New blog for me

I have started a new blog, totally unrelated to this one, in which I discuss my travels on the way to becoming a shitty comedian.

Finally, good news

What a victory for our country.

Obama

Sen. Barack Obama gave one hell of a speech the other day.

For the past year, I have wondered what all the hype was about. Sure, he’s young and photogenic, but what is he really bringing to the table? After reading this speech, I am convinced of his abilities as a politician. Of course his economic beliefs are distressing, but that’s to be expected from any Democrat with a factory in his state. This guy is one to watch, even for a skeptic like myself.

Sweet Home

Political scientists say that local politics is much more important than national politics in terms of actual results. Of course, local politics is also roughly 80,000 times more incompetent and corrupt, as shown by my home state.

When the Alabama Legislature tried to make Alabama a player in presidential politics, it inadvertently moved the state's entire primary election — not just the presidential preference primary — from June to February in 2008.

We should really create an agency or something to crack down on all this inefficient bureaucracy.

This just in!

Startling news on North Korea that will make your hair stand up!

From the Borowitz Report:

In an act of retaliation for North Korean president Kim Jong-Il’s plan to test a long-range missile that could reach California, the United States today threatened to launch conservative pundit Ann Coulter in the direction of North Korea.

President George W. Bush announced the plan to weaponize Ms. Coulter in a nationally televised address.

“If North Korea intends to test the most deadly weapon in its arsenal, we will have no alternative but to use the most deadly weapon in ours,” Mr. Bush said. “And that weapon is Ann Coulter.”

Mr. Bush did not indicate how and when Ms. Coulter would be fired towards Pyongyang, but most military experts believe that she has already been loaded onto a nuclear submarine and could be launched at any moment.

At the United Nations, an emergency session of the Security Council was convened to discourage the U.S. from deploying Ms. Coulter, who is seen by many in the international community as the ultimate doomsday weapon.

Fears abound that if Ms. Coulter were fired towards Pyongyang, she would spew noxious fumes that could lay waste to the entire Korean peninsula and might even destroy Japan and parts of China.

A spokesperson for Ms. Coulter today acknowledged that her client had the power to destroy large areas of Asia, but said that she was “stoked” about the mission.

“If destroying Asia will help Ann sell more books, she’s up for it,” the spokesperson said.

Heavens no!

Oh, snap!

Ok, I know this has nothing to do with politics or anything, but I don't care.

The Onion

The Onion is maybe my favorite time waster at work, besides sifting through the archives of economists' blogs (I rule). Today is particularly great for headlines. Here are a few I loved:

Hussein Judge Hoping For Fair, Speedy Assassination

Coworker Even A Dick In His Expense Reports

I'm Not One Of Those Fancy College-Educated Doctors

Toby Keith Struggling To Come Up With Rhyme For Ahmadinejad

Thanks, The Onion.

Webb

A surprisingly good post from the Kos (just for you Kent):

Gay marriage? He doesn't want government in your church. Abortion? He doesn't want government in your doctor's office. He doesn't want government in your bedroom. And, just as importantly, he's not too crazy about Big Business sticking their nose where it doesn't belong either.

What is it with those Virginians? First Warner, then this guy?...

Seriously though, this guy sounds like a real good deal, and this gives me a lot of hope for the Democratic Party. The fact that relatively moderate guys like Webb are creating buzz around the usually-liberal blogosphere is exciting, and may yet produce good tidings come November.

More from Africa

Here is a story that is almost hilarious, it's so sad:

HARARE, 29 May 2006 (IRIN) - Cash shortages have returned to haunt Zimbabweans. Banks started rationing money on Friday, allowing clients to withdraw only Zim$5 million (about US$49) to avert crowd trouble, but most ran out of mint-print, prompting desperate clients to form overnight queues outside...

Reserve Bank officials told IRIN that plans to print about Zim$60 trillion (about US$592.9 million) were briefly delayed after the government failed to secure foreign currency to buy ink and special paper for printing money.

(Emphasis added)

Robert Mugabe is without question a corrupt and despicable dictator who needs to be removed if this nation is ever to overcome his atrocious rule. I wonder what the correct foreign response is for a country in such a dire need of regime change, but without any national security interest to us, positive or otherwise. Obviously, the politically wise thing to do is to ignore it, but that hasn't seemed to work for Zimbabwe, or indeed Africa as a continent in the past. Any thoughts?

Oh, and Chavez loves Mugabe, apparently.

Sigh...

This is what it feels like at Brown sometimes.

More of the same from our sub-Saharan neighbors

Tell me if you agree that this story is distressingly typical:

The head of the Kenyan office of a global anti-corruption watchdog has been sacked over allegations of financial and other irregularities.

This is one of the most renowned anti-corruption organizations in the world, and yet even it can’t seem to keep itself untainted by the pattern of graft and greed that has defined so many African governments for the past half-century.

Shameful

From Time

Of the 136 documented deaths of prisoners in detention, Miles found, medical death certificates were often not issued until months or even years after the actual deaths. One prisoner's corpse at Camp Cropper was kept for two weeks before his family or criminal investigators were notified. The body was then left at a local hospital with a certificate attributing death to "sudden brainstem compression." The hospital's own autopsy found that the man had died of a massive blow to the head. Another certificate claimed a 63-year-old prisoner had died of "cardiovascular disease and a buildup of fluid around his heart." According to Miles, no mention was made that the old man had been stripped naked, doused in cold water and kept outside in 40° cold for three days before cardiac arrest.

Other doctors just looked the other way, their military duty overruling the Hippocratic Oath. One at Abu Ghraib intervened to ask guards to stop beating one prisoner's wounded leg and quit hanging him from an injured shoulder. He saw it happen three times. He never reported it. In Mosul, according to Miles, one medic witnessed guards beating a prisoner and burning him by dragging him over hot stones. The prisoner was taken to the hospital, treated and then returned by doctors to his torturers. An investigation into the incidentwas closed because the medic didn't sign the medical record and so he couldn't be identified.

Shameful, just shameful. And this is still going on.

the other two branches

Congress beginning to stretch its arm. Glenn Greenwald sums it all up in this post:

It has been more than six months since The New York Times revealed that President Bush ordered eavesdropping on American citizens in violation of the criminal law. Virtually all national politicians and media figures, not to mention scores of pro-Bush bloggers, boastfully predicted that the entire matter would be swept away and easily resolved long before now. But it hasn't been and isn't close to being resolved, and there are slow, steady rumblings that more and more members of Congress are becoming less willing, not more, to allow the President to seize all governmental power.

These developments happen slowly and incrementally, and it therefore seems as though nothing is happening. But scandals of this type take time and significant effort to unfold. An amendment to cut off all funding for the warrantless eavesdropping program -- something unmentionable a few months ago -- almost passed the House last night, and had more than a handful of Republicans supporting it. And the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee spontaneously directed the Justice Department and the President to turn over all documents relating to efforts to "induce" telephone companies to provide calling data on Americans.

Even the most impatient and cynical among us must acknowledge that those are surprisingly encouraging developments. One of the oddest aspects of the President's lawlessness has been the degree to which members of Congress have been willing to endure such severe institutional humiliations by essentially being written out of our Government -- the opposite of what the Founders assumed would occur simply by virtue of basic human nature and dignity, which they believed would inevitably engender fights against efforts to render any one particular branch irrelevant. Perhaps Congress is slowly beginning to regain some dignity and purpose and insist upon imposing some limits on the President's monarchical powers.

From Britain

Money quote:

Captain William Rose, a soldier present at the parade, said the goat "was trying to headbutt the waist and nether regions of the drummers."

Makes you want to read the whole thing, doesn't it?

the Jon Stewart effect

This from the Washington Post:

This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.

Comedian and fake-news anchorman Jon Stewart makes the already cynical viewers of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" even more cynical -- and possibly less likely to vote, two political scientists at East Carolina University say.

That's particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don't bother to cast ballots.

Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris of East Carolina University said previous research found that nearly half -- 48 percent -- of this age group watched "The Daily Show" and only 23 percent of show viewers followed "hard news" programs closely.

To test for a "Daily Effect," Baumgartner and Morris showed video clips of coverage of the 2004 presidential candidates to one group of college students and campaign coverage from "The CBS Evening News" to another group. Then they measured the students' attitudes toward politics, President Bush and the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).

The results showed that the participants rated both candidates more negatively after watching Stewart's program. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media, according to the researchers' article, in the latest issue of American Politics Research.

"Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls," they wrote.

Wow. The author doesn't take into account the possibility that, maybe, young people realized how hard both candidates sucked ass in 2004. I still voted for Kerry, though, even if he was a douchebag.

Saturday afternoon hot dogs

This is cool - check out the hot dog video.

What states are the most generous?

Quick, find your state! Then find mine.
(These results are per capita, clearly)

How to piss Kent off for no goddamn good reason, Part 1

I wrote about this in a blog long gone last year, when the House first passed the flag burning amendment.

My girlfriend just went to a conference on this troubling situation, and since I hadn’t heard much about this since last summer, I did a little digging. First the good news. Still one vote shy. And Rhode Island’s own Lincoln Chafee is opposed. That’s about it.

The bad news: In addition to the 52 Republicans in support, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, and 12 other Democrats are on board. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am very surprised. The Democrats have a pretty pusillanimous record when it comes to protecting civil liberties.

When it comes to certain issues, such as this and capital punishment, I am often shocked at how far from the mainstream I appear to land. The majority of America apparently supports this amendment, and a much stronger and more diverse majority of Americans support the death penalty. It makes me think that I need to spend less time wrestling with issues with which I have severe ambivalence (abortion, welfare state, foreign policy) and focus more on figuring out how to appeal to others on issues of which I am completely, unequivocally in favor. Hmm.

P.S. If this amendment is passed, I'm gonna get wicked creative with Photoshop, just like this guy--->

More on DRM

A helpful primer on file sharing:

For more, here's an interview between Fritz Attaway from the MPAA, and Wendy Seltzer, a lawyer. Some excerpts follow:

In a classic case of doublespeak:

Digital rights management is the key to consumer choice. The better the DRM, the more choices consumers will have in what they view, when they view it and how much they pay for it. The only valid criticism of DRM is that some of the DRM technology currently in use is not sophisticated enough. But it is getting better. Users of next-generation DVD technology will have more choices than they do today because the DRM technology will be more sophisticated.

Why is DRM the key to consumer choice? Because it allows content owners to tailor their offerings to what consumers want. Unless you believe in the tooth fairy, you understand that in order to make movies, which today average around $100 million in production and promotion costs for major studio releases, there must be a return. In other words, you must be able to get people to pay for the privilege of watching them. Many consumers want to own a permanent copy of movies. Others are only interested in having an opportunity to watch a movie once. DRM technology allows studios to offer copies of movies that consumers want to own, and a viewing only opportunity, usually at a much lower cost, to those who don't want a permanent copy. It is a win/win proposition for both the owner of the movie and the consumer.

Wrong wrong wrong. It is asinine to say that DRM gives consumers more choices - it does exactly the opposite! Furthermore, companies do not tend to charge less for less functionality; they have tended to keep functionality at the same price while charging more for more choice, screwing the customer any way you slice it.

But Seltzer does a much better job of getting to the heart of the matter:

Core to the question of DRM implementation today is the legal backdrop, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anticircumvention provisions. The DMCA stops us from innovating in technology around DRM-restricted media, by declaring those innovations to be "circumventions" if not pre-approved by the copyright holders. The DMCA thus stifles technology innovation and scientific investigation, as well as interfering with end-user activities that don't infringe copyright. Our culture and our technology opportunities are poorer for the DRM-DMCA combination.

You raise the example of DVD as a success story, but DVD players have hardly changed in the last decade. True they've gotten cheaper, but I still can't buy one (lawfully) that lets me take clips to create my own movie reviews or "Daily Show"-style send-ups of my favorite films. I still can't play movies on my GNU/Linux computer. When Kaleidescape tried to build a DVD jukebox to allow people to burn movies to an enclosed hard drive rather than shuffle jewel cases and discs, the company earned high reviews -- and a pricey lawsuit.

DRM plus DMCA protects existing business models, such as that of the blockbuster movie, but at the expense of new developments that could create more value for both creators and users of content. In the era of podcasts and YouTube, I'm quite interested in seeing what those users can do as they become creators.

I won't quote anymore, but suffice to say the interview is sweet. It is incredibly refreshing to see somebody (Seltzer) extremely knowledgable on the subject take to town someone spouting bullshit. If only politics were like that...

Credit where credit's due...

From LA Times:

The Bush administration on Monday reversed a proposed policy that would have opened some of America's national parks to snowmobiles and other motorized recreation and permitted increased commercialization.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne — who has been on the job less than a month — threw out a draft of the National Park Service Management Policies that would have weakened protections for wildlife and natural resources, instead restoring the longtime standard that national parks must emphasize preservation over any other activity.

"That is the heart of these policies and the lifeblood of our nation's commitment to care for these special places and provide for their enjoyment," Kempthorne said during a ceremony in Washington.

The new policy, which is to become final in three weeks, explicitly instructs park managers to maintain clean air, water and natural sounds, and not allow any activities that might damage park resources.

The revised management plan also contains sections that acknowledge the impact of global climate change in the parks and encourage cultural diversity.

Dave should appreciate this

Here's one for the kids:

But the best line of the night came from incumbent Rep. Steve King (R-IA), on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, “There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he’s at,” King said. “And if there are, they probably all look like [White House correspondent] Helen Thomas.”

molotov cocktails

Hoo baby, feast on this

If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government--indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government--is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.

Net Neutrality

TNR has come out for net neutrality, and do a good job explaining it:

Under the original rules put in place in 1934, telecommunications companies can't give preferential treatment to one set of outgoing calls over another by, say, offering static-free calling to one company's telemarketers but not another's. The same rules initially applied to the Internet. Telecom companies couldn't charge website proprietors to have their content sent to consumers more expeditiously. But, last August, George W. Bush's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exempted telecoms that provide Internet connections from these restrictions, dealing a blow to both entrepreneurship and political discourse.

On the other side, there's this Flash cartoon to present a different set of views:

The views on this don't break down easily along party lines or idealogical lines. Make up your own mind.

Personally, I'm in favor of net neutrality. While I don't like government regulation of this type of thing, the idea of the telecoms running wild is not great either. I guess it comes down to the fact that I feel like the internet is akin to telephones, but more; that no one should be prioritized or discriminated against, i.e. there shouldn't be 'levels' of service whereby I pay more and am guaranteed better or faster service. I think that the internet provides an unbelievable opening to extend opportunities to everybody, regardless of background, and if you're motivated you can educate yourself on a wide variety of subjects solely based on what is available for free (for instance, if you wanted to you could teach yourself any range of programming languages). To deny this I think would be sad, but I'd like to hear a more convincing voice on the other side of the debate.

Lieberman Ad

This is hilarious

State of the Nation

This is a rather long post, but I promise it'll be the only one all day. This is something I've been thinking about for a while now, but I've only just decided to put it into words.

The past 6 years have seen a huge shift in the values of America as a nation, in the things it stands for and the actions it takes. In large part this can be traced back to the events of 9/11, and in light of that, much of the fear and confusion since can be understood. I am talking about the actions this country has taken, specifically that the executive branch has taken, that I feel is at odds with the principles that America stands for. Although 9/11 can explain the environment which allowed these to occur, I don't believe that justifies it. Furthermore, I believe that the post-Bush era, i.e. after 2008, is fundamentally crucial to determining the state of America this century, and the future role that this country will have, say, 50 years from now. Let me explain.

The changes that I'm talking about are new policies such as the use of torture as a form of interrogation, various encroachments on civil liberties, extralegal steps taken by this administration to skirt oversight (such as signing statements), the perversion of science to fit the politics, etc. If these policies, and those are only a few, become associated with Bush and his 8 years of rule, then they will be but a blip in history, an unfortunate deviation from an otherwise honorable ascent towards an ever-expanding concept of freedom. As this administration's ship goes down, it will take with it the policies that they've created. It will be viewed historically not as indicitave of the values America stands for, but rather as an unfortunate deviation in history, such as the Red Scare in the 50's.

In fact, I see many parallels between the McCarthy era and today. Both came at the beginnings of generation-long conflicts, when the country was unsure about how to face the new menace, and both were reactions based in fear and stinking of political opportunism. Both played up the importance of loyalty and blind patriotism. One came to its logical conclusion with the disgrace of McCarthy; I hope the other does the same, and the sooner the better.

If, on the other hand, the next president in 2008 continues those said policies above, the policies themselves will fail to be associated with any one president and any one era, and will instead become the default for how people view America. The secret prisons, the rampaging executive power, the lack of oversight and proliferation of secrecy; if these things don't wash out with the tide of the Bush presidency, they will linger on and on. They will become a part of our national consciousness, and will be absorbed into our own image of what America is and what America stands for.

And that cannot last. The war on terror is not something that can be won by military might alone. It is something that must be fought psychologically as well as militarily, and in order to win we must take the morally higher ground and hold it. We cannot occupy other countries in the name of human rights, if we do not recognize those human rights ourselves.

Power never gives itself up. A future president, inheriting greatly expanded powers of the presidency, will never voluntarily give the Congress or the Courts back the powers that previous executives have grabbed. That president will use those powers in the name of whatever conflict is most crucial at the time, and perhaps he or she will be just in applying those powers, and successful in facing the conflict at hand.

However, the founders separated powers for good reason; if it is unfortunate that a successful, honest leader does not have ultimate power to wrestle this country in the right direction, we have far more to lose if a terrible president were to take that same, unrestrained power. Obviously, the only way to prevent this is to separate power equally, among the Congress and the Court. But these institutions, too, have been as bad or worse than the Executive at defending America's values.

You have a Court that now has at least four members who completely or partially subscribe to the theory of an immensely powerful executive, and as I posted below, with the addition of Kennedy siding, they have a sometimes-majority; put one more pro-Executive Justice on the bench, and you've got a permanent majority for a very long time.

You have a Congress that has written a blank check for this administration and to date has performed no oversight whatsoever of the extracurricular policies this Executive has undertaken. It is one of the most corrupt and partisan Congresses in history, and has written a blank check to this administration in return for money and a guarantee on incumbency. For the 2000 congressional election, the rate that incumbents were elected was 98% - 98%! I don't know anyone who would say they're happy with 98% of their Congress.

The only barrier to the continued expansion of presidential powers is the people at this point, and in this is vested the last barrier to tyranny. But here's the thing - we can vote the bastards out.

This administration has done damage to America's name is countless ways, and it will take at least a generation to heal those wounds. These are not bleeding heart concerns; we cannot win against an enemy that by definition has no home, has no base, and is propelled forward by an concept. The only way we can beat it is by winning the struggle of ideas, and I fear we have done shamefully little to make our case in the Muslim world.

This is not the America I know. This is not the America my parents came to, nor is it the America I want my children to come in to. The America I know stands up for human rights, no matter what the citizenship. It recognizes that every human is afforded some measure of basic dignity, no matter how vile that human might be. It recognizes that torture is illegal, something that Bush has failed to do -in fact, actively fought against (see signing statement to McCain bill).

During the Cold War, we could measure ourselves against an enemy that was expanding and spreading its influence across the world. We could always look at the USSR and say, wow, well at least we're not torturing people. Well, throw that one out, because now we are.

In a sad sort of way, I'm glad this is happening now, and not in 20 years. If this kind of detour had to happen, it's better that it happened at the beginning of this conflict. This will be one of the major struggles of our time. One thing I've learned in my relatively few years is that the harder you have to struggle, the better you'll come out on the other side. A species that is forced to live in the desert will make due with little water. A country that goes through a political train wreck will, hopefully, never suffer the same fate for a generation.

Having dealt with the past 6 years, and, gosh golly, another 2, I hope will permanently affect our generation. Turnout last election among young people was higher then it has been before, although, unfortunately not high enough. I hope that if and when our generation becomes politically dominant, we take the lessons learned from this era to heart. I hope that when we are in charge, we demand that our leaders are intelligent, competent, and honorable. I hope that we ask, during the campaign, what are your ideas for this country, not who is the more manly of the two.

The stakes are not low in this. I think our generation faces some of the largest and most consequential struggles in the history of this country. I identify four major struggles; there may be more, but I think these are the most important. In addition, all these struggles are related, and one will benefit from the success of another.

1. Dealing with the rise of China, India, and others as equal competitors on the world stage. To a broad extent this has already begun, but it will continue and accelerate over the coming years. With populations of over 1 billion people each, both China and India have the brainpower, the manpower, and most importantly, the drive to succeed economically on a global scale, and if not challenge America's hegemony, at least nip at her heels. This is a topic admittedly I know little about, but am trying to educate myself on furiously. I'm sure others on this site will be able to pontificate more about this.

2. Fighting terrorism, and militant Islam. What more can be said? This is the cold war of our times. It goes without saying that we must win this, and that we currently are not. This conflict ultimately will not be won through tanks and guns but by a conflict of ideas. Furthermore, our ideas will win because they are better. Dignity and freedom for all will always conquer a narrow world-view that seeks to restrict what people can think and say.

3. Fixing the environment. Hoo baby, we have not begun to scratch this one. We must find ways in the next twenty or thirty years to exist within our environment without pillaging it. With the rise of other very large and industrial countries, we must first lead by example, or we will be permanently destroying this beautiful planet. A great first step would be to concentrate on energy, specifically green technologies or renewable sources. A decreasing reliance on oil would not only be beneficial to the environment, but would be geopolitically helpful as well.

4. Dealing with, and integrating, civil rights in an increasingly digital framework. There are two things here, and I think this has gotten extremely little press, and the only defender so far has been the EFF. Computers and the internet have been compared, in their effect on society, as equivalent to electricity; I would go even farther and say that, in their effect on the human race in the next hundreds of years, it will be more akin to the discovery of fire. The existence of a national network connecting all humans everywhere, with an architecture that represents all media, or anything that can be represented visually, aurally, or even tactilely, in the same basic format of 1's and 0's will have an enormous effect. However, the internet that we're used to, wide open, sprawling, largely free of regulation, democratic, is not guaranteed. That is, there is nothing inherent in the internet that guarantees its democratic and level nature. If we want it to stay free and open, we must fight for that right - that's the first issue. The second issue is guaranteeing our civil liberties in a world where technology is inevitably ubiquitous. It's that old line, guns don't kill people - people kill people. The technology is not inherently evil, but when you pair satellites that can read the words on a newspaper, cameras, facial recognition software, hard drives to store this immense data, and a potentially future paranoid government with no respect for civil liberties, the capability for a police state are much higher then they've ever been before. The only way to prevent this is to fight it legally; we have a wonderful country that in its ideal would preserve these rights over all platforms, including the internet, but we must fight to maintain those rights.

All of these problems can be dealt with, if there are leaders who are willing to tackle them and a public willing to support them. I believe the latter is true today; the public overwhelmingly prefers a candidate of moderation and competence to the bitter partisanship of the last two elections. We want somebody, and it doesn't matter what party, who can stroll into government and fix things, who we can trust not to abuse their power, and who will fight corruption. We want somebody who can work across party lines to get things done. We want somebody who is doing things because they believe in them, not because they think it will help them in the next election.

In short, we need leaders like we had of past conflicts, leaders who led us through calamitous times and got us through in one piece. Who are those leaders today? Who will stand up and save America from what she is becoming?

Just in!

I am hearing on the news that Bill Gates is stepping down from Microsoft!

Oh wait... in two years...

{update 8:13 PM} Okay no big deal, he said he'll step down in 2008... gee, thanks Bill...

Headline of the Day

From the BBC:
Gay bishop "not an abomination"

In a related investigation:
President Bush "not a houseplant"

Great News

This is what we actually needed.

The US said 104 insurgents were killed and 759 "anti-Iraqi elements" captured...

In addition to Iraqi insurgents killed or captured, Gen Caldwell said 28 significant arms caches had been found by US and Iraqi forces.

I don’t know if this will get as much press as the killing of Zarqawi, but it appears to be potentially more important. The documents found at the bombing site have proved to be exceptionally useful in our country’s attempt to further cripple the al Qaeda network in Iraq. I can say now that Zarqawi’s death, along with this new information and series of arrests, could be the turning point in the fight against this group. Of course, al Qaeda is not the only group who is destabilizing the country, but it’s a great start.

Sweden's economy

According to this report, Sweden's actual unemployment is 15%, not the 5% typically reported. This is pretty significant. Sweden has gotten a lot of hype for being such a well-functioning economy with an expansive welfare state, but this report is going to throw some cold water onto that optimism. It is interesting to note that Sweden has experienced robust GDP growth throughout this period. According to the study, this is a result of decreased regulation of business, which makes sense. Certainly France's stringent requirements on business have hurt their ability to grow as an economy. Then there's this part:

[The report] said the country could not rely on future improvements in private-sector productivity, as the catch-up effect that had driven these developments would decline over time.

The ageing population would put the public sector under "intolerable pressure" unless productivity improved, it added.

"If nothing else changes, the resulting increase in welfare costs would become too large to finance through the current tax system in only 10 to 20 years," McKinsey said.

If Sweden is not able to provide for its people given its already extremely high levels of taxation, this is a sure warning sign for social democratic states in Europe and elsewhere. Higher levels of taxation are only going to make Sweden's current economic growth levels harder to sustain.

This just in...

Here we go:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.

-snip-

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

"Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house," Scalia wrote.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors by police in failing to properly announce themselves.

I'm currently living in New York City, and I also worked here briefly last summer, when in the wake of a terrorist scare, the police implemented random bag searches on the subway. These searches, to my chagrin, have continued, I suppose, since last summer to the present.

While I have a visceral distaste for these services, I'm hard pressed to think of an alternative. Obviously the threat to the subway system is dire, and something needs to be done. However, these searches, and the above, strike me as invasive and potentially unconstitutional.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm struggling with an answer to this, as I'm dealing with it every day. You can refuse to be searched, I believe, but then the flip side is that you are expelled from the subway. So... if you want to get to work, you better prepare to be searched. If you haven't got anything to hide, you shouldn't have anything to worry about, right?

Lay it down - what does the Fourth Amendment mean in our modern society? How narrowly (or widely) should it be interpreted?

An update on digital rights

From the EFF's website:

Webcasting will clearly be part of next week's discussions. That much is clear from the title of next week's event: "From the Rome Convention to Podcasting".

Jamie Boyle breaks it down:

In September last year, I wrote about a very bad proposal being debated in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The proposal was to extend the length of an existing set of intellectual property rights for broadcasters, and even apply them to webcasting. As I pointed out, there is no empirical evidence that these rights produce any social benefit. Indeed, the US has never had such a right and yet has a flourishing broadcast industry.

Extending the rights to webcasting, despite the manifest differences between the economic structure and global reach of the two media, was a jaw-dropping move with obviously bad consequences. We should be focusing on rules about conduct, not rights over content. If signal piracy and rebroadcasting is a problem, we should have a rule that narrowly focuses on that conduct, prohibiting unfair business practices by commercial competitors. The last thing we should do is create yet another set of long lasting property rights over the content.

Copyright offices around the world admit that there is a huge problem with “orphan works” – copyrighted material for which the copyright holder cannot be found. Given the absurdly long copyright term, it is quite possible that the majority of the cultural production of the twentieth century consists of orphan works. Because of the difficulty of clearing copyright, those works remain locked up in the library. Even though the copyright holder has long disappeared, or would not mind, it is impossible to show the old movie, adapt the old book, play the old song, put the old poem in an anthology. Many libraries simply refuse to allow screening of movies until the copyright term has expired; probably no one would object, but the legal risk is too great.

And if you think that's bad...

Now imagine creating an entirely new layer of rights over everything that is broadcast or webcast, on top of whatever copyrights already cover the work. You find a copy of a movie in the library and manage, at great expense, to work out that it is in the public domain, or to get the copyright holder’s permission. Perhaps the work is covered by a Creative Commons license, granting you permission to reproduce. Not so fast! Even after trudging through all the orphan works problems in copyright, you would have to prove that this copy had not been made from a broadcast or webcast. More clearance problems! More middle-men! More empirically ungrounded state-granted monopolies! Just what we wanted. There are even some serious free speech problems.

Ho my lord

Link:

It took some time, but the Dutch people are finally uniting against the newest political party in The Netherlands: the party for brotherlove, freedom and diversity (in Dutch Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, NVD), otherwise known as the 'pedophile party'.

A quick reminder: their goal is to introduce new legislation making it legal for an adult to have sex with a 12 year old child and legalizing childporn (if the child is 16 years or older).

Schumer

From the Hotline:

Schumer said that the DSCC "fully supports" Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary bid, and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent.

There were degrees of independence, Schumer said. "You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader."

This is pretty wacko. I don't know Ned Lamont, but if Leiberman were to lose the Democratic primary, I should hope the Democrat party would rescind its support, regardless of what the party elders think. This ain't no monarchy.

Now here's a good idea if ever I saw one:

As a general policy, vote all politicians out of office, with one major exception. This approach will automatically stir the political pool until something more than scum rises to the top and we are able to identify people that are actually capable of doing a good job.

Catholics are Funny

Another great old post from Mr. Cowen.

Good essays

This guy has some good essays for the technically-minded.

courtesy one j bronson

Slave-Pods!!!

This article appeared today on the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5079590.stm

You could look at this article as ammunition for the anti-globalization movement, arguing that these people are forced to work as slaves by "the dull compulsion of the market." The standard rebuttal to this argument is that undesirable jobs are better than no jobs, and that these people could find other jobs if they so pleased. But can the Chinese find other jobs if they so please? Or does the Chinese government tell Chinese people where they can work? Anyone know?

The Pack Mentality

Even though Karl Rove is off the hook, I think it was quite wise for the White House to distance itself (at least ostensibly) from him during the "staff shake up" a month ago. Now that he's been cleared, he'll likely get back to his old dirty tricks. Still, this Rove drama makes me wonder why Bush never canned the publicly blighted, Abu Ghraib-stained Rumsfeld.
I think there is a great way for politicians to deal with problems, and that is to just use a fallout man who takes all the bullets and dies in a press-fueled extravaganza of blame. This tactic seemed to work beautifully with Michael Brown post-Katrina.

Considering how well it works, it always surprises me when politicians or pundits don't use the fallout man tactic.
For example, I remember watching Ann Coulter on one of CNN's "let each side talk for 30 seconds and we'll call it a debate" sessions in the wake of the Tom Delay scandal, and it just completely baffled me that she referred to Delay as an "honorable man"--this, after Delay had given up his bid for reelection (probably because the Abramoff related evidence was simply too strong) Coulter's defense of Delay just did not make any sense to me. Wouldn't the smart move have been to disavow Delay as corrupt, leave the injured calf in the desert to die, and say "don't let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch?" Sticking to the pack mentality just undermines Coulter's credibility, which is already in short supply.

If only the White House could find a fallout man for the Iraq War. Maybe they could use James Franco.

Rove Redux

My thoughts on Rove:

The White House has had a number of, if not, great, fairly optimistic events happening in the past few days. Within, there must be at least a palpatable hope that the endless slide might be over.

As it relates specifically to politics, I think Rove's dodging the bullet is a good thing. Here's why.

The Democratic party and liberals in general, out of power in every branch of government, are trying to use every option they have to their benefit. In this particular case, many liberals seem to have been hoping for Rove's indictment as a way to even the political playing field in the runup to November.

Having Rove back in charge, with his name cleared (to a certain extent) forces the Democrats to not rely on the weakness of their opponents, but the strength of their ideas. Ultimately, this will either mean that a) they'll lose in November, or b) they'll win because their ideas appeal to a broad band of people. This is significantly better then winning as a result of everyone being sick of the other party (which even so might still happen).

This is one of a few first steps the White House and Republicans are taking to get back on their feet and in a fighting stance. I hope they keep going. If Democrats are confident in their ideas, they will stop bitching about campaign strategy and talk about what they'd do in office. I think at this point, the public has come to see through the campaign fluff that the GOP threw out in '04, or at least a majority has. I think, and hope, that this upcoming election will ultimately be about which party can better run the government: who has the better plan for Iraq? Who can bring the budget in line? Who can follow through on their promises and get laws passed?

If Rove were indicted, and the scandals kept piling up, the Democrats could simply play the 'we're less corrupt' card, which very well might work. If the GOP gets back on its feet, the Democrats will have to take a stand for what they believe in.

Or they might still get throttled as wussy-boys by Rove.

{update 10:31 AM}Check out this link from slate.

Marginal Revolution

Marginal Revolution is far and away the most interesting, entertaining, and thought-provoking website I have yet to see. It is a daily blog by two economists from George Mason University, Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok. While Tabarrok posts some occasionally fascinating analysis, Cowen provides the most consistent and entertaining topics of discussion. When taking breaks from work, I will be surfing their archives, reading every post they’ve made in the past 3 years, so expect some interesting links to come from them. Here is the first. Be sure to read his link as well.

Ever wonder why product quality often comes in threes? (Basic, Regular, Premium. Bronze, Silver, Gold. Third, Second, and First Class etc.) When there are only two product qualities consumers are torn between two "extremes," either of which makes them uneasy. Add a third quality and you create a happy medium. Simonson and Tversky (the cite is in the link below) report that when offered a low-end and a midrange microwave oven consumers chose the midrange 45% of the time. But when offered the same two ovens plus a high-end oven they significantly increased their purchases of the midrange. Even when few consumers buy the premium product the mere fact that it is offered can increase sales of the midrange product. Hal Varian calls this Goldilocks pricing (see discussion beginning at p.10).

I should also add that MR is also the site with the most intelligent and well-informed commenters that I have read. I hope Tammany can boast such a claim in the near future.

Karl Rove...

Well, I just did a couple of snarky posts the past two days, so I figured I’d talk about something a little more substantive.

So Karl Rove is off the hook. That’s fine. I don’t like the man, and I think the way he used racism to undermine McCain in SC in 2000 was despicable, but if the man didn’t do anything wrong, he doesn’t need to get indicted. It appears to me that Patrick Fitzgerald is an intelligent, thorough and fair prosecutor whose first priority is to uncover the truth, and based on this assessment, I am satisfied with his findings. My distaste for politicians and their advisors does not cross the line into wishing them unfair distress at the hands of a politically motivated prosecutor. I think this is what happened in the 90s to Clinton (whom I do not dislike, FTR), and it still bothers me that such a circus was allowed to occur only 8 years ago. I am very happy, in the end, that this investigation is not as overtly political as some have been in the past

Kos

Markos Moulitsas has apparently joined the debate on whether Maureen Dowd is an “insecure, catty bitch.”

The DailyKos: Raising the bar for political discourse worldwide.

Mark Warner

I like this guy a lot. He's been catching some flak from this weekend:

You've seen it already, people criticizing the Mark Warner operation for their tony party at the Stratosphere during YearlyKos. Apparently, people think 1) Warner is trying to buy their support (everyone knows we're not that cheap), and 2) Warner could've spent the money ($50-100K) better.

It's clearly too early to start handicapping the race in '08. Regardless, let me say that of all the Democratic contenders Warner seems to me to have the best shot. Why?

You've got, as a front runner, Hillary Clinton. I don't think she'll get the nomination. The hard left doesn't like her, because she seems like your typical politican, and besides, she's not left enough. In addition, she's not electable. So, whoever can run as the anti-Clinton is going to be huge.

Right now every other Democratic candidate seems to be jockeying for that position. Clark, Feingold, Kerry (god forbid), Edwards, Vilsack, Richardson, etc. etc. etc. None of these candidates seem to me to be that great. Clark ain't a good politican; Feingold, for all his appeal in the blogosphere, is not moderate enough to be elected. Granted I don't know too much about Richardson or Vilsack, but that's an equally damning judgement.

Warner seems to have that same quality of charisma that Big Willie had. He's likable; he's a Democratic governer from a red state, and he left office with an astronomical approval rating. He can credibly run to the center, branding himself as quite electable, but also as a very competent leader. Before politics, he was a very successful businessman. I think that competence cannot be underestimated when it comes to the next election.

2 years is a long time, and a lot can change. However, this guy looks real good right now. He's doing all the right things, but more importantly, he seems credible. I could see him competing in the South, and lord knows if the Democratic party wants a fighting chance they can't base their entire strategy on a handful of swing states. Even the potential of carrying Virginia, which seems like it could be fairly likely, is a pretty important thing.

Of course, all this could pale in relationship to the Republican nominee. I think a debate between McCain and Warner would be so bloody wonderful, after the past 6 years. Imagine a choice between two potentially great leaders? That would be a sight.

I Hate the World

But really, I just hate James Franco.

Sorry, no politics.

Monday Morning Roundup

Kent, could you expand on Iran? Specifically, why do you believe economic sanctions would be unsuccessful? It seems like Iran has as much to lose as we do from economic sanctions - they're no North Korea.

On another note, this from CNN:

Rep. John Murtha, an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, announced Friday that he would run for majority leader if the Democrats take over the House in the fall elections.

"If we prevail as I hope and know we will, and return to the majority this next Congress, I have decided to run for the open seat of the majority leader," Murtha said in a letter to his Democratic colleagues.

And also this from TNR:

As readers will probably know, Murtha is a close ally of Nancy Pelosi who favors a fast withdrawal from Iraq. Hoyer is more inclined to tough it out in Iraq, and has a long history of friction with Pelosi.

One more, this time an interview with Harry Reid, courtesy of Salon:

I think it's allowed me to be myself, to try to take on the giants, you know, because I feel like I have a little bit of help. When I started this thing with the privatization of Social Security, I felt like David going against Goliath. Bush and the media out there, it was a 9-foot giant, and here I was a teenage kid. But after we fired that rock and hit 'em in the middle of the forehead and beat them, they're no longer 9 feet high. They're about my size. We have a better shot at 'em. Still not as good as it would have been had we not had everything consolidated, and the Fairness Doctrine [had not gone] out the window, and all the things that were so "fair." We don't have that, but we've made progress.

For the record, I like Reid a lot, and I think he's one of the better politicians working in Washington.

If I had to root for one house in November, I would hope for the Senate. The idea of Pelosi dragging the party to the left is not very comforting; seems like the Senate would produce a more moderate approach, courtesy of Reid and others.

Thoughts?

Two thoughts on Canada

First, I think it’s clear from many acts of terror throughout the Western world that Islamic terrorists are not satisfied to destroy America. These terrorists evidently wish to overthrow any form of Western government that in any way defines itself as apart from Islamic law. I think that this foiled plot, along with the bombings of Spain, should convince anyone that they will not simply leave us be if we leave Iraq or Afghanistan. Spain and Canada are by no means a threat to the Islamic way of life, nor are they a significant force in either country. Nevertheless, their symbolic show of support for the USA’s foreign policy has placed them on the most wanted list for a band of religious fanatics that have vowed to destroy all that is Western.

However, we must be careful not to lump all these groups together as one entity that we must overcome. Just as al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq has tenuous connections to bin Laden’s al Qaeda network at best, these Canadian terrorists are not members of al Qaeda, but merely “al Qaeda inspired.” One can take this as an admission by Canadian intelligence that this group had no connection to bin Laden’s terror network, and were merely acting on their own to promote similar goals. This is important to keep in mind while we celebrate the death of Zarqawi. While it is great news that such a vile man was killed, we need harbor no illusions that crippling the terrorists’ hierarchy will stop Islamic violence throughout the world. These groups are very often completely autonomous and unconnected, and harming Zarqawi’s network is going to do nothing to stop many terrorist groups in Iraq from continuing their campaign of violence, to say nothing of groups in the Western world. The only way to truly destroy Islamic fundamentalist violence is to undermine the public’s support for terrorism in their own countries. The only way to truly do this is to improve the economic situation in these countries, so the public does not harbor such anti-Western sentiments. Once these countries begin to benefit substantially from global integration, the radical elements in their nations will slowly lose their stranglehold on the discourse, and we can finally end this supposed clash of civilizations.

My second point is the motivation behind my strong misgivings about the effects of economic sanctions against Iran, assuming negotiations fail.

The Hive Mind

Digital collectivism:

There is a lot of history to this topic, and varied disciplines have lots to say. Here is a quick pass at where I think the boundary between effective collective thought and nonsense lies: The collective is more likely to be smart when it isn't defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result (such as a single numeric value,) and when the information system which informs the collective is filtered by a quality control mechanism that relies on individuals to a high degree. Under those circumstances, a collective can be smarter than a person. Break any one of those conditions and the collective becomes unreliable or worse.

Meanwhile, an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions.

If the above criteria have any merit, then there is an unfortunate convergence. The setup for the most stupid collective is also the setup for the most stupid individuals.

I think that some of what he says is good, but I think that the rush to "be the most meta" is a fad, and probably won't last too long. I think the fairly public recent backlash against wikipedia is a good example; the more people learn about various collectives on the internet the more people find fault with them. But he clearly has some very smart things to say, and I think, again, moderation is the best path - the hive mind is good in moderate doses.

I appreciate your support...

GOP in Mass!

Friday Afternoon

Well, you know how I feel about Bush. I think from a conversative standpoint you've got judges and you've got tax cuts. You've got the two wars, but even those haven't gone too great - Afghanistan doesn't get a ton of press coverage but it's not a peachy situation either.

Now, as to tax cuts, again, I'm no economist, but it seems like we'll pay for them at some point. As to the judges... well, wouldn't you expect that from a Republican president?

The one strain between both Alito and Roberts - and I like Roberts from what I've seen, insofar as he seems to know his stuff, and he has led a pretty harmonious Supreme Court so far - but they both have a tendency to yield to the executive. I came across quite a few articles yesterday, talking about the concept of the "unitary executive". For instance:

The Supreme Court's embrace of the “unitary executive” would sound the death knell for independent regulatory agencies as they have existed since the Great Depression, when they were structured with shared control between the Congress and the President. Putting the agencies under the President’s thumb would tip the balance of Washington power to the White House and invite abuses by letting the Executive turn on and off enforcement investigations.

For instance, if the “unitary executive” had existed in 2001, Bush might have been tempted to halt the SEC accounting investigation that spelled doom for Enron Corp. and his major financial backer, Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay. As it was, the relative independence of the SEC ensured that the accounting probe went forward and the fraudulent schemes propping up the Houston-based company were exposed.

This to me is the scariest part of the Bush administration's legacy. While of course the president should not have his hands tied in matters of war, this to me seems to cross the line. What has happened now is that Bush has 4 justices on the court that are sympathetic to this idea of presidential power; I don't think a serious case has come before them that has tested it, but I would assume that all four would come down on the side of the executive. And, were another justice, say Souter, to retire, that would give Bush a solid majority in his favor.

How will the Supreme Court rule on cases of presidential power post-Bush? Will the concept of an all-powerful executive remain in vogue, if, say, Hillary Clinton is in power (I know that this is the bogeyman that conservatives often wave against presidential encroachment, so I use her here)?

Furthermore, it doesn't seem like that concept is all that conservative, especially from a libertarian conservative's point of view. Of course, in other conservative ways they pass with flying colors - so I guess it's all about your perspective.

Steve - you mentioned that:

Fortunately we have all those foreigners pumping money into our system (which is how we've been getting away with this for so long).

What if foreigners cease pumping money into our system? What happens, and how likely, is that scenario?

Well, I'm off for the weekend. I'll catch up on Sunday.

What have been Pres. Bush's successes?

KScott and I have actually discussed this before to some extent, but I’d love some more input. We were theorizing as to how history will view Bush’s terms. I think that Bush’s successes have been few and far between, personally, even from the perspective of a typical Republican. So I’ll throw out some options, and if you have any to add or contest, please put them in the comments.

From a Republican standpoint:

Supreme Court and District Court appointments

Response to 9/11 in Afghanistan

Tax Cuts

No Child Left Behind (?)

From a general historical standpoint

Response to 9/11 in Afghanistan

No Child Left Behind (?)

I think it is too soon to determine whether Iraq will be a success or not. Also, I think history will look very unfavorably upon Bush’s fiscal policy, of which the tax cuts are a part. Republicans tend to view these policies as more separate. I frankly don’t know enough about NCLB to discuss it, so I am throwing it out there in case anyone can enlighten me.

Later I will post some of his failures from my perspective, although I am sure you can guess a few already.

...and

Oh and hi Dave.

Economics baby

Not knowing much about economics, I wanted to point a question to you guys.

I came across this essay:

How bad will it be? In historical terms, the last depression was relatively short and mild. The longest depression on record was the Dark Ages. Residents of the old USSR and Mao's China suffered through a depression that lasted decades. I'm not predicting it will be that bad, if only because the U.S. has basically much sounder traditions and institutions and vastly more accumulated capital. But it's hard to overestimate how serious this could be. I sometimes joke that it will likely be worse than even I think it will be.

Getting back to whether it's truly inevitable, it's a question of degree. The recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s involved a terrible stock market, 15% inflation with interest rates to match, 10% unemployment and a near war with the USSR. But the country not only hung together, it went on to a tremendous rebound. My guess is, however, that the last 20 years of good times will later be viewed as an economic Indian Summer before a harsh winter.

Read the whole essay; in fact, check out the whole site if you haven't.

I'm mostly curious in your thoughts on the state of the economy today and more importantly, 5-10-15 years down the road. Obviously the national debt is soaring, the budget is soaring, but what does that mean in real terms for most Americans? Are fears about depression overblown, or very real? What are the steps by which those problems can be alleviated?

I'm here lurking in the shadows

Hey guys just letting you know that I am reading the blog quite intently I just haven't felt the need to post yet--Though I wish there were something political about the superdickery website because that is quite possibly the funniest stuff I've ever seen.

NSA update

This from USA Today:

A last-minute deal Tuesday with Vice President Cheney averted a possible confrontation between the Senate Judiciary Committee and U.S. telephone companies about the National Security Agency's database of customer calling records.

The deal was announced by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. They said Cheney, who plays a key role supervising NSA counterterrorism efforts, promised that the Bush administration would consider legislation proposed by Specter that would place a domestic surveillance program under scrutiny of a special federal court.

In return, Specter agreed to postpone indefinitely asking executives from the nation's telecommunication companies to testify about another program in which the NSA collects records of domestic calls.

God. Damn. It.

Why will this administration refuse to even talk about it?

The only possible reason I can see is that they know it is illegal, and they know that it is obviously so. If not, why not let the congress, the courts, even in closed session study this thing?

Surely it would be better to suffer an investigation now, with a sympathetic Republican congress, then potentially risk the almost certain investigation in the events that the Democrats are successful in the fall?

This baffles me. Shame on Specter.

On a completely different tack but no less ass-tastic is this asinine move:

But the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) said Juke Box had offered a level of interactvity that breached its licence.

Tiscali Juke Box, which launched in April, was a legal peer-to-peer service where songs could be listened to but not copied or downloaded, and royalties were paid for "non-interactive rights" to songs.

However the IFPI decided Tiscali "was paying to offer one type of service but was actually offering another very different one".
"Consumers were allowed a high degree of interactivity that breached these rules in many ways - for example, streaming individual tracks on demand," it said.

Breached its license by offering too much interactivity?

This makes my head hurt. These companies seem to want to fail. When the illegal downloading sites offer a product that is better and more reliable than the legal version, you know you have a problem.

Too much interactivity? I'm sorry to rant but this makes my head spin. You have to give the customers what they want, and in this day and age, customers want complete control. Won't let users search by artist? What dumbass thought that one up?

Kafka-esque

Check this out

Money quote:

The government argues that the case should be dismissed because it could confirm or deny the existence of a secret program, while the EFF says that if AT&T was provided with legal justification for turning over records to the government, that letter isn’t classified according to law.

Walker dismissed EFF’s arguments, agreeing (.pdf) with AT&T and the governments’ arguments that AT&T can’t defend itself without providing the letter, a letter which the government says would prove the existence of a state secret.

... and another thing!

There's another interesting piece of news that might get lost in the shuffle - Bilbray (the Republican) won the seat recently vacated by Randy "Duke" Cunningham" .

Below, this analysis from slate:

In the end, whatever conclusions the parties draw, the real lesson of the Bilbray victory may be that the structural rules of politics hold: Money and districts drawn to maximize party advantage will help the party in power. That won't keep the GOP from losing seats, and it won't make the next five months pretty. But it's a glimmer of hope for a party whose expectations have dropped so low that merely retaining control of Congress will be trumpeted as a great victory.

I'm curious as to what kind of bellwhether this is going into November. This was a race that Democrats sorely wanted to win, because a pickup here in a solidly Republican district would have had Republicans shaking in their boots, as well as advancing the Democrats' cause. The fact that they didn't is either a testament to the powers of incumbency or the overstated "Democratic wave"; could this indicate that the Republicans will maintain control of both houses this November?

I will personally say that I hope not. First of all, the Democrat party at this point is in a struggle between the centrist DLC'ers and the hard-left antiwar faction. Both are fighting for the party's soul, but I would say at this point that the antiwar left is the much more passionate of the two, and as a result going into November could potentially play a much more significant role getting candidates elected. What this could mean, besides more oversight of the executive which lord would be a relief, is a lunge to the hard left, in turn alienating moderates and providing an opening for a more moderate Republican to run and win in 2008 (especially if the party nominates an anti-war leftie in '08).

This is the scenario that seems most ideal to me: the House or Senate in Democratic hands in '06, the Dems overplay their hands for the next two years but maintain control over the House or Senate in '08, and a moderate Republican runs to the center in '08 and leads with a hostile congress. Divided government would do wonders for this country.

On the other hand, a loss for the Democratic party, when so many things are working in their favor, would maybe cause the party to reassess its soul, and maybe provide impetus to rush to the center, and provide good leadership that does not rely solely on a hatred of Bush.

But... not bloody likely.

One more FMA question

Zarqawi's death is good news. However, I think that the victory is more symbolic than anything. I can't say I know much of anything about how the insurgency is structured in Iraq, but it would seem like there are plenty of other nutjobs who would be ready to step into his command role. Nonetheless, any progress is good progress, especially in a country and war where so far there has sadly been little.

This piece of news will probably dominate for a while, so before it does I'd just like to ask a question pertaining to the FMA - Steve, you mentioned federal tax breaks associated with marriage - any idea how a place like Massachusetts is dealing with that issue?

Zarqawi

First things first: The death of al-Zarqawi is unequivocally good news, both for the United States’ interests and for the Iraqi people who have suffered under his campaign of terror and random bombings. The important point is just how significant this news is. As I understand it, the organizational structure is both very hierarchical and very isolated. The former suggests that beheading the organization will severely weaken it, while the latter suggests a level of autonomy among terror cells that remains very concerning. It is foolish to suggest that Zarqawi obtained the cult of personality necessary to galvanize support for al-Qaeda single-handedly. Events in Israel and Palestine have certainly shown that often the only effect of killing a terrorist leader is a swift promotion of an underboss.

Basically, any elimination of a major leader of our enemies is a success worthy of mention. It is, however, far from the death blow that this country needs to turn the tide on the war.

Re: FMA

I’d like to kick off my first post by congratulating Luther Strange on his strong lead over George Wallace Jr. going into the primary runoff for the Republican candidate for Lt. Governor. Also, I would like to note with pride that the more sensible elements of Alabama voted Judge Roy Moore out of the race by a sound margin.

Ah, now on to larger issues. I take a slightly different stance on the political benefits of refocusing on the FMA. Kevin asks “why put aside an issue like immigration that the base is clamoring for to pull out this piece of garbage?” I would respond that gay marriage is an issue on which the base and the administration can easily agree. Bush, thankfully, appears to be quite devoted to his more moderate stance on immigration, which has led to his dismal approval rating recently. In an act of political savvy, he decides to sidestep and focus on an issue where he knows his base will support him. This allows him to quietly pursue his center-right policy on immigration while the more radical elements of each party bash their heads together over an amendment that proves that Bush is still in touch with his constituents. To be quite honest, I prefer this line of action, considering the amendment’s likelihood of failure and the myriad negative effects of a far right immigration policy.

Of course, this amendment is truly a piece of garbage. In fact, why is the government in the business of marriage at all? It seems silly that a personal, emotional, often religious commitment between two people should be codified and regulated by the government especially the federal government. Since there are important legal distinctions to be made for married couples, I would advocate an entirely separate contract for married people to fill out once they commit to one another. This policy would be fair towards all couples and leave the emotional and religious connotations of the commitment contract at the door, a welcome step in any political arrangement. I believe that abolishing marriage as a legal institution and setting up a system of civil unions for all committed couples would provide the government with a level-headedness that is sorely lacking on this issue. What we have here is a semantic debate, which is a waste of everyone’s time and energy and will accomplish little in terms of shaping American culture, whether you advocate gay marriage or abhor it.

Thanks to Kevin for bringing up some interesting points, and welcome to the Tammany Hall Report. I hope everyone enjoys it.

Inauguration

Hello, hello! Welcome to our new blog.

As the inaugural post, I'll just say that we are college buddies, who both happen to be passionate about politics, culture, and other areas of life that tend to spark arguments, and we are hoping to continue our arguing in cyberspace, at this very blog in fact.

Anyways, let's jump right into the skinny. A lot of attention is being lavished on the renewed Republican push for the FMA. However, it's looking like it may not pan out the way they would like:

With Mr. Bush struggling to win back support of fellow Republicans who have grown discouraged, the president has been under increasing pressure to advocate forcefully on an issue that religious conservatives consider of utmost importance, especially with state court cases under way that could lead to legalization of same-sex marriage. Congress faces even larger political stakes: low public approval ratings, and, unlike Bush, danger of low voter turnout this fall in the midterm elections among social conservatives that could hurt Republicans seeking to maintain their majority.

At the same time, the GOP's efforts at creating a "big tent" image will be put to the test. Some of the most vulnerable members of Congress - many of them moderate Republicans from the Northeast - could be hurt by the debate, as it highlights a point of view less resonant in that part of the country than in others.

The debate could also reverberate further into the future, into the 2008 presidential contest. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a likely GOP contender, opposes a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, arguing that the issue should be left up to the states. He has long faced hostility from social conservative leaders over this and other positions, and his recent efforts at reconciliation with this activist wing of the party could be set back by the debate.

Not only could this drive away independents and moderate Republicans, it seems like this could fail to gin up the hardcore Christian base. It seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot with this one; why put aside an issue like immigration that the base is clamoring for to pull out this piece of garbage?

I also found this sad story.

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment," according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

The decision could culminate a lengthy debate within the Defense Department but will not become final until the Pentagon makes new guidelines public, a step that has been delayed. However, the State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, the Defense Department officials acknowledged.

In somewhat related news, the ABA has recently said that they would launch an investigation into Bush's extensive use of signing statements. Especially after Specter said and then failed to launch an investigation into this, it's nice to see an independent organization stepping up to the plate. The most egregious example, I think, was his use of a signing statement on the McCain amendment barring torture, passed with overwhelming majorities (read: veto-proof) in both houses.

Will their investigation actually produce results? I doubt it. If anything, it'll be another voice in a loud sea of bitching. But it will be another respected voice, from an independent organization. Hell, maybe they'll finish their investigation and say everything's legit (I doubt it).

ps By the way, hell of a date to start the first post, eh?