In The Meantime...

2002-11-06T18:41:00.000-08:00

A Silver Lining? It's hard to find one, looking at the election last night. All the bellwether Senate races, from New Hampshire to North Carolina and even Minnesota, swung decidedly in the GOP's direction. And the one seat the Democrats managed to pick up came to them solely because of an incumbent's marital infidelities. So the important question is, where do the Dems go from here?

Firstly, they need new leadership. Gephardt is already taking himself out of the minority leader's position, as he will attempt another feeble presidential run (no shot whatsoever). But Daschle needs to go too, as does the head of the DNC, Terry McAuliffe. They simply did not set an agenda that warranted anyone besides the most loyal party voter to choose the Democratics. This loss is not just an embarrassment because it occurred in the other party's presidential midterms, but because it showed the Democrats running without any ideas. The Republicans, in '94, had the Contract With America. This year, they had the "security" platform - "judicial security" by confirming federal judges, the homeland security department, "economic security" by making tax cuts permanent and unwavering support for war in Iraq. The Democrats resisted confirming even mildly conservative judges, warranted blame for the Homeland Security Department by getting hung up on union membership, stated a contradiction whereby the tax cuts were a bad idea but not worth repealing, and had a multitude of opinions on Iraq that were anything but unified.

It looks as if Nancy Pelosi or Mark Frost will be the new House Minority Leader. Either would do fine I guess, so long as they are a fresh face. In the Senate, I'd like to see Evan Bayh take the position, if possible, but if Daschle ever left, Harry Reid, the second in command, would likely warrant a lot of consideration. As for DNC Chair, which will almost certainly be vacated soon - it'd probably never happen, but Bill Clinton would be perfect for the job.

Next issue - the Democrats are all over TV and the newspapers today blaming the election results on the president's popularity. If they actually believe that, then the party is in worse shape than most think. Hopefully, in the meetings surely to take place over the next few days, when the bickering subsides a sober reality of having run a campaign without a platform will take the blame for this disaster. It was not the Republicans fault that the Dems lost - most Americans disagree with much of what they are proposing. And yet, by characterizing in retrospect the election as they have, the Dems have basically given the GOP a mandate for their agenda.

Finally, where does this leave us for 2004? On this front, all is not bad. If the economy doesn't perk up despite certain further tax cuts, or if any facet of the war goes terribly wrong, every single corpuscle of blame falls straight on the head of the man who said he needed a Republican Congress to basically save the country - George W. Bush. As for potential nominees, I think we can safely put an X through Daschle and Gephardt, no matter how much the latter wants it. They ran a campaign of nothing, and got just that in return. The election is a wash for Al Gore, who on the one hand is vindicated by having put forth an opposition and alternate vision for the country weeks ago, but on the other hand is hurt by having all the candidates for whom he stumped lose. Things look down for John Kerry, too, as outgoing Senator Max Cleland - the Vietnam veteran and triple amputee - proved that just about anyone can be made out to be Unamerican, even a war hero. Also, demographics seem to dictate that the Dems should pick a southerner - Kerry, of course, is from Massachusetts. Since geography is key, John Edwards' (of North Carolina) hopes seem to go up, but even he doesn't leave the night unscathed - Republican Elizabeth Dole picked up the soon-opening junior Senator seat in his state, against Erskine Bowles.

Maybe Election Night 2002 was a good night for Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the only unabashed Bush-hater amongst the wanabees with nothing riding on who won or lost. If only anyone knew who he was.

2002-11-02T20:55:00.000-08:00

What Happens Tuesday: As seemingly every politician spends this weekend feverishly campaigning for any other politician on the ballot from their party, it becomes impossible to predict the shape of Congress and the Governor's mansions come Wednesday. The Washington Post tries to simplify as much as possible the House and Senate pickups each party would need to maintain total Congressional control, but even this attempt seems unsatisfactory - it mentions not once the importance of voter turnout.

The ability to mobilize base voters is what will push this election one way the other. While the Democrats, with labor support, seem to have this advantage every election cycle, the GOP has spent millions on new strategies to rally their voters. Moreover, appealing to certain constituencies can indirectly facilitate a number of upsets. Case in point - Democrat Ron Kirk is expected to fall short to Republican John Cornyn in the race for Phil Gramm's Texas Senate seat. In addition, Democrat Tony Sanchez is almost certainly not going to win in the governor's race (though not by much) against Bush's successor, Rick Perry. But here's where the Democrats can benefit - Sanchez is likely to mobilize a extensive Latino turnout on election day, who in a majority of circumstances vote for the Democratic slate. It is these voters who do not show up in polls for the Senate, because they are not yet considered likely voters (indeed they're not - most will be convinced to vote this weekend, Monday and Tuesday). So, if Kirk can grab a signficant amount of the Sanchez Latino coattails, he might just have a fighting chance.

The Post article tends to lean on the position that Tuesday will bring no change at all - the Democrats will keep their minute control of the Senate, and the GOP seems poised to hang on to the House. For what it's worth, I think that seems about right. Perhaps the sweetest outcome in a contested race this year would beFlorida, where Jeb Bush is struggling to hold off Bill McBride at the last minute. Yet, with Bill Clinton, Al Gore and George W. Bush all converging there this weekend in a last chance effort to get out their party's vote, I think I can safely predict chaos there again on Tuesday, as Florida can once again prove how little it has done to fix the litany of problems that spoiled the 2000 election.

2002-10-28T20:10:00.000-08:00

Morbid Coincidences: "...As Minnesota mourns the death of Senator Paul Wellstone, many of the state's residents have been receiving fliers bearing a picture of a tombstone. The fliers, sent out by a conservative business group, denounce the late senator's support for maintaining the estate tax. Under the tombstone, the text reads in part: 'Paul Wellstone not only wants to tax you and your business to death . . . he wants to tax you in the hereafter.' " As the column notes, the group sending it out obviously had no clue of future events. Kinda spooky though.

2002-10-27T20:18:00.000-08:00

The Way Bush Does/Did Business: In the first few months of the Bush Administration, when that whole landmass called Eurasia didn't matter so much, the official foreign policy of George W. Bush consisted of one country - Mexico. It was a natural for Bush, a Texan and newbie to international relations, to cling to our closest neighbor not resembling the 51st state. This relationship culminated in the September 2, 2001 Official State Dinner for President Vicente Fox, which Fox called "a family affair." The dinner exemplified the course that the president had set out for his international relations - a series of personal relationships, some which prosper (Putin, Blair) and which don't (Chirac, Schroeder), but all of which play a huge stake in our nation's policies towards the rest of the world.

Low and behold, our pal Vicente won't be following us into unilateral action against Iraq. As a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, Mexico has a large say in what final resolution against Iraq will be passed. Once considered an "easy vote" by administration officials, Mexico has now says it favors the competing resolution being offered by France, which gives the US less latitude to act without further defiance by Iraq. This episode should be a message to the president that his two ways of gathering international support for his actions - by developing a personal relationship with the leader or by bullying them into giving at least tacit approval - simply isn't going to work within the framework of the UN. By choosing his course to pass through the UN (an obvious one, at least to most people not named Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle or Wolfowitz) Bush has, whether he knows it or not, tied himself into following internationally accepted rules of proceeding with his case for war. Spurning the rest of the world now is a decidedly dumb idea, so unless the president can charm national leaders in Syria and China into following his lead, it looks as though the most powerful country in the world will be one-upped by France, of all places. Weird.

2002-10-27T16:48:00.000-08:00

Back Again: Now that two months of neglected work have been successfully compacted into a two week study/read/write-athon, I'm back once more. For good this time.

2002-10-09T18:20:00.000-07:00

Too much stuff this week. Be back next week.

2002-10-03T18:03:00.000-07:00

A New Vision: So, the president gave an astonishing presentation of his vision for the future of global integration. No, not that president. In an hour address to the British Labour Party Conference, President Clinton shows why he got elected eight years too early. What he spoke about yesterday was a more lucid, optimistic vision of the world than anything the current White House occupant could muster forth on his best day. The reviews in Britain's Guardian and Mirror were gushing, leading the latter to state:

It was a magnificent speech from a man who is rapidly becoming the greatest figure in world politics, second only, perhaps, to Nelson Mandela.

And, while I'm kind of ashamed to have caught this on C-SPAN at 3am when I couldn't sleep, it's probably the best speech Clinton has given since he left office.

2002-10-02T15:53:00.000-07:00

Told Ya So: Well, this is not a surprise. Ruling unanimously, the NJ Supreme Court allowed the Torricelli to Lautenberg ballot switch. Read the ruling on their website - it's pretty short. I'll comment on this more when I get back from class.

2002-10-01T22:40:00.000-07:00

Florida Redux: Well, this comparison was bound to come up at some point. Besides, all of south Florida are retirees from New Jersey anyway. Regardless, the article gives a great overview of both the Republican and Democratic legal arguments and strategies, and contains this little gem:

Wouldn't it be something if the judicial branch were to determine in the span of less than 23 months the balance of power in both the executive and legislative branches? And wouldn't it be something even more if both rulings were in favor of one party?

The quote refers to the US Supreme Court, of course, where the author figures the issue is headed. While I'm not positive it will go beyond the State Supreme Court, the highest court in the land would be under tremendous pressure, given the 2000 debacle, to make an non-politcal decision if they take up the case. But let's see what the NJ justices have to say first.

2002-10-01T19:20:00.000-07:00

The Legal Issues: There's some great discussion on the legal issues that the NJ Supreme Court, as well as Gov. McGreevey face in upcoming weeks on the web. So checkout this article, then this blog post, then this one, and, finally, this one. Frankly I don't think some of the NJ statutes they were citing, or the 17th Amendment for that matter, will come into play, because I'm not expecting the court tomorrow to rule against having a full and fair election, which is still possible. Many legal experts seem to agree with this notion:

Under New Jersey law, a party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 51 days before the election. Torricelli missed the deadline by 15 days.

However, Democrats say decades of state court decisions put voters' rights above filing deadlines and other technical guidelines.

Attorney General David Samson argued in papers filed with the court Tuesday that the justices have the power to relax the deadline to withdraw and allow Democrats to post another candidate. Samson, who was appointed to his job by McGreevey, said election laws have long been interpreted liberally to allow voters every opportunity.

Legal experts agreed.

"In a substantial number of those cases, the courts have ruled on the side of being inclusive," said Richard Perr, an election law professor at Rutgers University Law School.

For the record, if Lautenberg is placed on the ballot, I can't see the Republicans crying over the partisanship of the State Supreme Court - six of the seven were chosen by former Gov. Christine Whitman, a Republican, and only one by McGreevey.

2002-10-01T18:32:00.000-07:00

What A Mess: I wonder if my absentee ballot was already printed, because it's going to have to be changed. I'm not sure I agree with Torricelli's timing here. If he wanted to quit, he should have done it three weeks ago so all this legal rambling wouldn't have to go on. But in the end, this is probably for the best, because I was getting the feeling (apparently so was he) that Forrester would have pulled out the win on election day.

As for Torricelli's potential replacements, it appears Frank Lautenberg has been selected for another run at the senate. A former senator, it seems he is probably the best choice of those available, because with only five weeks before election day the Democrats need name recognition. That being said, the ideal pick was former Sen. Bill Bradley, who not only is beloved in New Jersey but is the ethical antithesis of Bob Torricellli. Sadly, it seems Bradley didn't even return the phone calls of Tom Daschle, so we can count him out.

Then there's the coming court battle tomorrow. I don't see the Democratic majority of NJ State Supremes denying an actual election between two qualified candidates. The basic issue of allowing democracy to happen is one that the justices would be hard pressed to supress. On a more practical level, the New Jersey voters simply don't want a Republican senator - they were never going to vote FOR Doug Forrester, but rather AGAINST Bob Torricelli. New Jersey hasn't elected a Republican senator in thirty years, and given an opportunity, probably won't do so now.

2002-09-27T15:50:00.000-07:00

Real News: So, the Dow dropped 296 points today, plummeting an additional 3.7 percent. It's off 11.2 percent this month. Does anyone care? Not really - the press is far more interested in the Iraq debate, the Democrats' stalling, and Barbra Streisand's little pep talk to the party. Why anyone cares what she has to say, much less why it's newsworthy, is something beyond my mental grasp. One can only hope someone wakes up and realizes that the economy is still in the crapper, war or no war. With any luck, the president's and Republicans' ignorance will come back to haunt them in November.

2002-09-26T22:11:00.000-07:00

The Speech: After scouring the Web, I found exactly one thoughtful review of Al Gore's speech from last Monday. Joe Klein, over on Slate, succeeds in cutting to the core of all the Gore-bashing this week. Basically, when the ex-Vice President said, a few months ago, that he planned to "let the chips fall where they may," and ignore what was politically convinient, he meant it. Now, for many journalists, any time Gore speaks is an ample opportunity to attack him again. As Klein puts it:

The default position on Al Gore appears to be ridicule. He opens his mouth and is immediately assumed cynical, tactical, self-serving, self-pitying, awkward, embarrassing, unintentionally hilarious, or all of the above. Much of this comes from Republicans, who seem afflicted by near-psychotic rhetorical twitching whenever the man who won the popular vote in the year 2000 makes a public appearance.

Thus, there hadn't been any solid deconstructions of the true implications of Gore's speech until now. Yet perhaps, more important than anything the absent-minded punditry suggests, Klein argues that Gore's speech did this:

But raising an important issue for tactical effect is quite different from ignoring an issue for tactical convenience. Gore performed an essential public service. He nudged a necessary debate. And he raised a crucial distinction: A war against Iraq and the war on terrorism are not identical.

President Bush has been lauded by most political experts for how he has controlled the topic of our national discourse recently. Quite frankly, while it is his responsibility to do such a thing, the media was right to admire how, in the course of days, the American public seemingly forgot corporate scandals, the diseased stock market, and other "kitchen table" issues. But, though Bush is certainly allowed to focus on the most important matters of national security, other are similarly permitted to refine the debate and ask questions. Perhaps Gore's speech will serve best as a wake-up call to Democrats who would sooner change the subject than vote on a war resolution. Yes, the proximity of the debate to the elections is obviously a political tactic of the White House, and it is unfounded and unfair to suggest that a failure to fall in line behind the president's war plans is unpatriotic. Regardless though, this is a debate we need to have, and it's happening now.

The New Republic acts boldly, calling out the Democrats for their failure to take a stance on "perhaps the most important foreign policy debate in a generation." Hopefully for their sake, those in the party will be goaded by Gore's criticisms into actually conveying what they believe to their constituents, and not have a single-minded focus on the election. Hard as it is to say, some things are more important the politics.

2002-09-26T19:43:00.000-07:00

Ok, I Lied: Well, I'm back. Again. I've been really lazy the past few weeks, so my whole "return when school starts" idea became unrealistical and laughable. However, I paid for the ad above the page to go away in, like July, and FINALLY the damn Blogspot people actually did it, so I feel that I need to make that $12 worth it. So, long story short, I'm going to give writing every day another chance. For real. I promise

2002-09-14T18:27:00.000-07:00

I'm Back: Well, it only took five weeks to come back from a one-week vacation I took in August, but I'll be posting again with regularity starting this week. Stay tuned.

2002-08-09T12:55:00.000-07:00

A Mea Culpa: Joe Eszterhas, screenwriter for Basic Instinct (among other, less well received pictures) and throat cancer survivor, has come out with an impassioned plea against glamorizing smoking in movies. When he notes that placing cigarrettes on the silver screen may eventually cause the deaths of millions of moviegoers, you can infer a more powerful (and more persuasive) point - that while conservatives (and Lieberman) decry the violence and sex in movies today, that little cylindrical accessory, manufactured by corporations donating millions to GOP campaigns, is a helluva lot more influential on impressionable kids than any gun or prostitute could ever be.

2002-08-09T08:47:00.000-07:00

Finally: After years of my complaining, the New Jersey DMV is actually going to issue digitized licenses to replace the relics they've had in place for the past few centuries. Apparently the two 9/11 hijackers with fake NJ licenses expediated the decision-making process a bit. Nonetheless, a welcome bit of news.

2002-08-07T11:36:00.000-07:00

The Dems' Surprise: As I worry that my beloved New Jersey may in fact elect a Republican Senator (I still have hope in Torricelli - besides, Forrester's just a loser), The New Yorker reminds me of a race that may turn out surprising for the country and infinitely damaging to George W. Bush. Texas, who since LBJ has since erased the words "Democrat," "liberal" and even "moderate" from its vernacular, may be preparing to send an African-American lifelong Democrat to the Senate. What universe am I living in?

Ron Kirk, the black, pro-business, deal-making former Dallas mayor is currently polling even or ahead with John Cornyn, his cookie-cutter conservative Texan opponent. With national star power warrating Clinton-hosted fundraisers, Kirk is running on the consensus-building aura mastered by LBJ and mimicked by Bush. Whether Kirk can win is another story. Certainly, it is counter-intuitive to believe that he should even be competitive in the race. Should he pull off the upset, though, and prove to be the decisive majority-maker in the Senate, the president will have been dealt an unbelievable political blow to his agenda as well as his ego. This is one to watch.

2002-08-07T08:07:00.000-07:00

New Discoveries: A recent argument by creationists suggests that God intentionally produced fossils of prehistoric hominids to lure and confuse the nonbelievers. Apparently God is doing an exceptional job at getting the poor befuddled paleontologists to throw up their hands in the air. Regardless, if last month's discoveries of two new hominid fossils don't confuse you as much as they do the scientists, you may yet have a career in evolutionary science.

2002-08-06T13:09:00.000-07:00

One Year Later: August 9th marks one year from President Bush's "decision" to allow a crippled federal stem-cell research program. Two thoughts come to mind - first, did Bush really need to spend three months struggling to find the least harmful political decision, while he was getting vague CIA warnings of al Qaeda terrorist plans? And second, exactly how many scientific doors did Bush open by allowing the limited research?

The answers are: no, and not many. For a decision that was hailed as "thoughtful" by many, it certainly seems to have plunged American scientists years behind their British, Australian, and even Israeli colleagues. Interesting, that all-out war with the Palestinians has less of a retarding impact on embyronic stem cell research than the Bush Compromise.

2002-08-06T09:06:00.000-07:00

A Better Idea: The Port Authority of NY & NJ and New York City are currently negotiating a land swap deal to give the City control of the World Trade Center site. The PA would then get ownership of both JFK and LaGuardia airports. On several levels, this seems like a good idea.

Firstly, it wipes out the need to rebuild all that commercial space. While there are those of us (present company included) that would like to see the towers rebuilt completely, public opinion is not fervently in that direction. There would also be some justified trepidation as to working in the new towers' upper levels. As it is, many of the victims' families do not want any commercial space put in at all. While a commercial-free site is not cost feasible for the Port Authority, the City of New York, with federal funds funneled through the state, could plan a more serene memorial to the victims.

For the Port Authority, it gives them the control of two airports it has sought for a long time, by removing from their neck the noose applied by many City mayors. Moreover, they have no real use for the WTC site as related to their fundamental purpose, so the land swap works for them doubly.

The one downside to the announcement of the land swap negotiations is the realization that this memorial is not going to be built any time in the near future. Once these talks have ceased, with or without a deal, the planners, as per public mandate will go back to the drawing board with rebuilding plans. Hopefully, when a tasteful and permanent solution has been found, the funding and construction can be fast-tracked past the bureaucracy and financial quagmires that seem not only forseeable, but inevitable.

2002-08-02T13:17:00.000-07:00

A Heartening Trend: Strengthening its bid to enter the EU, Turkey's parliament has voted to abolish the death penalty.

While it was thought that last month's Supreme Court decisions and the recent state moratoriums might have renewed debate on capital punishment, little has been brought up of late. But let's see...Disregarding all moral arguments against the death penalty (which produce nothing but pointless platitudes from both sides), the rest of the world is quickly rendering capital punishment archaic. Just take a look at this list of countries still retaining the death penalty, and contrast it with the 62 countries that abolished it since 1976. It sure seems as though the US, the world's most developed country, is on the wrong list. Just looking at this list makes me want to drop the Medieval-era sentencing to gain a little national self-respect.

2002-08-02T09:49:00.000-07:00

In Shocking News: Last night, half asleep yet in full control of the remote, I flipped to C-SPAN, which was airing the White House photo-op from earlier in the day. I awoke in a jolt as I realized something: Abdullah II, King of Jordan, speaks English more fluently than President Bush. And not just by a little bit. Check it out for yourself - it's embarrasing. For the first time in a while, I'm ashamed to be an American.

2002-08-01T12:25:00.000-07:00

Useful Knowledge: With the economy as sickly and unpredictable as a two dollar hooker, the ignoramus in me was pleasantly surprised to come upon an article on the markets I could understand. Check it out to learn the vastly understated importance of the Standard & Poor's 500, and why many investors currently pawning their children have the S&P index to blame.

2002-07-31T13:29:00.000-07:00

A New Majority: An interesting take on forthcoming electoral trends from this week's issue of The New Republic. While the authors may have misjudged the movement of "Reagan Democrats" back to their party as something other than what it was, they have some solid arguments pertaining to the voting trends among the assorted ethno-socio-economic groups in the country. Also, they construct a solid reiteration of why Karl Rove is, in fact, a delusional nut.

2002-07-30T12:50:00.000-07:00

Some Reading Material: Take some time to read President Clinton's new essay, printed in the DLC Blueprint Magazine. While in a sense he expounds upon some of the themes from his speech at Berkeley last spring, Clinton is not redundant, and seems visionary in his scope. It's refreshing to know that we have Presidents who can thoughtfully ponder the questions that Clinton does, and unsettling that our current one would have to spend a lifetime to churn out a three page document so rich in philosophical reflection.

2002-07-30T08:12:00.000-07:00

A Future Strategy: As the centrist Democratic Leadership Council meets in New York this week, the question of how to approach the party's biggest political opportunity this year has taken center stage. While non-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave the most well received speech of the night, the aspiring candidates instead resorted to an intra-party struggle to strike a balance between the liberal populism of Al Gore's 2000 campaign, and the strategies of the DLC, President Clinton, and others in the party -- to be seen as the party of growth, and not one that is anti-business.

The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne has the great analysis -- it was not that Al Gore was fundamentally wrong to run on his "people vs. powerful" contention, but rather that he should have buttressed that argument with the fiscally disciplined accomplishments of Clinton/Gore. It is this balance that is so important to hammer into party ideology. The next Democratic President, whenever he or she is elected, will likely be a DLC member. He or she must not completely abandon the liberal Democratic base - it is this constituency that needs to be assumed in a general election. If Gore's populism scared away two million Nader voters, a fully centrist campaign in 2004 will cause a party uproar. The Democrats' feuding philosophies need to be synergized, and soon.

2002-07-29T12:04:00.000-07:00

And Why Shouldn't He? President and Senator Clinton have filed in court to have their Whitewater legal tab picked up by the government, as per the Independent Counsel statute. The bill is placed somewhere between $1.75 and 6.5 million. Now, normally a non-story such as this would have the Clinton-haters screaming foul at their usual unbearable decibel. Yet, most have seemed quiet on the issue. Why? Because AMERICAN HERO Ronald Reagan, as well as his VP, Bush the First, did the exact same thing, vis-a-vis the Iran-Contra investigation. And as we know, speaking of Reagan in anything but the most complimentary of tones is blasphemy in the Republican world. So Clinton may just catch a break for once. I hope.

While Bill Clinton did made $9.2 million last year, and yes, never had the keenest instinct for gauging public reaction when filing for these kinds of things, the Clintons are, as usual, on sound legal ground. Besides, if there were any justice in this world, Kenneth Starr would have to pay for this whole debacle. The government has already paid $70 million of taxpayers money pursuing a dead-end - what else is there to be embarrassed about?

2002-07-16T13:03:00.000-07:00

New Site Plans: The Lower Manhattan Development Corp. has come out with their six suggestions for rebuilding ground zero. While this is rightfully a touchy subject with victims' families, and, truthfully, none of the six will be as grand a statement as we all hope, they are certainly well thought out designs, and each has its own subtle allures. My own vote on the CNN page (you have to look for the link to view them) is the Memorial Park (concept #5), but it seems right now that the Promenade is getting the most consistent approval.

Regardless, it seems the architects did a great job of presenting the options, and the LMDC, oft criticized for their sluggish progression, can now lead the important civic debate in New York on how to rebuild as swiftly yet respectfully as possible.

2002-07-16T11:09:00.000-07:00

Ancient History: President Bush claims that the Harken Energy issue has been "fully vetted", and is a closed case with the SEC. His Republican backers cry foul at the current press coverage, noting that the Harken deal has been a subject of Bush's 1994 and 2000 elections. While this may be true, it is obviously only the most vigilant news junkie could have explained to the average person the details of Bush's stock portfolio, prior to last week. This issue is one that is finally getting mainstream attention, and in constrast to Bush apologists, many, like Joe Conason, are asking why it took almost two years into the Bush Administration to have Harken-gate see daylight. Noting the 2000 election came down to "a story of wardrobe palettes and invented gaffes" instead of these types of important matters, Conason hopes to see the Harken problem receive media scrutiny at least on par with Whitewater, of which one should note the Clintons were absolved.

On a side, note, if you want the entire history of Bush's rise to glory, read Conason's exhausting Harper's Magazine article from two-and-a-half years ago. Well, at least some people were paying attention.

2002-07-15T13:55:00.000-07:00

Don't Insult The Man!

Say what you want about me. But I'll be damned when you insult Jerry, even in passing.

For the record, Jerry has expressed many a time that he feels humor such as that expressed last night by Robin Williams is unnecessarily vulgar, and sees the challenge in maintaining a level of wittiness that doesn't involve swearing every three seconds.

2002-07-15T13:26:00.000-07:00

A "Real Man"

Pat Tillman of the Arizona Cardinals, hero to millions, has opted out of a 3-year, $3.6 million NFL contract to join the army. He's not talking to the press about it and has insisted on starting from the bottom of the military food chain. Apparently, moved by Sept. 11, he hopes to join the Rangers and fight them bad guys over in Afghanistan. Andrew Sullivan has called Tillman a hero, who personifies "masculinity." I call them both idiots.

I don't know what Tillman expects to find over there, but we've already killed far more Afghan civilians than we ever will al Qaeda operatives. Seriously, I don't know how we can even call this charade a war anymore. After quickly declaring victory over the Taliban (only after we defeated them had we decided that, indeed, we were fighting them too), we've shown how much we underestimated terrorists on their home court. There hasn't been a major successful operation in over half a year, no one knows where bin Laden is, yet we are continually asked to support this war effort. WHAT WAR EFFORT?

On December 8, 1941, thousands of men simultaneously enlisted in the armed forces, knowing they'd probably perish in a war for the nation's survival. Today, one semi-famous man with personal connections to September 11th decided to enlist, knowing he won't perish in this "war" for the Bush Administration's survival. Acknowledge the solemnity of 9/11 and be resolute in protecting the nation, but don't aggrandize this conflict into something it obviously isn't.

2002-07-12T13:13:00.000-07:00

A Fun Choice

If you're an obsessive news-reader like me, then by now you should be entirely sick of reading about Bush and Harken energy (especially on Salon, which seems to enjoy driving topics into the ground nowadays). While it warms my heart to see the Administration struggle to explain this unfortunate turn of events, this scandal is far less fun than anything Clinton ever got himself into (although, unlike Bush, Clinton wasn't actually guilty of the first fifteen or so).

Luckily, The New Republic gives a wonderfully clear summary of the known facts, leading up to the conclusion that we should all make: "More important than whether Bush is guilty of insider trading, his Harken past shows him to be either lazy, or stupid, or both." See, Bush claims that, as a member of Harken's audit committee, he wasn't made aware of the company's financial woes, nor of its questionable-at-best accounting techniques. So, either he's lying, which carries its own obvious consequences, or he's not, which confirms suspicions that he was an incompetent, slow-witted businessman.

A final point for those who insist that Bush, despite his father being President of the United States, is some sort of rugged, self-made man. Harken purchased a failing company, headed by Bush, that had purchased another failing company, also headed by Bush. Why would they do this? From Harken founder Phil Kendrick: "His name was George Bush. That was worth the money they paid him."

2002-07-11T12:28:00.000-07:00

1994 All Over Again

I thought the baseball watching public was overly generous in coming back to the game so quickly after the '94 strike. While credit is generally given to Cal Ripken, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa for moving baseball from the Business section back the Sports page, there's probably more to it than a few old records broken. After the first year with no World Series since 1904, one would figure the fans of the game would probably have been more upset than they were. And while attendence still hasn't quite caught up to pre-strike numbers, those who labeled baseball the "ex-national pastime" prematurely signed the death warrant. Baseball was and still is engrained in the national consciousness, if only because its history complements so well that of the American 20th century.

Nonetheless, if the players are ignorant enough to strike again, I wouldn't blame a single person who walked away as a fan, for good. While neither side would ever publicly state it, the Players Association and owners' main concerns are their own. Unfortunately, this narrow scope restricts the fans from entering the picture. What we want doesn't matter, regardless that the game is fueled on our wallets, not theirs. I have an unsettling feeling that this strike is indeed going to happen, and, even if it lasts only one day, will cause extreme yet unnecessary harm to an already vulnerable game.

2002-07-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

Must Be Karl's Doing

What's with the persistent use of podium backgrounds espousing the day's theme every time President Bush gives a speech("Corporate Responsibility," "Protecting The Homeland," etc.)? Recently, such as on June 18, July 1, yesterday and then again today, the geniuses of the White House have (so creatively) pounded into our heads the topics of the Not-so-great Communicator's discourses to the masses with a sloganized backdrop. While this kind of taxpayer-covered expense is not new to the Presidential podium, never have I seen it so prominent in the background. I'll tell you what though -- they seem to get the point across a helluva lot easier than does Mr. "Malfeance."

2002-07-09T12:40:00.000-07:00

"Weather 'tis nobler in the mind..."

Excellent write-up in The Washington Monthly by Stephanie Mencimer regarding Gore's complete abandonment of the environment in 2000 (maybe this was what he meant by relying too heavily on consultants?), and how he has thus far failed to revisit the topic as he sizes up his 2004 options. I'm still ambivalent at best as to Gore's chances in a rematch with W. (unfortunately for Democratic hopefuls, name-recognition and a consolidated primary schedule hand Gore an acute advantage in the primaries), but he needs to renew his passion in the environment as part of an "I told you so" campaign against Bush. Mencimer expounds on how Gore, no matter how dull a candidate he was, seemed to be dead-on -- both as VP and presidential candidate -- with his predictions on the issues mainstream America cares about.

If Gore is finally sincere about being sincere, then his campaign needs to begin and end on two notes for which he is most noted -- true and effective fiscal discipline, and a passionate commitment to the environment. Not surprisingly, President Bush is extremely vulnerable on both of these issues. No other Democrat in the race has a record of public service comparable to Al Gore. He needs to dig through those 24 years and bring something meaningful and inspirational to the American public, and leave those lines about "the people, not the powerful" to his intra-party opponents.

2002-07-09T11:43:00.000-07:00

By Now, No One Should Be Reading This...

After a seeming lifetime of nonstarts, the...time...I have to spare during my job has allowed me to resume blogging at a semi-regular rate (i.e., not once a month, with no content). So tell all ten people or so to start checking the page again.

2002-06-19T13:31:00.000-07:00

See! I live!

Upon the urging of (I kid you not) a FEW people, I will awake from my peaceful blog slumber to enrapture my readers with my profoundly breezy, fiercly persuasive, and utterly sophisticated writing style. Tomorrow, though.

2002-06-02T12:13:00.000-07:00

Just a Note...

I'm not dead, I'm just on vacation in Florida for a few weeks with my girlfriend. I'll be back to update during the summer around the 15th of June or so.

2002-05-25T20:01:00.000-07:00

More Unpredecence

The Times' has a concise little history of independent investigative commissions, from FDR's at the outset of World War II to President Clinton's commission to investigate TWA Flight 800. While the article is ambivalent as to the usefulness of them, it does well to point out that George W. Bush is on his own, historically, in opposing a commission to research the September 11 attacks for intelligence and other failures. The independent investigation after Pearl Harbor was launched on December 18, 1941, just eleven days after the fact. It's now been well over eight months since the terrorists struck, yet the Bush administration remains adamantly against anyone looking into how it might or might not have dropped the ball during its term prior to September 11, or just how unassuming it was at that point to the risk of domestic terrorism. The article suggests that as long as President Bush weighs in opposition to the creation of the commission, one will most likely not commence. While this is certainly plausible, it is not an easy political argument for him to make, and I'm confident that at some point, Bush will have his arm twisted into the commission's creation.

On a side note, I have at last finished finals (on the last day, no less) and will be heading home to NJ tomorrow. I plan on updating as often as possible during the summer, but it may take me a day or two to get back on track and settled at home.

2002-05-24T01:00:00.000-07:00

Where The War's Going

Peggy Noonan has officially passed Andrew Sullivan to become the biggest George W. Bush cheerleader in the field of journalism. In an excessively long, excessively quoted diatribe on the virtues of the President's speech to the German Bundestag this week, she all but calls it the greatest oratory she's ever heard: "I think you can...add it to your small list of great speeches of the 21st century. I think Mr. Bush at the Bundestag is going to be remembered for a long time." Here's a question: what percentage of Americans even know that Bush is in Germany, much less that he gave the speech, and even lesser what the Bundestag is?

Noonan praises Bush at length for the "elegant" nature of the speech (read it - I dare you to find one turn of phrase that Bush might have come up with himself), while claiming that it will have the slightest impact on how Europe feels about our policy on the war and the Middle East. Newsflash Peggy: the rest of the civilized world, not exclusively Europe, feels we're dead wrong in going after Saddam, we're not the least bit fair in our belated dabblings into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and that the Bush Administration is dangerously unilateral in its foreign policy.

Overall, the White House speechwriters did concoct a pretty well-written address, but it will have very little impact in the long-term. Instead of irrationally and feebily trying to strong-arm the rest of the world to the hawkish, biased policy positions this administration has taken, perhaps it would be more productive for Bush to open his ears and hear what Europe has to say. Because trust me, not too many people over there are eager to send themselves into a third World War--an entirely plausible scenario, should we decided to fight the Muslim world rather than attempt to bridge the ideological chasm between us. President Bush must be careful not to overstep his bounds with the war on terrorism--he was correct in his inital inclinations to go after al Qaeda and terrorism in general, but he is lingering far too near to a war he shouldn't want, for nothing but global catastrophe will follow.

2002-05-22T19:05:00.000-07:00

Problems for the Dems

That the Democrats are again backing down from their original criticism of President Bush is a very bad sign for the future. They have yet to realize that, if they have any hope of retaking the White House in 2004, they need to strike a contrast with the current occupants on the war, at least in some way. I'm not saying we need Tom Daschle speaking at a peace protest, but Bush is obviously not free from culpability of some mistakes made over the past eight months, and prior. Some Democrat, preferably one of the six or so running for President, ought to gather the courage to overtly and consistently criticize this president on many of these war issues. They should stop being afraid of the political and/or media backlash, and recognize that their criticism would bring about immediate national attention and put them directly in the front-runner's seat for the '04 nomination.

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney lies some more.

2002-05-22T17:05:00.000-07:00

Finally...The End

Let me get this straight: the Washington DC Metro Police were useless for a year in their attempts to find missing intern Chandra Levy. And yet, some guy walking his dog just happens to find her remains today in a park the Police searched months ago. Oh well, at least her very drugged up parents can have some closure now.

2002-05-21T22:30:00.000-07:00

What Should They Do?

Try as I might, the weighty spectre of finals has kept me from my daily blogging schedule. Fear not, as this current five day (!) break in between finals has left me time to finally sit down and write something substantial.

There's been a bit of talk lately in the national press as to what Dick Cheney and others had to say this weekend -- basically that the next terrorism attack is a matter of "not if, but when." In the New York Times editorial page, Tom Friedman criticizes the Bush Administration's excessive warnings, which come at quite a convinient time, just as Bush is starting to face criticism for his lack of forethought and organization pre-September 11. Meanwhile, Maureen Dowd, in light of their failure to properly warn the public before 9/11, suggest a wheel of incompetence to replace the infamous color-coded system of Tom Ridge. Finally, and not surprisingly, Andrew Sullivan chalks it all up to Bush-hating, where the president can't win no matter what he does.

While it's no shock to see Sullivan defending the Bush Administration, he does raise something interesting: How can the president be questioned both for failing to warn the public and then for warning too much? This, of course, is what Bush hopes for -- that his detractors find themselves in a hypocritical counterattack when they criticize his obvious attempts to quell dissent against his administration by putting out vague warnings. There is a difference however, in acting incomptently prior to the 9/11 attacks and scaremongering Democrats and others into silence. It is becoming very apparent that there might be no threat at all, or if there is, that it has existed for months, and is being deliberately publicized now. While it seems inevitable that an independent probe as to what exactly our government did to prevent the terrorist attacks, the administration and many Republicans are already talking about how this is going to "aid the enemy." Now, what exactly such a commission will do besides point out the failures of our government and embarrass many of those in power has remained unanswered by the White House and its congressional allies. They talk about how we need to focus on protecting ourselves from a future attack. While, by their terms, such an attack is inevitable and unavoidable, perhaps the best way to try and quell the terrorist's intentions is to look into how we screwed up so badly last time.

2002-05-18T21:58:00.000-07:00

A Bit Of Wisdom

With the White House whining of partisanship, Maureen Dowd sums it up:

Dick Cheney suggested that Democrats asking questions were unpatriotic. But that suggestion is anti-American. Maybe there has been too much bipartisanship lately. You can't get the truth that way.

2002-05-17T21:26:00.000-07:00

And The Mess Ensues

A must-read article in Salon from Joan Walsh, as the information seeps in that President Bush and this government knew more and more about a possible terrorism strike well in advance. The link is subscription-only, but if you e-mail me, I'll send it to you.

Maybe most chilling, we learned Friday from the Washington Post that the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard C. Clarke, gathered high-level leaders of the Federal Aviation Administration, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service at a meeting July 5 and told them flatly: "Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon." All counterterrorism agencies were told to cancel vacations and nonessential travel. "For six weeks last summer, at home and overseas, the U.S. government was at its highest possible state of readiness -- and anxiety -- against imminent terrorist attack," the Post revealed. But the American public was told nothing, and it's still not clear if Clarke's dire warning was shared with the president. By the time Bush received his CIA briefing on Aug. 6, the government had begun to stand down from the alert.

There was even a report released in 1999, ordered by the President Clinton, that specified:

Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, or the White House.

I have no idea how all of this is going to play out, but it's looking grimmer by the moment. President Bush should get of his high horse and answer some honest questions from the press. But don't hold your breath.

2002-05-17T15:17:00.000-07:00

So I Lied...

I wasn't going to update until Monday, but this whole new development with the intelligence reports is just too tempting. I, unlike most Democrats, feel that the road this story seems to be going down -- the fact that Bush didn't do enough before September 11 -- will lead nowhere. There's enough blame to go around, especially in the FBI and CIA. More imporant are two derivatives of the original story: first, that the Administration waited eight months to release it (and even then, accidentally) and second, a theory as to why they decided that it was a good idea.

The Bush Administration had devised a plan to eradicate al Qaeda before September 11, yet Bush himself had not seen it until after the attacks. It involved comprehensive diplomatic, political, and military tactics that would necessitate a large coalition of international support -- more or less exactly the plan that the US Government enacted to moderate success. This original plan, as well as the fact that Bush had been warned in general terms about a possible attack, were inexplicably hidden from the American public. Certainly, there was probably nothing Bush could have done to prevent the hijackings -- he'd have to have been a genius, which he is obviously not. However, the secrecy that Bush so prizes has finally come back around to hurt him. Why didn't he just come out and say that we had some warning, even if it was insubstantial? There is simply no plausible excuse for the Administration to use to weasel its way out -- not even claiming that they needed to protect their sources.

Regardless of their failure to disclose the warnings, the Administration, at least in my opinion, should have reassured the American people that they already had a plan intact days before the attacks. I believe that the politicos in the Administration wanted the country to believe that this war was being conducted on the fly, and the brilliance of Bush and his team could be witnessed in the utter effectiveness of how swift the victory was. Meanwhile, they would follow war plans carefully drawn out by the Defense Department, State Department, National Security Council, and other government agencies. Yes, its a conspiracy theory, but I have no doubt of the arrogance of Bush or the Machiavellian tendencies of Karl Rove. In any case, its clearly a disgrace, and the Administration knows it -- that's why they're claming that any conjectures into "what the President knew and when he knew it" are purely political, and not honest questions from concerned Americans.

2002-05-15T18:18:00.000-07:00

I'll be back Monday, probably, after my second final. See you then.

2002-05-12T22:52:00.000-07:00

A Choice On Tuesday

Going to school in California, the chance is rare that I get to read up on politics in my home state, New Jersey. Yet this Tuesday's mayoral election in Newark is making headlines. Pitting "the establishment" - Mayor Sharpe James (he of the civil rights generation) - and Cory Booker, a 33 year old city-councilman upon whom many have pinned national political hopes, the election has turned into a free-for-all, so close that polls of a traditionally voter-free city have proved useless. This race is a toss-up, but it shouldn't be.

On one hand, James, a four-term mayor, has the endorsement of most city and state leaders, including Governor Jim McGreevey (although that one could be attributed to James helping McGreevey carry Newark's vote in last year's election). Then there's Booker. He's young, he's a graduate of Stanford and Yale Law, and has the support of mostly every important Democrat outside New Jersey who has bothered to give his or her two cents. He has the endorsement of the New York Times, New York Post, and Newark Star-Ledger. Most importantly, he has ideas for city renewal that James, at 66, and in office for sixteen years, cannot and would not initiate. James, for all intents and purposes, has accomplished all he ever will. While James' contributions to the city cannot be underestimated, let's face it - the place is disgusting, severely impoverished, and - after a year in California I can safely claim - elicits as little respect from the rest of the country as just about any city in America.

This campaign has been rough, on both sides. James, who had never been seriously challeged in four previous elections, has acted desperately, even calling Booker "not African-American enough" and suggesting he belonged to the KKK. Both campaigns have been accused of vandalism (although, for some reason, only Booker's team has been cited). When it comes to to it, Cory Booker may just be the spark needed for Newark to see the urban renewal already engulfing Jersey City and Hoboken. I hope that the voter turnout (expected to be under thirty percent) doesn't affect Booker's chances to be awarded the opportunity turn Newark around.

2002-05-12T16:35:00.000-07:00

Are They Nuts?

Why Israel's Likud Party felt the need to pass a resolution against the creation of a Palestinian State is beyond my comprehension. While they're restating the obvious (with Sharon or Netanyahu in charge, that whole "Palestine" thing ain't happening), they seem to be saying something very dangerous. Since it appears that Netanyahu will, sooner or later, get another crack at leading Israel, his sponsorship of this resolution is anything but encouraging to the peace process. It says much about the former Prime Minister when he proposes and helps pass a resolution against the Palestinians that even Sharon realizes is faulty and unnecessary.

Apparently (and not surprisingly) one of the only ones in that government with a brain is Shimon Peres. While the Israelis are mostly backing Sharon in his terror crack-down, it might not be the worst idea to give Labor Party leaders, such as Peres, more influence in resolving this conflict. They're just as frustrated as all of Israel in wake of the suicide-bombings, yet they have a clarity and a more (though still limited) thoughful vision that might hasten the end of this war in a more timely and less painful fashion. Besides, not all Israelis are blindly accepting what their government is pursuing. It's shocking that with this resolution, Netanyahu has made Sharon look like a moderate, yet they both seem to have no plan for the future of the West Bank and Gaza - apparently, they want the vicious circle of violence to continue indefinitely.

2002-05-12T14:45:00.000-07:00

A Correct Focus

While at least six Democrats flail away hopelessly in search of momentum to lead them to the nomination for the presidency, it seems at least one Democrat has his head (and ambitions for the party) in the right place. Terry McAuliffe, the oft controversial Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, an organization infamous for focusing only on presidential candidates, has brought unprecedented organization and focus to the Congressional elections this fall. In his thus far brief tenure as head of the DNC, McAuliffe has delivered mainly infrastructure improvements – a new headquarters, vastly improved voter lists, and a central command for Democratic messages. For a man who was seen basically as a fundraising guru, these enhancements are especially welcome.

Perhaps the Democratic presidential hopefuls could take a lesson from the DNC Chairman. Each seems unlikely at this point to wage a successful battle against Bush in ’04, and, campaign as they might for candidates this fall, they seem far more interested in their own ambitions for the White House (not a good thing). Their problems are compounded since they all sound alike, with no strong message of rebuttal against President Bush -- and they all refuse to even touch the issue of war criticism. It seems that John Kerry would be the only one who could attack the war without receiving the "traitor" label from every important conservative in the country, yet for any of the candidates, it would be a bold move - one that would bring them immediate national attention and would easily separate them from a group with a watered down, unconvincing message.

2002-05-10T14:39:00.000-07:00

Why We're Infamous

Andrew has the rundown of exactly why it so...interesting... at times to go to school at Berkeley. There's only so many times that the administration can tell us that we go to "the best University in the world" before we start to question it.

PS: I know we all do, but let me reiterate: I HATE SNEHAL

2002-05-09T12:22:00.000-07:00

Two Different Perspectives

The Democratic Party has a problem. Bob Novak points out that while the Democratic faithful (us citizens who started caring about the 2004 election on January 21, 2001) seem to be energized by the thought of a second go-round for Al Gore in two years, the party leaders are far less enthused, instead prefering freshman Sen. John Edwards. While "it's hard to find prominent Democrats who welcome Gore's apparent inclination to try again in 2004," he says, a "poll of Democratic voters shows Edwards eighth our of hopefuls with 1 percent--well behind Gore in first place with 46 percent." The Democratic leadership's problem is further compounded by Edwards' appearance on Meet The Press this past Sunday which both Novak and Stuart Rothenberg have claimed to be very political, and in that not-good, inexperienced kind way.

I think this just shows why, in the end, Edwards will not end up as the Presidential nominee, no matter how attractive a candidate he seems. It is simply a matter of experience relative to other presidential hopefuls. While he would be stronger than Bush was in 2000, Bush wasn't running at such a disadvantage (against a monstrously popular "war leader") as whoever the Democratic candidate will be. If Gore and Lieberman don't conspire to run "together" as a ticket from the outset (I still don't get the immediate political advantage of that), I think Edwards might end up with Gore as the election draws nearer. I could be wrong however, especially if Edwards learns from this apparently disastrous appearance with Tim Russert.

More importantly, the leaders of the DNC need to get more in touch with their party base. It appears that the two are so distant that the apparently anointed nominee is not even known by a great majority of the country. The DNC needs to a better job of publicizing Edwards if they really want him, which is difficult because it already appears that he's all over the place. Obviously Gore is leading the polls because of simple name recognition as well as bitterness over Florida, but it's not sure yet that his support will erode as primary season approaches.

2002-05-09T01:24:00.000-07:00

Just What We Need

John Ashcroft has reversed sixty years of the Justice Department's position concerning the Second Amendment. I'd write more about this outrage, but I have a paper due on Friday that requires more attention. Instead, I'll let Bob Herbert do the honors.

2002-05-07T23:00:00.000-07:00

And It Only Took a Month

So they finally released the results of the ASUC election yesterday. And guess what? I don't care. And I'll tell you something else - neither do 98% of the people attending this fine institution. Unless you either are running for a position, close to someone running for a position, a Daily Cal writer who needs something to write about, or so naive as to believe that elected ASUC officials will affect your college experience in any sense, then does it really matter which Poli Sci major gets to add a title to his resume?

2002-05-07T19:33:00.000-07:00

Defending the Garden State

I don't care who Paul Krugman bashes (although he's fully correct in this argument, even getting Andrew Sullivan to agree with him). Anyone who spends a large part of their New York Times Op-Ed column touting the greatness of New Jersey is a good guy in my book.

On a semi-side note: After a year spent in California, defending New Jersey has become a sort of passion of mine. People here just don't understand I guess, and try as I might, their opinions on the "armpit of America" won't be changing anytime soon. C'est la vie.

2002-05-07T17:21:00.000-07:00

To End The "Blame Game"

I've tirelessly transcribed an entire letter from this week's New Yorker (it's not online) that, I hope, puts to rest all the blaming of President Clinton for the Sept. 11 attacks:

Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, suggested to Nicholas Lemann that the Clinton Administration’s counterterrorism policy made it “easier for someone like Osama bin Laden to rise up” (“The Next World Order, April 1st). As a former special adviser to President Clinton on national security, I must object. Libby cites the “lack of a serious response” to a laundry list of Clinton-era terrorist incident, beginning in 1993. Why start then? Why not include the 1983 of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, which killed seventeen Americans; the 1983 bombing of the Marine compound in Beirut, which killed two hundred and forty-one Americans; the 1986 Berlin disco bombing, which killed and American soldier; and, of course, the 1988 sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed two hundred and seventy people? Except for the very limited action against Libya, the Reagan Administration did not respond to any of these attacks

Under Clinton, spending on counterterrorism more than doubled; the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were caught; and the largest counterterrorism operation in U.S. history thwarted planned millennium attacks. After the 1998 attack on our embassies in Africa, President Clinton authorized Tomahawk-missile strikes against bin Laden. It is also worth noting reports that the current Bush Administration backed away from some of the more aggressive measures for dealing with al Qaeda which Clinton had passed on. President Bush has wisely asked that we all work together to strengthen our counterterrorism policy. Playing the blame game doesn’t help anyone."

William Danvers
Arlington Va.

It's common knowledge that the Bush Administration likes to blame Clinton for everything that goes wrong in the world (of course, they like to forget that terrorism wasn't exactly high on their agenda before 9/11). But when conservatives hold Clinton responsible for the string of terrorist attacks on this country over the past few decades (as they canonize Reagan), they reveal their shallowness and general lack of intelligent thought when judging President Clinton's time in office.

2002-05-07T14:01:00.000-07:00

Just Plain Stupid

The notion that MusicNet and PressPlay, the two record company-sponsored music file-swapping services are just a few kinks away from success is the incorrect notion this article from the Wall Street Journal (via MSNBC) offers. MusicNet CEO Alan McGlade, among others, claims that the problems in the initial launch of the program are small, and that, once it becomes more user-friendly and stable, far more customers will flock to the service than the measly 40,000 that have signed up in its five months of existence. They have a ways to go - free (and "illegal") services, which offer a far better selection of audio and video files, in a format that is transferrable to CD, have been downloaded in numbers totalling well over 150 million. The fact is, that when selection amongst the five major music distributors (Sony, AOL Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, AG Bertelsmann AG and EMI Group) is split into two programs, both of which have significant gaps in their collections due to independently released records, any business model they present is doomed to fail. No matter how many file-sharing programs like Napster sue into extinction, there will always be those that, due to clever programming, simply cannot be shut down

The Record industry ought to face the fact that people will never pay for what they can get for free; downloading a song on KaZaa doesn't exactly reap a pang of conscience. In addition, creating new, more secure, file formats will get them nowhere. If these companies truly believe that people are going to download songs that delete themselves after a period of time and cannot be burned onto a CD, then they'll never sell MusicNet or PressPlay to any considerable amount of consumers. Instead of shying away from the technology, they should at the same time embrace it and compete with it. By embracing it, they should work with those in charge of the free services, and, rather than trying to do the impossible (shut them down), perhaps they could find a way to get paid royalties from them, without charging anything to the user. With all the annoying ads on KaZaa and Morpheus, surely these companies must be making money.

But more importantly, the record companies have the ability to compete with the computer programs. As costs for CD production continue to fall, the retail price for CD's remains the same as it was in 1983: $18.98. If that price was halved, it is a given that CD sales would skyrocket, and shockingly, record companies might actually make money. It would also help to find musical groups that aren't superficial and derivative, since they necessitate an unreasonable amount of money to hype them. The problems the record companies face are not great -- yet those corporate executives have not proven forward thinking enough to solve them

2002-05-06T03:47:00.000-07:00

Presidential Coattails

I was going to write my thoughts on Spider-man, but the blog was ending up as a replica of several movie reviews I had already read, so I decided against it. I did, however, come across this article by Richard Berke, which considers the impact of President Bush's campaigning for Senate candidates. While most agree that a Presidential endorsement at this time could lead to nothing but good things, I'm inclined to disagree. While Bush's popularity is still startlingly high, I don't truly agree with either school of thought as to what his poll numbers really mean.

On one side, people are saying that it is inevitable for the numbers to fall, especially as Bush is currently receiving a bevy of domestic policy setbacks. This could lead to Bush actually hurting candidates. Others offer a differing opinion, suggesting that Sept. 11 permanently changed Bush's appearance in the eyes of the American public, and no matter what, his numbers won't fall below a certain level. I, on the other hand, believe that while Bush will remain popular statistically, that popularity will maintain a level of superficiality, carrying over very little to candidates he endorses, and wearing thin come the 2004 election.

The main reason that the President was seen an eighty percent approval rating six months after Sept. 11 was because he wasn't really challenged up to that point. Important decisions were clear and easy to make. But now, as he struggles through a diplomatic quagmire in the Middle East in addition to other problems, his numbers are slowly declining. My main point here is that an indicative poll of the nation's feelings on Bush would be meaningless when taken in May 2002. Pertaining to Senate candidates, the numbers won't cling to them - no South Dakotan is stupid enough to think John Thune and George W. Bush are the same person, regardless of how many "policy trips" the President makes out there. The party in the White House always loses seats in mid-term elections. Try as he might, Bush will not prevent this phenomenon from reaccuring.

As for 2004, the conventional wisdom is that some poor Democrat will step up to the plate for Bush to whack out of the park with a Reagen 1984esque electoral triumph. This need not be so. While his 2000 campaign was not as infamous as the Gore trainwreck, Bush was not the wonderful campaigner he and his staff would like to believe. In my opinion, a strong, dynamic candidate (my opinion ofJohn Edwards grows by the day) can slowly chip away the armor that Bush has built around himself, and, at the very least, give him a run for his money. These Democrat presidential wannabes are wise to start early.

2002-05-03T03:12:00.000-07:00

Lies Abound!

Apparently Paul Krugman has decided the tax cut is evil and is doing harm to our country. While this is nothing new from him, he does bring up some solid points. One must look upon the federal budget, which has swung into the red by a loss of almost $400 billion, in the extreme long term to even begin to ponder when those Clinton-era surpluses may return. Whereas just two years ago we were deciding whether to use the Social Security surplus to pay down the national debt, we now borrow heavily just to keep the deficits from flying completely off the handle. Upon this forecasting of such good news, we learn "that 60 percent of the tax cut has yet to take effect." And why is this? Well, because while those of us in the middle class have already gotten most of our tax cut, that famous "top 1 percent" can expect $45,000 more, per year, until it expires. And now Bush wants to make the tax cut permanent.

This underlies a huge problem with the Administration that few in the public seem to be picking up. Instead of creating an agenda around the needs of the country following September 11th, Bush has kept the exact same one from the campaign trail, and fashioned each item on it as a type of "security" for the country. As Krugman shows, the Bush Administration claimed that domestic spending must be slashed to make room for the war (which, according to Krugman, has cost only $10 billion), but to stimulate the economy, the tax cuts must be made permanent. How, a decade from now, additional tax cuts will pull us out of a recession that's going on today is utterly beyond my comprehension. The White House needs to understand that while cutting spending domestically might be the easy thing to do, telling the top one percent that they shouldn't receive their government giveaway is the real way to start towards fiscal discipline. Some how I doubt such a policy change is forthcoming.

2002-05-02T17:37:00.000-07:00

Return of The Man

It appears that Bill Clinton has been in talks for his own television talk show. While most insiders seem to agree that nothing will come of it, Eric Alterman is intrigued by the possibilities. He thinks that "The Bill Clinton Show" could aid the ex-President's (unintentional?) humanizing of the office, which, not so surprisingly, is what President Bush despises most about his predecessor. Perhaps with "Bill Moyers as a model," Clinton become the sophisticated watcher's Oprah Winfrey. However, there are a few problems with this view that will preclude Clinton from taking the air. Firstly, Oprah is widely loved, whereas half the country absolutely despises Bill Clinton, and probably wouldn't even check out the show, even out of curiosity. At least until after he dies, Clinton will probably never outgrow his polarizing media image. Then there's the problem of content. While everyone agrees Clinton is wildly entertaining and incomparably intelligent, he seems just a bit too scholarly for daytime talk shows. The talk-show watching world will not want to hear about Clinton's accomplishments in increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, while the ex-President will find that having guests speak on self-improvement and making the perfect Thanksgiving dinner gets old rather quickly for a mind as sharp as his. Finally, in the end Clinton most likely wouldn't have the time to commit the number of hours that is necessary if he is to compete on the level of Oprah. This isn't happening.

Alterman brings up another interesting point, stating that "Bush is trying to reinvent the Imperial Presidency." The President and his Administration have left no doubts to the speculation that he absolutely despises how his predecessor handled the image of the office, and was out to "restore dignity" to the presidency. He was to be the strong leader, the chief executive that made you crave for a monarchy. The image he seeks will never come about though, and the reason lies in another way he seeks to portray himself. For Bush is also to be the laymen's president, an everyman from Texas who you could talk to each week after Church, famously ignorant of detail, but with his heart in the right place. To a large degree, this latter view is the correct one Bush - he is a simple, yet generally good man who could easily be your next door neighbor (with the ex-President father and Senator grandfather, of course). So long as the Bush administration aims to show this view of the President (which, aside from being part of his personality, is a necessary part of his charm with voters), they will never achieve their larger (if trivial goal) - to not only resist but reverse the humanizing of the highest office in the land.

2002-05-01T22:58:00.000-07:00

Hate In Berkeley

The latest example of anti-Semitic venom is finally getting me to admit that there is a real problem developing pertaining to respectful debate. For a while, I passed off a lot of it as purely anti-Israeli, which, importantly, is a completely different issue. Rapidly, though, the situation is becoming clear - many of the pro-Palestinian activists on and off campus have thrown meaningful discourse out the window and are resorting to filthy, downright frightening tactics. We all understand that this is an extremely hard time for anyone with personal or other strong attachments to the Middle East to maintain their sanity, not to mention consideration for other human beings. And since it is this lack of consideration that lies beneath much of the trouble in Israel (although it is a lack of consideration for life), I suppose it should not have been hard to foresee the hatred crossing over to our shores. Yet I cannot understand the first inkling of what would make someone scribe "Kill Jews" on a poster that compares them to the Ku Klux Klan. But I am sure that if this situation was reversed, those who support Palestine probably would have taken siege of the entire Berkeley campus, much as they did in Wheeler Hall early last month. They respect no opinion but their own, and hide behind the Berkeley institution of free speech to say and do whatever they want, regardless of consequences to other.

In my opinion, Israel is if not equally, then nearly equally to blame for the conflict that has erupted within her borders. And there is a large, if not as vocal, contingent of Israeli apologists who fervently believe that the Palestinians are poisoning their own cause. Yet those in Berkeley who support Israel remain respectful of their ideological opponents, rarely holding divisive rallies or entering anti-Arab language in to our campus discourse. It's no wonder why they are taken so much more seriously by the mainstream of Berkeley. Those who are in charge of these anti-Semitic, and by this I mean the SJP and other admittedly radical campus groups, need to learn that not everything is a struggle, that the entire world is in fact not out to get them, and that tolerance and understanding are two qualities that they must gain before any sort of compassion or empathy from the Berkeley community is sent their way.

2002-05-01T17:02:00.000-07:00

What A Great Friend

The American government and media hailed Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf as a reformer of the Arab world - a moderate Muslim who could work with the west and bring democracy to a most un-democratic region. As it turns out, that view has not exactly been ratified by recent events. Musharraf, like many before him, has rallied the support of America to him - a leader whose political values are questionable at best. Apparently, in lieu of parlimentary elections this October, the esteemed General decided to hold a referendum on his Presidency. There was one question:

"For the survival of the local government system, establishment of democracy, continuity of reforms, end to sectarianism and extremism, and to fulfil the vision of Quaid-e-Azam [Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah], would you like to elect President General Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan for five years?"

No alternate candidates, no campaigning, no ballot. Remember this is supposed to be the guy who, above anyone in the region, stands solidly with the United States and its democratic principles as we root out the pockets of terrorism in his country and others in the Arab world. The United States has a history of siding with unseemly figures for the sake of convinience (ask Saddam), but we should publicly recognize this travesty. After September 11, the US government took the initiative to keep Musharraf in power, to lift the economic sanctions levied against Pakistan, and to increase tenfold the legitimacy of his unstable government, yet to sustain a democratic election. It's time that Musharraf returns the favor by espousing a modicum of honesty and holding free and fair elections this fall.

2002-05-01T12:45:00.000-07:00

King Of Pop?

Newsweek has a pretty substantial (for them) write-up in anticipation of Moby's new disc, 18, which comes in about two weeks. Apparently (as Rolling Stone noted this too) Moby has more or less been crowned the "face of modern music." I feel that's really yet to be seen, as he's proven nothing except the ability to sell records after selling all the album's songs into various television commercials. I'd like to see if 18 can stand up on it's own merit, because the general consensus is that this album is wholly derivative of Play. I know that Moby isn't strictly a electronic artist, but the whole genre just screams 1997 and I wonder if, other than the adult contemporary market, this record is just destined to fall flat on its face.

2002-05-01T02:23:00.000-07:00

The Circle Of Stupidity

I think the main reason that there seems to be no hope in the Middle East conflict right now is the ineptitude of the three leaders that, theoretically, should be involved. Bush's failures, namely his reluctancy to get deeply involved, and his inability to nuance, have been duly noted for some time. As have been the shortcomings of Arafat, which include his relishment of victimization and an inability to sell a peace deal to his people. But most have not fully picked up on the true reason for Sharon's failure, which is typified by this week's jostle with the UN.

It's becoming quite obvious that Sharon has allowed the previously aggressive Israeli military to fly off the handle these past few months. Most of us outside of Israel and the West Bank have no clue what happened during the occupation of Jenin, but it is becoming clear that Israel crossed the line offensively. I have no problem with Israel defending herself, and it is hard to argue that Sharon is not justified in going after the scum that blow themselves up on busses and in markets, but it's a wonder that Sharon is wondering why Israel is seemingly all by itself in this conflict. His foreign minister says, "We must take into consideration the possibility we will be left entirely on our own," but it does not even cross Sharon's mind that perhaps a lightening up of the "defensive" actions Israel is taking might buy them a shred of international sympathy that they are sorely lacking. By blocking UN fact-finders from inspecting a supposed refugee camp, Israel is counterintuitively giving the rest of the world the finger. After the disappointment at Camp David (whose blame, to be fair, rests entirely with Arafat) and the start of the second Intifada, the Israeli public wanted a leader with a one-track track mind. Unfortunately for them, they got one.

Until the Israelis and Palestinians find leaders who can think in more than one dimensions, and until the United States can send a leader with the patience and clarity to hammer out a comprehensive, nuanced end to this carnage, all three parties will continue to spiral in a circle of stupidity.

2002-04-30T23:51:00.000-07:00

I Care (Even if no one else does)

Well, the election is ONLY 30 months away, and the New Yorker did a great little write up on my candidate for VP, Sen. John Edwards. Of course, they seem to be hyping him for the crown, but I'm not sure a first-time office holder with only 6 years experience in elected office should run the country. Oh wait, unless they've been Texas governor. But seriously, he's young, he's People Magazine's "Sexiest Lawmaker" (if anyone cares, which apparently they do) and is being built up in some sects as a cross between JFK and Clinton (hopefully that doesn't mean he'll get shot and killed by the intern he's screwing). I think he'd be a great second to either Gore or Kerry, who have a lot more experience, and with Gephardt (who, despite his indications that he will run, will not, at least in my opinion, especially if he makes Speaker this fall), seem to be able to run policy laps around a junior freshman Senator. It's obvious that Edwards is the bright star of the Democratic Party, so let's see if we can make him vice-president (what a great contrast to Cheney), as oppossed to putting all the eggs in a very iffy and unexperience basket in 2004.

By the way, the article is not posted online, so you'll have to actually shell out a few bucks to get it, but hey, it's the New Yorker.

2002-04-30T23:13:00.000-07:00

The Sordid Little Affair

When she's off, she's off, but when she's on, she's on. Maureen Dowd really hit the nail on the head on two Bush Administration issues in this column. Firstly, there's the often "forgotten" fact that Bush relies on his father far more heavily than anyone in the administration (or even the media) would like to admit. It's just silly to assume that a foreign policy novice would never seek the advice of his father, the man with the most impressive international rolodex in the world. Then there's the unseemly relationship Bush Sr. and about half of this administration has with the Saudi Royal Family. I mean, it's nice to have a good, working relationship, but these guys fit together like legos in their quest to buy and sell oil. The Pro-Israel conservatives have been railing on Bush of lately, and I wonder how long it is before they get on him for this cozy little relationship with the Saudis.

Here's a little blurb to shore up your confidence in our courageous, gutsy leader:
"On Thursday, W. met at the ranch with Prince Abdullah, who wanted to show the president pictures of charred and maimed Palestinian children. Mr. Bush wore a suit and tie and said "Yes, sir," "No, sir" to the 77-year-old prince, showing deference to an old family friend and not showing pictures of dead and maimed in New York and Washington."

2002-04-30T16:41:00.000-07:00

My Boring First Post

So I decided (again) to give this blog thing a try. I feel that it's important for me to write, especially since I have more or less no outlet at the moment other than the occasional essay for school. I'm not really sure as to its purpose (other than my friend Andrew's blog which part of the now flourishing UC Berkeley blog scene. Perhaps this page will end up in that style, but at the moment I plan on focusing on my interests, which include mainly national politics (I have an unnatural obsession), music, some sports, and other things I care not to mention right now. Ok, I'll be back. Later