Again...I don't want to keep harping about it but...

CNN has posted this article about the Great Firewall of China...

For many overseas reporters now in Beijing, covering the Summer Games has turned into an Olympian task.

We go through tedious security checkpoints to cover events and conduct interviews even as we deal with bureaucratic and linguistic barriers. But we face one particularly irritating issue: China's limits on Internet access.

Despite Beijing's earlier promise to allow open reporting and unfettered access to information, Internet access remains erratic and unpredictable. "It's so counter-intuitive to find the Internet restricted, even if only selectively," one western journalist told me in Beijing.

Last week, colleagues working in the Media Press Center faced a blank computer screen whenever they clicked on sites deemed sensitive to the Chinese authorities -- like Amnesty International and Falun Gong.

That is attributed to China's sophisticated filter system, also known as the "Great Firewall."

Why the paranoia? Pro-democracy activists, as well as advocates for Tibet independence and the spiritual group Falun Gong, have Web sites carrying information and views that the Chinese authorities deem "subversive."

Not to heap it on ...

Here is a very interesting OP-ED in the Washington Post this morning talking about the perception "chasm" between how China views itself in the world and how the rest of the world views China. Give it a read.

Disturbing Olympiad

Okay, it is a little bit frightening that there was an explosion killing 16 people in China the week that the Olympics are to start. However, it is even more frightening that the Chinese response has been to lockdown and detain journalists who were in the area of the explosion.

Please, again, someone remind me why China gets to host the Olympics?

I understand the importance of the global economy and free trade, but surely, while our country, at least, is apparently spreading a democratic message across the globe and rooting out tyranny, does it make sense to send our athletes to compete in a country that has not yet awoken to the toll of the bells of human rights? It is tacit acceptance of China's atrocious human rights violations when we go and we further empower their already dominating economy.

Why are we filled with such cowardice?

Of course, I know the answer to that. We need China. We need their growing "consumer class," their industrial capacity, oh, and, um . . . they own a grossly enormous portion of our national debt. So, there is that too . . .

I understand it all to a certain extent. But our response is as pitiful as it is predictable, and it is a shame to see us again fall short of our ideals. But I am not an idealist really, and so I've become accustomed to the reality of our being in bed with this repressive Chinese regime that we so depend on in our international economics and politics. I bitch about it here because it is what I do. I always bitch about China. I was bitching about China back in high school when I consistently wrote letters to President Clinton and Michigan Senators Levin and Abraham, imploring them to deny China "most favored nation" trade status. But alas, we see how well that has worked out. And no matter all of the pragmatic and practical reasons for our continued support of China (notice I say support and not engagement--I support pragmatic engagement with China), it still bothers me to see us turn a blind eye to their domestic oppression and repression and their support for the genocidal regime in Khartoum. In fact, it makes me sick . . .

Speaking of sick . . .

The Hiatus is Over

I should have probably informed the avid reader of this blog (both of you), why it is that I have not posted since early July. The reason for my hiatus is that I recently sat for the Virginia Bar Exam, which was July 29th and 30th, so the whole month of July was largely a wash.

How was the Bar you ask? Well, it was a painful reality for the second summer in a row. Last summer I took the Michigan Bar (and passed) and this year Virginia. In all honesty, I know that hindsight is 20/20 and that my passing the Michigan Bar probably makes it seem easier in retrospect, but it also felt easier when compared to the Virginia Bar this year. I felt more prepared this time around, and still utterly useless in the face of a creditor's rights question snuck in right before the lunch break on the first day.

We shall see how I do in Virginia, but for now, that is my explanation for my absence.

Thanks to all who helped me and offered their support during my studies, (again, both of you).

Get your pastel's here!

I am not one to make light- okay, I am precisely one to make light- so here it is, I had to share this story with you all . . .

I want some comments on this!

Something you can do to help Iraq

Read the Hitchens article here. And send books to:


Nathan Musselman
The American University of Iraq—Sulaimani
Building No. 7, Street 10
Quarter 410
Ablakh AreaSulaimani, Iraq
(+964) (0)770-461-5099

It's important to include the number at the end.

Must Read "Slate" Article on "Africa's Worst Dictator"

I found a very interesting article on Slate.com today (it was posted nearly a week ago) that argues that the (now) infamous Robert Mugabe is not the worst African dictator. Check out the article here.

While the article is quite persuasive, especially as to the American role in propping up Obiang, it raises the more important question: What is our Africa policy? And, why are we allowing Africa to be overrun and controlled by such vicious dictators? I thought that our policy under Bush was that we were going to promote democracy . . . across the globe.

I am not arguing that we should inculcate ourself in every single mess throughout the world. And perhaps it is perfectly rationale to only pick the fights where we have a sustained economic interest. It just seems that, with everything that is going on in Africa today--Equatorial Guinea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda (yes, still), we ought to be doing something more. If only to protect our investment in providing drugs for the treatment of malaria and HIV. If only to make those efforts a little more worthwhile. Isn't there SOMETHING we can do? Because Africa is not just a democracy crisis. We are not just dealing with these disgusting dictators. We are dealing with a public health crisis with its heart on the African continent.

Maybe we are doing all that we can do. But something tells me that is not quite right. Something tells me that there is something else we can do, and that we ought to do it--sooner rather than later.

A Blind Squirrel and Bush . . .

In yesterday’s NYTIMES, David Brooks made what appears to be the strongest argument on behalf of the Bush presidency, and Iraq policy in particular. (Though, strong is hardly a word for it.) The argument is that Bush, in his infinite stubbornness went to war in Iraq. His stubbornness frustrated the “purpose” of the war and created a mess. He kept approaching Iraq with the same stubbornness when it came to the “surge.” All of his military advisers and his Secretary of State thought that the surge was a bad idea, yet Bush, stubbornly went ahead with the plan. In Brooks’ words:

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.

Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.

Brooks may be well impressed with Bush’s stubborn decision and his willingness to keep pushing the same button, or keep filling in the same oval. His whole argument however, seems to break down to a long explanation of the old saw that, “even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile.”

Yes, Brooks is correct that in politics and throughout history, no one side is right all of the time. However, I don’t think it is too much to ask of an American president that they try and find the right answer. Bush is the guy who sits down to the standardized test and answers “C” on every question. And sometimes he is “correct.” But this isn’t the approach I want from my politicians. I want someone who THINKS and recognizes that sometimes the answer is “C” and sometimes the answer is “A”, “B” or “D” and that all options ought to be, at the very least, considered. Some appreciation of nuance would be nice. The president that always answers “C” is the president that fails.

Tuesday Rant on the Headlines . . .

There are numerous things in the news today that are bothering me, so if you don't mind I am just going to rant a little.

• First, is the uproar over McCain advicer Charlie Black's comments suggesting that if a terrorist attack were to occur between now and the election, it would help John McCain politically. Predictably, this comment has drawn outrage from Barack Obama and strong chastisement from John McCain. But this was absolutely planned by the McCain campaign, this was not a gaffe, this was not a moment of accidental honesty (and it IS honesty) on Charlie Black's part. The McCain and Obama camps know equally that if there were another terrorist attack between now and the election, that it would turn some voters to the more "experienced" candidate in John McCain. McCain has consistently polled a little bit better than Obama on the issue of national security. This is no surprise. The outrage of Obama and the rebuke of McCain was also factored in by the McCain campaign as the "cost of doing business." These were merely transaction costs in an effort to get the issue of a possible terror attack back in the headlines and back into the minds of the American people.
• Next up is the new Don Imus fiasco. I don't listen to Don Imus and I really don't care what he says. That being said, I think it was wrong that he was fired over his Rutgers comments. The comments were, if not plainly, then really close to the line of plainly, racist. They were inexcusable. But, I was under the impression that, in this country, you were allowed to express repugnant thoughts. He even apologized, which okay, maybe you don't want to take him at his word, but he DID apologize and he has paid a price for his comments, a price that was, in my mind, too high. Now, there are new suggestions of Don Imus' racism based on comments he made about the reputed NFL thug, Pacman Jones, being black. Okay, sure there is a whiff of racism when he says that he wasn't surprised to hear that Jones was black. And, it strikes me as a little disingenuous when he starts backpedaling and saying that he said he wasn't surprised because he was suggesting that the cops pick on black people. He then went on to say that the cops arrested Pacman 6 times because they were picking on him because he was black. And Al Sharpton says he hopes Imus means it. 1) Who cares what Al Sharpton hopes or thinks or says more than any other person? (How is it that treating one or two men as the spokesmen for black America is not more perjorative, demeaning and racist than what Imus spews?) 2) Pacman Jones is a thug and he has been arrested so many times because he has behaved in a way that was, shall we say, below reproach? I am not naive enough to suggest that somewhere along the line, his being black, played NO role, but I am suggesting it was not a predominant role. 3) Don Imus is what he is. If you think he is racist, then so be it. Treat him like the ignorant individual you believe him to be and don't listen to him and don't report on him. You ARE allowed to be publicly wrong, racist and ignorant in this country. But, in the words of someone wise, who, quite honestly I forget, the answer to repugnant or "bad" speech is not to shut the speaker down; the answer is MORE speech, by MORE people.
• In the most "gag-me" campaign news I have ever heard, the report came out today that Obama and Hillary will make their first campaign stop together in Unity, New Hampshire, a town where they split the primary 107-107. I am quite sure that there are some people out there who think this is "neato," "cute" or "endearing." I happen to think this is absolutely obnoxious. Instead of cynically pandering to the naive and stupid, those seeking a sign, or a charming anecdote, as this clearly does, why doesn't the Obama campaign make Hillary join him in someplace where he actually needs her, like Florida, or perhaps maybe West Virginia where Hillary trounced him by 41% in a state Democrats CAN win? This is just stupid and only appeals to wild-eyed mush-brains.
• Finally, Focus on the Family's James Dobson is taking on Obama over his interpretation of scripture. Dobson says of Obama, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Well said James, and perhaps you are right. But isn't that the point Obama was trying to make? That you can in fact take scripture and twist it to fit your own worldview or "confused theology?" Wasn't this Obama's point and isn't this what you have been doing for years? The idea that the Bible speaks out both (or multiple) sides of its "mouth" is neither new, nor surprising, but it underlines a basic point: USING the Bible to ones political advantage is astoundingly moronic. OF COURSE, you can find a scripture passage that "backs up" or "supports" your belief/opinion, but, for the most part, these provisions are contradicted or made ridiculous elsewhere in the Bible (both Old and New Testament) by another passage. This last point was made with typical poignancy in this clip from "The West Wing."

My Hero Tim

I've been wanting to write something over the past several days since the passing of Tim Russert. But everything I wanted to say, seemed to be trite and inconsequential in any scheme of things, whether grand or small. I have watched the voluminous news coverage on NBC and MSNBC and have read about a dozen articles about Tim. Most of the stories have been light hearted and interesting and most have been confirmational of the sense that you always got from watching him.

I wanted to write about him because he was (and is) a hero to me. Why? Because he was one of the guys that worked his tail off and rose to the top. He did so without the benefit of an Ivy League education and the connections that provides. Instead, he proved himself in the crucible of Washington politics to be above "the rest."

I wrote last week in my post about Tiger and Phil, that I love watching genius at work. I love watching people who are the best at what they do. Tim Russert was the best at what he did and I loved watching him.

All of these things make him my hero. All of these are reasons why I watched him nearly every Sunday for the past 4 years. If I knew I was going to miss it, I dvr'd it, or made sure to catch a repeat. For me, watching Tim was appointment television. I hardly ever even referred to the show as "Meet the Press." Rather, I called it "Russert." He was the show and he was politics for me.

I don't think that Meet the Press will ever be the same. I don't know if it will ever be as good. I know that I will keep watching though. With this brilliant election season, how could I not?

I am not afraid to admit that I have shed a few tears over Tim's passing. It is very emotional to see his friends and his family remember him. It is very emotional to hear them say that the guy we saw on T.V. was the real guy. And so, while some may say that the coverage and eulogizing of Tim has been too much, it was just the right amount for me. I have never felt this way before. I have never felt loss from a distance, or shed a tear over someone I have never met. I have never grieved so remotely. To see and hear of others grieving so, comforted me. So for me, the coverage, the remembrances and the tears were in a word: perfect.

"If it's Sunday, it's "Meet the Press."" God Bless You Tim!

Interesting take on Muslims and Obama

Here is an interesting piece from the Detroit Free Press on what Rochelle Riley thinks is the real issue with Obama volunteers asking the two Detroit area women in hijabs not to sit in the front row.

The bigger story is that hateful extremists who used to exist on the fringe of society are now taking over and too much is being done to appease them instead of ignore them.

The news media who worry that the hate-mongers will accuse them of being too kind to Obama have spent as much time on the volunteer's misguided actions as they have on what the candidates will do about the economy.

I hate hippies . . .

I hate hippies almost as much as I hate fascists. This story brings them both together. Oh, and I love the First Amendment too so, this shit is dumb to me. Pun intended!

Ew!

Weird Story

This is a good reader participation exercise. Here is a story from CNN.com.

The topic sentence of the story says it all: "A severed foot -- the sixth this year -- washed up on the shore of a Canadian island on Wednesday, police said."

Reader participation! I want to hear your narratives or your story to "explain" the severed feet washing up on the Pacific Northwest shore. This should be fun.

Great Sports Story!

This is a cool sports story- check it out!

Paris for Obama

According to Maureen Dowd of the NYTIMES, Paris has already decided thew election for Obama.

In the French imagination, Barack Obama is already the president.

To the French, the Democratic primary was the general election.

The word “elite” is not a pejorative here; it’s a compliment. It does not occur to Parisians that Americans will choose the old, white-haired one if they can have the cool, skinny one with the Ray-Bans, John le Carré novels, chic wife and secret cigarettes.

Full Column

Will on McCain

In an excellent OP-ED in today's Washington Post, George Will takes McCain to task for his apparent disdain for constitutional rights, such as the right of habeas corpus. Read the article here.

Some highlights:

Did McCain's extravagant condemnation of the court's habeas ruling result from his reading the 126 pages of opinions and dissents? More likely, some clever ignoramus convinced him that this decision could make the Supreme Court -- meaning, which candidate would select the best judicial nominees -- a campaign issue.

The decision, however, was 5 to 4. The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America's democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

The Role of Sexism in the 2008 Democratic Primary

Brief Note: I have been truant the last couple of days for a few reasons. Thursday, I was unmotivated to post anything on the blog, Friday, we had a power outage in downtown D.C. so there was no work and I was home "studying" for the VA Bar Exam and watching the U.S. Open Golf tournament. And today, I am posting late because for most of the day, my internet connection at work has been down and when it came back up, I was mostly focused on the playoff in the U.S. Open. But I am back, and will shortly have a post up about my hero Tim Russert. My first post however, is about sexism. Enjoy.

Over the last week, since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, there has been a lot of talk about the role of sexism in Hillary's losing campaign. Initially, I downplayed the role of sexism, due to my belief that Hillary is not a great "test balloon" for the proposition of whether a woman can win a major party nomination and the presidency.

I am still of the belief that, notwithstanding sexism, Hillary would not have won the nomination and would not have won the presidency in this election for a myriad of reason. First amongst these reasons, and perhaps the only one that really matters is that on the most fundamentally important issue of our day and age- the Iraq war- she was on the wrong side of history. This is not a slam against Hillary, it is merely stating a fact.

Would Obama have voted against giving the President authorization to invade Iraq had he been in the Senate? My guess is no, but that is entirely beside the point. He was on the record as being against the war or authorization for the war at the time that it mattered and therefore it matters very little that he was not in the U.S. Senate and did not have a vote. Perhaps he would have voted against it. But my guess is that things appear quite differently when one is sitting in those hallowed Senate chambers and that the difference makes it easier to stand on the outside and be against the authorization of the war. It requires far less courage to make that stand outside of the Senate than it does within and Obama has seldom shown that kind of courage. No one can really point to an example of him standing up and voting for or against something extremely popular. This is not a slam on Obama either, it is merely my attempt to put it in some perspective. My overall point being--Hillary was on the wrong side of history and had more of a record to run against (the reason why, until this year, no Senator had won the presidency since Kennedy in 1960). I think this explains Hillary's loss better than "sexism."

Yet, the issue of sexism is the topic of two excellent articles from two writers I respect, taking very different views. I would encourage you to check them out.

Here is Nicholas Kristoff"s article in the NYTIMES from last Thursday.

And, here is Christopher Hitchens' article on Slate.com from today.

I am interested to hear your opinion on the issue. I think that it is too complicated to simply jump to one conclusion or the other, and I think there is a strong critique to be made of both of these articles. Ultimately, I think Kristoff has the better of the arguments, although his fails to hammer home the difference between a subtle bias and outright sexism. I do believe there is a meaningful difference. But Hitchens does well to raise the substantive critique of the uniqueness of Hillary Clinton as a woman candidate for president.

It is a worthwhile discussion, to which there is no easy answer. It is an issue that we will likely continue to grapple with until there is a woman president. Even then, this may not decisively end the issue, but lets hope we can meet back soon to discuss THAT question.

Tiger and Phil (A Post for Josh Terebelo)

If you have no idea what the title of this post is about, you are probably not going to be at all interested in the link I am posting.

Here is that link. A nice little ESPN The Magazine, Rick Reilly essay imploring viewers of Thursday and Friday's U.S. Open head-to-head between Tiger and Phil to cheer for Phil. Reilly argues that you must choose, to not choose he says, is "unamerican."

Here are some samples:

Rooting for Tiger Woods is like rooting for Justin Timberlake to get lucky, Exxon to hit a gusher, Bill Gates to find a twenty on the sidewalk. It takes no imagination. It takes no courage. What's the point? It's 1-to-5 he's going to win anyway, whether you cheer or not. Makes no difference to him. It's like rooting for erosion.

Rooting for Phil Mickelson, on the other hand, is like rooting for the salmon to eat the bear. It takes faith. It takes forgiveness. It takes Tums. Mickelson is a roller coaster in an earthquake. One shot will be so inspired you'll cover your mouth in astonishment. The next will be so Spam-brained you'll slap your forehead in disbelief. It's like watching a blind guy jaywalk across Hollywood and Vine. Your fist is in your mouth the whole way.

Here's how to tell them apart: Woods has the Joe Weider body, the Iron Byron swing, the Green Beret mind. Mickelson's body leans toward Sara Lee. He's carried two drivers—one for hooks and one for slices—but none for straights. He can get it up and down out of an ice cream cart, which is a good thing, because he's there a lot. He might be the only athlete whose catch phrase is, "I'm such an idiot!"

Besides, rooting for Phil is so much more interesting. Tiger's in the fairway. Phil's in a lady's Prada! Tiger's on the green. Phil is banking it off a pine, a boulder and a San-o-let! Tiger makes a 2-footer for a what-else-is-new 4. Phil makes a seagoing 30-footer for a did-you-see-that 4! It's the difference between watching Dow Jones and Indiana Jones.

Look, Tiger needs this major like Yao needs stilts. There'll be a dozen more after this. He doesn't need to prove he's better than Phil. We know. Not counting Stableford or match-play tournaments, these two have entered 157 pro tournaments together. Tiger is 104-50-3 against him. That's not a rivalry. That's avalanche versus twig. That's more one-sided than a Venezuelan election.

My Take: I get what Reilly is saying and it's compelling. I love watching both of these golfers. It is hard not too root for Tiger though, because you frequently see him pull off such amazing shots that you feel you're watching poetry. Phil is the everyday man with a surreal skill set of his own. I like his personality more and find him more accessible and engaging and I wish him well. Given this, who am I going to root for? I still have to go with Tiger, because to me, watching him golf is like watching Bill Clinton give a campaign speech in 1992. It is pure genius and there is something compelling, even better than a good story line, about watching someone who is the best at what they do go out and simply do that. It's like watching Jordan or Gretzky back in the day, only better. Like most people, I will probably always have a softspot in my heart for the guy whose meltdown at Winged Foot in 2006 led to memorable T.V. lines, such as Ari's Temple rant ("I'm melting down like Phil Mickelson at Winged Foot!!!") on "Entourage." However, when push comes to shove between the softspot and my desire to watch pure genius at work, I have to go with genius.

Vetting Vettors? The Garbage has Begun Early!

Silly season is upon us! Jim Johnson, a long-time Democratic V.P. "vetter" has resigned from the Obama campaign where he was serving as an unpaid adviser. Read about it here.

This is nonsense. First off, the Wall Street Journal article has neither meat nor force of fact behind its story. Second, even if the worst of these rumors were true (not terribly worrisome to begin with), who cares? He is a volunteer adviser, vetting the V.P. candidates, not serving in a government position himself. Really? He has to quit a volunteer position because of rumors of (slightly less than) nerfarious behavior?

This is stupid. This is garbage.

Debt, Unemployment and the Growing American Inequities

Yesterday, the two NYTIMES Op-Eds could not have been more relevant to one another. Both columns, by David Brooks and Bob Herbert, were excellent examinations of the growing plight of many Americans. A plight that is not easily fixable and therefore, not readily addressed by either presumptive nominees for the major parties. Please take a moment to check out these articles, they are well worth the read.

Out of Sight
B. Herbert

The Great Seduction
D. Brooks

The Obama Questions . . .

I think that most cannot doubt the political skills displayed by Obama and his campaign throughout the Democratic primary. Even the most cynical and conservative of his critics admit that he has run an astounding campaign and has demonstrated a broad, powerful and deeply intuitive political acumen. The reason people reserve judgment or question Obama is because they just don't know, or don't trust how good he will actually be with policy. To be fair, many of these same concerns can be raised about John McCain as well, who, despite his years on Obama, has very little more in the way of experience in the implementation of policy.

But there are questions and much speculation as to what kind of real, substantive policies Obama supports and how will he implement them. The most important area right now, and the one to which Obama has first turned his attention to is economics. Howard Fineman, in this piece for MSNBC looks into Obama's economic plan he calls "Obamanomics." Some short samples:

In terms of policy, he is not looking to do the unexpected, or the radically new. He made an unspoken calculation long ago: that he, himself, is change enough.

I just listened to the debut of his newly bulked-up economic team during one of those wonkish conference calls for reporters.

And I have to say, if sweeping change is what Obama is all about, I didn’t hear it on that call.
Obama’s advisors were intent on labeling McCain’s economic ideas as more of the same, rather than touting the newness of their own vision.

Here’s Obama’s new crisis management answer:

• $50 billion to unemployment insurance and to states for serving the needy and unemployed.
  
• $10 billion fund to prevent foreclosures.
  
• New “tax relief for ordinary Americans” – that is, those families which earn less than $150,000 per year – with up to $1,000 per family in direct payments.
  
• A recently proposed windfall profits tax for big oil companies
  

If the economy is heading as deep into the tank as some economists think (even, evidently, some of Obama’s), then the plan he announced Monday is little more than a bandage.

Check out the full article HERE

Hitchens on Zimbabwe

Here is a very interesting article with Hitchens taking on Nelson Mandela and the Catholic Church for their lack of condemnation of Robert Mugabe's most-recent crack down.

O-H I-O!!!! (Apparently spelling really IS a challenge for them!)

You probably have heard about this news story from Westlake Ohio (taken from MGoBlog):

A Cleveland-area principal says he's embarrassed his students got proof of their "educaiton" on their high school diplomas.

Westlake High School officials misspelled "education" on the diplomas distributed last weekend. It's been the subject of mockery on local radio.

Now, it is no secret, or shouldn't be, that this blog is no friend of the "state" of Ohio. The reasons why are too numerous to list here. But suffice it to say, this Michigander has not gotten past the Toledo War or, The Ten Year War for that matter.

Stories like the one above make me feel vindicated in my irrational hatred of all things Ohio, Columbus, the community college in Columbus they have the balls to call a "state" university and the football team from the aforementioned community college that functions far more similarly to a halfway house from high school to the state pen, than as a beacon of amateur athletics and intercollegiate competition. (See, Maurice Clarett, Exhibit 1)

Baghdad, D.C.

The news came out today, that to counteract major violence in our capitol's 5th Police District, Mayor Adrian Fenty has signed an Executive Order allowing for a police lockdown and roadblocks of certain parts of that district, known as the Trinidad neighborhood. Read about it here and here.

There are many aspects of this that are troubling to me. First and foremost amongst them are the apparent inconsistencies with the Constitution. The Washington Post article references a similar lockdown in the Bronx in 1992 that survived legal challenges, leading the 2nd Circuit to hold that it "served an important public concern" and was "reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism to deter crime in the barricaded area." This seems more like a court applying the law to the immediate facts without any deference to constitutional standards.

The standard for pulling over a car, or "arresting" (in the most literal sense of restricting someone's movement) is reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. This principle comes from Terry v. Ohio a 1968 case, and Michigan v. Long (as applicable to vehicle "frisks") a 1983 case, which the Supreme Court still upholds as good law. Surely, Mayor Fenty and the police commissioner cannot rationally argue that the police have reasonable suspicion to stop everyone entering this neighborhood.

On top of the constitutional issues, there is also the issue of police-community relations. This is not a good way for the police to build up their trust within the community, a trust that they need to build and maintain to curb the violence and promote an atmosphere where people aren't afraid to report violence and drugs. The heavy-handed maneuver that D.C. has chosen puts an entire new dynamic into the mix. The dynamic is race-relations, power struggles and roughly analogous situation to the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Many people today are most shocked by the fact that Mayor Fenty has signed off on this program. I for one am not. Mayor's of large cities face a strong dynamic force because they are there, on the ground, facing the pressure every day. Political theories and platforms of all kinds break down when it comes to facing real world challenges. Nowhere is this truer than for a mayor of a large city, especially one with a booming violent crime rate where everyone is turning to you to fix it. And of course you can't fix it, because you can't communicate directly to the perpetrators- and even if you could, they wouldn't all listen. So you do something, anything, and you run it by your lawyers- they give you the go ahead and you run with it, because in politics, the perception that you are doing nothing is far more deadly than the perception that you are doing something unconstitutional. And voters, who are afraid for their lives, are far less likely to question actions that threaten the constitution when their lives and safety are at risk. Therefore, the cost of inaction is much higher to a politician in this instance, than say, the cost of unconstitutional action.

I am not suggesting that this common dynamic is an excuse for Mayor Fenty, but merely an explanation of the forces that drive one to such action. It is precisely because it is easier to go down this path with the heavy hand, as opposed to going in, establishing relationships and working with the community, that we need community groups and local and national legal groups to raise up a challenge to such action.

What D.C. is doing is sad, if not at all surprising. Where once our nation was pictured as the "shining city on the hill, " our capitol is now pushing the line of martial law and a police state mentality. Sure, this one step may be a ways off from that line. But it is one step in the wrong direction and our "city on the hill" is certainly not shining today.

Pound-it-out!

THIS IS AWESOME! As Slate.com points out, what is even better is the press reaction!

The presidential campaign—well, one in particular—has introduced a new greeting to the political world: the fist pound (also known as daps). Last night, we saw perhaps the most high-profile pound of all time, as Michelle and Barack Obama bumped fists on national television before he took the stage.

What’s hilarious is watching the formal, AP Stylebook-loving media trying to figure out what to call it.

In an article about Obama’s body man Reggie Love, the New York Times called Love’s preferred greeting a “

closed-fisted high-five.” Last night produced other assorted references:

“Taking a fist-pound from wife Michelle, Obama stepped to the podium Tuesday”—MTV.com

“Michelle Obama gives her husband, Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Senator Barack Obama, a knuckle-bump as a sign of support before he speaks to supporters.”—Monsters and Critics

“At 09:09:27 Central Time, Michelle Obama gave Barack Obama a pound in St. Paul, Minnesota.”—Lola New York

“I never realized how romantic and respectful and mutually appreciative and loving a frat-tastic fist bump could be. Could it be the new peck-on-the-cheek?”—The Frisky

“... Obama, who was joined on stage by his wife Michelle, with whom he shared a celebratory fist-bump.”—Reuters

“Obama, began with a loving fist to fist thumbs up with Michelle.”—Capitol Hill Blue

“Michelle is not as ‘refined’ as Obama at hiding her TRUE feelings about America—etc. Her

‘Hezbollah’ style fist-jabbing ...”—Human Events

“I loved that moment, when they touched their hands together like that.” --Commenter, bjkeefe

I just cannot wait for the Obama's to go all national television with mine and my girlfriend's favorite- the EXPLODING "fist-bump" "close-fisted high-five" "touch of our hands together like that!"

The Popular Vote

Finally, the Democratic Party has a nominee. It is a momentous occasion to have a major party nominate an African American. I am extraordinarily happy with the nomination of Barack Obama. But this is not my concern today. My concern is with the claim by the Clinton campaign that they won the popular vote. Obviously, this doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but the claim is bothering me today.

I am no mathematician but the popular vote numbers MSNBC was running at the beginning of last night showed Clinton with roughly a 3,000 vote lead in the popular vote. She then proceeded to win South Dakota by a little more than 10,000 votes. Obama then won Montana by roughly 28,000 votes, which would seem to have erased any lead that Clinton had and given it to Obama.

I listened to all of the news reports this morning, along with reading most of the stories about last night's historic events and I have not seen anyone question the Clinton claim that they won the popular vote, or the claim that Hillary made in her speech that she had won more primary votes than anyone in history.

All of these claims by the Clinton campaign are accurate, IF you use some clever math. First you have to count Michigan, but ONLY her votes in Michigan. Obama would have to get nothing from the Michigan vote. This is dubious at best. It is dubious at best to even COUNT Michigan in these numbers, yet she insists on this clever math to claim her popular vote lead. Then, you have to factor in that no vote totals were released by Iowa, Nevada, Maine or Washington (3 of 4 were won by Obama). Real Clear Politics (where most of these numbers come from) shows that if you count Michigan ONLY for Clinton with nothing for Obama and combined estimates from the above 4 caucus states, Clinton wins the popular vote 18,045,829 - 17,869,419 or 47.9% - 47.4%.

However, if you combine the estimates from the caucus states with Michigan with "uncommitted" going to Obama (which is also a problem since he did not win ALL of the "uncommitted" votes) Obama wins the popular vote 18,107,587, 48.1% - 18,045,829 47.9%. If you scrap Michigan altogether, as is probably the best measure and you don't include the caucus states, Obama wins the popular vote. Even if you include the caucus states, Obama wins the popular vote.

The ONLY way Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote is if Michigan is only counted for her. Or, if Michigan is counted for her and the caucus states are not counted at all. Surely, these numbers in no way suggest that the Clinton campaign should be running around, pounding their fists and demanding a V.P. slot, especially when any claim to winning the popular vote is clever and dubious at best.

The BIG Story

For many, the big news of today is that the Associated Press is declaring that Obama has officially gained enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination fight over Hillary. And they may be right, even if it is kind of old news. Apparently, Hillary is going to concede that Obama has the number of delegates to secure the nomination, but she is not going to concede the race or drop out. How does this make sense in a system where Hillary's campaign is on the record many times saying "delegates nominate?" It doesn't. It's stupid. And you can read about it here and here.

What I think is the big story is the Vanity Fair article on our former President Bill Clinton. I read the article yesterday (which you can find here) and was struck by the fantastic nature of the story. I know the Bill Clinton has led a life straight from a fairy tale, but this article is so fantastic that it became harder and harder to believe. And then I went back over it and noticed that there was not a single, named source. Again, I know that the Clintons are powerful and people are afraid of their retribution, but to print a scathing critique of a former President, wherein no one is willing to stand up and put their name behind it is weak.

Slate.com tries to deconstruct the Bill Clinton's critique of the article here. They fail to do so with any insight because they focus on the fact that Bill Clinton just all in all lashes out at the writer and Vanity Fair itself.

This critique, while seemingly getting the point, misses the simple point, and the simple point is this. The piece is garbage journalism befitting a tabloid writer and quite glaringly lacks the credibility one might expect from the husband of Clinton's former Press Secretary.

Disgust . . .

This is the only way I can describe my reaction to THIS story.

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained. . . .

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001.

If true, and at this point, who can honestly doubt the veracity of these reports, this is plain and simple --disgusting and gut-wrenching to see our nation actively engaging in this kind of behavior. It is shameful.

Christopher Hitchens

His Slate.com article today compares Doug Feith's tell-all with McClellan's. Here are some quick hits from the article:

(On McClellan) I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar.

Bertrand Russell's principle of evidence against interest—if the pope has doubts about Jesus, his doubts are by definition more newsworthy than the next person's—doesn't really justify the ocean of coverage in which the talentless McClellan is currently so far out of his depth. For one thing, he doesn't supply anything that can really be called evidence. For another, having not noticed any "propaganda machine" at the time he was perspiring his way through his simple job, he has a clear mercenary interest in discovering one in retrospect.

(On Feith) Without explicitly saying so, Feith makes a huge contribution to the growing case for considering the Central Intelligence Agency to be well beyond salvage. Its role as a highly politicized and bewilderingly incompetent body, disastrous enough in having left us under open skies before Sept. 11, 2001, became something more like catastrophic with the gross mishandling of Iraq. For these revelations alone, this book is well worth the acquisition. (I might add that, unlike McClellan, Feith is contributing all his earnings and royalties to charities that care for our men and women in uniform.)

I don't know Feith, but I can pay him two further compliments: When you read him on a detail with which you yourself are familiar, he is factually reliable (and it's not often that one can say that, believe me). And his prose style is easy, nonbureaucratic, dry, and sometimes amusing. If a book that was truly informative was called a "tell-all" by our media, then War and Decision would qualify. As it is, we seem to reserve that term for the work of bigmouths who have little, if anything, to impart.

What I feel about McClellan (without reading his book) . . .

Here is what I feel about the whole Scott McClelland thing. I haven't read his book but I will read it and I did watch his interview on Olbermann last night. What he is saying is important in that it is confirmation of what has been thought. However, if I am completely honest with myself and give an honest and accurate reflection, my actual thought is that I despise a snitch. I'm going to link you to Peggy Noonan's column from today's WSJ where she writes, "And Americans in general have a visceral and instinctive dislike for what Drudge called a snitch. This is our tradition, and also human nature."

I obviously agree with her analysis, and wish that I could somehow prove that I felt that way before she wrote it -- I did tell my girlfriend that I despise a snitch last night before the column even came out-- but that is not as important as the fact that this is truly what I feel. What I mean by that is, I despise the person who helps perpetrate wrong, or who helps carry out wrong and then AFTER the fact, speaks up and turns on the others. As a lawyer of course, I know that this is common place and can be quite helpful to the government in securing convictions. It is also helpful to the snitch in getting a plea deal.

I think that McClellan's book, no matter how much I despise a snitch can also be helpful to our government. It adds a level of insight into important missteps which has been missing. I also think that through an historical lense, McClellan will also get a better deal from the public because he DID say something, he DID speak up, even if it is after the fact

Again, I have not read the book yet, but Peggy has and you should read her column here.

Is media going the way of the dinosaur?

Well, that was the prediction of Michael Crichton in 1993. Slate.com does a catch-up interview with Crichton that you can find here. Some very interesting highlights:

"[T]he American media produce a product of very poor quality," he lectured. "Its information is not reliable, it has too much chrome and glitz, its doors rattle, it breaks down almost immediately, and it's sold without warranty. It's flashy but it's basically junk."

As we pass his prediction's 15-year anniversary, I've got to declare advantage Crichton. Rot afflicts the newspaper industry, which is shedding staff, circulation, and revenues. It's gotten so bad in newspaperville that some people want Google to buy the Times and run it as a charity! Evening news viewership continues to evaporate, and while the mass media aren't going extinct tomorrow, Crichton's original observations about the media future now ring more true than false. Ask any journalist.

Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover. He attributes the public's interest in Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to its hunger for a wider range of viewpoints than the mass media provide.

PLEASE LEAVE ALREADY!!!

I love the United States of America. I absolutely love this country, for all it's good and bad. And yes, I hate a vast majority of what the Bush Administration has done, but it hasn't in anyway made me fear that we are all going to hell in a handbasket, and it certainly hasn't made me feel like our country is second rate. Rather, it has made me think, not feel, that our country needs some big changes and shifts in policy. It has made me think that our foreign policy ought to be dictated by facts and reality as opposed to some ethereal theory or belief. Finally, it makes me think that our domestic policy ought to be driven by a desire to make our country and our economic system function for everyone who is willing to put in a full day's work. I also THINK, most Americans would agree with these thoughts. That is why ours is a great country.

So, when I read "news" blurbs like this: SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. It makes me want to scream and say, "GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!" Why would Sarandon make these comments? Why would all of the celebrities who promised to leave (and unfortunately didn't) if Bush was re-elected in 2004, make such comments? Is it because they believe they are somehow national treasures that we will all feel so horrible over losing? Is it some kind of Hollywood ego trip, wherein they think that some voter in Flint, Michigan is going to say- "oh, well, if Susan is going to leave if McCain is elected, I better vote for Obama. I've lost my job, my home and I'm in danger of losing my kids--losing Susan would just be too much to take and put me over the edge."

Let us please call this for what it is: Bullshit. Love this country or don't. Work to change this country or don't. Complain about this country or don't. I don't care. There are enough good people in this country, doing good, positive things that it make it a great country. If you can't see that, or if you can't see that this is the only country in the world that you could have had the career that you have . . . then you are blind to reality; or worse--stupid. So please, do us all a favor and leave already! Don't wait! Just leave now.

Oh, and Susan . . . one last thing . . . Canada? Are you freaking kidding me!?

The Michigan Attorney General Fights for Red Wings Fans!

I am not a huge fan of my home state AG Mike Cox, but this news story about him is great. (From the Detroit Free Press' Chris Christoff)

LANSING -- Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox took steps Thursday to ensure that Red Wings fans aren't completely frozen out of the Igloo.

Only fans in Pennsylvania, seven adjacent states and the District of Columbia can buy tickets via Ticketmaster to Saturday's Game 4 of the Stanley Cup finals in Pittsburgh. No Michigan fans need apply, according to the Ticketmaster Web site.

Cox wasn't having it. He rang up Ticketmaster and the Pittsburgh Penguins to complain. And in a triumphant announcement, he assured Michigan fans they could still buy resale tickets online.
Ticketmaster said the restriction applied only to direct sales, not Ticketmaster's online resales from season-ticket holders and others.

"The way the Web site is written, you would not have known that," Cox spokesman Rusty Hills said. The same rules apply if Game 6 is necessary in Pittsburgh.

"Great job" to Cox standing up for the great people of Michigan! GO WINGS!

Why Webb Shouldn't (Or Wouldn't) be V.P.

In my pro-Virginia exuberance last week, I wrote here, that I thought Jim Webb would be great as a V.P. selection for Obama. Until today, I had yet to read a compelling reason for why I may be wrong. I found this interesting blog post on Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish and you can find the full text here. In any case, here are some samples from what I think is a well-put together, obviously knowledgable critique of the idea of Webb as V.P., though I might add, that I remain unconvinced that it wouldn't be wise for both Obama and Webb.

- Until 7pm November 4, 2008, Webb might well be a very strong addition to the ticket.
- On November 5, the troubles -- for Webb -- would begin.

Would his credentials on national security and as an undoubtedly tough southern Populist offset, among other problems, the perceived slight to older women among Hillary Clinton's base? It's like a vector problem in physics. My belief is that, purely as a matter of electoral math, Webb would help Obama much more than he would hurt. But I know that's a judgment call, with countless ramifications to argue out.

The problem is what would happen if he did help Obama win. Having first met Webb nearly thirty years ago -- and having co-written an Atlantic cover story with him, and having broken my rule against giving money to political candidates two years ago when he began his Senate run -- I can't imagine a job he would enjoy less than the vice presidency.

The Best Rationale for Supporting Hillary

HERE IT IS!!!! The best (and really only) reason left to support Hillary.

Dunkin' Donuts Gives in to Terrorism!

I am not sure how many people have seen this story but it makes me sick!

Dunkin' Donuts has pulled an online advertisement featuring Rachael Ray after complaints that a fringed black-and-white scarf that the celebrity chef wore in the ad offers symbolic support for Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The coffee and baked goods chain said the ad that began appearing online May 7 was pulled over the past weekend because "the possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee."

In the spot, Ray holds an iced coffee while standing in front of trees with pink blossoms.

Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf wrapped around her looked like a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress. Critics who fueled online complaints about the ad in blogs say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, "has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."

A statement issued by Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Brands Inc., however, said the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot.
"Absolutely no symbolism was intended," the company said.

Dunkin' spokeswoman Michelle King said the ad appeared on the chain's Web site, as well as other commercial sites.

Malkin, in a posting following up on last week's column, said of Dunkin's decision to pull the ad, "It's refreshing to see an American company show sensitivity to the concerns of Americans opposed to Islamic jihad and its apologists."

I try to keep a fairly level headed approach on this blog, but this story has me steaming mad. There is no explanation for the "outrage" over this scarf that is explainable outside of the anti-Arab, fascist tendencies of those who protested and complained, and the utterly weak-kneed, slimey, anti-principled response of Dunkin' Donuts! I am sick to my stomach over the fact that they caved into the "pressure" of these complaints, highlighted by perhaps the most illogical, idiotic, dimwitted, imbecilic, fatuous dolt of a "pundit"(no disrespect intended to actual pundits)--Michelle Malkin. She makes Ann Coulter seem reasonable, calm and collected.

First off, there is the question of whether this is even a kaffiyeh in the first place. Second, there is the more important question of why it matters? How is a traditional piece of clothing worn by many Arab men a sign of support for terrorism? The dimwitted one argues that it is a sign of Palestinian nationalism and therefore terrorism and therefore Dunkin' Donuts' ad with Rachel Ray (a terrorist if I've ever seen one) wearing, what is speciously thought by the imbecile to be a kaffiyeh, is a sign of solidarity with the terrorists. Oh the logic of wholly simple-minded.

Shame on Dunkin' Donuts for paying ANY heed to this disgraceful, fascistic nonsense!

Is Hillary Last Call for Women?

It seems shocking to me how apoplectic some people are over the imminent demise of Hillary. They seem to think that we are immediately receding to an era where a woman's right to vote will soon be questioned and perhaps challenged. Some, as Dahlia Lithwick for Slate.com points out, are suggesting that there will never be another viable woman candidate for President in their life time. Well sure, maybe if you die really, really soon. Lithwick'e explanation for the craziness:

Perhaps it's the inevitable byproduct of the accusation that anyone who failed to support Clinton's presidential bid has doomed feminism, but the claim that the doors have slammed on decades of future woman presidents is as maddening as the Olympics of Oppression that preceded it. The folks claiming we've allowed the presidency to slip through our fingers arrive at this conclusion by pressing the same flawed syllogism: The only viable woman candidate thus far has been Hillary; Hillary did not win; ergo there will never be another viable woman candidate. . . .

We all know these double standards exist for females in public life—voters demand toughness but not bitchiness, confidence but not shrillness, authenticity but also glamour. If the Clinton candidacy has taught us anything, however, it's that a woman can straddle all those irreconcilable demands and still win. She can win more than 16 million votes in the primaries and around 1,779 delegates. Clinton has shown that a woman can win huge at the ballot box and bring in huge money, and even if Obama ultimately secures the nomination, those facts will not change. Faced with all that evidence of success, how do the naysayers prove it can never be repeated?

I think there are obvious reasons why people would doubt that what Hillary has done can be repeated. After all, she is a former First Lady with absolute name recognition. She is a sitting U.S. Senator and was the formidable and unquestioned front-runner and leading fundraiser for the Democratic nomination right up until actual votes were cast, and STILL she could not win. But she got a fair hearing on the merits. She lost and she came up short. Could some of it have to do with the fact that she is a woman? Sure. I'm certain some of it did. Is it the REASON she is going to lose? Absolutely not.

The future looks bright for women. There are many women out there more capable, more able and less polarizing than Hillary. As Lithwick remarks:

Even if it were true that no new female candidate can appear to amaze and inspire us by 2012, we are already blessed—as even the naysayers concede—with a bullpen that's both deep and wide. It features female talents such as Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Condoleezza Rice, and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Why diminish all these women with claims that whatever qualities of Clinton's they lack are precisely those qualities needed to become president someday? What possible evidence do we have for that?

There is no such evidence, and Lithwick's list is nowhere near exhaustive, nor hardly inclusive of some of the best of the GOP women candidates. (Perhaps this might contribute to Democratic women's Hillary myopia? Maybe they are only looking for a Democratic woman President? Would all of these women, mourning never seeing a woman President, stand up and support a female Republican . . . because they wanted a WOMAN to be President? I have my doubts.)

In any case, as I said before, the future for women in national politics and presidential politics looks bright! In fact, it is not last call at all. Sure, the bar may be closing now, but it will open right back up tomorrow!

A Laugh for All!

This ought to be a good laugh for everyone in need of one! I saw this on Drudge and couldn't help but laughing. I had to share it with everyone. Hope you laugh!

Maybe Bill doesn't want Hill to be Veep!

Maureen Dowd presents a hilarious look at a hypothetical conversation between Obama and Bill Clinton about Hillary as V.P. in today's NYTIMES. I can't even give you snippets. The whole thing is too hilarious and too connected to give bits and pieces. Check it out.

Another Convention Mess?

As I've mentioned recently, I just finished Terry McAuliffe's What a Party. In it he talks about being appointed by President Clinton to serve as ambassador to the Court of St. James, only to be subsequently asked by Vice President Al Gore to take over Convention duties in Los Angeles, where the local committee planning the 2000 Democratic Convention fell well-short of fundraising goals and was in danger of failing the party. It appears that this year's host, Denver, is having similar problems.

It seems absurd in this political climate that Democrats are short on fundraising, especially when compared to the GOP. There is a level of professionalism and responsibility that seems to be lacking in the Democratic party and it's absence is troubling. This stems from the top of the DNC down. Howard Dean has to make sure that the fundraising project for Denver is on schedule. He has to make that happen. He also has a bigger role in settling the ongoing morass of a primary. He is going to have a chance to put the primary all back in order at the Rules Committee meeting this weekend and he would be wise not to miss the opportunity. He has a chance to put his party together, or allow the party to be stretched further by allowing the "wily" Harold Ickes to dominate the Rules Committee in favor of Hillary. Here is to hoping that he puts his foot down, puts in place an agreement that brings the party together. This might just be the best hope to make sure the Convention reaches it's fundraising benchmarks. This might just be the best hope to make the Democratic look like a professional organization.

McClellan on Bush *Breaking News*

Okay, I'm not actually breaking this news, but it is pretty big news being broke by Politico, MSNBC and Drudge. Read about it here. More comment on this later.

Here is another good article previewing the book and talking a bit about McClellan's assertions.

My thoughts on this right now are that McClellan is not saying anything that is surprising to anyone who has followed this White House, who has paid attention to the news, or observed the President.

"Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded," -OOOOOAAAAAAH! Really Scott?


The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."

I am sorry Scott, but this is the same game (albeit on a different level) that you played as Press Secretary. What you are describing is FLAT-OUT-LYING! Convincing yourself that something not true is true and then propagating this "convinced truth" is in fact lying.

And the V.P. candidates are (should be) . . . ?

I have already laid out the logic behind my recommendation that Obama pick Sen. Webb as his running mate. With logic and sense, David Brooks in the NYTIMES completely undermines my thinking with his suggestion on how the candidate should think of his V.P. selection. Ahem, I'll admit, that per usual, he has some good points.

My first thought on the running mate question is that to balance his ticket, Barack Obama should pick a really old white general. Therefore, he should pick Dwight Eisenhower. John McCain, on the other hand, needs to pick someone younger than himself. Therefore, he also should pick Dwight Eisenhower.

My second thought is that most of the commentary on vice president picks is completely backward. Most discussion focuses on what state or constituency this or that running mate could help carry in the fall. But, as a rule, recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies. They haven’t had much effect on elections at all, except occasionally as hapless distractions.

A vice president can, however, have a gigantic impact on an administration once in office (see: Cheney, Richard). Therefore, a sensible presidential candidate shouldn’t be selecting a mate on the basis of who can help him get elected. He should be thinking about who can help him govern successfully so he can get re-elected.

That means asking: What circumstances will I face when I take office? What tasks will I need my chief subordinate to perform to help me face those circumstances?

If Barack Obama is elected, his chief challenge will be that he hopes to usher in a new style of politics, but he has no real strategy for how to do that.

If John McCain is elected, he’ll face a political culture threatening to split at the seams. In defeat, Democrats will be enraged at everything and everybody. The Republican Party will still be exhausted and divided. McCain will find it hard to staff the administration since so many Republican advisers were exhausted over the previous eight years.

Amid these centrifugal forces, McCain will need somebody who radiates calm. He’ll need somebody who can provide structure and organization. He’ll need somebody who enjoys working with budgets.

Check out the whole article, it is short I swear. I'm not changing my opinion, due to the logic of Brooks. I am just willing to suggest that it adds to the level of gravity a V.P. decision carries. Politics, however, should not be read out of the equation. For, if you CAN find a V.P. choice who can help you carry a state you wouldn't have carried on your own or with someone else, you're more likely to get the chance to govern. Obviously this is the essential part of the "making your first governing decision" theory. One that Brooks too easily tosses aside, I might add.

The Drug War (in OUR country) . . .

We don't hear about this aspect of the "War on Drugs" frequently enough. But this is a very interesting article from Slate and letter from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers. It is worth a minute or two of your time to check it out. A brief sample:

Since 1996, California laws have permitted citizens to use marijuana "for medical purposes." But the drug remains illegal under federal law, and the Drug Enforcement Agency regularly shuts down cannabis despensaries in the state. Last month John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House judiciary committee, wrote DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart (see below and on the following two pages) questioning the "dramatically intensified … frequency of paramilitary-style enforcement raids" on authorized users and suppliers. Conyers asked for an accounting of the agency's costs for these measures against "individuals who suffer from severe or chronic illness" and for its rationale for threatening landlords of licensed dispensaries with "arrest and forfeiture of their property." Meanwhile, the California State Legislature is considering a measure that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to refuse cooperation with the DEA.

Barack Obama's presidential campaign told the San Francisco Chronicle last week that if elected president, Obama would curb federal enforcement on state medical marijuana suppliers.

My reaction: It is absolutely ridiculous for Federal drug officials to be sending in S.W.A.T. teams to break up vicious rings of cataracts sufferers. This, especially coming from an administration that claims to believe in Federalism, yet, has no clue as to the meaning of Federalism (Supreme Court opinion notwithstanding!).

It is a breath of fresh air to see the comment (emboldened above) from Obama's campaign, that is not laced with pander but good sense.

When a wino just wants to drink . . .

This is a nice change of pace piece from Hitchens that is worth a read.

(On "waiters" coming to the table and emptying out the bottle of wine amongst all of the guests at dinner, then asking if you're ready for another bottle . . . )

Well, all it takes is a bit of resistance. Until relatively recently in Washington, it was the custom at diplomatic and Georgetown dinners for the hostess to invite the ladies to withdraw, leaving the men to port and cigars and high matters of state. And then one evening in the 1970s, at the British Embassy, the late Katharine Graham refused to get up and go. There was nobody who felt like making her, and within a day, the news was all over town. Within a very short time, everybody had abandoned the silly practice. I am perfectly well aware that there are many graver problems facing civilization, and many grosser violations of human rights being perpetrated as we speak. But this is something that we can all change at a stroke. Next time anyone offers to interrupt your conversation and assist in the digestion of your meal and the inflation of your check, be very polite but very firm and say that you would really rather not.

How Scary Is Mexico Lately?

Seriously, the drug wars in Mexico are becoming increasingly frightening, or at least the press coverage of them is increasing to the point where it seems the violence is increasing. This story from CNN caught my eye, particularly for the way that they are using young kids. There are lots of stories out there about the recent uptick in violence if you are interested. You can find them here, here and here.

It is a serious problem and it makes you wonder why the Mexican government is then spending it's money doing this!

The Tone of this Campaign

Bob Herbert in today's NYTIMES properly recognized the point made by Sen. Joe Biden last Friday, about the tone of the ongoing and coming campaign. The tone he refers to is the comment from McCain on Obama, when questioned on why he won't support Sen. Webb's new GI Bill, "I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lecture on my regard for those who did."

While I am not one to suggest that McCain should be accepting any lectures from anyone on military service, it seems well within the parameters of a presidential campaign for one candidate to ask why another does not support a certain piece of legislation. Having served in the military does not allow a presidential candidate an exemption from explaining his positions on issues regarding the military. Especially when you consider that the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, made it constitutionally apparent that the presidency was to be a civilian position.

When asked about the above comments, Biden obviously had difficulty answering as Herbert relays, “This is tough for me,” he said, “because John’s been my friend for 35 years, and I’m disappointed. Because, as you all know, there is a difference between an ad hominem argument and a logical response.” Senator McCain had taken the ad hominem route, said Senator Biden, and he was saddened by it. That kind of behavior, he said, should be “beneath us.”

That kind of behavior should be beneath us, and it is most troubling to me in it's similarity to Bush rhetoric. I've been defending McCain saying that he is not, as the Democrats try to portray. Bush's third term. But comments and behavior like this do more to support that assertion than to dissuade.

Why a Joint Ticket is not so Dreamy . . .

The Rationale Doesn't Hold Up:

Andrew Sullivan has seemingly fallen into the camp that thinks that Obama's selection of Clinton as V.P. might be the best (read: only) option available. Back in early May, after PA, but before NC and IN, Sullivan wrote an interesting piece in the Times of London, where he argued that, "[t]he rationale for a fusion ticket is the same as for any grand political compromise. Very few people in Washington believe that Barack Obama can now be denied the Democratic nomination. Even after the past month, as Hillary Clinton has hung in there, as the scandal about Jeremiah Wright (Obama's firebrand cleric) scandal has battered the post-racial Obama brand, and as white Reagan Democrats have proven resistant to a new young black freshman senator, Obama has actually increased his number of delegates."

That does not really seem like much of a rationale. As he points out, even without breaking solidly into the white Reagan Democrats, Obama's delegate lead continues to grow.

To be fair to Sullivan, that argument was made shortly after PA, when there was still some kind of glimmer or life to the Clinton campaign. However, today on his blog, a must read for anyone serious about thought AND politics (that strange mixture), he writes that, "[t]he upside of an Obama-Clinton ticket would be considerable. I know I've been all over the place on this. My fear of an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. My interest in an Obama-Clinton ticket is because of what I think of the Clintons. They're dangerous to Obama - the overthrown dynasts who are pulling a Richard II right now. But they're just as dangerous in the tent and out of it. Obama needs to figure out which is the greater danger. I don't envy him."

My take on the first Sullivan point is that it makes sense that the Clinton campaign would be working back-channels trying to get the V.P. slot, but it would not make sense for Obama to add her to the ticket. What does Obama get for putting her on the ticket? No nomination fight? The backing of the Clinton "machine"? She certainly doesn't give him a state he wouldn't otherwise win, with perhaps the exception of Arkansas. The bottom line is this: The things she brings him, she should be doing anyway as a loyal Democrat. The rationale Sullivan speaks of, does not hold up.

The Media Perception Could Kill:

The second point Sullivan raises is that the Clintons are dangerous to Obama, either inside or outside of the administration. This is surely true and it is also true that Obama could probably keep the Clintons under wraps a little bit more if they were in his administration. However, this approach would fail to address what may potentially be a bigger problem for Obama, public/media perception. This is really my biggest problem with all of this so-called "logic" for putting her on the ticket.

I think that if you put her on the ticket, no matter how well they get along and work together, and no matter how much they might both make the other better, the news story will always be, (and therefore the persistent feeling in the zeitgeist will always be), that there is a riff between the Obama camp and Clinton camp. Everything the Clintons do will be seen as trying to upstage Obama, even if they have no intention of doing so. And then there is the specter of having Bill hanging around all of the time. First, if you're Obama and you are the new politics, how can you even think of having Bill always hanging, lurking, just around the corner reminding everyone of the '90's (which he has, in part, campaigned against)? Second, Bill is a rockstar in the media and Obama is a growing rockstar. While the second point may be far more frivolous than the first, it remains that if you have the opportunity to deny your "rival" a constant spot in the limelight, then you ought to do so, once and for all, and never look back.

Who Should be Vice President?:

I have a clear favorite for V.P. My Senator, Jim Webb of VA. He has been in the national spotlight since his election in 2006 and his scathing "Democratic Response" to the President's 2007 "State of the Union." He has served in an Executive Branch position (during the Reagan administration), he is popular in his home state of VA and could possibly deliver, the once solidly red state, to the Democrats. VA is considered a "purple" state by some already, in that it is perhaps a swing state already. I also think Webb helps in any contrast the McCain campaign might make with Obama and his lack of milirary experience. Webb is tough on defense and not just as a talker. He introduced the current redux of the GI Bill before Congress and his own son is serving in the military presently. It would be a powerful message if everytime McCain (who also has a son in the war and possibly another on the way), talks about the military and how Obama doesn't have the experience to lead as Commander and Chief, to have Webb stand up and call out McCain and ask him to state loudly and publicly why he doesn't think that the new GI Bill is good idea. He can ask him why he has such a low opinion of the honorable people who serve this country that he thinks that if they are offered "too good" of a package, they will leave their military commitment earlier. Webb simply adds a new level of gravitas to the ticket.

In addition to just gravitas, Webb could also help Obama in the area of the country where Obama has just taken a beating--white Appalachia. These are Webb's people and he speaks their language. He is not afraid to get out there, get his boots dirty and communicate with these folks who have largely looked past Obama because, as Webb says, they haven't met him (Obama) yet. It might even be possible for Webb to get WV back in the Democratic column, where it was in '92 and '96 for Bill Clinton. It will no doubt help with unsure voters in the South to have a man on the ticket who they feel understands their concerns and understands them.

This is not to say that Obama could not also reach out to these people on his own, or call out John McCain on the GI Bill on his own, or with another V.P. It is merely to say that an Obama candidacy can be so much stronger with Senator Webb aboard because it seems to come much more naturally for him.

To steal my friend Don's mantra: "You heard it here first!"

European Court of HUMAN Rights to hear the case of a Chimpanzee

If you're like me that headline made you think of "Loser" by Beck, In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey, butane in my veins and I’m out to cut the junkie . . .

This story is not really about that at all. It is however, a strange combination between heart warming and . . . weird!

Not appeasement but still a mistake?

A NYTIMES OP-ED today suggests that Obama's references to President Kennedy, when talking about his willingness to meet with foreign leaders we don't like, may be more instructive for him, rather than those he seeks to persuade.

Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.

What is Clinton Doing?

This is an honest question, to which there are no simple answers. It is not just that I don't have the answer, but it doesn't seem anyone has the answer. A good friend of mine said to me yesterday, "now Burns, you know I'm no card carrying Democrat, but I'm watching this thing and it just seems to me like Hillary is just dividing the party further. What is she doing?" My answer to that is this: I follow politics as closely as anyone I know. I read and watch pretty much everything I can. I'm certainly not an insider but as an observer--I have no idea what her strategy or plan is.

The charitable view is that she knows it is over and that it's a good thing that she has stayed in the race. She was going to win West Virginia and Kentucky (and likely Puerto Rico) whether she stayed in the race or not. Better to have the eventual nominee of the party lose in these states to a candidate who is still running than one that has dropped out. I think that is the charitable view but I don't believe that it's the most plausible scenario.

What seems to be happening, with the new mantra of the Clinton lead in the popular vote numbers, is that they still have some kind of hope that when the DNC Rules Committee gets together on May 31 and they decide what to do with Michigan and Florida, a miracle will occur. Even if she got everything she wanted at this meeting and got the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated, and counted the popular vote differentials from each state (giving Obama no votes at all from Michigan where he wasn't on the ballot, and incidentally is the way she "has" the popular vote lead), even then, she still has no path to the nomination. As Russert said last night, back in the winter and before a single vote was cast, members of both campaigns, the DNC and prominent Democrats all agreed on one thing: delegates nominate! If delegates nominate then Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, no matter how rosy a scenario Clinton paints with the popular vote.

I think it is also important to make the point that Hillary's "every vote counts" mantra is contradicted by the strategy laid out above. It is contradicted by the fact that she is claiming a popular vote lead that discounts 45% of voters in Michigan who did not vote for her. What about those votes? Why do those votes not count?

I just finished reading Terry McAuliffe's book, What A Party, and it is an excellent book that I recommend to anyone interested in politics, political stories or great story telling in general. In the book, he talks about his time as DNC Chair, dealing with the 2004 election. He talks about how important it was for the party to have a nominee to line up behind by March of '04 because it was important that the party be unified and not distracted by a drawn out nomination fight. It was important for fundraising and it was important so that they could focus on the major competition of beating the GOP. It was important because it would unify the party. Now, I realize the McAuliffe is in a different role now as the Chair of the Clinton campaign, but does it not still feel more than slightly disingenuous that he is out there saying it doesn't matter that this nomination fight has now carried into May and will likely continue at least until the beginning of June?

These are my thoughts and speculation on the issue, but mostly I am wondering what is the end game and what is Clinton doing?

A Pointed Critique of Obama

In the NYTIMES today, Brooks made an excellent critique of Obama's "change" mantra juxtaposed with McCain's career, all within the context of last week's $307 billion farm bill. He says:

Interest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They’ve turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies.

The $307 billion farm bill that rolled through Congress is a perfect example of the pattern. Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest. The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk . . .

Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries.
Obama’s vote may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.

If elected, Obama’s main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he’s going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can’t do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?

John McCain opposed the farm bill. In an impassioned speech on Monday, he declared: “It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it.”
McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It’s between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.

In fact, in this issue, McCain may have found a theme to unify his so far scattershot campaign. He has always been an awkward ideological warrior. In any case, this year may not be the best year for Republicans to launch a right versus left crusade. But McCain has infinitely better grounds than Obama to run as a do-what-it-takes reformer.

Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA

I was disagreeing with my girlfriend today about the relationship between science and religion. I know, right? What a normal thing to be discussing. Well, we're both proud to be very much "not normal." She was arguing that science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive and that they can answer the questions of one another. I agree with the latter point, but disagree that it is not important to keep them separate inquiries at least, if not quite mutually exclusive.

In any case, the conversation put me back in undergrad where my friend Adam and Prof. Price encouraged me to read "Rock of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould. In the book, Gould lays out the brilliant theory of Non-Overlapping Magisteria- or NOMA, to describe what is, in his opinion, the proper relationship or understanding between religion and science.

While I am quite certain that this mention is not going to send everyone in a rush to the bookstore to purchase "Rock of Ages" (although it is very interesting reading and would be well-worth anyone's time), I did want to put up a link to an essay, that was published by Gould in 1997 in Natural History magazine where he essentially lays out and works with his NOMA theory.

HERE IS THE LINK

It is a good 15-20 minute read, but it is not terribly dense. The essay, quite like the book, is accessible to pretty much any level of adult reader. Even if you vehemently disagree, I hope you will find it well worth the read.