Come Visit...

INSTApunditry!@The Daniel Hurie Project.

INSTApunditry! Returns...

...at a new home. INSTApunditry! can be found here, at The Daniel Hurie Project.

A Return...

I'm pleased to announce the return--at long last--of INSTApunditry! We'll be back online on Tuesday, January 18th.

Housekeeping

I apologize profusely to my six readers for my scant posting in the last two weeks. Life has been rather hectic since returning from my trip, and blogging, sadly, has fallen by the wayside.

But never fear! INSTApunditry! will be back to form in the near future.

A few bits of interesting reading. Today's NYT carried this tragic story about "elder abuse." Read the whole thing.

Also, Virginia Postrel wrote this piece on the increasing visibility of Friedrich Hayek. I missed the original column (from last January), but she mentioned it on her blog several days ago. It's well worth reading.

"The Democrats’ Da Vinci Code"

The American Prospect offers its take on the rebuilding of the Democratic Party, and claims that "the path to [Democratic] nirvana is painted right on the 2004 electoral map."

I am wary of their economic populism, and the article conveniently ignores foreign policy. But it is worth taking a look at. The sections on "Turn the Hunters and the Exurbs Green" and "Become a Teddy Roosevelt Clone" are valuable.

Quote of the Day

"Afghanistan is the first graduate of the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy in rather hostile places."

Charles Krauthammer

Social Security "Privitization"

TPM makes a very good point.

Let's Bomb Canada!

Apparently, Ann Coulter has been hanging out with Ali G.

[via Wonkette]

That'll Go Over Well

The University of Oklahoma has decided to ban alcohol in its dorms and frat houses.

The Ukrainian Election (Updated)

UPDATE: Things are getting serious.

PLUS: Shameless promotion of unsubstantiated rumors:

Russian Troops in Kiev!

The conservative blogosphere is having a field day with this.

---

Dan Drezner sums up the Ukraine situation pretty well.

As he says, the most important facts are:

"a) [former President] Leonid Kuchma wants Yanukovich to win;
b) Vladimir Putin really wants Yanukovich to win."

In other words, this ain't Georgia.

In Europe, Fistful of Euros is providing good coverage. They linked to one blogger who says he lives in Kiev. and is giving first-hand accounts.

Also see Maidan, "an Internet hub providing civil resistance to authoritarianism in Ukraine."

[Fistful of Euros via DaouReport and Instapundit]

Hutus and Tutsis (Rwanda-Style)

UPDATE: And the UN responds...

The BBC is reporting that Rwanda is considering an attack on Hutu rebels just across the Rwandan border in the DRC.

I'm not sure about the veracity of these claims or the specifics. Depending on a number of factors, such an attack could be a (relatively) good thing or a very bad thing.

Hutus and Tutsis (Burundi-Style)

A bit of uplifting news:

At the Committee to Protect Journalists' (CPJ) 2004 International Press Freedom Awards, the founder and director of Burundi's Radio Publique Africaine was honored. Alexis Sinduhije has developed RPA into one of Burundi's most popular and influencial radio stations despite repeated government bans and intimidation.

The CPJ says, "The station has sought to promote peace by hiring both Hutus and Tutsis, including ex-combatants, to work on the editorial team. 'I wanted to humanize relations between the ethnic groups in Burundi and set an example of former enemies working together to build peace,' says Sinduhije."

Five other journalists were also honored, including Paul Klebnikov, the editor of Forbes Russia. Klebnikov was murdered last July. His killer(s) have yet to be apprehended. INSTApunditry! speculated about his death last month.

Flooding the Grand Canyon

Drought has always been one of the "hush" issues in the United States. If you don't live in a drought-ridden place, you're probably barely aware that much of the western United States is as much as five years behind where it should be in terms of precipitation.

If you're not several days behind like me, you've probably seen this. But I find it fascinating, so here it is:

From CNN:

Scientists Flood the Grand Canyon

Scientists flooded teh Grand Canyon on Sunday to restore beaches and save fish and plants that have beeen disappearing since sediment-free water began flowing from a man-made dam 40 years ago.

A torrent of gushing water raced down the Colorado River and into the canyon, carrying badly needed natural sediment with it, as four giant steel tubes at the base of Glen Canyon Dam were opened.

"The sediment, sand, mud and silt play an important role in the ecosystem," said Chip Groat, director for the U.S. Geological Survey.

An estimated 800,000 metric tons of sediment were expected to be stirred up during the 90-hour run.

Four decades ago, before the dam was built, natural flooding built up backwaters, eddies and sandbars with silt distributed from the Colorado's tributaries.

The construction of Glen Canyon Dam upstream forever altered the canyon: Four of eight native fish species have disappeared and prospects for the fifth, the endangered humpback chub, are grim. Only about 7 percent of the historical sediment before the dam was built remains.

---

For more information, read Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert and John McPhee's Encounters with the Archdruid, which features an amazing section where McPhee, David Brower of the Sierra Club and former Interior Secretary Floyd Dominy raft down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. Fascinating reading.

Paris Club Agrees to Slash Iraqi Debt by 80 Percent

See, diplomacy can useful.

[And yes, this news is several days old. Give me a break.]

Horowitz Claims Censorship

I think he's almost entirely wrong, but it is worth reading for perspective.

Out to sea...

...for the next few days. Posting will be done minimally, if at all.

In the meantime, here's a fairly damning WaPo editorial regarding Alberto Gonzales.

Questioning the Superficial

Here is a rather interesting story from the LA Times about a former Clinton official/Bush college dormmate who is now asking his students to question their dislike of the President, to look at the why rather than the what.

It's a lesson many Democrats could learn.

As Andy Stone said in The Aspen Times, "[I don't expect] expect Democrats to stop calling George W. Bush an idiot - although now, postelection, their insistence on that point amounts to declaring, 'That idiot outsmarted us again' ... which is hardly a winning slogan."

The Stone column, which I stole from Andrew Sullivan, is about Theo Van Gogh and is quite good. Some prominent Democrat, someone, somewhere, anywhere, should read it.

Iran Watch!

That was so fast. As others have suggested, it's starting to feel like Groundhog's Day. The Israelies, the European-Iranian Agreement, the secret WMD, Pollack's new book...

My question is, what does Bush intend to do? So Iran's nuclear program is "a very serious matter." Sure, we can all agree on that. And the world would be better off if Iran were a free and democratic society. Sure.

But we don't really have military options here. And besides, trying to invade Iran with ground forces would be like nothing this country has done before. Not that we couldn't in theory; it would just be a huge investment of materials that we don't have right now.

And if past performance (combined with his already undercutting the Europeans' agreement) is any indication, he is not likely to succeed with diplomacy.

So that reduces us to what? Airstrikes? Israeli airstrikes?

Now that's a bad idea.

Integrity Watch!

David Brooks steps above the fray. Robert Novak declines judgment. Everyone else stays quiet and hopes it will go away.

Novak also says:

"Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, plans to push authorization of oil drilling in the Arctic Natural Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) through the new, more conservative Senate next year.

ANWR drilling was defeated 52 to 48 when the issue was last addressed on the Senate floor in March 2003. This year's election has produced a net gain of three senators in favor of the proposal for a positive tally of 51 to 49.

Tentative plans are for ANWR to be tucked into next year's budget bill. It then would take only a simple majority of 51 votes in the 100-member Senate under budget reconciliation to authorize drilling, while 60 senators are needed to break a filibuster if the bill was considered separately."

A Few Honest Men (And Women)

What happened to the party line? Is that integrity in the air?

John Podhoretz says:

"The principle that the Republican Party ought to hold itself to the highest possible ethical standard in the House of Representatives — where the temptation to corruption is omnipresent — is the right principle. Expedient use of rule changes sends a very disturbing message.

The message it sends is this: Party, not principle. And that is a terrible message, because when parties sacrifice principle for power, they begin to eat away at their own legitimacy."

Debra Saunders:

"It's true that van Gogh used crude and gratuitous words to describe Muslims. He had earned their wrath. But he was the child of a free society and he did not deserve to die."

Neither offers anything like a scathing indictment of their party's flawed positions, but it's a start.

The Worst Drug?

Wired asks, Is porn worse than crack?

A Unified Theory of Bushness?

TNR's &c. suggested a slightly different reason for why Bush promotes fuck ups and fires people who tell the truth. Scheiber does not say it, but his reasoning brings to mind "hate the sin, love the sinner."

"It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process."

TPM has the text of John Kerry's email that will be sent out to supporters this afternoon.

It's kind of interesting from a guy who conceded midway through the day after the election.

Perhaps discord among rank-and-file Democrats is greater than previously imagined.

The tone is also "Whiny-John-Kerry" in full effect.

The Late Edition

--I'm Shocked!!! Andrew Sullivan points out a sorta liberal speaking about Theo Van Gogh.

--The West's Achilles' Heal.

--TPM is all over the disgraceful DeLay Rule, including this rich detail. I've said many times that it's not a good day to be a Democrat; well, today is pretty bad if you're a conservative and you have an iota of principle.

Credit must go to Connecticut's own Chris Shays, who stood with a handful of GOP comrades in maintaining some kind of moral backing. As previously noted, INSTApunditry! likes Chris Shays.

Credit also goes to the other two members of Connecticut's GOP delegation, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson, both of whom voted against the Delay Rule. INSTApunditry! doesn't particularly like either of them.

Meanwhile, after raising my hopes for a day, Power Line sinks back into decay.

UPDATE (via TPM): Why DeLay and the Republicans are full of shit.

--Atrios has spent the day blasting Bush's shenanigans and pondering health insurance.

--I can't say that I know many "liberals" who think that Europe is "a model of sophistication and humanism." Many if the conservative universe says it enough, it will be true.

--OxBlog:

"First off, may I note that I love France as a country, a people, and a culture - French people, French literateurs, French intellectuals, French taxi drivers, French joie de vivre, French wine, French food, French cheese, French women (who only get sexier as they get older*), the French capital, the French art of living, the Left Bank, the Right Bank, and many other things French besides. I just happen to mildly disapprove of every political manifestation produced by that nation since roughly, oh, 1400 (earlier if you count the Avignon papacy)."

Classic.

--You know, as far as conservatives go, the AEI is growing on me. For all the times that liberal-types shoot themselves in the foot, Republicans can be really fucking stupid. Do you seriously think that this type of arrogance and utter conceit for democracy will go unnoticed by the American people?

--Depressing? Yes. Horribly misguided? Yes. Right? Sadly, perhaps. We've been reduced to this reasoning:

"Given these horrific possibilities, perhaps we should set our goals more realistically, and focus on the achievable. Some have suggested that we let Iraq divide itself into independent Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish countries. This might avert a prolonged, violent struggle for control of the central government after the United States withdraws. Still, history - most recently that of Yugoslavia - suggests that partition is a risky, bloody business. Millions of people would be forced from their homes, and many would not leave without a fight. Furthermore, the mini-countries carved out of Iraq may be swallowed by their larger neighbors; the Shiite area would be very attractive to Iran.

A second distasteful alternative is to support the consolidation of power in the hands of a new secular strongman. This may bring peace of a sort, but it would be a bitter result for the Iraqi people after their brief taste of freedom. Saddam Hussein was able to keep his politically, ethnically and religiously divided state together only through nearly constant repression; it seems unlikely that any successor could rule with a velvet glove."

How Much Tolerance Is Too Much? And Why Talking About Iraq Is So Damn Hard

I've been pondering the Dalrymple piece (see below) for several days, and I'm not sure what I think of it. It's thesis--that the abuse of women "is now essential for people of Muslim descent for maintaining any sense of separate cultural identity in the homogenizing solution of modern mass society"--is certainly provocative and shouldn't be dismissed as politically uncorrect by the left (though it will be, if anyone bothers to read it). But I'm not sure that I agree.

I'm more interested in the idea that "[f]or tolerance to work, it must be reciprocal...Unilateral tolerance in a world of intolerance is like unilateral disarmament in a world of armed camps: it regards hope as a better basis for policy than reality."

The essential question, of course, is when does this line get crossed. In America, we've clamped down on the KKK while deciding that the neo-Nazis, anti-government types and other white supremacists can do pretty much what they please as long as no legal lines are crossed. Of course, if they all decided to live in New York City, our tolerance of them might not be as generous.

In the meantime, two good reads that expand these thoughts (if you haven't noticed, we've combined The Liberal Media and The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy into a single, fairly regular posting of "good read"):

TNR--Peter Beinart--Morally Correct

City Journal--Theodore Dalrymple--Why Theo Van Gogh Was Murdered

---

I'm still not convinced that we are at war with radical Islam, that "Islamofascists" are this century's Nazis.

But before you can truly say that you are "against" something, you should at least try to understand it. It clarifies your own position and gives you a language to discuss your feelings. Sadly, too many people on the left are not even willing to ask the right questions (no pun intended).

Though some might attribute this to general post-Vietnam Democratic impotence on international affairs, I think you can trace this one mostly to 9/11.

To Bush and many others, 9/11 was a tipping point, a clear sign that radical Islam had declared war on the United States and Western culture. There was (and is) a grave threat; if you don't see, you're a moron.

In the months following 9/11, there was an enormous groundswell of support for President Bush, and he basically got a free pass from the media and the Democratic Party. I'm not saying whether this was right or wrong (at least not at the moment).

As a consequence, though, there was very little debate over the direction of the US's foreign policy and response to 9/11. There never was any serious alternative to Bush's vision put forward by the Democrats or anyone else. Without really considering (or knowing) its place as the first stop in the ultimate Bush vision of the extended Middle East, most people supported the invasion of Afghanistan; far fewer, however, saw it as Bush's tipping point, as the beginning of a plan to install "liberal democracies" throughout the Middle East.

But because there was no realistic and viable opposition early on, these doubters had no good language with which to critcize, question and suggest.

These doubters are still stuck in defensive mode, reacting to Bush rather than the world.

The vast majority of people who disagree with Bush's foreign policies have been reduced to one of two one-sized-fits-all critiques, either "we'd do it better" or "we shouldn't do it at all."

While these are gross simplifications, they are essentially representative. Neither plan shows an intelligent understanding of the current state of the world (Of course, you could argue that Bush's plan fails to meet the same criterion).

Like it or not, Bush's vision is the strategic reality of our times. For Democrats to formulate and articulate their own plan(s), to develop their own language, they need to take the time to understand this view of the world.

Who knows... Maybe they'll even be convinced.

A Few Words on Blogrolls

If you didn't already notice, I updated my blogroll today. Added several sites, removed a couple.

I've always had mixed feelings about blogrolls. I understand their purpose and their place in weblog history (as silly as that phrase sounds). But I'm always annoyed when I go to a blog and they have 75 "favorite sites."

No sane person reads 50 or 75 or 100 blogs on a regular basis. I spend way too much time online and, while I may look at 50 different places in a given day, the list of places that I visit regularly is far shorter.

Furthermore, how often do you click on someone's "favorite site" only to find that it no longer exists?

No one reads the same things all the time, and if you do, I'm sorry. The blogosphere is a vast and wonderful place, with constant comings and goings. No one (or at least a very select few) does this for a living. We all have lives. Hence, some days/weeks/months are going to be better than others. Like any kind of creative output, the quality of a blog tends to change, rising and falling over time. A blogroll should reflect this.

My idea of a blogroll is a short, constantly changing compilation of what I enjoy reading on the Internet. I don't necessarily agree with all of these sites, and there are certainly other blogs that I read daily.

But these 15 blogs* are (to me, at least) the best of the web, the places that inform and inspire and supplement my own blogging.

So enjoy...

*In the past, I've always tried to keep it under 10. But no more. There are too many good blogs to limit myself.

I also get some satisfaction out of seeing James Lileks next to Ana Marie Cox.

Israel "Apologizes"

This is what we call "good public relations."

Maybe the Bush Administration could learn a few things.

"If you could only read 520 books, what would they be?"

About Last Night has a great comment from another blog:

"By my reckoning, I read about two books a month. (It used to be more, but children have an odd way of needing a lot of attention.)

My financial adviser informs me that I must die when I am 87 because I will run out of money at that point. So, assuming she is right, at two books a month I will read only 520 books more in my lifetime. Do I want to waste one of those precious allotments on an award-winning book that I find neither enjoyable nor enlightening? I do not.

Screw the awards and their fallible human judges. I start with reviews and word-of-mouth. Then I go to the book jacket and read a page or two at the bookstore or on Amazon. Then I buy it and give it 50 pages. If I'm not laughing, crying, or learning something by page 50, out it goes, guilt-free. Life is too short to read a book that doesn't give me something in return for my time, energy, and money."

As someone who compulsively finishes pretty much all of the books that I start, I find that fairly depressing (for me, not for her). Now, I'm a great deal younger than her and read more than two books a month, but it still puts things in perspective.

I will certainly never read all of the books on my list, as it keeps getting longer and longer with time. Then you throw in movies and events and places and foods...

The commenter's blog is here.

Belmont Club: A Change for the Better?

Wretchard had decided "to write fewer essays and more 'mini-case studies'. These are likely to be more open-ended in style and are primarily intended to serve as a springboard for discussion. Older-style essay posts will still feature occasionally, but less frequently than before."

His first one, about the Russian army's troubles in Grozny, where "Islamic fighters first learned that they could defeat a multidivisional superpower force," is superb, as (almost) always.

In Case You Missed It...

Really stupid things people say...Or, the stuff that gives "liberals" a bad name.

Just when you thought the spate of post-election websites couldn't get any worse, it did...

New study shows academics are overwhelming Democratic...plus a better article on the same theme.

Sexiest Man Alive...Jude Law?

How 'bout that stadium?

The significance of corner offices?

Ann Althouse brings us this lovely story about creationism.

New translation of Bible gets mixed reviews.

Rhode Island reporter convicted for refusing to reveal source.

The National Digital Newspaper Project

In a speech at the National Press Club, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole announced the creation of the National Digital Newspaper Project (FAQs).

Starting in 2006, the general public will be able to view over 30 million pages of newspapers published from 1836 through 1922 from any computer in the world. In his speech, Cole said, "A democracy like ours depends on the knowledge and wisdom of the people who are part of it. The more we remember of our past; the more are past informs the present; the better off we are--and the stronger our nation is."

So what does this all mean?

Goodbye microfilm!

[via boingboing]

Idiots of America Unite!

When I want a good laugh, I can almost always go to Little Green Footballs or Daily Kos or Free Republic and read the comments.

It picks you right up.

The highlight of the evening (from said LGF):

"...and who is Xeni Jardin? Some trippy exotic little chic Kevin has sorting his emails for him? They probably met in Katmandu and she's the 'Guardian of the Gate of Kevin' now. What a phony...!"

Classic.

National Book Award Winners

And the results are in...

In one of the most uninspiring ("my fellow unknown finalists") fiction contests in recent memory, Lily Tuck won for The News from Paraguay.

The nonfiction award went to Kevin Boyle for Arc of Justice: A Saga of Race, Civil Rights and Murder in the Jazz Age.

Rounding Up Reactions to the Marine in Fallujah

The reaction to the "Marine Shoots Iraqi" (he's a prisoner or a terrorist or a victim, depending on whom you ask) story is rapidly becoming more interesting than the story itself.

Predictably, many conservatives have rushed to defend the soldier, the Marines and America in general. Many have started attacking the journalist who covered the story, Kevin Sites (who has a great blog that INSTApunditry! has previously recommended)

Hugh Hewitt's reaction is beyond the pale:

"Here is the question: Is it aiding and abetting the enemy to release video footage that is certain to inflame anti-American sentiment in the region? If so, what should the penalty for NBC be? If not, are there any circumstances under which the release of video by a news organization leading to the death of Americans would or should be punishable, at least by the loss of licenses granted with the understanding that the broadcaster would serve 'the public interest?'"

I refuse to take it seriously or offer a serious critique. Quite simply, Sites' work should be praised as an outstanding contribution to war journalism. The fact is that his work is emblematic of what the United States is purportedly fighting for. If we punish him, then why the hell are we even in Iraq?

Free Republic readers think, for the most part, that Sites should be killed.

Little Green Footballs quotes from Sites' blog and calls it "an amazingly pompous, open declaration of non-sympathy for American soldiers":

"So in some ways, embedded in this unit, I begin to feel I’ve betrayed the people that depend on me to be skeptical; to question the dominant powers and institutions of my nation and the actions it undertakes in the name of its citizens. I am not a military or American cheerleader, not a mouthpiece signed on to some institutional agenda whether I believe in it or not. I am here to ask the hard questions of the people who make the hardest decisions; ones that result in people dying or people being killed. I must remember as one journalist advised, 'write in your notepad every day ‘I am not one of them.’'”

That's called journalism, guys. Wingerdom at its best. LGF then suggests that CNN asked Sites to shut down his website "possibly because they were worried their agenda would be discovered if Sites kept writing things like this."

WorldNet Daily is calling Sites "an anti-war activist whose photographs of Iraqi prisoners are featured on at least one anti-war website." That's some compelling evidence there.

[Aside: This is my problem with "the liberal media." Does the media have bias? Sure. Is it overwhelming tilted towards liberals? I don't think so, but I'd be happy to have a reasonable conversation about it. But so often the conservative universe slaps the BIASED™ tag on something and considers it a closed case. Many conservatives have so convinced themselves the media is against them that it completely blinds them to rationality. It sometimes makes their bias charges tough for me to take seriously.]

Now, I don't agree with his actual post, but this blogger's larger point, that much of the Arab world refuses to look inward and find outrage for its own actions, has a lot of truth to it.

To its credit, the Belmont Club doesn't explicitedly goes with the conservative mainstream, choosing instead to discuss the Geneva Convention and "the heat of battle."

I'm happy to report that Power Line takes a step back and refuses to pass judgment on either side. Hindrocket also links to a pretty interesting comment from another blog.

The reaction from the Marines has also been predictable and, at times, poignant.

"Marines interviewed on Tuesday said they didn't see the shooting as a scandal, rather the act of a comrade who faced intense pressure during the effort to quell the insurgency in the city.

'I can see why he would do it. He was probably running around being shot at for days on end in Falluja. There should be an investigation but they should look into the circumstances,' said Lance Corporal Christopher Hanson.

'I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head,' said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 'You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong.'"

I can't blame them, and I sympathize with their positions. At the same time, it would seem prudent for them to acknowledge that incidents like these make their jobs that much harder.

A girl purportedly from Iraq offers this.

Warblogging and TalkLeft offer pretty standard and predictable responses: Report the known facts, call it a potential war crime, fail to give any sympathy to the soldier.

Of course, many on the left are overreacting (see the comments).

Is this bad for America in the world? Yes. Was it a war crime? Very possibly.

Still, this is one soldier, one incident. Have there been other incidents like this? Potentially. This is a combat zone, after all.

The simple fact is that war is hell, shit happens and many decisions are made in high stress situations that look pretty stupid in retrospect. Don't condemn the soldier or the Marines or, in this case, the Bush administration. Most of us will never know the kind of stress that being in combat produces. Most of us are able to undo the stupid, high stress things that we do.

At the same time, none of this means that the soldier should have a free pass. His position is unfortunate, but that doesn't excuse his decision from judgment. Essentially, he is performing a job. Think of it like a police officer who shoots someone under murky circumstances. I don't mean to compare the police and the Marines; that would be indecent to both parties. But in terms of the uncertainty, the element of snap decision-making and high stress environment, the ensuing investigation and the reaction from the local community.

More than anything, don't jump to conclusions. Even with the video, we don't know all of the facts.

Do I expect any of this rationality, especially on the part of the Bush Administration, to actually occur? Of course not.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised...

Feeling His Oats

Apparently, Jacques Chirac feels empowered by the deal with Iran.

That's right, Jacques. It feels good to be back on the world stage. At least until Iran backs out of the agreement.

Meanwhile, let's hope the world ignores the fiasco in the Ivory Coast.

More Good Reading (But No UN)

I'm a little thin on original content today, so instead there has been a profusion of links.

Another good bit of reading is Harold Meyerson's (of all people!) What Are Democrats About?

Now, I said something similar quite a while ago, but since he is a professional and has been doing this for long time, his is more concise and incisive.

Good Reading, the United Nations and the Blogosphere's Moral Void

Two fascinating pieces of reading: A 2000 John McCain speech that has been making the rounds (Marshall Wittman offers commentary) and Brad Carson's account of his Senate defeat.

Plus, Josh Marshall (among others) has been covering the disgraceful House rule changes. Of course, this is merely a precursor to ending the rampant obstructionism in the Senate.

Equally disgraceful is the utter lack of leftist commentary on the UN Oil-for-Food controversy.

We can't pretend that it doesn't exist.

Then again, given that we are, perhaps that is too high a goal.

Is the moral high ground that hard to find?

The United Nations is far from perfect. As a political decision-making body, it is extremely flawed. Too many voices, too many interests, too much bureaucracy (and a REALLY poor track record).

It needs serious reform, though I can't see that happening. Sadly, it's not as simple as kicking the French off the Security Council.

At the same time, the United Nations does an unbelievable amount of good around the world, helping with refugees, human rights, poverty and countless other issues. If the UN didn't exist, who would help alleviate these problems?

We are the most influencial and powerful nation in the world, and we wouldn't have a chance (even if we had the will).

Without the UN, these problems would get worse and worse and worse, eventually turning into far bigger issues. And we can only fight so many wars at one time.

Secret Desires: Free Republic Goodness

The conservative fascination with Democrats' fascination on race
is sad. Not that it justifies or mitigates or in any way lessens the
patheticness of Democratic racial politics of the last 30ish years.

From Free Republic (the same people who brought you this):

"If W was a democrat, the nomination of Condoleeza Rice as
Secretary of State, would have been hailed as 'the bridging
of the racial divide in this country.' If W was a democrat,
the nomination of Margaret Spellings as Education
Secretary would have closed the gender gap. Alberto
Gonzalez? He would have literally crossed the Rio Grande."

[...]

"If W was a democrat, he would nominate people BECAUSE
they are black,female or hispanic. But because he is George
W. Bush, he nominates blacks,females or hispanics because
he believes they are the right people for those jobs. It's
hysterical that the old media will not toss around words
like diversity and gender equity,when the man
achieving just that is a republican."

So...

Democrats' preoocupation with "diversity and gender equity"
is bad. Except, since our guy is achieving this sort of
diversity, we secretly want him to be praised for it.
Except that that contradicts our previous statement.

Umm, Dick Cheney has a big penis. That makes it ALL better.

The truth, in recent years, is that Republicans have become
nearly as race-dependent as Democrats. Contrary to any
conservative looniness, the press did make a big deal when
Bush selected his cabinet in 2000. Powell, Martinez, Chao
et al. were hailed as the most racially
diverse cabinent in memory, the first step in Bush's crusade
to unite the country.

Predictably, Republicans quietly embraced and promoted this
view, as it obscured the fact that Bush's first cabinet was one
of the most ideologically un-diverse in memory. Round Two
looks even less diverse.

But that's okay, because we've got women and minorities.

And this time? If Kerry were putting a black woman as
Secretary of State or a Hispanic man as AT, the media
probably would make a bigger deal. I'm not going to
debate if or how much, nor will I judge the media for
their coverage (at least at the moment).

But if conservatives are really race-blind, who cares?

With All Due Credit...

The theme of the day seems to be: Will Bush seek to repay the Religious Right for giving him his victory?

Aside from the fact that the consensus seems to have already debunked this theory (note sarcasm), does this question strike you as slightly absurd?

A more apt question: Is Bush himself a member of said Religious Right?

Who's Out-Of-Touch?

I have to agree with this one.

[via Atrios]

In Case You Missed It...

--Call Dr. Strangelove! The Russians have a new and secret nuclear device! Sort of.

--Starbucks will introduce new cups that use 10 percent recycled material.

--As Josh Chavetz said, Only in Texas.

--Well, no shit.

--Tom Ridge considers leaving.

--Mystery Pollster on moral values.

--Internet access while flying.

Quote of the Day

The real winner in this foreign policy wrestling match is Dick Cheney. One of his former aides, Stephen Hadley, will now be the national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice was run over so many times by Mr. Cheney in the first term that she'll be docile at State.

Nicholas Kristof

A New Crop of Senators

In the interests of bringing in a new crop of Democratic Senators, I must admit that I am disappointed that Charles Schumer has decided not to run for governor. I figured that he could run for governor and Spitzer could run for the Senate, while in Connecticut Chris Dodd could run for governor and our own hotshot Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, could replace him.

Hell, if Kerry had won, I figure that Biden, Lieberman and a few others could very well have been gone.

Sadly, it seems that we are now stuck with all of our Democratic Senators for a while.

Now, you might ask, What's this? Why does he want to get rid of all the Democrats?

Well, of course I like most of the Democratic Senators. I feel that we know them well.

And that's precisely the problem.

If you agree that the candidate wasn't the problem and that the Democratic Party has some serious work to do (I still think that the party's traditional platform needs to be reexamined), then one of the logical steps is to replace the old Party leadership with young blood.

I don't mean to criticize senior Senators like Schumer, Dodd and others, who are still extremely valuable members of the party. They should not under any circumstances be pushed out the door.

More and more, however, the election of 2004 seems like a crossroads, from which many paths can be taken. For the Democratic Party (and American liberalism, not that the two are inseparable) to take the correct path(s), new ideas and new approaches would seem to be needed.

In many respects, this is the most encouraging aspect of Barack Obama's election, and, to a lesser degree, Ken Salazar's. Both are young and hail from supportive electorates (in Obama's case, a solidly, non-"liberal" state, in Salazar's, a state that I see as trending more and more Democratic). In other words, they aren't Mary Landrieu or John Edwards, who were barely elected in solidly Republican states.

To implement new policy and drive new agendas, the Democrats would be smart (what a novel concept!) to bring fresh faces into the Senate.

Simmons on the Early NBA Season

Page 2's Bill Simmons takes a look at the first two weeks of the NBA.

A Double Standard?

Is it just me, or is there something wrong with quoting or using something or someone that you perpetually criticize (without ever praising)?

It could just be me...

In Case You Missed It...

--Tom Hanks is apparently in talks with director Ron Howard and producer Brian Grazer to play Robert Langdon in the film version of The Da Vinci Code. Oscar-winner Akiva Goldsman is set to write the adaptation. Also, the book's mass market edition will supposedly come out in October of 2005. I'll believe it when I see it. I mean, at this point, everyone in America already has a copy, right?

--Itinerant Gastronomy

--We Are Happy to Serve You

--ABC apologized for its "inappropriate" MNF opening. Still, they have a long way to go to catch Janet Jackson and CBS.

--Apparently, coffee, alcohol and tea have no effect on your odds of developing acid reflux disorder. But once you have it, watch out. Smoking and eating meat and salty foods can contribute to the development of acid reflux.

--Woman is fired for posting pictures of herself on website.

"Cities Without Borders"

I've been meaning to post something about the notion of "global cities." This article, by renowned University of Chicago prof Saskia Sassen, is pretty provocative.

Then again, so is Ms. Sassen.

The Power Report

In talking about George Will and Democrats' "culture of victimhood" and "progresive" and other stuff, Deacon says that "the deepest urge of many liberals is to prove their intellectual and moral superiority" by "eschewing obvious explanations for misconduct" in favor of identifying "'root causes,' as if [greed, cruelty and evil] are insufficiently rooted."

So let's think about this...

Liberals want to look for root causes, wheras conservatives are content to say that people are bad.

Are we are the ones who think that we are morally superior?

Could someone explain this please?

[Isn't a founding tenet of the War on Terror that America is morally superior, at least in some regards, to the rest of the world? Or did I miss some part of NeoCon 101?]

We Don't Always Talk About Politics

Since we've given up on meaningful discussion for the day, here are two innovative ideas, courtesy of BookOfJoe.

First, we have podhead.com., the first website devoted to coffee pods. I'm not really a big fan of them, but if you are, it's one stop shopping.

Then we have Cereality, a cross between McDonalds, a Chinese take-out place and breakfast. For $3.95, you get cereal (33 varieties), one topping (34) and milk (7). The founder, David Roth, wants to become as widespread as Starbucks (wouldn't we all). The first Cereality (a kiosk) opened on the ASU campus in Tempe. The next one (a sit-down setup) is set to open at Penn's Wharton School, with further plans for Chicago.

Can You Really Blame Them?

Contrary to popular belief in some quarters, the NYT has decided not to fix its liberal, pacifist, communist, socialist, radical, pinko ways, even if its CBS/UN/Josef Stalin alliance failed to unseat George W. Bush.

My Grandmother the Republican (!?!)

If you didn't see the TNR piece Explain Away, read it. It's amusing.

One of the "theories" posited on why Kerry lost is that it's all about Teresa. Alexander Barnes Dryer says that Mrs. Kerry had no impact on the vote. I know better.

Sure, maybe she affected the results by 0 percent. But she changed at least one vote.

My grandmother is 87 years old, lives in a nursing home and has voted Democratic all of her life. In 2000, she didn't vote. She's spent the last four years regretting it, constantly bashing Bush and talking about how he "got all those boys" killed. She was really looking forward to voting this year.

A week before the election, I went to visit her and asked if she had turned in her absentee ballot. She nodded absentmindedly and launched into her Bush "got all those boys" killed speech. And then she said that she voted for Bush.

Now, I don't care who she voted for. It's great that, at 87, she still cares enough to vote. But I was rather shocked at this sudden reversal.

We'll pick it up in mid-conversation:

D: But Grandma, I thought you hated Bush.
G: Well, I do. But that Mrs. Kerry is no good.
D: [sigh] What difference does that make? Mr. Kerry will be the President, not Mrs. Kerry. What if someone told you about a good doctor with a bad wife. You would still go see the doctor, right? Or how about a lawyer? It doesn't matter what his wife is like, does it?

[I figured that this was a good point, since her husband was a lawyer]

G: Well, I guess. But I heard, I heard about her. She is nasty to people.
D: Grandma, don't you think that Bush can be mean sometimes? What about Cheney? Do you know about Cheney?

[shakes her head]

He is Bush's Vice President. He is not very nice at all.
G: She thinks she is better than everybody else, with all that money.
D: Well, Grandma, they are all rich.
G: She thinks that she is entitled to be President.
D: [speechless]
G: She used her money to say bad things about Mrs. Bush.
D: Grandma, no she didn't.
G: I like that Mrs. Bush; she's a nice lady.
D: Yes, she is. But do you know what Cheney, Dick Cheney, the Vice President said.
G: I heard her on TV once. She was very gracious.
D: Grandma, one time, in the Senate, Cheney told a Democratic Senator...

[I look around; no one is listening]

...he told a Senator to go fuck himself.
G: [cups ear] What?
D: He told a Democratic Senator to go fuck himself.
G: Say it again.
D: [I lean close to her ear] He told a Senator to fuck off.
G: [her eyes get really big] She said that?

[What have I done???]

G: [really loudly] She said to fuck off?
D: No, Grandma.

[I look around and people are starting to notice]

Please, shh. I said that Cheney, Bush's Vice President, said that. Not Mrs. Kerry.
G: What a hussy!

And there you have it. I kid you not. A few days later, my mother called me and said Grandma had told her that Mrs. Kerry was running for President and told Bush to fuck off and tried to buy her (Grandma's) vote, but she wouldn't let her.

God help us. I love my grandmother. I grew up in her house. She was my best friend when I was a kid. But God help us.

Rice in 2008? Don't Bet on It

The news of the day...

Powell resigned. Rice will apparently replace him. Her impending appointment, coupled with Gonzales' nomination for AG, gives Bush a whole lot of control over State and Justice. Now, if only he could nudge Rumsfield out the door...

It is too early to speculate with any sort of authority what sort of Secretary Rice will make. Based on her administrative track record as National Security Advisor, she doesn't seem to be the one to "clean up" Foggy Bottom. Then again, that is what advisors are for (see Patrick Murray). As a diplomat, she should be fine; Someone with a background like hers should be able to pull it off, if, of course, she wants to. Her weakness on non-Russian/Eastern Europe affairs was sort of an issue when she was appointed NSA. While it won't hurt her now, it should be interesting to see if US policy changes significantly in the non-War on Terror realm, and how she will deal with a crisis in SE Asia or Africa.

The instant speculation that this signals Rice's potential as a Republican Presidential nominee in 2008 is absurd. You have to go back to James Buchanan to find a Secretary of State who went on to become President. There are many reasons for this.

I mean, what in her background gives her any sort of capability to be President? Of course, this hasn't necessarily stopped other people, but she isn't in the same position. The very qualities that make her Bush's choice for State prevent her from running for President. Sure, she has been invaluable for Bush. She is his advisor, confidant and friend. Outside of that, she has nothing. This is precisely what makes her so valuable to him. She has no constituency, no support base. On top of this, she is too controversial. Anyone in her position has to fight too many battles and make too many enemies. Right now, she is Bush's favorite. Once Bush is no longer in power, you can be sure that the gloves will come off (a la Richard Clarke).

I also have a suspicion that the Religious Right will not embrace her.

Finally, all signs seem to indicate that Karl Rove is grooming Bill Frist for 2008.

Now, I'm not saying that she will never run for President, or that she couldn't win. But not in 2008. Go run for governor in California, spend a term or two, build a record. Then we'll talk.

It is easy to look at her and see a brilliant, young, attractive black woman and think, She's the one.

But she's not. At least not yet.

A Literary State of Mind

Apparently, Instapundit is good for something once in a while. This collection of Walker Evans' photography, based at the University of Virginia, is superb. Evans is most famous, of course, for Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, a collaboration between Evans and James Agee that explores the lives of several sharecropper families in the South. It was named one of the most influential books of the 20th century by the New York Public Library.

While I'm plugging things, I highly recommend Agee's A Death in the Family, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1958. A Death in the Family was widely considered the classic Knoxville novel until another of my favorites, Cormac McCarthy's Suttree, came along. And McCarthy's Blood Meridian is one of the best books written by a living American. In my opinion.

"Take That, You Stupid Americans!"

This makes The Atlantic look pretty stupid.

Pretty smart move by the Iranians (at least until they violate the agreement). Next in line: Syria. And that's going to be the fun one.

So let's see. They're doing pretty well on Bush's to-do list: Libya. Iraq. Iran. Syria.

My list, however, is another story: Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Kashmir, Various SE Asian countries.

As always, Israel/Palestine and Taiwan are exempt.

The Inevitable Shake-Up

I realize that the Bush Administration does things their own way, but how could we really think that there would be little or no cabinet shake-up?

As it stands, the count is up to six. Personally, I'm holding out for Rumsfield, but that's not going to happen.

Making Condoleezza Rice Secretary of State would certainly give a different spin to things. And do you notice how criticism always manages to slid off her? Claims of incompetence and disfunction have never really stuck to her (their veracity notwithstanding and wholly incidental). It should be fun when this comes out.

In many ways, the identity of Powell's replacement may signal Bush's foreign policy intentions for the second term. Given how close Rice is to Bush personally and the foreign policy of the first term, her selection could indicate that Bush aims to Bush through more neo-con agenda.

The other name floating around, John Danforth, would seem to indicate some kind of moderation (or at least the appearance of moderation). Then again, given how many times I've mocked people for thinking Bush will moderate anything ("I had hoped that this president might use his victory to unite"), what am I thinking?

At the very least, Danforth gave us one of the greatest political one-liners, on why he joined the Republican Party: "The same reason you sometimes choose which movie to see — [it's] the one with the shortest line."

"A profoundly disturbing trend"

For all his shortcomings, Alberto Gonzales has to be better than Ashcroft.

Doesn't he?

The Instapundit Effect

Though I visit instapundit.com daily, I gave up on Glenn Reynolds a long time ago. It's like the NYT editorial page. You read it because you should, not because you want to.

But these two links are so absurd.

Rationalexplications.com: "The Democratic Party has evolved into a coalition of relatively articulate people whose daily lives are not strongly tethered to reality. It is in large measure a party of glib, silly people."

My favorite kind of conservatives. They're like trolls. "We live by logic[InsultInsultInsult]We live by logic. Really we do. However, since we have no analytical ability, no creativity and are essentially brain dead, we'll just insult. I mean, logic."

Pathetic. You have nothing original or insightful to say. Another "rational explication: "[T]he management of big media firms is out of control, more concerned with pushing a leftist agenda than maximizing profits...[David] Halberstam is a Rather-apologist and an idiot, and in typical Marxist fashion, blames the problem on the profit-motive of the corporation. Laughable. And people think he is some great historian." That one isn't even worth commenting on.

Classicalvalues.com: "Who is responsible for this slogan? 'BUSH, CHENEY, POWELL, SHARON, and BLAIR. The true Axis of Evil'...Why, the National Socialist Movement, that's who...Michael Moore, call your Fuhrer!"

Come on, boys. You can't have it both ways. So the American Nazis have some Michael Moore sounding quotes. Sure, mock him for that. And then mock the SVBT for having their book published by William H. Regnery, II, who also publishes the Occidental Quarterly. Good reality-based stuff there. Down with Brown v. Board of Ed...

Now, these two idiots (or rather, the people behind these two sites) are entitled to say whatever they want and slap the LOGIC™ tag on it. Whatever. Intstapundit links, their bandwith explodes for a few days, then they go back to their relative obscurity (okay, so they both regularly get several thousand more hits than yours truly; that's not the point; I'm perfectly content with my six regular readers).

But seriously, Glenn. Are you that hard up for posts? I don't expect (nor do I want) any kind of unconventional (read: not in agreement) links. But at least make an effort to keep your dignity intact.

That's the bitch of logic. There is nothing inherently reality-based about it. Sure, Rush Limbaugh is completely logical if you start with his premise. Generally, his premises are worth shit, but if you just give him the benefit of the doubt, he makes total sense. Try it sometime.

Good Neighborhood, Mostly Democratic, Under $300,000

Once all of the secession nonsense clears away, it will be interesting if the growing cultural divide in this country (if, of course, you believe in the growing cultural divide) manifests itself through the real estate market.

Let's look at Mississippi. 86 percent of Mississippi voted to ban gay marriage. Outnumbered nearly 6-1, you have to figure that gay marriage supporters in Mississippi have to feel pretty lonely. And this isn't a case where some city provided most of the 14 percent; no county had less than 76 percent in favor of the ban.

726 people in Alcorn County opposed the ban, while 9,854 supported it. This is a huge minority. Assume that, for the most part, many of the 726 would support the typical laundry list of Democratic issues. As the political and cultural debate in this country becomes more shrill and more partisan, will it reach a point (a tipping point, if you will) where these liberal residents of Alcorn County feel compelled to move solely based on their cultural differences?

Obviously, I don't know. There are a host of unanswerable questions that accompany such thoughts.

For instance, who knows if most of the 14 percent (or the 726) actually does agree with the liberal agenda (for the moment, let's assume that there is a common liberal agenda)? Maybe most of Mississippi voters, Democrats and Republicans, are against gay marriage, and the majority of the 14 percent are people who are gay.

Obviously, many factors play into where someone lives. I mean no disrespect (nor do I jest) in asking whether some residents of Alcorn County would consider moving. I assume that the vast majority of them have deep personal connections to their homes (regardless of political or cultural views) and that moving for any reason would be a difficult and emotional process.

But as long as politics and cultural issues are part of the mainstream debate, it bears asking: If people uproot themselves over money or space or weather, why not politics? Quite honestly, as beautiful a state as Utah is, I would never consider living there. Maybe that's complete prejuidice and makes me a horrible person. Fine.

But if you were (or are) a socially conservative person, would you want to live in San Francisco or Manhattan or Provincetown?

I wouldn't.

"The left-wing orthodoxy of your generation"

The Volokh Conspiracy references a letter from a "pot-smoking deadhead Bush voter."

I agree with much of the letter. It expresses many of the things wrong with the American left. At the same time, most of it applies to the right. To the fair observer, Michael Moore is generally just as offensive and full of "hate-propaganda" as Ann Coulter et al. But because Moore is bigger than Coulter or Limbaugh (either one) or (for that matter) Al Franken , he is more controversial. Pre-Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore was the same guy saying the same things. But he never generated the same kind of widespread outrage (though certainly many were outraged) with Bowling for Columbine (which I thought was much more fabricated thanFahrenheit 9/11, for the record).

A Sort-Of Hiatus

So here's the deal...

I'm traveling for the next three weeks and posting will be somewhat light.

Think 2-3 posts a day, rather than 10-12.

I'll try to make up for the loss of quantity with better quality.

Joe Trippi, Where Are You?

Wired looks at how poorly candidates used the blogosphere in the election.

The Power Report

So Hindrocket was on CNBC tonight and apparently wasn't happy with his performance. He says he should have ended by saying this (to Larry O'Donnell):

"Larry, you have just perfectly demonstrated the ignorant arrogance that explains why the Democrats can't win an election."

While O'Donnell can be arrogant schmuck, I love the implicit logic of Hindrocket's statement.

If Democrats weren't such pricks, clearly they'd win every time.

TNR of Note

Stéphanie Giry takes a look at Chinese interests in Sudan.

The best line: "Unencumbered by principles, Chinese companies are free to go where many Western firms cannot."

And Martin Peretz closes the book on John Kerry. While it's not the most vitriolic thing that Peretz has written about his long-time nemesis, it certainly might be the most mean-spirited.

For the record, Peretz gave $2000 to John Edwards. His wife, Anne, gave $2000 to Dean and $200 to Kerry. Must have been some interesting conversations around the dinner table.

The Real State of the Union

University of Michigan Professors Mark Newman and Cosma Shalizi and UMich grad student Michael Gastner created a series of cartograms ("a map in which the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population") to depict the county-by-county vote while taking into account the relative population size of each county and the percentage of the vote each candidate received in that county.



Now, the technical algorithm part is beyond me. Regardless, this is really cool. It far surpasses the purple map that sprang up after the election by adding another of intelligence, nuance and analysis to the discussion.

For more analysis, click here.

[via Three-Toed Sloth)

Andrew Sullivan Watch

Unbelievable: "I had hoped that this president might use his victory to unite."

Also unbelievable: "I don't know how to drive a car."

Sullivan links to this story from Live From Brussels, a sorta-conservative Belgian blog. It seems pretty unbelievable; something lost in translation, perhaps? Or just Europe being...Europe?

Live From Brussels also features this charming analysis of the county-by-county electoral map:

"This map seems to indicate Kerry support is biggest in urban and coastal areas, and to a lesser extent also to the banks of major rivers."

To a lesser extent also to the banks of major rivers. I like that.

More AEI Goodness; Am I Becoming a Conservative?

Now that we've broken a long-standing precedent, why not go for two in a row?

Today, Thomas Donnelly and Vance Serchuk, two AEI guys (okay, one is a "resident fellow" and the other is a "research associate"), wrote that we should apply the Bush Doctrine to Sudan.

Citing the Al Jeer Sureaf refugee camp debacle (which I failed to note during the election madness; for that, I apologize), Donnelly and Serchuck say that "it would be difficult to argue that there is any clearer manifestation of oppression in the Muslim world today than in Darfur."

Now, this is certainly not new. INSTApunditry! made that same argument back when Powell called it genocide. I can't find the exact post, but I said that a logical extension of Bush's vision would be Sudan, though I didn't personally weigh in.

Now I'll step up to the scale.

There are hypothetical situations in which I can see invading a country. Sudan is as close to one of those hypotheticals as we've seen in the last ten years. Al Jeer Sureaf, Darfur's Srebrenica, is the latest in an inexcusable line of horrific genocidal abuses.

If Bush decided (not that he will) to make a significant effort to stop Sudanese genocide, I don't think I could ideologically protest.

It is one thing to say that we should respect our allies when we make a questionable and controversial decision like invading Iraq.

Sudan (or Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia) is an entirely different story. In this case, one side of the argument is clearly morally correct. Sure, our allies might not agree with us. But do we really want to be in agreement, given the world's (and the United States') track record when it comes to genocide?

Obviously, my basic reasons for provisionally agreeing with the AEI's scholars are different from their reasons; mine, humanitarian, theirs, strategic. But I might even be able to strategically support an invasion. Certainly, if I bought into the neocon view of the world, it would be tough to argue against it (Attention Mr. Krauthammer, you said in 1993 that "Sudan's radical Islamic regime" is a "a training ground and base for Islamic terrorists trying to overthrow Egypt's pro-Western regime to the north". Osama might be gone, but terrorism still thrives there).

I don't agree with the Bush Doctrine. I don't buy unilateral, preemptive military action unless you have a REALLY REALLY good reason. Iraq didn't even have a good reason; forget the REALLY REALLY.

Strategically, Sudan might have a REALLY REALLY good reason.

Of course, there is a But. A Big But.

Realistically, I'm pretty sure that an US invasion/intervention in Sudan would be an unqualified disaster. We don't know the country, the people, the languages, the environment, the issues. We have an awful track record in these types of things, where we half-assedly try to fix things and then, when it becomes apparent that it takes more effort than previously thought, we leave. With so many resources wrapped up in Iraq, it's tough to argue that the US could muster enough resources (i.e. soldiers, dollars, ect.) to effectively do much of anything in Sudan (or anywhere else, for that matter). Who knows what effect an intervention would have on the surrounding region?

And the planning? God help us on the planning. If the Bush Admin couldn't deliver a good plan on Iraq (especially given how long they worked on it), why should we expect better for a far less familar country.

Plus, given our recent African history (see Somalia) and Bush's slim margin of victory, I'm not sure that Bush could muster the popular support to do it.

In sum: If we can't fix Haiti, how could we possibly expect to fix Sudan?

But forget reality.

For far too long, liberals (and many others) have dragged their feet in these situations. Genocide is genocide. It's not just killing or murder. It is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. The destruction of a people. That's on a different level. It is worse than serial killers or terrorism or world war. The idea that you want to destroy a whole group of people is beyond description. It is as close as you can come to utter inhumanity.

Donnelly and Serchuck end their piece by saying, "The president says he has political capital to spend. If ever a cause was worthy, this is it." While I find the idea of unilateral military action to be repugnant, it is nowhere near as repugnant as 70,000 killed and 2 million displaced. Unless, of course, we're waiting for 800,000.

Question of the Day

Daniel Drezner asks the $64,000 question: "The big question that watchers of global finance have been asking in recent years is: what happens when the Asian central banks stop buying dollars?"

Is this the answer?

From the Financial Times:

Dollar expected to fall amid China's rumoured selling

By Steve Johnson in London and Andrew Balls in Washington

The dollar could slide still further, in spite of hitting an all-time low against the euro last week in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, currency traders have said.

The dollar sell-off has resumed amid fears among traders that Mr Bush's victory will bring four more years of widening US budget and current account deficits, heightened geopolitical risks and a policy of "benign neglect" of the dollar.

Many currency traders were taken aback on Friday when the greenback fell in spite of bullish data showing the US economy created 337,000 jobs in October.

"If this can't cause the dollar to strengthen you have to tell me what will. This is a big green light to sell the dollar," said David Bloom, currency analyst at HSBC, as the greenback fell to a nine-year low in trade-weighted terms.

The dollar's fall comes as the Federal Reserve is widely expected to raise US interest rates by a quarter point to 2 per cent when it meets on Wednesday and to signal that it will continue with a measured pace of rate increases.

Speculative traders in Chicago last week racked up the highest number of long-euro, short-dollar contracts on record. Options traders have reported brisk business in euro calls - contracts to buy the euro at a pre-determined rate.

However, the market has been rife with rumours that the latest wave of selling has been led by foreign governments seeking to cut their exposure to US assets.

India and Russia have reportedly been selling US assets, as well as petrodollar-rich Middle Eastern investors.

China, which has $515bn of reserves, was also said to be selling dollars and buying Asian currencies in readiness to switch the renminbi's dollar peg to a basket arrangement, something Chinese officials have increasingly hinted at. Any re-allocation could push the dollar sharply lower and Treasury yields markedly higher.

Porking Away Our Security

As they say, there's a first for everything. I will now cite the AEI in a positive manner. Whew!

A new report by Veronique de Rugy, What Does Homeland Security Spending Buy?, asks many of the right questions that both parties have been ignoring for the last three years. I mean, I don't agree with all of it, but that would be too much to ask.

I won't bore you with a critique of our current homeland security policies; we've been there and done that.

Her conclusion, that "because most of the money is allocated on a political basis rather than a sound cost benefit analysis, much of the new spending will not result in sound security. In other words, the security we are getting against terrorism is likely to be ineffective, yet comes at an enormous expense", is not exactly new. But this time, coming from this source, perhaps the powers that be will take more heed.

On second thought, that's probably wishful thinking.

As Kevin Kline said (in a slightly different context), "Pork away pal. Fuck her blue."

And while we're on A Fish Called Wanda, we need to include this: "Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what. So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me."

Indeed.

Quote of the Day, Part One

"Love is stronger than hate. That is the lesson of the 2004 election results."

Michael Barone, US News & World Report

Power Line Alert!

In his post entitled A Middle Ground on Arlen Specter, Hinrocket says, "It feels a little funny to type that post title, as I don't often find myself seeking middle ground."

That has to be the biggest understatement I've seen in a LONG time.

People I Hate

I think Kathleen Parker is my least favorite partisan hack in America. I almost always get a visceral reaction from reading her columns. Sheer intellectual dishonesty and condescension. She makes me want to kick and scream.

Attention Jack Straw: Please Take Note...

UPDATE: The BBC takes a different approach.

From the December edition of The Atlantic:

Will Iran Be Next?

by James Fallows

Throughout this summer and fall, barely mentioned in America's presidential campaign, Iran moved steadily closer to a showdown with the United States (and other countries) over its nuclear plans.

In June the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran had not been forthcoming about the extent of its nuclear programs. In July, Iran indicated that it would not ratify a protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty giving inspectors greater liberty within its borders. In August the Iranian Defense Minister warned that if Iran suspected a foreign power—specifically the United States or Israel—of preparing to strike its emerging nuclear facilities, it might launch a pre-emptive strike of its own, of which one target could be the U.S. forces next door in Iraq. In September, Iran announced that it was preparing thirty-seven tons of uranium for enrichment, supposedly for power plants, and it took an even tougher line against the IAEA. In October it announced that it had missiles capable of hitting targets 1,250 miles away—as far as southeastern Europe to the west and India to the east. Also, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected a proposal by Senator John Kerry that if the United States promised to supply all the nuclear fuel Iran needed for peaceful power-generating purposes, Iran would stop developing enrichment facilities (which could also help it build weapons). Meanwhile, the government of Israel kept sending subtle and not-so-subtle warnings that if Iran went too far with its plans, Israel would act first to protect itself, as it had in 1981 by bombing the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak.

----------

Still, I have a tough time seeing the U.S. invading Iran. I'm not saying that it won't happen, simply that I can't envision it.

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

One of the problems with Kristof's column (in today's The Liberal Media) is his contention that "it's lethal to be portrayed as obstructionists" by blocking judicial nominees.

In the WSJ, Kimberley Strassel made a similar point, stating, "[Daschle's defeat] was as much a repudiation of obstructionism as it was Mr. Daschle's own record."

Really?

Though many conservatives (and, apparently, some liberals) have taken this as conventional wisdom gleaned from the defeat of Tom Daschle, I'm not so sure.

There is little evidence (exit polls, ect.) that suggest "obstructionism" played a role. Rather, faced with a popular President, a popular and well-known former Congressman and Senate candidate (Thune barely lost two years ago) and an increasingly unpopular incumbant (claiming D.C. as his official residence was probably a bad move), South Dakotans did the rather logical thing and voted for a Republican Senator. The only thing that Daschle really had going for him was pork.

A fair assessment of Daschle/Thune comes from Power Line, who said before the election that "defeating Daschle would send a powerful signal to Democratic Senators in 'red' states and maybe even swing states that they can no longer get away with their double game of constantly voting liberal in Washington while portraying themselves as moderates at home".

I agree, although that same logic spells doom for Northeast Republicans like Chafee and Collins; although these two (and Snowe, ect) are pretty moderate, their seats will certainly become Democratic is the country continues its trend toward political polarization. And if you want to argue that this "double game" indirectly includes obstructionism, fine. It's a bit twisted and circuitous, but I'll buy that.

But to claim Daschle's defeat as a "repudiation of obstructionism", as some sort of overt signal, is simply post-election wishful thinking on the part of many conservative columnists and bloggers (who managed to drag along a few liberal-types).

Also, it's worth noting that Thune barely beat Daschle (by less than 6,000 votes).

Even if you want to call it a "repudiation of obstructionism", it's pretty tepid. Much like the Bush mandate.

The Liberal Media

One of the best liberal columnists since the election has been Nicholas Kristof of the NYT.

The day after the election, Kristof column nailed the culture divide between many liberals and middle America: "When I visited Idaho, people were still enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of Idaho over 25 bears."

Yesterday's column, Time to Get Religion, elaborates on this idea. While I doubt that the Democrats can win national elections on cultural issues, they must get to the point where these issues are no longer liabilities (while standing firm on certain principles, such as gay marriage). Of course, the Democrats must also focus on rethinking their domestic agenda and foreign policy.

From the Times:

If Democrats want to know how to win again, they have a model. It's the British Labor Party.

When I studied in England in the early 1980's, the British Labor Party seemed as quaint and eccentric as Oxford itself, where we wore gowns for exams and some dons addressed the rare female student as "sir." Labor was caught in its own echo chamber of militant unions and anti-American activists, and it so repulsed voters that it seemed it might wither away entirely.

Then Tony Blair and another M.P., Gordon Brown, dragged the party away from socialism, unions, nuclear disarmament and anti-Americanism. Together they created "New Labor," which aimed for the center and aggressively courted Middle Britain instead of trying to scare it. The result is that since 1997, Mr. Blair and Labor have utterly dominated Britain.

The Democrats need a similar rebranding. But the risk is that the party will blame others for its failures - or, worse, blame the American people for their stupidity (as London's Daily Mirror screamed in a Page 1 headline this week: "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?").

As moderates from the heartland, like Tom Daschle, are picked off by the Republicans, the party's image risks being defined even more by bicoastal, tree-hugging, gun-banning, French-speaking, Bordeau-sipping, Times-toting liberals, whose solution is to veer left and galvanize the base. But firing up the base means turning off swing voters. Gov. Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican, told me that each time Michael Moore spoke up for John Kerry, Mr. Kerry's support in Nebraska took a dive.

Mobilizing the base would mean nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 and losing yet again. (Mrs. Clinton has actually undertaken just the kind of makeover that I'm talking about: in the Senate, she's been cooperative, mellow and moderate, winning over upstate New Yorkers. She could do the same in the heartland ... if she had 50 years.)

So Democrats need to give a more prominent voice to Middle American, wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting centrists. (They can tote The Times, too, in a plain brown wrapper.) For a nominee who could lead the Democrats to victory, think of John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh, or anyone who knows the difference between straw and hay.

I wish that winning were just a matter of presentation. But it's not. It involves compromising on principles. Bill Clinton won his credibility in the heartland partly by going home to Little Rock during the 1992 campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally disabled convict named Ricky Ray Rector.

There was a moral ambiguity about Mr. Clinton's clambering to power over Mr. Rector's corpse. But unless Democrats compromise, they'll be proud and true and losers.

So what do the Democrats need to do? Here are four suggestions:

• Don't be afraid of religion. Offer government support for faith-based programs to aid the homeless, prisoners and AIDS victims. And argue theology with Republicans: there's much more biblical ammunition to support liberals than conservatives.

• Pick battles of substance, not symbolism. The battle over Georgia's Confederate flag cost Roy Barnes his governorship and perhaps Max Cleland his Senate seat, but didn't help one working mother or jobless worker. It was a gift to Republicans.

• Accept that today, gun control is a nonstarter. Instead of trying to curb guns, try to reduce gun deaths through better rules on licensing and storage, and on safety devices like trigger locks.

• Hold your nose and work with President Bush as much as you can because it's lethal to be portrayed as obstructionists. Sure, block another Clarence Thomas, but here's a rule of thumb: if an otherwise qualified Supreme Court nominee would turn the clock back 10 years, approve; back 25 years, vote no; back a half-century, filibuster.

"The first thing we have to do is shake the image of us as the obstructionist party," notes Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who manages to thrive as a Democrat in the red sea. He says Democrats must show a willingness to compromise, to get things done, to defer to local sensibilities. "We have to show the American people," he says, "that Democrats aren't going to take away your guns, aren't going to take away your flags."

Rethinking the Democratic Party will be wrenching. But just ask Tony Blair - it's not as wrenching as sliding into irrelevance.

Send the Dems to Alaska!

Sadly, Power Line is still wallowing in its semi-drunken election stupor. I have to admit, though, that this is pretty funny:

"The red counties add up to about 2,510,000 square miles. The blue counties take up about 511,700 square miles...Forget taking broadway, the fresh water, or Mt. St. Helens. We can just ship you all to Alaska."

A Jacksonian Flair in Today's Republican Party?

As I've suggested before, if ever a third party were to rise in the United States, it would most likely be a libertarian-type party (Note: Because we've previously discussed this on the old site, I won't elaborate here). James Pinkerton broaches that topic, however loosely, in today's TechCentralStation.

I must admit that I don't love (or even particularly like) Pinkerton's piece, but he raises (and then proceeds to ignore) some issues that have been floating around for a while. Hopefully, a better writer/analyst will continue the discussion.

Quite honestly, yours truly is not up to the task.

The True Significance of Gay Marriage?

David Brooks' much discussed NYT coloumn debunking the "gay marriage" election theory includes some valuable insights and accurately criticizes Democrats for blaming gay marriage (not that that exculpates Republicans for taking advantage of a morally murky issue). The truth, as I said originally, is that Bush won on terrorism and 9/11.

At the same time, to say that gay marriage didn't have a significant impact is absurd.

An Andrew Sullivan emailer (doesn't he always seem to have good emailers? His blog is worth reading for the reader emails alone) says, "Have to disagree with David Brooks and evidently you. To point out that the evangelicals voted in the same proportion for Bush as they did in 2000 gets a fact right and misses the point. What matters is that the Bush vote by these folks did not erode in the face of catastrophic management of post-invasion Iraq, prisoner atrocities, transformation of the surplus into a suffocating deficit and terrible job performance. It seems to me that their religious views trump everything. You switched your vote - why didn't they? The answer is complex, but you can bet it includes homophobia deftly catalyzed by Mr. Rove et. al."