Scare Quotes

Says Ben Mathis-Lilley of Slate, inquisitively: "When was the last time you remember your co-workers, your parents—anyone except Bill Walton—talking about the NBA in November? “Never”, I answer. The “public outcry” that has occasioned last week’s brawl between a few, defenseless Pacers, of Indian, and a slew of inebriated Detroit Pistons fans has been laughable, to say the least. “Protect the fans!” they exhort, while disregarding the “players” (read: human beings) ultimate recourse: personal defense.

It seems, or at least it has become, an operating maxim that any Joe Public—and Jane, for that matter—has an inalienable right to taunt, tease, and, if the mood should strike them, toss beer cups at the animals in the cage. Any incredibly inhuman and unruly response from the animals (read: “players” or human beings) is received with moral opprobrium—save for that particular incident at a White Sox’s game when, again, drunk fans accosted and then proceeded to attack an umpire; those fans, who were soundly beaten by the “players” (“White” Sox’s) deserved what was coming to them.

Granted, Ron Artest has had numerous disciplinarily problems with the league and great difficultly keeping his wits about him, however, I’m not certain how this makes him less likely to do what he did? The fan, I suspect, knowingly threw that cup of beer determined to elicit such a response from Mr. Artest; they call that provocation in the law: it’s a statutory aggravating piece of inference that goes to motivation and intention.

So where am I going with all this idle chatter? Give me a second.

Charely Rosen, a poor man’s Shakespeare, misses the point, saying “Hey, guys: Suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fanatics is part of the job description”. Yet at some point I honestly believe that human nature must take the fore. Imagine this: cornered in the clutches of a mass of faceless, hostile fans, you attempt to extricate a wayward teammate who’s lost his cool. When, all sudden, a blast of cool, human fists begin to shower the back of your head. Do I a) stand there in the melee and suffer the slings and arrows of an outrageous fortune? or b)—as Charles Barkley so aptly put it (I’m paraphrasing here)—turn around and punch someone?

Ron Artest was out of control, the fans were out of control, and the Pacers who joined the fracas were protecting themselves—well maybe not that Jermaine O’Neil slow-mo punch; I’m not sure if they(Media Whores) actually bothered to play it in real-time.

Therefore, if it weren’t plainly obvious where I stand, let me reiterate: Notwithstanding Ron Artest’s meltdown, the fans, as well as the Piston organization, are to blame. In the opposing teams crowd, being ever so aggressively pummeled by some obstreperous fans, those Pacers that engaged in fisticuffs had every right to. So garbage like this, “Artest proved himself too weak not to fight a hapless civilian. Count Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O'Neal in the same misguided category”, which passes as journalism, is proffered out by “the” hapless punditry, with no relent. Charely Rosen should really go back to the tape and see that it wasn’t “a hapless civilian” but rather “a “few” supremely idiotic fans”. The defense rests.

Promising

Some promising news on the Darfur crisis today:

Sudan's government and southern rebels vowed on Friday to end Africa's longest civil war by Dec. 31, signing a pledge in front of 15 U.N. Security Council envoys who flew in from New York to demand the fighting stop

After the signing ceremony, the Security Council, meeting away from its Manhattan home for the first time in 14 years, unanimously adopted a resolution promising political and economic support once Sudan ended two wars that have left millions dead in the south and in Darfur in the West.

Let us now hope that there will be the political will and conviction to sustain the peace. What worries me, though, is that international attention will now wane. It is important that Governments, NGO's, and independent observers stay viglilant

Onions

Check out this week's lead story in the Onion whch is, as always, bittingly funny.

Krazy Keyes

Alan Keyes on congratulating Barack Obama:

I'm supposed to make a call that represents the congratulations toward the triumph of that which I believe ultimately stands for and will stand for a culture evil enough to destroy the very soul and heart of my country," Keyes said. "I can't do this, and I will not make a false gesture

Silver Lining

Watching the aerial shot of John Kerry's motorcade wind its way to Faneuil Hall where Kerry is to make his concession speech is plaintive. It looks too much like a funeral; and in many ways it very much is one. After promising it’s supporters that all the votes would be counted, the Kerry Campaign has conceded the election before all the provisional and absentee ballots have been counted. A passage from a Yeats poem seems apt: “The ceremony of innocence is drowned; the best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

The red states and the demographic dynamic appear to be an insurmountable impasse for a Democratic party that seeks to articulate a socially progressive platform. Wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, and gun control still resonate well for the Republicans and their socially conservative base in the heartland of America. The electoral lopsidedness and strength of the Plain states, the Midwest, the Deep South, the Bible belt, and the West, with the exception of California, make the likelihood of a Republican win of the popular vote a structural inevitability. In fact, the Dems have only won the popular vote once in the last 40 years.

The only solace one has—a partisan hack like me—is in the understanding that theses past four years of tumult have damaged the brand name of the Republican Party. Iraq is George W. Bush’s war, and, though one hopes it stabilizes more quickly, the reality is that it may soon get worse. The next four years is an opportunity for the Bush administration to repair the wounds it has inflicted on the American psyche, to move America in a new direction. If the past four years are any indication, the times ahead will be heady.

A win for the Republican Party may not necessarily be a bad thing for the United States; however, a win for the Bush administration may be an incredibly fateful end for the Republican Party. Here’s why: In an August opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, Niall Ferguson, esteemed Historian, posited that a Bush win may have unintended and detrimental consequences for the Republican Party specifically, and the Conservative movement in the US generally.

I would agree with such an assessment because as well functioning as the Republican machine is, at some point, social issues that play so well for the heartland voters will attenuate in their potency. Those motivated by wedge issues have voted against their own economic interest for far too long and have begun to slowly see the threadbare seems of a false Conservative argument.

Ferguson says:

It is a mistake, however, to conceive of each presidential contest as an entirely discrete event, a simple, categorical choice between two individuals, with consequences stretching no further than four years.

To be sure, there are many tendencies in American political life that will not be fundamentally affected by the outcome of November's election. For example, contrary to what Mr. Kerry claimed in his convention speech, there are profound structural causes for the widening rift between the U.S. and its erstwhile allies on the European Continent that no new president could possibly counteract. And regardless of whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry is in the White House next year, the U.S. will still be stuck with the dirty work of policing post-Saddam Iraq with minimal European assistance other than from Britain--which, by the same token, will remain America's most reliable military ally regardless of whether Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry is in the White House.

Nor would the election of Mr. Kerry have the slightest impact on the ambition of al Qaeda to inflict harm on the U.S. Even if Americans elected Michael Moore as president, Osama bin Laden would remain implacable.

In geopolitical terms, at least, what happens on Nov. 2 will change very little indeed. Yet in other respects--and particularly in terms of party politics--the election's consequences could be far-reaching. It is not too much to claim that the result could shape American political life for a decade or more.

Ferguson adds:

But then what? The lesson of British history is that a second Bush term could be more damaging to the Republicans and more beneficial to the Democrats than a Bush defeat. If he secures re-election, President Bush can be relied upon to press on with a foreign policy based on pre-emptive military force, to ignore the impending fiscal crisis (on the Cheney principle that "deficits don't matter") and to pursue socially conservative objectives like the constitutional ban on gay marriage. Anyone who thinks this combination will serve to maintain Republican unity is dreaming; it will do the opposite. Meanwhile, the Dems will have another four years to figure out what the Labour Party finally figured out: It's the candidate, stupid. And when the 2008 Republican candidate goes head-to-head with the American Tony Blair, he will get wiped out.

So all is not lost, things happen for a reason, one door closes and another one opens, insert the insipid clichés here. One scary thing to note is that Republicans have the presidency, both houses of Congress (the House of Reps and the Senate), a majority on the Supreme Court, a majority of the Governorships, and all the dogcatchers in every county. So all may really be lost, but the upside is that all responsibility lies with the Republicans. In the end, governing parties are more prone to beating themselves than losing elections.

End of Days

Via Majikthise:

James Dobson of Focus on the Family is stumping for Republican Senate candidate Tom Coburn. It's nice to see that Dobson putting his own constructive, loving, Christian stamp on the campaign.

Dobson said that Democratic candidate Brad Colson is a liar whose pro-gay agenda would doom humanity. He was careful to note that he was not "attacking the personhood" of the Democratic candidate.

"Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage," Dobson said.

"It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth."
Dobson went on:

"Patrick Leahy is a 'God's people' hater," Dobson said.

"I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people."
Coburn said that he respected Dobson and that he was proud to have his endorsement.

24's

Dalton turns 1 today.... 24th Premier of Ontario, 24th of October, Celebrating his 24 wedding anniversary tomorrow. The Toronto Star's Ian Urquhart tell us how the year went for Mr. Mcgunity.

Happy Birthday

I'd like to send a BIG SHOUT OUT to mother on her birthday today. The woman that gave me life, continues to give me support, and will always give me inspiration is turning one year older. The thing one realizes as they grow up and watch their parents become real people, is that the appreciation for family grows stronger. It was so much easier to take for granted the good, warm comfort of my mom's company when I saw her everyday; It has become harder, now, since I don't get to see her as often as I would like—and I'm sure as often as she would prefer.

But what grows stronger each day, although it's expressed in a subtler way, is the enduring appreciation and love I will always have for her. When my days are dark and my nights are bleak, I think of the strength of will embodied in my mother's spirit, that quiet perseverance that asks of other little, but gives to all much more. That quiet perseverance that struggles tirelessly, and, in the end, is rewarded tremendously. I celebrate my mother’s birthday for it is the day that made my life possible.

Thanks Mom,

Love Ron.

Thoughts...

The execution style killing of 50 Iraqi troops is emblematic of the futility of perspective. Am I willing to stomach the daily missives of carnage and bloodshed flowing from Iraq? Or, do I disengage from this absurdity of being an informed citizen of the world. But really, within my area of influence the things upon which I can effect change seems so trifling. In me is this inflated sense of importance, as though what I write or what I do would have any impact on the diplomatic minutiae that dictates the machine of international affairs.

Yet the slow, worn path to change seemingly fools one's efforts, changing perspectives of goodness and justice. Do I unnecessarily demand of human nature what it can't express and embody categorically? Am I too optimistic, rationalizing what of the world should be a paradigm for my doctrinaire wishes? If I cannot convince the other man, persuade the other man, do I compel the other man to do as I desire—or at least what I deem human nature should aspire to? Are these histories of human nature a narrative of the only principle that inheres our ontology: Force?

Sheer physical force and the will to power are intoxicating and eternal. Force is met with force is met with force is met with force. Whether it be proportional, heinous, incredible, it never really is inhuman. To put the point crudely, as bleak as it is, dying and killing for what we believe is human.

Take that, Take that...

P.Diddy on the electoral importance of the swing states:

"If you are going to play the game, you need to play it all the way," Combs said in a telephone interview Saturday. "And if you talking about flexing your power, and you ain't flexing in the swing states, then you ain't flexing your power."

After almost going to prison on gun charges, Sean "P.Diddy" Combs has carefully crafted a new public persona of engaged, civic citizenship; in no small part due to the help from one of New York's finest public relations firms.

The real Che

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the Reviewer do not reflect those of the staff at The Strawman.

Anytime I'm in the mood for a mean-spirited diatribe from a priggish Conservative journal, I puruse the New Criterion. In a light and, at the same time, pointed piece, Anthony Daniels gives us his take on The Motorcycle Dairies, a film by Brazilian Director Walter Salles on social revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara. These are the passages that stuck out as gratuitously harsh.

It [the film] relies for its effect upon the fact that audiences will all know a minimum about Guevara: for example, that he was a social revolutionary who died in the jungles of Bolivia, and never made a penny for himself. But they will otherwise know little of his actual opinions or actions, and will not have read his tedious and inflexibly dogmatic speeches and writings. It is as if someone were to make a film about Adolf Hitler by portraying him as a vegetarian who loved animals and was against unemployment.

[......]

The film clearly intends to suggest that Guevara was a youthful idealist, and that his idealism—so generous, so disarming—was the source of his later opinions and activities, such as his liberal and open-handed signing of death sentences after perfunctory trials, his support of regimes that had killed millions and scores of millions, and his wish that much of the population of the world should be immolated in a nuclear war for the sake of an alleged point of principle. The film is thus the cinematic equivalent of the Che Guevara T-shirt; it is morally monstrous and emotionally trivial.

[........]

In presenting Guevara as a romantic figure, generous and compassionate rather than ruthlessly priggish and self-centered, and by suggesting that he has anything to teach us other than negatively, the director is guilty of mendacity of a very high order. The film is an exercise in moral frivolity and exhibitionism, self-congratulation, of course, opportunism. It should sell as well as Guevara T-shirts.

Yeats on Current Affairs

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.


Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

W.B. Yeats

Good Copps, Mad Copps

Available over at Coyne are some excerpts from Sheila Copps hotly anticipated political memoir, Worth Fighting For. As chance would have it, I've also come across a juicy excerpt from the memoir.

Enjoy:

Don Boudria and I had just finished watching Jurassic Park, and weren’t planning on watching the backend of that early evening drive-in feature. It was late summer of 1993, and Don's Ford Taurus made the heat even more unbearable. "Goddammit”, I hissed, as Don quickly rolled down the windows. "For a new car, it wouldn't have been too much to splurge on some AC", I continued. Always meek—a quality I found so endearing in Don—he softly stammered "But honey, the nights' air will cool us".

Don was such a sweet man, with his thinning, chestnut brown hair traversing his delicately shaped round head. That moustache, full and shapely, gave his awkward manner a subtle yet distinguished charm. "Don", I asked, "why is Paul such an unprincipled flip-flop?" Slowly patting the sweat off his brow, and reaching forward for the orange Slurpee ensconced in the cup holder, Don turned to me and said, in a hushed tone, "Shelia.... I love you". That night, I stopped talking about Paul; actually, we didn't really do much talking at all.

This is a rather tellingly romantic excerpt from Copps, to be sure.

Funniest Moment Ever

Just now I witnessed one of those rare moments people don't get the chance to see on live T.V. Jessica Simpson's younger, and I'm now assuming less talented, sister Ashlee was to perform her incessantly over played hit Pieces of Me; although, like the l'affaire O'Conner, something else happened. As soon as Ashlee Simpson opened her mouth to bellow out a note, the recorded vocals lost all volume.

Apparently, Ashlee wasn't planning on actually singing the song. Embarrassed by the utter humiliation of the incident, Ashlee feigned a slight self-deprecating smirk, did a little jig, and promptly bounced off stage as her band continued to play the instrumentals. NBC quickly cut to commercial.

Update: The explanation from Ashlee Simpson, at shows end, was that her band played the wrong song. How likely is that?

Dominion

I'm over at Dominion Weblog for how ever long they'll have me, so check out this quick write up on Leadership I authored. I'm pluggin me! Cool!

Reasonable Doubt

I've just finally gotten around to reading the Ron Suskind article in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine and found it trenchant. It's not difficult so see how incredibly important Bush's presidency has been to the Christian evangelical movement in the US. It's also not difficult to see how monumental a second Bush term will be to religiosity in American and the cultural wars in general. What struck me, though, was a rarely unmentioned and vitally crucial fact when contemplating a second Bush term: A stronger tilt to a Conservative Jurisprudence.

This passage best intones my fears:

He said that there will be an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice shortly after his inauguration, and perhaps three more high-court vacancies during his second term.

''Won't that be amazing?'' said Peter Stent, a rancher and conservationist who attended the luncheon. ''Can you imagine? Four appointments!''

Constitutional debates about privacy and the revisiting of Roe v. Wade, as well as the ability of congress to compel more transparency of the executive on issues of national security, especially in these times of tumult, are inevitable.

God's Word

Early this morning, while I was forcing myself to wake up, an excerpt from a Tuesday night interview with Pat Robertson aired on CNN. What transpired before my dreary eyes was what I thought at first to be a rarity, though-- then realizing that I was still half in slumber-- I concluded it was just about right. Pat Robertson was selling out Bush on Iraq.

Mr. Robertson characterized Bush's sentiments about Operation Iraqi freedom as, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties", which I find, even for a dolt like Bush, a large stretch.

Either Robertson is trying to cover his holy ass for what seems to be the likely aftermath of a Bush loss--undoubtedly chilling the incredible influence the Christian Right has in the White house-- or Bush actually said those words and Robertson picked far too late a time to go public with this revelation-- these two propositions aren't mutually exclusive.

The White house has, naturally, denied that Bush every made such comments, calling Robertson's remarks a "misunderstanding" of the conversation. Nevertheless, Robertson hasn't been one to shy away from inane commentary:

In January, Robertson told viewers during his "700 Club" television program that God had told him Bush would win re-election in a blowout." In the CNN interview, Robertson said he believes Bush will win by a "razor-thin" margin but a substantial Electoral College (news - web sites) victory

Remember, this is the same guy who implored the Lord, in not so many words, to end the life of a Supreme Court Justice(s) who struck down the sodomy laws in Texas as unconstitutional.

INTEL DUMP

Apparently, the War in Iraq isn't only going swimmingly, but US force levels aren't being compromised. Oh wait, that's not actually true. Via Yglesias.

Iraq'ed

The phrase for today is strategic defeat. The tireless Paul Krugman, op-ed columnist for the Times, takes a measured, for him at least, jab at the Bush administration:

Mr. Bush's insistence that he is nonetheless "pleased with the progress" in Iraq - when his own National Intelligence Estimate echoes the grim views of independent experts - would be funny if the reality weren't so grim. Unfortunately, this is no joke: to the delight of Al Qaeda, America's overstretched armed forces are gradually getting chewed up in a losing struggle.

From the soft right, David Brooks channels me from yesterday to talk about the new forcefulness of Kerry's message:

Yesterday John Kerry came to New York University and did something amazing. He uttered a series of clear, declarative sentences on the subject of Iraq. Many of these sentences directly contradict his past statements on Iraq, but at least you could figure out what he was trying to say

Although, and naturally so, Mr. Brooks didn't miss a chance to comment on the infeasibility of a Kerry plan:

Rhetorically, this was his best foreign policy speech by far (it helps to pick a side). Politically, it was risky. Kerry's new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?

Though that last question is better directed at Bush, right?

Econ

Professor Brad Delong of the Univeristy of California at Berkeley, Noble Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Aaron Eldin of University of Cal. at Berkeley just launched an online Academic Journal on Economics called, what elses, The Economists' Voice. Give it a whirl.

Analyze This!

When James Gandolfini heard James Spader's name, instead of his, for Best Actor in a Drama Series, there was, I guess, a lot more going through his mind. Dana Stevens from Slate, who maintains what seems to be a blog there, psychologizes Mr. Gandolfini reaction:

When the name of the Best Actor winner, The Practice's James Spader, was announced, you could track Gandolfini's response in three separate beats: pre-rehearsed modesty during the announcer's articulation of "James," an almost imperceptible moment of shock upon registering—somewhere mid-"Spader"—that this was a different James, and then a self-mocking laugh as he realized his own mistake and genially applauded the victor.

On Message.

I'm listening to a Kerry speech from earlier today on News Hour with Jim Leher, on PBS. From what I'm seeing, Kerry' finally appears to be articulating a firmer more coherent message. First, Kerry conceded that Congress had the responsibility to give the president authorization to use the threat of force and, if necessary, military force. Another good point Kerry brought up, intoning the flip-flop theme, was the president’s 23 justifications for the Iraq war: WMD, Human Rights, Democracy, The War on Terror, &c.

That the Bush administration made colossal mistakes in the post war planning for Iraq isn't in question, but that not a single member of the administration has been held accountable is deplorable, speaking volumes to the canard of Bush's ostensible leadership.

With Iraq turning another dangerous corner in its circuitous path to a stable democracy, Kerry finally appears to have a political opportunity to hold Bush's feet to the fire. I guess the Clintonites, Lockheart, Curry, Begala, and others, are finally pushing a strong, cogent message for the Kerry Campaign. The only question is will it gain enough traction?

Tu Quoque

Of Liberalism and Conservatism and who is actually the relativist seems to be the issue of the day--from the blogs I frequent. I think the whole argument is Tu quoque, or at the very least, and in defense of Liberalism, should pragmatically take that tact. The pile on begins with Volokh humbling offering his thoughts; Yglesias tangentially weighing in; Beyerstein thoroughly confusing me; Weatherson leaving me nothing to object to because no normative depth is presented; and Kevin Drum being, in a word, terse.

My thoughts, respectfully, tend to reject the underlying premise of the argument. First, because as Conservatives so desultorily rationalize untidy histories of human existence and Liberals sometimes too often practice a pornographic sort of punitive historiography against human nature, the argument, and the consequent methods employed, isn't all that controversial and worthwhile. Second, because of the sheer terminology involved, specifically from a rigorously moded philosophic one, the degrees of difference between Moral Realism, Cognitivism, Non-Cognitivism, Moral Constructivism, Error Theory, Expressivism, Cognitivist Expressivism, Moral Phenomenology, Cognitive Phenomenology and a whack-load of others, the argument cannot be intelligible when we try to articulate normative variances from a colloquial vantage. In plain English: It doesn't mean much, really. But a word I will add, nonetheless.

Eugene Volokh makes this salient point:

It's true that some people do employ a sort of cultural relativism, in which actions are made right or wrong by the country or culture in which they happen. This is far from a purely liberal principle, though; in fact, sometimes it's liberals who are most universalistic in their calls for human rights.

I'd say I'm a cultural relativist when particular actions, deeds, and cultural mores are outside of my jurisdiction and area of influence. Indeed, I hold utter reprehension to the existence of Shari’ah in provinces of Nigeria and would hope that the weight of world opinion and legitimate international organizations, including any number of African nations, act accordingly to advocate the repeal of the harsher, physically brutal portions of Shari’ah, but who am I, and with what moral, epistemic, ontological justification do I have to ask a culture of millions to stop living there lives the way they have been for the past few millennia?

Do I hope that modernity catches up with them? Yes! Are there some instances where, perforce, modernity smokes them out of their holes? Yes. Sounds absolutist, though pragmatic at the same time. Sometimes I feel like a nut; sometime I don't. Paleo-Conservatives and Libertarians take relativistic stands when it comes to Humanitarian interventions, whereas hawkish Liberals and Humanitarian hawks take universalistic or absolutist stances.

Yet, again, the underlying premise that isn’t and obviously cannot be agreed upon by the interlocutors’ remains elusive. At the moment, I reject—research of String Theory aside—that true justified belief or the ultimate nature of reality and truth can be categorically determined. This doesn’t mean any malice irreligiosity on my part, rather that faith can and only should offer so much, as far as empirical argumentation goes-- likewise with the limits of Secular Humanism.

For example, I think Tony should be able to engage in consensual sex with the man of his pleasing—that didn’t sound right—ed: with his partner. I also think that if Wilbur is a responsible citizen and has his guns registered and properly kept, why not let him have his guns—clearly not assault weapons.( The Ban didn’t necessarily included particularly assultier assault weapons. It should have been wide ranging. Doesn’t really matter now, I guess). So who’s more morally relativistic, Conservatives or Liberals? I don’t think it’s a realistic question to ask or answer.

Update: I Re-read Beyerstein, and now it makes sense.

Represent

This might be a first. Actually, it probably is a first. A blog I've been frequenting for a little over two months is blowing up. Majikthise, an eclectic, fluidly penned blog, and authored by a Canadian to boot, has been receiving gracious links from Yglesias and folks around the Sphere. What's cool is seeing the traffic numbers spike precipitously, and the comments start to steadily trickle in.

What once wasn't a widely read blog, and not necessarily an obscure one, has become a blog with heat. Just recently, Majikthise has been hit-up by the Weakly Standard (Sic) about her (the author, Lindsay Beyerstein's) indefatigable commentary during the CBS Memo Huff. This post, I shouldn't fail to admit, is as much about a shout out-- like she needs one-- as it is about sheer vanity. You see, Majikthise has kindly placed me on her blog roll, which is sick, because she's becoming a Blogosphere staple. And did I mention she's Canadian

Memo Meme

The whole CBS Memo imbroglio has become an incessant echo chamber of drivel. It appears that the memo may be a forgery and CBS will be in a tight spot explaining the journalistic flub. What hasn't been addressed, though, is the substance of the allegations: That Bush disobeyed a direct order and refused to take a physical, also, that Bush was allotted preferential treatment because of his family connections.

But I guess that's beside the point, since no one in the conventional media is willing to plumb further into the substance of the story. Two questions remain: who exactly authored the memo and, more sinisterly, are Karl Rove's fingerprints all over this mess. Ms. Demur, Maureen Down, speaks to my neuroses with this op-ed in today's Times. Apparently, if Karl Rove has anything to do with l'affaire Memo, then it wouldn’t be the first time he's trafficked in hide the flag subterfuge. This choice excerpt seems apt:

Those who suspect Mr. Rove note that when he was Bill Clements's campaign strategist in a 1986 governor's race in Texas, he was accused of bugging his own office to distract from a debate, according to James Moore and Wayne Slater, authors of "Bush's Brain.'' They said it turned the election because after that, the Democrat could not get any attention.

But really, was it ever beneath Karl Rove to bring a gun to a knife fight?

Retro 2: Kagan Bitin' My Style

Robert Kagan has a column in today's WaPo that picks up on the point I made yesterday in Retro, though, to be fair, he puts a finer edge on it. Here's an excerpt:

Throughout the past couple of years, however, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to anti-democratic trends in Russia. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a strong statement against Putin's treatment of opponents last spring, and he expressed concerns about Putin's actions yesterday. But the White House has been relatively quiet. And the president's voice, the only one that really matters, has not yet been heard.

A great deal is riding on whether President Bush can muster the will to denounce the man he has regarded as an ally in the war on terrorism. Some will argue, and Bush may feel, that Putin is "with us." But now Bush needs to make a different calculation. Putin is not really "with us." With Russians confronting vicious terrorists, Putin is consolidating his own power. How, exactly, does that help us win the war on terrorism?

In fact, it will hurt. Failure to take sides with democratic forces in Russia will cast doubt on Bush's commitment to worldwide democracy. A White House official commented to the New York Times that Putin's actions are "a domestic matter for the Russian people." Really? If so, then the same holds for all other peoples whose rights are taken away by tyrants. If the Bush administration holds to that line, then those hostile to democracy in the Middle East will point to the glaring U.S. double standard; those who favor democracy in the Middle East will be discredited. That will be a severe blow to what Bush regards as a central element of his war on terrorism.

Nor should the president and his advisers doubt that vital U.S. interests are at stake in the Russian struggle. Fighting the war on terrorism should not and cannot mean relegating other elements of U.S. strategy and interests to the sidelines. A dictatorial Russia is at least as dangerous to U.S. interests as a dictatorial Iraq. If hopes for democratic reform in Russia are snuffed out, Russia's neighbors in Eastern and Central Europe will be rightly alarmed and will look to the United States for defense.

And there is an even more fundamental reality that the president must face: A Russian dictatorship can never be a reliable ally of the United States. A Russian dictator will always regard the United States with suspicion, because America's very existence, its power, its global influence, its democratic example will threaten his hold on power.

Finally, there is the matter of the Russian people themselves. Did the United States help undo Soviet communism only to watch as tyranny takes its place? Is that the legacy President Bush wants to leave behind?

Much depends on what Bush does and says in the coming days. No one should imagine there are any easy answers. If Bush denounces Putin, we will pay a price. If he goes further, as he should, and begins taking tangible actions in the economic and political spheres to express U.S. disapproval of Putin's latest moves, we may suffer a loss of Russian cooperation. These are chances we will have to take, however.

Perhaps in the face of global pressure, led by the United States but including Europe, Putin might feel compelled to back down. In any case, President Bush needs to try. He must remain true to his stated principles, both for the sake of principle and for the sake of U.S. interests.

Retro

Vintage, Retro, Old School—and countless others—are all slang references for a particular type of ambience within areas of the arts like music, movies, and fashion which have been, as of late, rather prevalent. Sometime after the end of the 90's and the death of Grunge, a new (old) aesthetic started being embraced. The return of 70' garage punk and 80's Synth pop--or now, emo indie rock with low-fi airy rhythms that hearken back to summer nights of honest ignorance-- would be somewhat tolerable if they weren't so fleetingly successive.

The Strokes, The Vines, and Interpol were trendy "like" two years ago. Today it’s Broken Social Scene, Franz Ferdinand, and the Hot Hot Heat-- for me at least. Even in fashion: Two years ago it was the light denim with a light stone wash and the vintage logo tee with the obligatory ice breaking entreaty. Today it's suede Asics and the requisite casual blazer. The speed with which aesthetics change has much to do with the celerity of our modern lives.

It's always interesting, however, when you get the chance to see a serious throwback in your own young life. 60 years from now, when I'm old and grey, what will my posterity be pilfering from the corpse of my pastiche of an aesthetic? -- Not much it seems; because it's a simulacrum of everything that preceded it.

But the serious-- deadly serious--throwback I mention is what seems to be taking place in Russia. This, today from Reuters:

The Kremlin leader said on Monday he wanted a new election law to limit the number of political parties and to have full control on nominating regional leaders to combat terrorism following the bloody Beslan school siege in southern Russia.

Critics immediately accused Putin exploiting the grisly siege, in which at least 327 hostages died, to amass power.

While expressing sympathy for Putin's desire to go after "terrorists" following the Beslan crisis, the bombing of two Russian aircraft and a Moscow subway bombing in the last month, Powell said Russia must balance this with democratic freedoms.

"We understand the need to fight against terrorism ... but in an attempt to go after terrorists I think one has to strike a proper balance to make sure that you don't move in a direction that takes you away from the democratic reforms or the democratic process," he said.


Putin has been, for some time, attempting to recentralize power back into the hands of the executive. With the oft-used aphorism that Russians like a strong, autocratic leader-- more like, are habituated only through contingency-- the rebuke against the Putin power grab hasn't been stern enough from nearly enough places: Powell doesn’t count anymore.

Powell, I think, has greatly degraded his rhetorical credibility, given that he's been the front man for all the damage control for the White House. He's been shoveling shit and doing all the heavy lifting for the past four years.

While Putin, as evidenced in the Khodorkovsky case and the recent Russian elections, seems keen on reassuming the gross state power of a Stalinist-type Soviet Union, the self-styled Reagan wannabe has remained silent. This clearly isn’t the type of retro throwback the world needs, the implications of which may prove intractable in the coming years.

THAT'S ON BUSH!

After being away for a few days, and just now having a chance to reflect on the current state of affairs continentally and internationally, I've come to the bleak conclusion that the end of the world seems to be approaching rather quickly-- or was Nostrodamus off a couple of years? Consecutive Hurricanes in an electoral hotbed, ineffable tragedy in Beslan, Bombings in Jakarta, fighting in Najaf and Fullujah, genocide in Dafur, Religious intolerance in France's public schools, I could go on, but I'm sure I wouldn't nearly touch on everything of importance to anyone with regional particularities.

Although there does appear to be one thing that sprang to mind: Bin Laden Deputy: U.S. Will Be Defeated. For the purpose of synthesis this story seems to tie into, or be buried under, the political minutiae of the American Presidential campaign. Swift boat Vets and Texans for Truth notwithstanding, the issue of who can effectively fight the war on international terrorism (fundamentalist islamo-facist jihadists bent on the destruction of Western modernity) has been, sadly, framed in the wrong context. Because of threats like these:

The defeat of America in Iraq and Afghanistan has become a matter of time, with God's help," Ayman al-Zawahri said on the tape, which was broadcast by the pan-Arab television station Al-Jazeera. "The Americans in both countries are between two fires, if they continue they bleed to death and if they withdraw they lose everything.

It's hard to see what American efforts in Afghanistan, thus far, have done to either eradicate or stave off the resurgence of Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. All this because essential resources were redirected towards the toothsome appeal of slaying the dreaded Saddam: A venture surely overdue, key to the puzzle of "democratizing" the Middle East, integral in the Grand Strategy of the WoT, but infelicitously pursued before the marginal viability of Afghanistan. One step forward; ten steps back.

This from a TPM reader speaks to the urgency of a stronger articulation of the message:

1. Bush is A TERRIBLE LEADER IN THE "WAR ON TERROR". He has failed in the hunt for Osama, misdeployed resources, and put off allies who are key to our long-term success against terrorism. Look beyond the macho swagger of Bush and see that he is completely screwing up this incredibly important long-term battle.
2. Bush and the neocon puppet masters deceived the nation into Iraq, then completely blew the execution of a horrible war, costing us more than a thousand soldiers and billions of dollars, killing countless innocent Iraqis, and creating a disastrous and extremely dangerous situation for America for years to come.
3. Bush has blown the economy.
4. Kerry is the man to put America and the world on course for a better future.

This, I think, should be a meme with traction; though, I'm not sure why others haven't picked up on it and used the power of iteration to spread it. Will it take a tragic event or a momentous precipice in Iraq or Afghanistan to change people’s perspective? IRAQ WAS A BAD IDEA BECAUSE AFGHANISTAN WASN'T VIABLE. THAT'S ON BUSH.

Proviso: I'm not suggesting we take Zawahri’s word about the situation in Afghanistan, but a general understanding of the deteriorating security there is enough to know that it’s getting worse, not better, for US forces.

Hell hath no fury...

Best headline on last night's harrangue by Zell Miller is from The London News Review: Zell Miller backs Bush, and books himself a place in hell.

Here's the lede, a stingingly gratuitous one at that:

Yes, I'm a Democrat. But I'm proud to say that I now support the re-election of George W. Bush."
- Senator Zell Miller (D).


If there is a hell, and most likely Zell Miller believes in such a thing, then Democratic Senator Zell Miller is going to burn in it. Spin hotly on a giant griddle. For something close to eternity.

Oh yes, siree. He is going to burn in hell.

And the chances of hell existing have just skyrocketed, because if God exists then he's no kind of God unless he quickly fashions a hell for Democrat Senator Zell Miller to burn in. And even if the universe exists without a God, as many would contend, it is far from beyond the inarticulate power of this vast mass of galaxies, nebulae and planets to create - within itself - a dark and steaming corner where Mr. Zell Miller can dwell, for eternity, in unspeakable pain. We can call it hell or we can call it Georgia. Just so long as Senator Zell Miller suffers in it.

So - yes - Senator Zell Miller is a very bad person. Here's why.

There are very many hideous things happening in the world right now, and yet up amongst the evil Janaweed massacres and Simon Cowell is the thumpingly stupid and evil belief which is currently being espoused by the Repubicans: that the only way to fight terrorism is to be firm, strong, resolute, unflinching, unlistening, blind, unthinking, staunch.... like what George Bush Jnr is. Don't change your mind. Don't shift. Don't think.

Transcript: HardBall with Chris Matthews.

I'm surprised to be saying this, but Joe Scarborough makes a salient point:

We are three days into this convention, and we have been talking all year about how this election is going to be about George W. Bush. The Republicans, with their ad campaigns, the third-party attacks, this convention, three nights into this convention, this convention remains about John Kerry.

I can‘t remember a major presidential election where you have an incumbent that makes the central focus of their convention about the other guy, about the challenger. It is a radical departure from politics as usual. And what does it say about what they think George Bush has done over the past four years, and, more importantly, what the American people think of George Bush?

The Republicans have lost all semblance of purpose. They now realize they'll have an insurmountable task in appealing to undecideds and independents, since they're generally trending towards Kerry, so their left with one alternative: go negative to the nth-degree. Similar to what the Federal Liberals did towards Stephen Harper-- though, I like to think the Libs showed some civility--the Republicans can only try to drive up the negatives on Kerry in attempt to immobilize undecideds not to vote. It's pure demagoguery, nothing else.

The only thing another Bush administration has to offer the American electorate is the canard that a Kerry administration would endanger American security. One could almost begin to believe this slander if it weren't so false. Yet, one could have no choice but believe this slander if Kerry doesn't start strenuously defending himself. Since the run up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration has been eerily masterful at setting the parameters of discourse. Even the facts don't inhibit the administration's Orwellian turnspeak. So now, when all has been dragged through incomprehensibility, the simplest thing for an individual
Voter to do is disengage.

A while back Josh Marshall cited a prefiguring article in the Financial Times. Here's an excerpt:

The Bush campaign machine, well oiled and already rolling, should not be underestimated. The current president's father gained a formidable reputation as a nasty campaigner, though the presidential fingerprints were carefully wiped off negative blueprints administered by Lee Atwater, the first Mr Bush's ruthless chief strategist.

Karl Rove, a disciple of Mr Atwater, is similarly meticulous about keeping the president publicly above the fray. Yet it is an open secret in Washington that White House-blessed campaign strategists have been working quietly for months to compile potentially damaging background on all the Democratic candidates. In the early going, when it appeared Mr Kerry would emerge as the frontrunner, one senior Republican commented wryly: "By the time the White House finishes with Kerry, no one will know what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on."

Actually, I'd be surprised if at either the end or the beginning of Bush's address to the delegates tonight Osama bin Laden isn't trotted out on stage as a Victory Trophy par excellence.

WHAT?

The sexual assault case against Kobe Bryant was dropped and this is what he says:

“Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did,'' Bryant said. ``I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.''

[.....]

Bryant, who still faces a federal civil lawsuit filed by the accuser that seeks unspecified damages, apologized to the victim ``for my behavior that night and for the consequences she has suffered in the past year.''

"Although this year has been incredibly difficult for me personally, I can only imagine the pain she has had to endure,'' said Bryant, who also apologized to her family, his family and friends and the citizens of Eagle.

Bryant said that while the civil case remains, that part of this case ``will no longer be a financial or emotional drain on the citizens of the state of Colorado.''

Statements like these are suggestive of two things: 1) He really did assault this woman, understands he has to settle the civil case, and wants to move on with his life. Or, 2) he plans on losing the civil case instead of settling. That blatant admission to rape that Kobe just offered out is admissible in the civil court proceedings, so if he actually didn't rape her, and felt no corresponding guilt, he didn't need to say that. Color me flummoxed.

Update: Errr.. This part of Kobe's statement I foolishly elided, "She has agreed that this statement will not be used against me in the civil case." So they conferred with each other on the text of the statement? Hmmm...? If the charges are scurrilious, defend yourself. But it seems Kobe can't be put through the trouble of defending his integrity if the charges really are baseless. It's much easier to settle. Either way you slice it, it's shameful.

Is the War on Terror Unwinnable?

A large group on the left are dismissed for harboring thoughts that the War on Terror is an Unwinnable war-- or at least an Ideological war likely to endure for decades, and similar in kind to the Cold war. It seems that Bush is moderating his hard stance in an attempt to grab undecided voters with this admission:

When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”

Now, this seems like a reasonable statement; though, imagine if it were Howard Dean or John Kerry who made that statement: The press would eat them alive. Not unlike when, after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Dean said that America was not safer. The press had a field day; and, only months later, Najaf, Fallujah, Baghdad and the rest of Iraq lite up in violent anti-occupation clashes. Apparently, it seems, Iraq wasn't safer after Saddam's capture.

So Bush realizes that the War on Terror may be Unwinnable in the near term. Isn't that what everyone else has been saying for the last two years? And were or were they not being labeled unpatriotic for such a statement? Bush shows up to the party late and the media gives him a free ride: Wow!

Supreme Choice

In an Op-ed that appeared in Sunday's New York Times, Dahlia Litwick strikes a cautionary tone about the furtive nature of Supreme Court Justices in the US. Ominously, while the presidential race heats up—possibly the most important one in the last 50 years—people don't know why this election could be the most important. It's not who can bravely prosecute the War on Terror; and it's not necessarily about Iraq. It's about who can appoint the next Supreme Court Justices, and ultimately shape the constitutional course of the United States.

Will Roe v. Wade be struck down? Is privacy a right recognized in the constitution as the Framers intended, or are activist Judges reading it into the constitution? How representative is the Electoral College? Will the Confederacy hold? These and a myriad of other questions are pertinent to the direction of the Republic. Therefore, the candidate that wins this year's presidential election will determine the future of the United States.

The Cost of Glory

The first modern Olympics took place in Athens, Greece, in 1896. It was an attempt to restore the legacy of amateur sports and competition given to the world by the Greeks. Only about 300 hundred athletes competed, and the competition lasted for only ten days involving only 13 countries. Athletes that placed first received a crown of olive leaves and a sliver medal; second place athletes received a bronze medal, and nothing was given to third place finishers. Greece walked away with 47 medals, an amazing feat at the time. Today, after two great world wars, the rise and fall of communism, regional and ethnic wars that span the globe, the incredible benefits and challenges of globalization, and the new threat of terrorism, Athens closes the 28th Olympics with 16 medals and a new world.

While others countries walk away from Greece feeling content with their athletes’ performances, Greeks are left to pick up the pieces from an event that will certainly burden their futures. From the jump, difficulties with the construction of venues, coordination of transportation, and, more importantly, the cost of security confronted the Greeks. Security concerns in a post 9/11 world led to abysmal ticket sales, and, as a consequence, poor revenue generation for the city of Athens, and Greece overall.

Not nearly enough restaurants, night clubs, hotels, souvenir shops, and Olympic Venues where filled, as they should have been. People were just fearful of the security situation, despite the fact that Athens poured six times more money into security than Salt Lake did the Olympics prior. In a country of only 11 million people, Greece is on the hook for some 9 billion(US) dollars. This inevitably means higher taxes to the citizens for a long time into the future; generations of Greeks will feel the legacy of these Olympics.

In my mind, the Olympics are, and have been, slowly becoming irrelevant. For the countries that can afford to field a wide array of athletes, they perform nearly uncontested. There are, however, rare moments of glory: when competitors from countries that can’t even afford to send coaches walk away with gold. But generally, as the Papacy is to Roman Catholism, the IOC seems to be the only true winner of the Olympics. A bloated, bureaucratic behemoth, the IOC has turned into a slothful hegemony that searches for the next foolish country it plans to beggar. As per the security threats at Athens, there were some:

Ron Bensimhon of Montreal, Canada, jumped off the 3-meter springboard at the diving venue Aug. 16 wearing a tutu over tights with blue polka dots. His motive remained unclear, but a judge sentenced him to five months in prison for interrupting the games.
He remained free pending an appeal and promised not to do it again.
And on Sunday, a man in a red kilt and green vest grabbed the marathon leader, Vanderlei de Lima of Brazil, and pushed him into the crowd. Police tackled the intruder and a visibly shaken de Lima resumed the race. He later dropped back to win the bronze medal.
``The people from security weren't expecting anything like this,'' de Lima said. ``I can't say anything more than it was a great, big suprise.''

The Connection

The Tectonic Plates seem to be shifting, and these are stories you should keep an eye on-- there is more beneath the headline:

At Knight Ridder: FBI investigating whether Pentagon official spied for Israel

At the New York Times: Pentagon Official Suspected of Giving U.S. Secrets to Israel

At Yglesias: Spies In The Pentagon

At Laura Rozen: The FBI investigation.

Update: Don't wait for the 'Conventional Media' to crack the names; just check out Rozen. Didn't I pick the right Saturday morning to wake up at 6 am.

Update II: TPM weighs in.

Update III: The Niger uranium incident dovetails into this story. Here's a backgrounder.

Off the AP: Alleged Leak to Israel Probe for a year

And NeedleNose.

Welcome to the Future.

I once remarked to my mother a while back that life is becoming a parody of itself. I tried to explain my theory by drawing on the pervasive and ubiquitous examples in the news. News no longer seems like news but rather entertainment-- maybe it always was and I'm too young to know better. Nonetheless, for me and a large group of my friends our frame of reference is T.V News, Music, or Movies. When I experience a real-life, everyday event, I involuntarily relate it to one of my favorite scene from a movie, or accompany it with the requisite soundtrack in my mind, or imagine it were to make the 6'oclock news.

I'd like to say that this may only be my neurosis, but I'm fairly certain that people everywhere (viz. Western Industrialize Countries saturated with the 24-hour News cycle) experience this same phenomenon.

Yesterday in Toronto there was a hostage situation at Union Station that involved a disgruntled man holding an innocent bystander at gun point. Unfortunately, the incident was resolved with the gun-wielding man finding his ultimate end through the bullet of a police marksman’s rifle. What I found more intriguing, however, were the responses of witnesses to the event. Almost like they were reading from the same script, each witness that was asked for comment by the swarming news teams related the same analogy: "It was like a Movie!" Since none of these people, it is assumed, had ever found themselves in such a frightful situation, their only analogue to the experience was straight from the movies.

Essentially, their reality preceded their experience, a sort of mnemonic reserve of virtual experiences ready to be related to a real life situation. One could suggest that reality doesn’t even feel like reality, but instead like a movie. Or, more clearly, in situations of reality without personal precedent, said reality feels like a movie. But I suspect that before the advent of Radio or Television, the frame of reference was the book. So this could just be a distinction without a difference.

Though to the point I raised earlier, that life is becoming a parody of itself, I should return. I'm picking up on a thesis offered by Marshall McLuhan in From Cliché to Archetype about the way in which old archetypes become new clichés and old clichés become new archetypes—if that makes any sense. One example, probably not the most apt, could deal with what at first was a cliché for good management: Efficiency and profit maximization. Thirty years plus have morphed that once benign cliché into an operating Archetype for any aspiring technocrat. Conversely, an old Archetype, Welfare State, which seems more like a dead metaphor, has evolved over the past 70 years to become a new clichés and a term of derision. Clearly McLuhan can explain it better; and I think I'll let him:

"The function of the … cliché [-probe] is to select for use one item or one feature out of a vast middenheap of … materials. It may be the cue for selection occurs when, from the rationale of a dominant cliché complex, we make a deprecatory adjustment toward the unconscious or the irrational, suppressed by the action of that cliché. … What is common to all these approaches [i.e. constructing cliché-probes] is the awareness the cliché is not necessarily verbal, and that it is also an active, structuring, probing feature of our awareness. It performs multiple functions from release of emotion to retrieval of other clichés from both the conscious and unconscious life."

But wait, where is the parody? Simple: Parody and derision are tools to either invalidate governing archetypes or loosen their hold on our collective consciousness. Groups of individuals, sometimes revolutionaries, actively try to undermine conventional archetypes in an attempt to fashion their ideas, which are at first considered silly clichés, into the archetypes of tomorrow.

Periods of excessive parody, for instance the Surrealist and Dada movements of post WW1 and WW2, not to mention The Theater of the Absurd, reflect the angst riddled individuals attempt to reconcile what appears to be reality with what reason demands. The inability to comprehensively rationalize the world leads to the impression that things are comical, absurd and sheer parody.

Universal human rights turns into universal human suffering; The valour of war, with all its needless bloodshed, turns into the irrelevance of human life; The wonders of technology and the heights of Capitalism turn into the gluttony of instant gratification and the perpetual lust for the material. One is confronted with the task of suspending disbelief in the realities of the world in order to confirm the mythologies that sustain sanity.

Parody, therefore, becomes a release, an arena in which these inconsistencies are laughed at in a form of catharsis. Unable to deal seriously with this psychosis, laughter suffices. But I think that the acceptance of parody as an alternative to action may in some ways ignore an underlining problem: The inability to engage. I contend that a mixture of acceptance and engagement would do one's soul well, and, more importantly, acceptance that all cannot be systematized and rationalized into a universal paradigm, because not doing so would be to grossly disregard one imperative: Human Nature. Yet this is an entirely different argument that would require more investigation.

Now, after that insufferably long post, the link I wanted to refer to: A Washington Post article about Kerry being on The Daily Show. I think The Daily Show is an excellent example of an outlet for Parody as a reflection of tumultuous times. And the popularity of the Daily Show only reinforces the fact that these times, they are a Crazy.

Justices, Justices, Justices

Two interesting Op-eds in the Globe and Mail today expound on the small controversy surrounding the nominations of Supreme Court Justices. Should Canada adopt American style Senate confirmation hearings, where selected nominees are held up for scrutiny in congress? Or, is a system akin to Israel’s advisory body, composed of judges and private citizens, more agreeable with the already consultative role played by Provincial Law Societies? Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, on the advice and recommendation of Paul Martin, convened parliamentary hearings today on the suitability of the two nominees that are currently being considered for appointment.

The hearings will allow opposition parties to comment on the suitability of the nominees; however, the two nominees will not be questioned and their confirmation is still the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

Naturally, Conservatives would like to see reform, envisioning a system that would look more like US conformation hearings. They are adamantly opposed to activist Judges expansively interpreting the Charter. Conservatives think,with good reason, that Liberals will put more activist Judges on the bench. I, on the other hand, think that their problem has more to do with what the Charter avails to citizens than to what political, legal philosophy a particular judge abides to. The Charter is intrinsically an instrument that seeks to either protect already established rights or expand--and at the same time anticipate-- species of new rights, with regard to socio-politico-cultural contingencies. So the stolid posturing of Formalists seeking to abridge, at each turn, accommodative readings of the law begins to appear stifling, rather than helpful. But I digress.

When you look at American style confirmation hearings, the partisanship is deadly. Insofar as such a system creates a process of sound, sober deliberation, it also breeds an atmosphere of gotcha hysteria that fatally undermines the intent of the nomination. I do not deny that political ideology essentially underwrites the selection of Justices, and that this enables the executive to articulate its desired political philosophy. But this is a prerogative I would unreservedly agree that a Conservative government exercise.

The argument that the Prime Minister decision is uniformed is a faulty one. To think that only a parliamentary committee should be vested with confirmation powers only raises the question: who recommends nominees? Is it the Premiers in the Provinces? Or aren't they also bound to political interests. How about Provincial Law Societies? Wait, they already make recommendations. The argument can extend itself further, though. But where the argument ends is also where it began: political ideology.

Whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Provinces, or the Law Societies offering recommendations for, and selecting, the nominees, political and legal ideology plays an integral factor in the process. Liberal governments will more often than not select and appoint Judges with a realist, expansive bent; Conservative governments will more often than not select and appoint Judges with a literalist, formal philosophy of the law.

I have not conceived a way where such a system, any system, could safely inoculate itself from political ideology. Moreover, with our fusion of powers, where the executive is the legislative, a parliamentary committee that was tasked to confirm a Justice would invariably be in the majority government’s control. Thus, in the end, political ideology rears its head.

Though, to be fair, grumblings of reform are symptomatic of an electoral impotence of the Conservative party. The Liberals have been in power so long that the make-up of the Supreme Court, much like the Senate, will make it difficult for a future Conservative government to articulate its desired political ideology. This is why calls of electoral reform are heard today: Ontario’s dominance stuns regional representation. But I can imagine that Liberal MLA’s haven’t much of a voice in Alberta, and that the Alberta Appellate and Superior Courts are stacked with Justices who cautiously interpret the law as it is read and was intended to be read.


While I understand that a more deliberative process that includes all of parliament is needed, I still maintain that the Prime Minister’s prerogative to select nominees, with the advice and consent of his Minister of Justice and other relevant bodies, should be respected and protected. What eases the mind, though, is that the Canadian temperament won’t permit any reforms that turn the process into a circus--hopefully.

Olympic Basketball

After losing to Puerto Rico, and then again to Lithuania, The not so Dream team appears to be the presumptive underdog against Spain in today's qauterfinal. Spain is looking strong after going 5-0 in the peliminaries and is favored among most as the team to beat.

The U.S, alternatively, has looked flat and suffered from a lack of consistent perimeter shooting. Eking out paltry wins against Greece and Australia, the U.S's recent 89-53 drubbing of Angola may bode well for their match-up against Spain-- not to mention the emotional motivation of being considered an underdog.

And He Said Onto Ye, Go Forth And Spread Thy Word

Josh Marshall has, I think, the best definition of President Bush:

The same sort of moral cowardice that led him to support the Vietnam war but decide it wasn't for him, run companies into the ground and let others pay the bill, play gutter politics but run for the hills when someone asks him to say it to their face, those are the same qualities that led the president to lie the country into war, fail to prepare for the aftermath and then refuse to take responsibility for any of it when the bill started to come due.

That's the argument John Kerry needs to be making. And he needs to make it right now.

The whole post is infused with a frustration born of a self-imposed restraint, a restraint to be civil and substantively engaging with one's opponent. But as the Swift Boat Vet imbroglio persists, the mainstream liberal blogosphere, usually know to be a tame creature, is starting to sharpen its claws. It's about time.

Orwell Envy II

I'm not sure if Hitch intends to come across so flippant when asserting that the foreign policy blunder of Vietnam-- and the experience of (Kerry) having fought in it-- cannot be instructive or useful to contemporary foreign policy issues. A reading of Hitches work over the past year will prove this assertion otherwise.

First, the threat of a Communist Indochina guided American decisions to commit troops to South Vietnam following France's withdrawal in 1954. Second, with the ideological precept that Communism was a total, brutal self-justify contagion, successive American administrations fatefully prosecuted what would become a stalemated war, with no long term strategy achieved. They had committed themselves to an intractable region laden with historical, cultural faults that were unwilling to submit to any plans of foreign, artificial unification.

Yes communism was a horrible and corrupted idea that manifested a grim reality. But this didn't constitute an automatic military engagement with fledging Communist regimes at every turn. While cold wars of ideology, diplomatic sanctions, and strategic maneuvering existed with the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba, hot wars like the Korean War and the Vietnam War ended inconclusively. Liberal democracy triumphed through tactics of both hot and cold wars; though it seems like a few of the hot wars or proxy wars (Afghanistan) seemed pointless.

This is essentially the point, I think, Hitchen’s implicitly makes: Pointless wars have their root in a weak vision of the Grand-Strategy. With all the political and diplomatic options available to a President in the prosecution of a war on Ideology, military force suffices as a strategy but can't be the be all and end all of The Grand Strategy. Military force cannot be an end in itself. The Vietnam War occurred because of a weak vision of the grand-strategy against international communism; the Iraq war has its parallels.

Today the War on Terror is our War of Ideology against what Hitchen’s aptly terms as Islamo-facism. On one military level it has been confronted but not vigorously and effectively fought: Afghanistan. On another strategic level it was either prosecuted too soon after Afghanistan was, in any way, viable; too poorly planed; and lacking in a vision of grand-strategy: Iraq.

The administration, Don Rumsfeld specifically, knows that it will be a long hard slog, so much so that their announcement of withdrawing troops from South Korea, Japan, Germany, and other location around the world signals their commitment to the ongoing War on terror—though somehow it is more likely that the intention is to have more available and mobile troops to fight hot wars. A grand-strategy is needed to fight an effective war on terror both militarily and ideologically. Weak vision and weak leadership will only lead to bad decisions and infeasible military commitments.

Orwell Envy

Christopher Hitchens is now continually starting to sound like a douchebag:

"In what sense, in other words, does his participation in a shameful war qualify him to be president of the United States? This was a combat of more than 30 years ago, fought with a largely drafted army using indiscriminate tactics and weaponry against a deep-rooted and long-running domestic insurgency. (Agent Orange, for example, was employed to destroy the vegetation in the Mekong Delta and make life easier for the swift boats.) The experience of having fought in such a war is absolutely useless to any American today and has no bearing on any thinkable fight in which the United States could now become engaged.

It's one thing to be a principled contrarian, it's entirely another thing to be a contrarian for the shake of being a contrarian. To be a rootless polemisist: oh what a joy. Hitch is afflicted with an Orwell complex.

Get Down!

You've really got to hand it to the Republican slim machine and its numerous appendages. In the span of only four weeks they've managed to shape the new cycle to theirs and the President's benefit. Only two days after the Democratic convention, with Democrats feeling unified by the self-congratulatory gathering, the media digesting the overarching message presented by the Democrats, a funny thing happened: Terror alerts were issued.

The focus directly, and rightly, shifted to the urgency and credibility of these alerts, and away from John Kerry and the recent Democratic convention. Concerned about possible attacks to the homeland, New York and Washington specifically, the Bush administration moved quickly to notify not only first responders, law enforcement officers and public officials, but also the general public. Asked for further evidence of the imminence of the attacks and the veracity of the evidence that led to the Terror alerts, the administration at first balked.

Just days later it was confirmed that the evidence for the suspected attacks predated 9/11, and that a former Al-Qaeda operative, captured in June, and who was providing actionable intelligence for the fight against international terrorism may have been inadvertently outed by Administration officials.

With the media unable to make heads or tails of the muddled circumstances, coverage began to be overwhelmingly dominated by news of important Al-Qaeda captures on all corners of the globe-- and without relent. It became a consecutive crescendo of rising momentum for Bush's re-elect. Contemporaneously, and not all too coincidentally, a shadowy group of scorned Vietnam veterans began a public relations campaign to discredit Kerry's Vietnam record. It didn't matter that these veterans never actually served with John Kerry, or that most of them didn't even contest his Senatorial Campaign in Massachusetts, or that some even endorsed John Kerry in the same Senatorial Campaign, or that their stories contradicted their own sworn testimony; all of this didn't matter.

The media, in the initial days, virtually accepted without reservation the allegations of these veterans, leaving Kerry on the defensive; where he's been for nearly the whole month of August. A visitor from another world would surely think something was wrong with this John Kerry character. With Kerry's negatives rising among veterans, these attack ads by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth have proven to be extremely effective for the Bush Campaign, despite claiming to have no links to the group and at the same time refusing to disavow the ads-- this isn't a disavowal.

Bush is poised to accept his party's nomination on the heels of a relatively empty month. The Republican National Convention seems have to been preceded with the type of news cycle fitting for the Bush presidency: Flaky on the outside, nothing in the middle: Nothing substantial on the obstinacy of the Defense Department, the CIA and the White House with regard to the proposals of the 9/11 commission, nothing substantial on the political dynamic of the fight for Najaf and its possible undermining of Ayad Allawi's power, nothing substantial on the crisis in Dafur, the instability in Afghanistan, the growing number of complicit actors in the prisoner abuse scandal, on the economy, and on the Bush presidency and his record in general.

It makes sense why the Bush administration would have us mired in the intimate details of how superficial Kerry's Vietnam injuries were, and that he only served four months. It makes sense because anything that really matters to the American people and that is crucially relevant to the campaign hurts Bush: The economy, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq. Bush loses on every front.

In Bad Taste

When I saw this ad, I was overcome with a feeling of confused disgust. I'm not sure whose idea it was, but it just doesn't seem like it would play well with any demographic. It's an obvious message, and a very tacky delivery method; especially during the Olympics. It's no surprise that the ad has the Iraqis up in arms.

If some contend that the American adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq were principled defenses of the homeland and universal human rights-- Afganistan more likely; Iraq still questionably-- then the insincerity of a tacky political ad about this fact only degrades its reality.

Of course Afghanistan and Iraq can't escape the grasp of political opportunism, though one would hope that at least some things aren't politically distorted.

Policy Review

An interesting essay in the Policy Review by Sebastian Mallaby addresses the fundamental policy considerations surrounding the deregulation debate that has been underway for the past 20 years in Western industrial countries. Striking a cautionary tone, and surveying the lay of the land, Mallaby begins thusly:

If we are lucky, a new consensus may form around a slightly different principle: We will celebrate free competition rather than free markets, and we will recognize that promoting competition may frequently require departure from the principle of laissez-faire. If we are less lucky, we may face a more sweeping backlash against enterprise, with high costs to our prosperity

The incredible gains brought about by the deregulation of formerly governmental run industries—like Airline, Transportation, and Telecommunication—have created competitive markets, and inefficient ones, lower prices, and sometimes, more efficient delivery of services. Yet, at the same time, governmental oversight became lax and instances of corporate malfeasances, network collusion, and price gouging started making the logic of deregulation faulty:

The signs of this watershed are scattered, but they are too numerous to ignore. Abroad, we face a broad disaffection with pro-market reformism, which runs from disappointment at privatization and marketization in Russia to the return of leftist populism in Latin America. Within the United States, market advocates have been on the defensive, arguably, since the summer of 2000, when California’s first electricity blackouts called into question the deregulation of the energy sector. Around the same time, the telecommunications sector began its dramatic meltdown, culminating two years later in the bankruptcies of WorldCom, Global Crossing, and more than 150 less famous participants in the experiment unleashed by the 1996 telecoms deregulation law

… All that’s before you consider the twin shocks of terrorism and the outcry over corporate governance following the bankruptcy of Enron. In the aftermath of September 11, Americans turned instinctively to government for solutions — not just to hunt down al Qaeda but also to create the economic adjustments apparently required by the new circumstances.

Although Mallaby has some broader objections to the anti-market movement’s rhetoric—thinking it may, if not intellectually confronted, push for stifling governmental measures against enterprise—he concedes that reform is needed:

In the face of setbacks for markets, from California’s blackouts to the corporate governance scandals, the case in favor of the market needs to be restated vigorously, but it also needs to be defined more carefully than it has been. Pro-market people need to distinguish between issues and industries where an aggressive deregulatory approach is justified and those where this will only backfire. They need to accept that the right policy is often not deregulation but rather smart regulation and that the goal isn’t to cut the number of government rules but to ensure that rules make sense.

Despite flourishes of vacuousness, for instance, saying that the minimum wage laws are bad, the tenor of his essay is reasonable; though, similarly, it is tendentiously conservative. If there is one point that we’d agree on, this would be it:

If pro-market people can become tomorrow’s pro-competition people, they will be free to choose flexibly between markets and government activism, recognizing each as means to the pro-competition end.

Fail Safe

One of my favorite novels is Fail Safe. A work of political fiction, Fail Safe deals with the strategic maneuverings of Cold War nuclear defense. As a result of human error, US -52 Bombers patrolling the edges of Russian air space receive a coded message instructing them to attack Moscow. Once the Bombers pass the Fail Safe point, now unable to communicate with either the Americans or the Russians, their mission is to drop the payload, an atomic bomb.

The red phones are hot in Moscow and Washington trying to quickly resolve the situation; but, ultimately, the Bombers can't be stopped. It is then agreed that Washington will, in exchange for the imminent Moscow attack, drop a nuclear weapon on New York-- in good faith ( A crazy premise, I know).

So what exactly does this have to do with anything? Well, in an Op-ed in today's New York Times Nicholas D. Kristof speaks to the possibility of a nuclear bomb being detonated in New York city, though not by Americans; but, by terrorist. Take for instance this interesting excerpt:

...on Oct. 11, 2001, exactly a month after 9/11, aides told President Bush that a C.I.A. source code-named Dragonfire had reported that Al Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.

The C.I.A. found the report plausible. The weapon had supposedly been stolen from Russia, which indeed has many 10-kiloton weapons. Russia is reported to have lost some of its nuclear materials, and Al Qaeda has mounted a determined effort to get or make such a weapon. And the C.I.A. had picked up Al Qaeda chatter about an "American Hiroshima."

President Bush dispatched nuclear experts to New York to search for the weapon and sent Dick Cheney and other officials out of town to ensure the continuity of government in case a weapon exploded in Washington instead. But to avoid panic, the White House told no one in New York City, not even Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Dragonfire's report was wrong, but similar reports - that Al Qaeda has its hands on a nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union - have regularly surfaced in the intelligence community, even though such a report has never been confirmed. We do know several troubling things: Al Qaeda negotiated for a $1.5 million purchase of uranium (apparently of South African origin) from a retired Sudanese cabinet minister; its envoys traveled repeatedly to Central Asia to buy weapons-grade nuclear materials; and Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted, "We sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other Central Asian states, and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase [nuclear] bombs."

This is, seriously, some scary stuff. If international terror organizations, with designs of annihilating a major American metropolis, got their hands on nuclear weapons, it difficult to see how the American government would be able to defend Americans against that type of attack.
Some grim estimates see the likelihood of an attack of that scale and magnitude on the near horizon: A 50% chance within in the next 10 years. Steps can be taken to minimize the likelihood of such an attack, however. Counter-proliferation and non-proliferation policy must be indefatigably pursued, and situations like Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan can't happen—period.

Chicken, Beef, or Human Flesh?

This story on CNN.com freaked me out. A man who accidentally tripped into the Bride at a wedding reception was attacked by the bride’s father and other family members, taken out to a remote area, killed, cooked with coconut leaves and kerosene, and—to stretch this story beyond fiction—taken back to the reception in pieces and fed to the unknowing guests. Note to self: avoid weddings reception in the Philippines

Some Civility, Please?

Guess who's filing a civil suit against Kobe Bryant? No, not Shaq? And no, not the City of Los Angeles, though in many respects they could prove harm inflicted in a court of law on account of how poorly the Lakers played in the Finals. But seriously, guess who? Yes, Jane Doe, the woman accusing Bryant of sexual assault is now simultaneously pursing a civil suit against him.

Keep in mind that this should not, in any measure, detract from the merit of her claim that she's not in it for financial gain. The woman contends that she has suffered "public scorn, hatred and ridicule" from the ongoing court proceedings. Although to be fair, a number of accidental-- in the loosest sense of the word-- leaks have shamelessly revealed salacious pieces of information that the Judge promised to keep confidential. Because the burden of proof is higher in a criminal case, the prosecution likely advised the accuser that a civil case—with a lower threshold of proof—would be in her best (monetary) interest.

Therefore, because the standard of proof is far lower in a civil case, this veiled threat by the prosecution portends the type of evidence they'll be citing: “The attorneys also accused Bryant of ``attempting to commit similar acts of violent sexual assault on females he has just met,'' but they did not elaborate. So expect everything and the kitchen sinks to be thrown in as evidence displaying Bryant's pattern of aggressive sexual behavior.

Conventional wisdom says Kobe settles out of court, for fear of having a queue of women willing to testify, for the prosecution, on his pattern of aggressive sexual behavior-- immaterial to the case though they may be.

Needless to say, Kobe Bryant’s name will be, for now and evermore, synonymous with rape, whether or not anything actually happened that night. If you don't believe this, I only have one question for you: Does anyone really name their child Orenthal James anymore?

Huh?

I'd question the methodology of this, but since it reflects beautifully on Canada, I don't think I will. Apparently, in a survey of the best cities to live in, for expatriates, and measured to the relative quality of life and cost of living, five of the top six cities are Canadian.

This doesn't necessarily fly in the face of logic, since prominent international cities like New York, Tokyo, London and Paris are incredibly expensive to live in. And of the 200 cities the list surveyed, New York, Tokyo, London and Paris didn't even make the cut.

So who was number one, you ask? Well, none other than Canada's capital, Ottawa. Which helps me put things into perspective: for the quality of life I'm afforded, maybe the cost of living isn't terribly high; but, then again, perception and reality aren't too often comparable.

The other Canadian cities, in descending order, are Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal, and Toronto in sixth. However one may read into these findings, I think it’s safe to say that Montreal must be the coolest cheapest city in the world—for expatriates, that is.

Quantum Information Systems

I just read a very interesting piece over at ScientificAmerican.com on the new science of Quantum Information. What this new science essentially aims to facilitate is the exponential increase in the speed of information processing. Thus, quantum information examines the universe of quantum interactions in order to explain how they relate to classical explanations of thermodynamics and entropy.

Where Classical Physics and Quantum Mechanics have diverged is in their ability to make sense of each other. The perceptibility and predictability of the physical world allows for a somewhat palpable understanding of our physical laws. Though, at a smaller quantum level, the coherence of the physical world becomes highly variable, unquantifiable, and volatile.

Quantum Mechanics has attempted to explain various quantum states, though only in abstracted settings—such as isolated atoms. Although still theoretical, Quantum Information science posits that the ability to control, arrange, and distribute quanta in an information system—or in any system, for that matter—may dramatically increase the speed with which information is processed.

This, to be sure, means the possible creation of incredible super-computers that would be able to do computations far faster than current computers-- so much so, that what may take computers now days and months to compute, would take these super-computers milliseconds. These are the possible operating principles:

1. Identify a physical resource. A familiar classical example is a string of bits. Although bits are often thought of as abstract entities--0's and 1's--all information is inevitably encoded in real physical objects, and thus a string of bits should be regarded as a physical resource.

2. Identify an information-processing task that can be performed using the physical resource of step 1. A classical example is the two-part task of compressing the output from an information source (for example, the text in a book) into a bit string and then decompressing it--that is, recovering the original information from the compressed bit string.

3. Identify a criterion for successful completion of the task of step 2. In our example, the criterion could be that the output from the decompression stage perfectly matches the input to the compression stage.

Another interesting application of the Science of Quantum Mechanics is Error Correction. Telling time is no doubt an imprecise science, given that various distortions of a physical variety perturb the fluidity of our actual measurements. However, there may be an answer to this problem:

Quantum error-correcting codes are a triumph of science. Something that brilliant people thought could not be done--protecting quantum states against the effects of noise--was accomplished using a combination of concepts from information science and basic quantum mechanics.

What Thermodynamics did for the steam engine in the 18th and 19th century, Quantum Mechanics can do for computer systems, information technology, and complex systems in the 21st and 22nd century--and beyond.

Big Get

Rarely do fake-news organizations get the "big get"-- a former President. Fox got Bush 41 and now The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is getting Bill Clinton. Political satire and a Former U.S president makes for good Monday night theater of the absurd.