Huh? Fairness Doctrine vs. ABC "Infomercial"

Compare this and this. Which is it?

Does Iran = USSR?

Recently, a number of GOP leaders, most significantly Senator John McCain, have argued that Obama has been too quiet in his support of the Iranian protesters. A common meme is that Obama should speak out against the Iranian regime and for the protesters in the way that Ronald Reagan spoke out against the Soviets and for revolutionaries in Poland. [Note - McCain also credited Reagan with speaking out against the USSR and for the revolutionaries in Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring in 1968. Of course, Reagan was still early in his first term as California governor in 1968. Clearly the solution to the Iranian crisis is for Arnold Schwarzenegger to say something]. Do these people not understand the difference between foreign occupation and internal revolution? Oh wait. Well, anyway, in case it needs to be spelled for them: The Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe from without (regardless of what Gerald Ford said). The Iranians were originally not fighting for the ouster of a regime. They were originally fighting for a "fair" vote (to the extent a vote can be fair when hundreds of potential candidates cannot run because of an oligarchical decision). They only started yelling "Down with Khameni" after it became clear the regime was engaging in a coup. Obama then came out for the safety of the people, and a fair resolution, and against the regime's actions.

Pessimism on Iran

Well, I have no idea what's going on in Iran. But I don't think we should be optimistic, even if Mousavi eventually becomes President. Two reasons spring to mind. First, a recent poll put support for Iran's nuclear program at about 84% among Iranians. Second, while Mousavi might be (and who really knows) more of a "reformer" than Ahmadinjead, he was still allowed by the Mullahs to run for President - one of four. The Mullahs vetoed the right of many others to run. So, while I hope the Iranians get honest results from their limited republic, I don't expect too much of a quick change even if they do.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I have thought for years that a significant problem in the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing two very different issues. The Pro-Choice side argues that a woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit. That is a "bodily integrity," "free will" debate. The Anti-Abortion side argues that you can't kill an innocent life. To them, it is a debate about murder. Each side makes assumptions the other would never agree with.

A good example of this can be found at Bench Memos, a blog at National Review, where Matthew J. Franck responds to a young Medical student who explains her journey from anti-abortion to pro-choice. He wonders:

whether this future obstetrician has learned from her embryology textbooks that every fetus, every embryo, is a unique, distinct, self-directing, living member of the human species. Any rights that our young med student has by virtue purely of her humanity today, she had from the moment of her conception.

Franck assumes that it is self-evident that life begins at conception, and that an embryology textbook should obviously make that point. But not everyone agrees, and unless Franck sees that, and realizes the reasonableness of the disagreement, there will never be a solution. Similarly, if Pro-Choice advocates (which I am) don't understand that Franck's position regarding when life begins is also reasonable, we will never get anywhere. My suggestion? No clue at the moment. Just a thought.

Hello Again!

After a rousing response at Facebook, I have returned. Not quite as triumphant as MacArthur, but a blog ain't exactly the Phillipines. Any way, here goes:

Over at the Corner, their recent economic "expert," Veronique de Rugy posted on the plight of the Boston Globe. First she noted that the members of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the paper's union, had rejected the most recent contract 277-265, which puts the paper at risk. She then said:

What are these guys thinking? To me, this just goes to show the incredible stupidity of organized labor.

I'm at a loss how a Union voting against a contract shows anything about organized labor in general. Should the Guild members have voted to accept the contract? Perhaps. But a Union chose, in a democratic way, to reject a deal. Would de Rugy prefer that the Union leadership simply agree to the deal without input from the members - a power grab of the sort the conservatives like to accuse them of anyway? How elitist! But I guess that's what I should expect from a woman named Veronique de Rugy.

More GOP Contradiction

Dick Cheney has been running around saying that Obama's reversal of some Bush/Cheney anti-terrorism policies will lead to terrorist attacks. But at National Review, the party line is that Obama is trying to change the terminology of the "War on Terror" but keeping intact Bush/Cheney policies. So which is it? Is Obama keeping campaign promises that will cause us to die, or is Obama a liar who is going to keep us safe?

Uber-Competence In the Hudson

Thanks parlty to NY Governor David Paterson, people have started calling the landing and rescue of the US Airways jet yesterday a "miracle." This bugs me. The pilot and flight crew took heroic action to save the lives of the passengers. They deserve all the credit they are receiving. In fact, they deserve more. What I mean is that when we call their bravery and extreme ability a "miracle" we are taking some credit from them and giving it to God (or Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster). We do this a lot in this country. When a doctor takes heroic action to cure a cancer patient, some will call it a miracle. When a volunteer firefighter saves lives, some will call it a miracle. Not only does this take away from the accomplishments of the very human people who save lives, it also denigrates miracles. Parting the Red Sea is a miracle. If you choose a different religious tradition, bringing Lazarus back from the dead is a miracle. If God wanted a miraculous ending to the US Airways crisis yesterday, the plane would have floated down like a feather with no explanation. That would be a miracle. What we saw was not a miracle, but a spectacular act of expertise and steel nerves. Why isn't the amazing accomplisments of mere mortals enough for us.

No One Ever Said They Were Smart

Apparently, the leader of Hamas has said that any settlement with Israel is now impossible. I can not imagine a more idiotic thing to say at this point in time. Think about the current situation for Hamas. A much stronger force is decimating Hamas' infrastructure, and killing many of its fighters. Hamas, as is usual in its fights against Israel, is winning the PR battle. So what is the best result for Hamas? A settlement that is at least as good as the situation ex ante, with strong support from the international community. But now, if Hamas will not settle what is Israel to do? All it can do is to fight until Hamas is mortally wounded. And what of those Americans, like me, who is a supporter of Israel's existence, believes there is no moral equivalence between the ends sought by Israel and Hamas, but who supports some sort of negotiation because he is uncomfortable with Israeli tactics, to do? If both Hamas and Israel are saying ther will be no negotiation or settlement, it seems to me I am left rooting for Israel to fulfill its goal of using force to finish off Hamas. If you have to pick a side in a fight that both sides are determined will be a fight to be the death, you pick the one with the better moral position. Here, that is Israel.

Sports Break

So, Brett Favre is "leaning toward retirement." Remember last winter when Favre cried while announcing his retirement? And then he screwed with the Packers until finally deciding to return and expecting to be welcomed back with no repercussions. And then he demanded a trade to teams that played the Packers twice a year. And finally was traded to the Jets. Only to play poorly when it mattered most. I vote for the media entirely ignoring Favre's retirement "to be or not to be" schtick until a season goes by without him playing. Then someone can give him a car and a rocking chair at a half-time ceremony. Then he can go away again. For good. Please.

Explanation Please

Can someone, anyone, please tell me what the Hell is going on in Israel and Gaza? And why I should support or not support the Israeli invasion (incursion) into Gaza? And please, no "we haev to support Israel because of the special relationship between the US and Israel." And also, no "Israel is an aparthaid state." Look, Hamas was sending rockets into Israel, and you can be damn sure that any other country would go haywire if a neighboring country lobbed rockets onto its citizens indicriminately. But Israel seems to have an insatiable appetite for West Bank settlements. And why isn't Israel biting off its nose to spite its face by going into Gaza? I guarantee you that the world reaction will be overwhelmingly anti-Israel. More money will be funelled to Hamas, and any anti-Hamas sentiment in Gaza is officialy dead. Dammit, what is goign on? And what should a rational person do?

What's The Matter With Harry?

Harry Reid continues to say the Senate will not seat anybody appointed by Illinois Rod Blagojevich. But it is not that simple. But I'm not sure the Reid and Senate could refuse to seat Burris. The Consitution gives the Senate the sole power as "Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members." Because this is an appointment and not an election, the first two parts do not apply - only Qualifications. And the Adam Clayton Powell case of 1969 seems to kill that idea. There the Supreme court said that the "Qualifications" mentioned in the Constitution are ONLY those qualifications found in the Consitution, such as age, citizenry, residency, etc. I guess the new Senator could take the oath and then be expelled by a 2/3 vote. The problem with all this is that Burris does not appear to have any taint of corruption. What reason would anyone have to say Burriss should not sit absent proof of his own corrupt activities?

Some argue that "qualifications" can include a judgment of whether the appointment was legal and valid. But the examples in the LA Times article to which I link regard elections, for which the Constituion give final judgment to the Senate. The appointment of Burris is not an election.

Upon Request

Someone has asked that I write a post about her. So here are two of my daughter's favorite Youtube videos:



And here is video that tells her what I think of her:

Sometimes, They Blame the Victim

Andrew Sullivan links, with approval, to Rob Horning who says:

Shelter is something you consume; it’s not an investment. Bailing out homeowners is rewarding the people who treated housing as an investment and not a consumption good, a fulfillment of personal need. Preventing foreclosures is often a matter of rescuing people from their failure to properly assess risk, not from some unforeseen natural disaster. Let’s not pretend this is any different from bailing out imprudent or inept investment bankers.

Andrew agrees, saying:

Every time the government protects someone or some company from the consequences of their own economic profligacy, the chances of future profligacy increase. It's vital that the government let the Big Three automakers go down, and vital that only minimal help be given for those so greedy or so stupid that they took on loans they had no way to pay off.

In an e-mail to Andrew, I heartily disagreed:

Andrew,

I am sick of you and some of your readers lumping all those who cannot
pay their mortgages together. And I find it disturbing you suggest
they are stupid or greedy. Some people went to a mortgage broker (who
is supposedly an expert) and asked "How much can I afford?" The
mortgage broker, instead of abiding by any ethical or moral standard,
gave an unrealistic answer. The buyer believed the "expert" and is
now screwed. In a society increasingly complex financially, it should
be no surprise some people must rely on "experts" to advide them.
When you take your car to a mechanic, is it your fault if the mechanic
gives horrendous advice regarding the inner workigns of your car?
When you go to the doctor, is it your fault if he tells you you need a
chemotherapy when all you really needed was radiation therapy? I
admit that there a many people who tried to make a buck and are now
paying the piper. And I admit that it might be hard, even impossible,
to tell your greedy idiot from my reliant tyro. But I would expect
you to admit the existence of the latter, and perhaps suggest a
solution for them. Would you support lawsuits against incompetent
mortgage brokers for negligence? Or would you consider that another
example of our overly litigious society?

As for the big three, I would ask that you offer a solution for the
possibly milliions of innocent workers who were not the incompetent
managers and officers before you blithely say the government must let
them "go down." Your macroeconomic theories are cold comfort to those
living in their microeconomic worlds. Some say a tough-on-crime
conservative is a former soft-on-crime liberal who has been mugged.
Some might say a big-government liberal is a former small-government
conservative who has a hard time paying the bills. The change is
often the result of an action over which the individual most adversely
affected had no control. You and I, Andrew, can currently pay our
bills. Will you be so cavalier if, through no fault of your own, you
suddenly cannot?

How the Attorney General of Illinois Lost My Vote

Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of Illinois has filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with the Supreme Court of Illinois asking the Court to enjoin Governor Blagojevich "from acting as Governor of Illinois." In her brief, she is relying on the portion of the Illinois Constitution which holds that the Governor shall be replaced by a successor if he "is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability." Her entire case is based on her interpretation of the words "other disability." She claims, and I agree, that it is not limited to mental or physical disability. However, her argument is fundamentally flawed in that it applies to a Governor who is simply impaired in his ability to serve, no unable. Her brief even cites the dictionary definition of "to disable" as "to make unable, unfit, or disqualified." The examples listed in the Illinois Constitution clearly relate to cases where a Governor is literally unable to perform his duties. He is dead, or impeached, or has resigned, or is ineligible to serve. In none of these examples is the Governor simply "impaired" in his ability to serve.

Think of the result if Madigan's interpretation was found to be correct. Then, an accusation of corruption by anyone, or perhaps any accusation of unlawful acts, could lead to the overthrow of a Governor. If the Illinois Constitution wanted one branch of Government (the judiciary) to have such power over another (the Executive), it would be in the Constitution, as impeachment (the power of the legislative branch to have ultimate power over the executive) is.

What angers me is that Madigan must know she will lose. No Judge worth his or her salt is going to vote to remove a Governor based on an allegation, while the Governor is actually still able to fulfill his Constitutional duties. Blagojevich can still make nominations, sign laws, etc. A vast majority of the people might find it in bad taste that he continues to do these things, but that is what elections (and recall elections - if allowed by law) are for. If the legislature does not like an appointment (and if it has approval authority) it can reject it. If it does not like a Veto by the Governor, it can override it.

So Madigan has filed a very significant case she knows is without merit. Why? Politics. And that, while not as bad as Blagojevich's alleged actions, is an abuse of power.

Gay Marriage

There is some talk over at The Atlantic about gay marriage and Mike Huckabee's appearance on Comedy Central. What no one talked about, and what pisses me off the most about the Right Wing opposition to gay marriage is the utter inconsistency with Right Wing arguments made in the 1980s about the perceived rampant sexual promiscuousness of gays. Now, when gays are saying they want the legal and social sexual limitations inherent in a marriage license, the Right Wing is saying no. So according to the Right, gays are too promiscuous, but when they want to put legal restrictions on the number of permissible sexual partners, they are trying to destroy our society. I say to the Right Wing - pick a side, dammit.