clinton, and McCain all have the right to try to differentiate themselves on this issue without being accused of fear mongering.

Some Thoughts on the Democratic Nomination

Lately, I have been reading a lot of posts from Clinton and Obama supporters about the election. Many are extremely… strident. Many also show scant resemblance to reality. First of all and forever, Hillary Clinton maybe many things, but she IS NOT a secret agent of the Republican Party.

Here are some other thoughts.

Clinton and Obama supporters are arguing about which states are more important to winning in November and what predictive value winning primaries in those state has to carrying those states in a general election. I would argue that winning a primary tells you next to nothing about what will happen in a general election. Just because Clinton loses a primary to Obama does not mean she is any less likely to carry that state in November. Obama won Wyoming, but short of a Reagan style landslide he will not carry it in the general election. If you want to base your primary vote on electability, look at the head to head polls, not primary results.

Neither Clinton nor Obama will be able to clinch the nomination with only pledged delegates. In that sense, the nomination will be decided by the “superdelegates.” But this is not necessarily an advantage for Hillary Clinton. While she may have started out as the candidate of the Democratic establishment that may no longer be the case. Unless something unexpected happens to injure the Obama campaign, he will bet he nominee. If for no other reason than that if the superdelegates give the nomination to Clinton (with Obama otherwise ahead), it will rip the Democratic Party apart and virtually assure McCain wins. The superdelagates can see this as well as we can.

Obama has charisma, energy, and excitement on his side. He has inspired many younger people to get active in politics and they will be extremely angry if they feel the election is “stolen” from their guy. I am not saying that if Hillary wins she will have stolen the election, just that it will be perceived that way be large numbers of people.

So given all this, let me wish Hillary Clinton a victory over Obama after a long bitter convention fight.

Free Speech and Schools

While students are not "stripped of their rights at the school house door,” school officials have the right to “reasonably” restrict students’ free speech rights if that speech interferes with teaching or discipline. But all the Supreme Court decisions dealing this have involved speech on school property. But a Burlington, CT school has punished a student because of what she wrote on her blog from her home computer.

Avery Doninger, 17, referred to school administrators as douchebags. As a result school officials banned her from serving as school secretary. A Federal District Court sided with the school stating the blog addressed school issues and was likely to be read by other students. Read about her appeal here.

I think the District Court and the school were both wrong. First of all, the school administrators need thicker skins. I was called much worse than “douchebag” when I was a teacher. But if she had called them that in school or written it in a school newspaper or on a school website, they would have a right to punish her. Maintaining discipline in a school is essential if students are going to learn. Students disrespecting teachers undermines that discipline.

But outside of school, students should have the same rights as anyone else. Writing on a private blog from home, not using school computers or Internet access, should have full First Amendment protection. After all, school administrators are government officials and what does the First Amendment protect if not our right to criticize the government?

Barack “Bugs” Obama v. Hillary “Daffy” Clinton

Jeff Greenfield has a really interesting column on Slate where he says that one of few reliable rules in presidential politics is “Bugs Bunny always beats Daffy Duck.” He states “Bugs and Daffy represent polar opposites in how to deal with the world.” First he describes Bugs:

Bugs is at ease, laid back, secure, confident. His lidded eyes and sly smile suggest a sense that he knows the way things work. He's onto the cons of his adversaries. Sometimes he is glimpsed with his elbow on the fireplace mantel of his remarkably well-appointed lair, clad in a smoking jacket. (Jones once said Cary Grant was his inspiration for Bugs. Today it would be George Clooney.) Bugs never raises his voice, never flails at his opponents or at the world. He is rarely an aggressor. When he is pushed too far and must respond, he borrows a quip from Groucho Marx: "Of course, you realize this means war." And then, whether his foe is hapless hunter Elmer Fudd, varmint-shooting Yosemite Sam, or a raging bull, Bugs always prevails.

Daffy on the other hand:

Daffy Duck, by contrast, is ever at war with a hostile world. He fumes, he clenches his fists, his eyes bulge, and his entire body tenses with fury. His response to bad news is a sibilant sneer ("Thanks for the sour persimmons, cousin!"). Daffy is constantly frustrated, sometimes by outside forces, sometimes by his own overwrought response to them. In one classic duel with Bugs, the two try to persuade Elmer Fudd to shoot the other—until Daffy, tricked by Bugs' wordplay, screams, "Shoot me now!" "Hmmm," he adds a moment later in a rare bit of self-scrutiny. "Pronoun trouble."

He gives historical examples of Bugs v. Daffy races (Kennedy-Nixon, Reagan-Carter, and Bush-Gore). The Bush-Gore example was interesting recalling how in one of the debates Gore walked up behind Bush while he was answering a question, startling Bush, who nonetheless simply smiled and said “hi there.” A Bugs moment if I ever saw one.

Of course McCain is a Daffy. If it’s Obama, will the streak end? This is an election where streaks seem to be ending left and right. Assuming Obama gets the nomination and McCain doesn’t pick Jeb Bush for VP, we will have all of the following:

• The first presidential contest that didn’t feature a Bush or a Clinton in 28 years.
• The first Republican ticket without a Bush or a Dole in 32 years.
• The first sitting Senator elected president in 48 years
• The first presidential race between 2 sitting senators in, well ever.

So maybe (hopefully) Daffy can finally win one.

Where Were The Candidates Born?

"Everyone is so concerned now where all of the candidates are born. McCain was born on a military base in Panama. Hillary was born outside Chicago, and if you believe the media, Barack Obama was born in a manger." --Jay Leno

How Hillary Treats the Press

And you wonder why Hilary is complaining about her press coverage? Clinton spokesman Doug Hattaway said: "These accommodations should in no way be taken as a comment on the quality of our media coverage." Read the LA Times article here.

Campaign Finance Part 3 (A Better System)

It seems to me that these campaign finance restrictions are neither narrowly tailored nor effective at limiting the appearance of corruption. How about a little sunshine instead?

My alternative is to scrap the whole system with one exception. Allow people to give as much money as they like to the candidates of their choice. But at the same time require instant reporting of those contributions on the Internet. If voters believe that a candidate will be beholden to someone because of a large contribution, then they are free to vote against them.

This plan would unburden the First Amendment.

It would make bundling and straw donors unnecessary and allow voters to see who is really behind the contributions.

It would reduce the advantage of wealthy candidates such as Ross Perot, Jon Corzine, and Mike Bloomberg who have a protected right to self finance. Other wealthy people might or might not choose to make large contributions to their opponents, but at the very least it makes it easier for their opponents to raise money.

It also reduces the advantage of incumbents who have a built in fundraising advantage over most challengers.

Finally, its important to remember that past a certain point campaign spending has diminishing returns. Money is necessary to get your message to the voters, but past a certain point, more advertising might not get you more votes unless voters like your message. Michael Huffington, for example, in 1994 used $28 million of his own money to run what was at the time the most expensive Senate campaign in history. He lost.

Money isn’t everything. It isn’t even the only thing. Get rid of McCain Feingold and let the First Amendment’s heart beat strong and well.

Campaign Finance Part 2 (Problems)

The history of campaign finance “reforms” has been that limits are put in place, and people who want to contribute more than those limits find a way to do so legally or illegally. Illegal examples include laundering contributions through straw donors, such as for example Buddhist monks and nuns of the Hsi Lai Temple (who had taken vows of poverty but still managed to contribute $100,000 to the 1996 Clinton Gore Campaign). Legal examples included “soft money” which was at the time unlimited contributions made to a political party that could be used to support candidates. Soft money was made illegal by McCain Feingold, but those contributions were simply shifted to 527(c) corporations.

To try to prevent private groups from influencing an election, with “issue advertising” McCain-Feingold prohibited mentioning a candidate’s name in a television commercial 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election. Criticizing a candidate is protected so long as you don’t do it close to an election? What happened to the heart of the First Amendment? The Supreme Court fortunately limited this last year in the case of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. But it is still illegal to explicitly advocate voting either for or against a candidate.

The reason money will find a way to reach candidates is because so much money is at stake. Whether it’s a government contract, a provision of the tax code, or an ethanol mandate people stand to make or lose significant amounts of money based on government actions. These people will do all they can to influence those actions. There are three ways to look at contributions designed to influence government action. The most benign is that people will support candidates that agree with them. Want lower taxes, contribute to the candidates that promises to cut taxes. Less benign is the idea that lobbyists “pay to play” making contributions so that they know elected officials will take their calls giving them the opportunity to persuade them. Most malignant is the explicit quid pro quo, do this and we will give you money.

One of the major problems with “reforms” is that they tend to drive contributions underground and obscure where (and from whom) the money is actually coming from. Today it is the “bundlers” that have the most influence. Bundlers put together many smaller legal contributions and give them in one bundle to a candidate. Sometimes this is done legally; sometimes those small contributions are illegally reimbursed by the bundler.

To Be Continued

Campaign Finance Part 1 (The Constitution)

I want to talk about why I am opposed to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions, but first I need to give a little history. In this first part I will talk about constitutional issues of campaign finance restrictions.

Many people might not realize this, but at least according to the Supreme Court, when the First Amendment says “Congress may make no law abridging freedom of speech” it doesn’t mean Congress can’t pass laws abridging free speech. A law may limit free speech where it is “narrowly tailored” to further “a compelling government interest.”

In the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court looked at the constitutionality of limits on campaign contributions and expenditures. The Court held that both were protected by the First Amendment. As most campaign expenditures are devoted to communicating with voters, limiting expenditures directly limits the candidates’ speech and political speech is at the “heart” of the First Amendment. (In other words while nude performance art may be protected by the First Amendment, political speech deserves more protection). Campaign contributions are also protected because they both communicate a person’s support of a candidate and allow the candidate to make those protected expenditures. But remember, just because something is protected by the First Amendment does not mean Congress can’t limit it.

The Court examined several “compelling interests” asserted by the government for these limits and rejected all but one. The government, according to the Court, has a compelling interest in avoiding the appearance of corruption. Therefore, the Court reasoned, limiting campaign contributions (to $1,000 at the time) was constitutional because people might believe a candidate that received a large contribution might be obligated to that contributor creating the “appearance of corruption.” But the Court rejected limits on expenditures, because spending money does not create an appearance of corruption. The Court also struck down limits on self financing. Therefore while contributors were limited to giving $1,000, a candidate could spend as much of their own money as they liked. Say this about Mike Bloomberg, you may disagree with him, but no one worries he is on the take. Congress tried to get around this by using the public financing system. If a candidate accepts public financing, they also need to accept spending limits. However, recently many candidates have discovered they are better off rejecting public financing, at least in the primaries, because they can raise (and need to spend) more money than the limits allow.

To Be Continued