Month: May 2005

Good News! Microsoft Does 180° Turn

by

Citing the importance of diversity in the workplace, Microsoft has reversed its decision to take a neutral stand on the anti-discrimination bill that failed by just one vote in Washington state and will now actively support it again. Microsoft’s  CEO Steve Ballmer explained: After looking at the question from all sides, I’ve concluded that diversity … Read more

The Secret Memo and What It Means

by

The secret memo was first published by The Times in London on Sunday. If the timing was designed to affect the British election it didn’t seem to stop the Labour Party from getting re-elected (although, their loses are widely predicted to mean Blair won’t serve out the full term as PM). But why it’s taken the US press so long to pick up the story is a mystery. Finally, though, it seems to be:

A highly classified British memo, leaked during Britain’s just-concluded election campaign, claims President Bush decided by summer 2002 to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The memo, in which British foreign-policy aide Matthew Rycroft summarized a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair with top security advisers, reports on a U.S. visit by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain’s MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was declaring to Americans that no decision had been made to go to war. While the memo makes observations about U.S. intentions toward Iraq, the document does not specify which Bush administration officials met with Dearlove.

The MI-6 chief’s account of his U.S. visit was paraphrased by the memo: "There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. … There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

I’ve argued forever it seems that what we know now indicates that Bush lied about several of his intentions leading up the invasion (including the repeated assertion that the decision to invade was only made after all alternatives had been exhausted). Perhaps that’s how wars are waged. Perhaps lies are an essential part of it. That doesn’t mean we can’t call a "lie" a "lie" however.

Read more

Quick Question

by

Someone spilled a martini into my laptop at the gallery last weekend. That person has "mysteriously" not been heard from since (just kidding, he’s still screaming where I tied him up behind the brick wall in the basement…just kidding). It was an accident, and the person was genuinely sorry. The shop said it can’t be … Read more

Busy Busy Busy: Open Thread

by

by hilzoy Sorry to have vanished for a few days; my students’ papers are due tomorrow, so in addition to the usual job, meetings, etc., I have been counseling people on how to improve their rough drafts. And then, on the one evening I had free, I decided to install Tiger on my computer. The … Read more

No Tree Left Behind

by

By Edward

In yet another demonstration of the environmental stewardship he championed on Earth Day, Bush today moved to open up to developers nearly 60 million acres of US forest that had been protected–34.3 million acres of pristine woodland in Alaska and Western states is due to be open to road building, logging and other commercial ventures, and they’re looking at ways to do the same to another 24.2 million acres.

Perhaps most disgusting about the change in rules is how the Administration that insists a 51% majority gives it a mandate and political capital to spend once again dismisses the concerns of multitudes of people who actually took action to voice opposition to their plans. From the Forest Service’s Summary of Public Comments and the Department’s Responses:

Volume of Public Comments and Support for the 2001 Roadless Rule: Many respondents discussed the volume of public comment received over the past 5 years in support of the 2001 roadless rule and that the proposed rule goes against the wishes of the American public.

Response: Every comment received is considered for its substance and contribution to informed decisionmaking, whether it is one comment repeated by tens of thousands of people or a comment submitted by only one person. The public comment process is not intended to serve as a scientifically valid survey process to determine public opinion. The emphasis in reviewing public comment is on the content of the comment rather than on the number of times a comment was received. The comment analysis process is intended to identify unique substantive comments relative to the proposal to facilitate their consideration in the decisionmaking process. All comments are considered, including comments that support and that oppose the proposal. That people do not agree on how public lands should be managed is a historical, as well as modern dilemma faced by resource managers. However, public comment processes, while imperfect, do provide a vital avenue for engaging a wide array of the public in resource management processes and outcomes.

In other words one person who agreed with the heavily lumber-industry-sponsored administration is given as much consideration as untold numbers of Americans who disagreed with the administration.

Read more

“The Other Faith”

by

By Edward (Via Kos) Just yesterday I noted that despite the rising power of the Christian Right in the US, we’re not seeing anything that warrants the comparisons between these folks and the Taliban. I’ll stick with that, but I definitely need to qualify it. What we’re seeing in some quarters is actually much more … Read more

A Useful Way To Think About Torture

by

Tyler Cowen has an interesting thought experiment that is very useful in explaining why legalized torture is so bad.  He analyzes what you would do if you had information and were being tortured for it.  He posits that you want to give the information and you want to minimize the torture, so he tries to … Read more

I’m Crushing Your Heads

by

I’m sitting here in my recliner, kinda-sorta watching a bad science fiction movie (certainly the protagonist has done better movies) and preparing to MUD.  Yes, I know, MUDs are outdated, crude, primitive, and, well, they just suck.  Deal with it.  I’m unwinding from spending a rather lengthy and only halfway successful stint in the attic, … Read more

Israeli British Politics Open Thread

by

UPDATE: rilkefan is temporarily unable to comply with the request below, and as Britain is poised to render its judgment on Tony Blair’s Labour government, I thought it better to change countries. Ahh, what the hay…Open thread for whatever ails ya. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A while back, constant reader rilkefan and I disagreed passionately about a move … Read more

God and State

by

by Edward

Former NYTimes reporter and self-declared "born again" Christian John McCandlish Phillips offers a well-considered rebuke to the columnists in the Washington Post and New York Times who lately have been insisting the US is on the verge of becoming a theocracy. I’ve never quite been comfortable with terms like "the American Taliban" or any of its variations because, as McCandlish Phillips notes:

If [NYTimes columnist Frank] Rich were to have the misfortune to live for one week in a genuine jihad, and the unlikely fortune to survive it, he would temper his categorization of the perceived President Bush-driven jihad by a minimum of 77 percent.

In fact, I actually believe the Bushes are nowhere near as puritanical as they’re often depicted. Laura Bush’s now infamous performance at White House Correspondents’ Association dinner suggests they’re as down to earth in terms of attitudes toward sex and lifestyle as your average American. And although I think Bush the politician is fully willing to exploit the perception among the extreme right that he’s one of them, Bush the person—the former Yalie cheerleader who enjoyed partying and a good laugh—probably isn’t consumed by how to convince school teachers to never mention "evolution" in their biology lessons.

Of course, there’s no doubt that the Christian right is seeing an accession in power, and some of the evidence of their willingness to use it (blackmailing science museums to not show certain movies, pressuring textbook publishers to promote their point of view, the beyond-silly cheerleader law now being considered in Texas) should not be ignored, because let’s face it, it’s their version of "the Truth" they’re fighting for, not a universal one.

And this is where I feel, despite some good points, McCandlish Phillips is either confused or trying to pull a fast one. He notes:

Read more

Nuclear Power

by

by Edward

Back in his State of the Union address in 2002, President Bush implied that the US could not tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of "axis of evil" nations like Korea, Iran, and Iraq. We could not wait for them to get them, we could not stand by as they developed them:

We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side.  I will not wait on events, while dangers gather.  I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.  The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.

So where do we stand three years later?

Read more

Political Art

by

by Edward

Generally, I find most overtly political art too obvious and the motives of those making it far too suspect. Literally within two weeks of 9/11, we received proposals in the gallery for exhibitions dealing with the attacks. As the months went on, the proposals increased. I recall at the time thinking, I’m not even sure I know how I feel about any of this, I can’t imagine any artist could have taken the time to sort out how they feel and then processed that through a rigorous process. Obviously it’s silly to put a time frame on it, but I did have a sense that an artist would need longer to deal seriously with what they felt about 9/11. At least longer than two weeks.

Even by the time Eric Fischl’s controversial sculpture "Tumbling Woman" was removed from the Rockefeller Center’s Lower Concourse (well over a year after the attacks), it was apparent that even if artists knew how they felt about the attacks, the public was not yet ready to deal with it.

But that raises the question of whether an artist should wait until the public is ready to deal with the content of what they feel compelled to make. Perhaps the best political art forces people to realize what’s happening in hopes of changing it before it’s too late. But that doesn’t seem to be the case here, where nothing was going to change what happened on 9/11, and images of burning towers and such simply struck me as exploitative and/or crass.

That’s perhaps why I’m suspect of the artwork coming out of Iraq, where what I’d normally consider rather minor artists (in terms of the world stage) are making headlines with images that reference the abuses at Abu Ghraib:

The subjects in each of Nasir Thamer’s works are trapped behind bars, real or painted. Since the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the trauma of the occupation has seeped even into Iraq’s artistic production.

"I used to paint scenes of traditional Iraqi life, Arab doors, mosques and letters from the Koran," says the 47-year-old artist. "This is a radical change for me but you just can’t escape reality."

One of his paintings depicts an Iraqi child running away from a US Apache combat helicopter towards his mother. The corner of the canvas where the woman was painted is ripped out, revealing black bars in the structure of the frame.

Read more

Yet Another Bolton Post

by

From the notoriously left-wing US News and World Report (via War and Piece): “As the Senate inquiry into President Bush’s U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton rages on, new tales are surfacing about his aggressive management style. Senate staffers are now said to be looking into how Bolton, as under secretary of state for arms control, … Read more

Stop It.

by

by hilzoy

This judge-bashing stuff has gone too far. From the NY Daily News, via Atrios:

“Federal judges are a more serious threat to America than Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Rev. Pat Robertson claimed yesterday.

“Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,” Robertson said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

“I think we have controlled Al Qaeda,” the 700 Club host said, but warned of “erosion at home” and said judges were creating a “tyranny of oligarchy.”

Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years – worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War – Robertson didn’t back down.

“Yes, I really believe that,” he said. “I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together.” “

And, a few weeks ago, from Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council:

“The court has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, and it poses a greater threat to representative government — more than anything, more than budget deficits, more than terrorist groups.”

Just to state the obvious: we haven’t controlled al Qaeda; judges are not more of a threat than al Qaeda is, and they are certainly not the greatest threat we have faced in our history. But there’s a larger point, which I’ve been wanting to make for some time, and may as well make now.

Read more

Wouldn’t it be nice ….

by

by von

… if President Bush nominated Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit (aka "The Easy Rider," aka the "#1 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary," aka "the high-flying conservative of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals") to the Supreme Court?  Smart, sincere, intellectually honest, decidedly non-theocratic — obviously, pretty much everyone would have some sort of beef with him.  Which would be a kinda cool thing.

By the bye, I agree with Professor InstaPundit:  if Democrats really wanted to mess things up, they’d start floating names of conservative jurists who they’d pinky swear to down like Maker’s Mark at Delilah’s on punk rock Monday.  Folks with unimpeachable credentials and a moderate/independent streak.  Kozinski would have to be at the top of that list; so would Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit (though he’s getting a little long in the tooth).

Indeed, if I may offer some unsolicited (and perhaps unwelcome) advice:  take a lesson from Ali.  When you’re fighting Big George Foreman, the correct response is rope-a-dope.

UPDATE:  Rilkefan and Bernard Yomtov argue — not unpersuasively — that I’m full of crap.  As Yomtov states (emphasis mine):

I suspect that also, and that [a] sub rosa list [of acceptable conservative canidates] has been provided to Bush sotto voce. I also think, in contrast to von, that Bush is more likely to name someone from the list if it is not publicized. If it were public he would be seen as caving in to the Democrats. This way he can make a show of moderation, if he wants to, without looking weak.

Read more

Let Me Tell You What’s NOT Going to Happen

by

The men in my family of my father’s generation returned home after serving their country and got jobs in the local steel mills, as had their fathers and their grandfathers. In exchange for their brawn, sweat, and expertise, the steel mills promised these men certain benefits. In exchange for Social Security taxes withheld from their … Read more

What Do Women Want?

by

by hilzoy In the case of women who live with men (unlike me, she said, pouting), this: “A Spanish designer has come up with what could be the perfect solution for the woman who feels frustrated that she has to do all the house chores. It is a washing machine called “Your Turn”, which will … Read more

For The Historical Record

by

by hilzoy From the Independent (UK), news of a leaked British government memo: “A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute … Read more

Too Cute

by

David Brooks says he has a scoop:

Last week, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid, made an offer to head off a nuclear exchange over judicial nominations. Reid offered to allow votes on a few of the judges stuck in limbo if the Republicans would withdraw a few of the others.

But there was another part of the offer that hasn’t been publicized. I’ve been reliably informed that Reid also vowed to prevent a filibuster on the next Supreme Court nominee. Reid said that if liberals tried to filibuster President Bush’s pick, he’d come up with five or six Democratic votes to help Republicans close off debate. In other words, barring a scandal or some other exceptional circumstance, Reid would enable Bush’s nominee to get a vote and probably be confirmed.

We’ll assume that Brooks’ report is accurate (there’s no reason not to.  Brooks (and Kevin Drum, who pointed me to this story) argue that Frist should’ve taken the deal:

… Frist should have grabbed Reid’s offer. He should have done it, first, because while the air is thick with confident predictions about what will happen if the nuclear trigger is pulled, nobody really knows. There is a very good chance that as the battle escalates, passions will surge, the tattered fabric of professionalism will dissolve, and public revulsion for both parties will explode.

….

Second, Frist should have grabbed this offer because it’s time for senators to re-establish the principle that they, not the outside interest groups, run the Senate. Right now, most senators want to avoid a meltdown. It’s the outside interest groups that are goading them into the fight.

Of course the groups want a fight. The activists get up every morning hoping to change the judiciary, dreaming of total victory. Of course they’re willing to sacrifice everything else for that cause. But senators are supposed to know that serving the interest groups is not the same as serving the people: it is serving a passionate but unrepresentative minority of the people. At some point, leaders are supposed to stand up to maximalists, even the ones they mostly agree with.

Finally, it’s time to rediscover the art of the backroom deal. … In this model, leaders of the two parties would get together – yes, often in secret – and make reasonable bargains. …

Drum, focusing on Brooks’ second point, adds:

I don’t often agree with Brooks these days, but I think he’s on target here. This is not a symmetrical situation — conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones — but it’s still a good thought for both sides. Making every fight into a game of nuclear chicken isn’t the right way to run a country.

I agree with Brooks quite a bit more frequently than Drum, and I generally agree with Brooks here.  But I think Drum is deluding himself if he thinks that "conservative activist groups are way farther off the deep end these days than liberal ones"; both are pretty damn off.  What conservative activists have (and liberal activists lack) is a majority of sympathetic representatives in the current Congress.

A couple further thoughts, however:

First, the timing of this "leak" is suspicious — and undoubtably strategic.  The Democrats must recognize that they lost the momentum on the issue with they rejected Frist’s deal, and they’re trying to get it back. 

Second, it seems clear that Frist couldn’t take a "secret" deal on judges for the same reason that Reid wanted the deal to be "secret":  If knowledge of the deal remained secret,* it’d look like Frist was outmaneuvered by the Democrats (again). Frist’s base would blow up.  (Indeed, there have already been calls to dump Frist as majority leader.)

By making public Reid’s "secret" proposal, however, the groundwork might be laid for a real deal that ends this so-called "crisis."  A public deal that guarantees an up-or-down vote on Bush’s next Supreme Court nominee is a deal worth taking.  Frist should risk trusting Reid — not only because it could lead to progress on judges, but because that’s what statesmen do.  If Reid reneges, there will be plenty of time for revenge.   

UPDATE:  Don Singleton, commenting on Reid’s offer, seems to relish the possibility of a showdown on Judges.  I think he doesn’t realize how fundamentally risky such a showdown is for both sides.  You just cannot predict the electorate’s behavior on an issue like this, and the views of each party’s "hard core" are likely to be out of step with the views of the center.  Singleton shouldn’t be so sure that this debate will play out in (on this issue, "our"**) side’s favor.  (See the Schiavo mess, for starters.)

Again, this battle is really for the Supreme Court — not for ten judges.  A deal that gets an up or down vote on Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is a deal that’s worth taking.  If Reid can bring his side to the table on this deal even after it’s public, Frist should take it.  Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Read more

To My Government: Please Stop.

by

by hilzoy

From the New York Times:

“Seven months before Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department issued a human rights report on Uzbekistan. It was a litany of horrors.

The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were “beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask.” Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. The February 2001 State Department report stated bluntly, “Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights.”

Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration turned to Uzbekistan as a partner in fighting global terrorism. The nation, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, granted the United States the use of a military base for fighting the Taliban across the border in Afghanistan. President Bush welcomed President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to the White House, and the United States has given Uzbekistan more than $500 million for border control and other security measures.

Now there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation, even as Uzbekistan’s treatment of its own prisoners continues to earn it admonishments from around the world, including from the State Department.”

More below the fold.

Read more