A Different Reason

In blog news...

2005-05-24T22:47:00.000-04:00

TK is having its first Super Excellent TK Giveaway Extravaganza, which needs eight more entrants for me to win my damn gift card.

Also, though he has so rudely refused to notify me directly, Matt has launched Mutually Assured Destruction. I plug him less than enthusiastically, until he says sorry.

Putting two and two together

2005-05-22T22:16:00.000-04:00

Saturday: President Hamid Karzai condemns U.S. prisoner abuse and demands Afghanistan take custody of Afghan prisoners.

Sunday: Bush administration publicizes internal memo criticizing Karzai for failing to crackdown on opium production.

Placing the audacity of the administration's strenuous efforts to defend and conceal torture aside, the broader point is clear. If we're actually going to support independent, democratically-elected leaders in the Muslim world, we might have to let them (gasp) criticize us.

Whose Monument?

2005-05-18T16:44:00.000-04:00

I wish Trump wasn't Trump and this idea had a more credible big name behind it, because it makes perfect sense.

If the purpose of rebuilding is to show deference to the victims, defiance to the perpetrators, and show that life moves on, why not essentially rebuild the original towers along with a memorial?

Building any of the jagged, post-modern monstrosities that have been proposed, especially Daniel Libeskind's, is not a monument to the victims and the resilient spirit of New York. Instead, it is a monument to its morbid, egomaniacal designer.

What if I want to write in the margins?

2005-05-14T10:44:00.000-04:00

The NYT today draws attention to library collections' transition from paper to digital. The article mostly focuses on internet scholarship's potential to free up floor space, especially since many undergraduate libraries are duplicate collections of superior graduate facilities, unlike here at NYU where the behemoth Bobst serves all.

While the piece doesn't seem to be intended as a full feature on the topic, it should have at least raised some of the potential pitfalls that internet scholarship, in its present state, poses to scholarship in general. (There is a very interesting piece on this by David Bell in the May 2 New Republic.)

Of course, internet scholarship has tremendous potential to democratize learning, eliminating the cost of printing, shipping, and storing books and making the finest collections on the planet available to anyone with an internet connection. However, at the present, this seems to be confined to the university realm. Publishers, uncomfortable with a new medium as entrenched interests often are, are wary of publishing e-books, and the result is a very low selection of titles available online outside of the Academy.

Also, there is the actual physical process of reading from a computer. This isn't a concern based in the romantic notion of cracking open a dusty calf-bound volume, but from a simple fear that internet scholarship will make us all bad readers.

Most obviously, there is the potential for eyestrain, which would serve as a physical deterrent to prolonged reading. Some companies are experimenting with "electronic ink," screens that display text with microcapsules manipulated by an electronic field, rather than with the projection of an internal light source. Still, electronic reading devices released to date have been clumsy, expensive, and just not realistic enough.

Finally and most importantly, internet scholarship has the potential to reduce the overall quality of study, because it's just too easy to cheat. Instead of reading an entire book or chapter to get a feel for the author's style and the context of the book, eager researchers can simply search the text for the information they need based on certain words or phrases.

I'm not against the expansion of internet scholarship, but we shouldn't put the cart in front of the horse. Until hardware technology has caught up with internet technology and until we can be assured that e-books will be treated like any other, we should proceed with caution, with an ethos of quality over quantity.

What an ass.

2005-05-13T23:55:00.000-04:00

I mean, seriously.

Unintelligent Design

2005-05-11T12:49:00.000-04:00

There are two pieces on the "cover" of Slate today on the battle over earth and life science curriculum in Kansas, and how that conflict is showing how Intelligent Design (ID) is taking creationism's place as the primary opposition to evolution.

As William Saletan outlines, ID is the lastest installment along the ironic "evolution" of creationism. First, creationism was the status quo that sought to stave off evolution. Then, creationists sought plurality: creationism alongside evolution in textbooks. Now, there is ID: a theory stating that the complexity of the earth and its life is the work of a vaguely defined "master designer," which could be a deity, a natural process, or organisms themselves.

ID proponents base their argument on gaps in the evolutionist record of earth and life history, but break from the literalist interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 and some also support a few of evolutionists' broader claims, such as the age of the earth and even microevolution: the formation of new species through genetic mutation and natural selection.

ID, as a foe of evolution, is preferable to creationism in that it is actually based on scientific inquisition, and also avoids creationists' wilder claims, such as the earth is 6,000-some years old, fossils do not take a long time to form, the Grand Canyon was formed in hours or days, and dinosaurs co-existed with man. ID seeks to fill in what is left by evolution, and evolution, technically and perpetually a theory, is not sacrosanct, as other well-founded scientific theories have turned out to be entirely wrong (though evolution is unlikely to find this fate).

However, while there is nothing wrong with ID in form, there are serious flaws in its reasoning that for some reason go entirely unquestioned in its press coverage, even in opinion pages. The flaw lies in its central assumption that the complexity of life and the earth is evidence for some form of design: that life and earth forms and processes are far too elaborate and well-functioning to be arrived at by chance.

But aren't the complexities and detailed systems of life and the earth evidence for the opposite? What designer would have thought to put the little hairs in my nose to warm the air and catch debris? What designer would have thought of the shapes and colors of the Valley of Fire? It seems, to me at least, that the complexities of nature are evidence not of a designer, but of billions of years and countless incremental changes and trial-and-error.

UPDATE: Mikey briefly posts pro-ID. I hope he doesn't take my "Unintelligent Design" epigram personally.

Just give up

2005-05-07T15:51:00.000-04:00

John Tierney continues to flail in defense of privatization today, backpedaling somewhat on his Chilean pension piece, but continuing to propagate Social Security misconceptions and silly anti-government rhetoric across the opinion page of the paper of record.

Today's fallacy is the notion is something he's hinted at before, but is now saying outright: that payroll tax cannot be trusted in the hands of Congress. Tierney claims that private savings accounts are preferable because retirees can see the account balance with their own two eyes, as opposed to sending it to the Treasury.

He envisions Congress being unable to make the tax increases or budget cuts necessary to save Social Security as is because of the political risk involved, so it's either go to private accounts or Social Security perishes. First of all, this view is entirely ahistorical. At several points in the past, Congress has done exactly what Tierney is saying it would never do. Furthermore, Tierney's attitude is right in keeping with privatization advocates' denial or ignorance of the wild popularity of Social Security. No matter the political risk of making slightly painful adjustments to the Social Security system, this pales in comparison to the political hara-kiri of allowing Social Security to go underfunded and expire, or even be cut at all. I'm trying to write the last undergrad paper of my life so I'll make it short: not gonna happen, and Tierney needs to stick to the fluff that he writes best.

I never thought I'd miss William Safire

2005-04-30T12:35:00.000-04:00

After writing a few non-political pieces, new NYT columnist John Tierney has finally decided to end his honeymoon and weigh in with a pair of lousy pieces on social security privatization.

The first one was bad enough, reducing the complexities of the social security debate to an anecdote, and a foreign one at that. Tierney chose to disregard all of the political, ideological, and fiscal hurdles to privatization in favor of drooling over the pension of a Chilean economist. At least David Brooks will look at an entire survey before he makes his sweeping generalizations.

Today's piece unblushingly repeats just about every discredited assumption made in the pro-privatization camp. First, he takes it for granted that it will "shore up the system," though the riddle of how taking money out of the system improves its finances is yet to be solved. Even President Bush speaks of private accounts and solvency as separate issues.

Next he makes the statement that "most workers now pay more to Social Security than to the I.R.S." Discerning the economic truth of this I will leave to Neil, but I'd like to point out the political fallacy here. Pro-privatizers like to make statements about what workers "pay" to Social Security as if it is like the money you pay for your rent or a ham sandwich, as if it is money you are not getting back in some way. It fits with the characterization of tax cuts as "giving back your money" or as President Bush has said with trademark pithy: "It's your money. You paid for it." Payroll tax, like any other tax, is payment for a service. The government isn't taking your money and hopping the bus to Atlantic City.

Next, Tierney acknowledges Social Security's tremendous anti-poverty effects, but qualifies: "As a poverty-fighting program, Social Security is woefully inefficient because most of the money goes to people who aren't poor." He's right, but this "inefficiency" is what makes Social Security an effective anti-poverty program, because if it wasn't so inefficient, it would have been abolished by now. Anti-poverty programs, i.e. welfare in the form of AFDC, that target the poor raise issues of deservingness that make them tremendously unpopular and lead to their demise.

Finally, Tierney tries to assuage critics' fears that without the safety net of Social Security, many individuals could be left with an unsatisfactory pension. He says that the Cato Institute and Congressional Republicans have been talking about a measure to subsidize elderly up to the poverty line if their pension does not meet it.

I have not seen any numbers on such a proposal, but I would say that whether it is a good idea depends on the cause of these pensions running low. At a time when markets are generally kind and the only cause of lackluster pensions is bad market choices or personal injury, the financial obligation to such a safety net would be low. However, in times of market downturn, there may be more retirees with paltry pensions than there is government ability to pay for them. Therefore, this could be increasing Social Security's financial burden, not to mention such direct payments, specifically to the poorest, again raise the issues of deservingness that would put Social Security's very existence in peril. Hmm, why would the Cato Institute and Congressional Republicans be insensitive to such a concern?

I'm glad we're having this Social Security debate in this country. It is a vital program, and any ideas to improve it should be on the table, and though privatization is a bad idea, most of those promoting it mean well. Also, the debate raises issues concerning the balance of personal, community, and government responsibility that need to be discussed as we move from the industrial to the information age. Such a great discussion should not be about winning and losing, so when pro-privatization advocates reiterate their claims in the face of facts to the contrary, it feels more like combat than conversation, and Tierney, in a new place of influence as a NYT columnist, is doing a disservice.

Benedict XVI

2005-04-19T21:36:00.000-04:00

I return from extended blogger hiatus to comment on the ascension of Joseph Ratzinger to the papacy as Benedict XVI. There seems to be a lot of disappointment in the blogosphere, among those who would have preferred a Third World figure such as Cardinal Arinze or a moderate such as Cardinal Tettamanzi.

First there is the matter of whether the pope should have come from the Third World, where Catholicism has had recent growth. In terms of where the pope should come from, there were too many factors to be considered to give particular weight to any one place. The church's issues are different all over the world: general decline of religiosity in Europe, diminishment of the priesthood in the US, competition with Protestant evangelicals in South America, and competition and conflict with Islam as it too expands in Africa. Therefore, the geo-politics of the papacy became irrelevant through the variety of challenges faced by what is increasingly a global religion.

The second, more contentious matter is fear of Benedict's social conservatism, concerning abortion rights, gay rights, and the prospect of women in the priesthood. In spite of being a supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, I cannot possibly fault Benedict, or any church figure, for taking these stands. To those taking umbrage, I would reiterate that this is, after all, the Catholic Church, and I don't think I'm too rigid in my thinking to say social reform is not to be expected from it. The Church's stances on abortion, homosexuality, and female clergy are not anachronistic bogeys to be shedded with the passage of time, but rather logical outgrowths from initial faith in creationism and the divinity of Christ.

I see the Church's conservatism on social issues as a positive, in spite of its dischord with my personal beliefs. First of all, to pursue social reform through the Church rather than the government would be to have tacitly given up the larger philosophical notion that we should not be making social policy according to the dictates of any religious faith and instead with respect to individual choice, plurality, and freedom. Secondly, we should take comfort in Church dogma's persistence as an intellectual counterweight to the doctrines of social liberalism. Just as the country would be worse off if the Republican Party collapsed tomorrow, so might the world be without the continuity of the Church.

The final word on the election of Benedict XVI is that we should simply leave it as a matter of trust. He was not elected by the Holy Spirit: Innocent III and Alexander VI can attest to that. However, he was chosen by 117 men who have devoted their lives to the faith and works of Catholicism. The process isn't perfect, as nothing human is, but that does not mean the decision is anyone else's to make but theirs.

My bad, others' good

2005-02-24T01:51:00.000-05:00

I'm thoroughly aware of my lack of posting recently. It's not a conscious decision, just a combination of being pressed for time, not too into anything in the news right now, and expending blogging energies on the Washington Square News Opinion Blog, which is very interesting, but lacking in outside input (hint hint).

Also, some more love on the posts might help me write more. Pieces ranging from nuggets like So we meet again, Dr. Hegel and To Demagogue to epics like 2005 and Catching Up have gone uncommented. Hardly an incentive, my blogger friends. Don't you know how sensitive I am?

Meanwhile, others are picking up my slack in the blogosphere. Shankar Gupta's blog/job application TK is up and running. Noam Besdin, the man who so graciously made me an honorary Jew, is blogging abroad as ItaliaNoam, much on the model of Ben's Prague blog, which is still a blog, though not from Prague.

If only Matt Buchanan's blog was done yet, I could fold it into this plug, but his loss...

The Gates

2005-02-20T18:03:00.000-05:00

I got a look at The Gates today, not as a trip in itself, but I had to go from the Upper East Side to the Upper West Side and figured I'd walk. I was mostly motivated by the prospect of years from now someone saying: "The Gates was in Central Park and you never went to see it!?"

My overall statement on The Gates is that I can't judge it because the whole ordeal has become overbearingly self-aware. I understand the point of bringing color to a place that is brown and bringing novelty to a place that has been demure for 150 years. However, hardly being able to enter at 79th Street due to throngs of people and from then on having every post adorned with a tourist wearing orange and posing for a photo does not, for me at least, signal magic and wonderment.

I suppose The Gates never stood a chance with me. A few weeks of process stories about the logistics of the operation deadened any impact it could have on the imagination. Perhaps if it had been set up overnight without any notice and I just encountered it at dawn before anyone else, it would be worthwhile. Meanwhile, in the real world, the attendants wearing smocks emblazoned in orange with "The Gates" and the dates of the installation are just too much.

So we meet again, Dr. Hegel

2005-01-30T11:24:00.000-05:00

Iraqi elections have gone better than expected, and no one is more glad than I am. First of all, there is my general girlie-man liberal aversion to widespread death and destruction (of which there was some, but drastically less than the worst-case scenario). Second, I've written about the validity of democracy-spreading and the universal quality of democracy here, here, and in my flawed, but, most importantly, completed honors thesis.

However, the downside of yesterday's success is that it will serve as a springboard for the administration to suggest that everything before this point has been rendered moot: minor and forgivable bumps on the road within a master unfolding of Iraqi democracy. This is the pinnacle of the Bush administration's aversion to accountability. No matter how high turnout was and how low violence was, it does not absolve doctored WMD claims, outright lies concerning the relationship of Saddam Hussein and al Qaida, disastrous post-war planning, or torture.

And to think Hegelianism had finally died with the Soviets, who argued that victory over the Nazis and the ultimate goals of communist utopia justified totalitarian excess. Instead, Hegel's "slaughterbench of history" is alive and well.

To Demagogue

2005-01-19T01:38:00.000-05:00

TNR's Noam Scheiber considers the argument that Democrats should not try to debunk the Bush White House's terribly familiar attempt to characterize Social Security as facing an immediate (rather than simply impending) crisis, for fear of seeming married to the status quo and without a positive agenda. His conclusion is that it is not desirable but it is necessary, considering the undemocratic tactics of the administration.

However, the question of whether to demagogue is moot without a counter-proposal. Without a Democratic alternative, all you're choosing between is whether to let privatization go by unopposed, or attack it without affect, since the lack of a counter-proposal makes privatization seem like it's the only option. Instead, someone in the party needs to take the lead and propose modest changes that would have large affects, such as slight raises in the salary cap and retirement age that would extend Social Security's solvency for a lifetime. They'll involve a small amount of pain, but the political benefit of preserving the character of a popular system could outweigh the political risk of narrowing it if the move is sold well, and particularly if the changes are set to go into effect in the future, they'll essentially go unnoticed.

An Expanding Blogosphere

2005-01-04T00:28:00.000-05:00

Taylor Yu, the self-proclaimed "Democratic wing of the Republican Party," has launched his long-overdue blog, Classicaliberalconservative, and he's off and running (to be the first Asian-American president). Speaking of long-overdue blogs, keep an eye out for Matt Buchanan's all-purpose blog, Mutual Assured Destruction, coming soon. Matt's too tech-savvy to settle for some lame-ass Blogger.com template, unlike me, who inadvertantly chose the same template as NYU Students for Life (slaps head), so he's going all-custom.

And all the while, Benjamin Harrison and Co. over at Lefterer have been blogging like the pros, in spite of my neglect to plug them.

2005

2005-01-01T16:38:00.000-05:00

Year-in-review pieces are a bore and predictions would only serve to embarass me one year from today, but I feel like I should do something to commemorate the new year, so instead I'm going to offer three pieces of my semi-expert advice for each party to follow in the coming year.

To the Republicans:

Beware the Ides of March: The majority is never as big as it feels and we all know there’s no such thing as a mandate, so be careful not to go too far in enacting a partisan program. I’m not just a girlie-man Democrat begging for mercy here, this is in your interest, too. Politically an overreach can prompt a backlash, not to mention a lack of balance on either side isn’t good for the country. You’ve won and no one can deny you that, so you’re free to push an agenda, but listen to what the Dems in Congress have to say; 49% of the country can’t be totally wrong. To sum it up briefly: the election’s over, it’s time to govern, and your guy is a uniter not a divider, right?

Round out the Axis of Evil: Iraq isn’t much of a poster boy anymore, especially if the elections go sour, so it might be a good idea to open up a new front in the War on Terror. Since there isn’t much hope that you’ll adapt your state-based approach to terror, you may as well shift focus onto states that actually do support terror. I know that you haven’t done much on Iran and North Korea so far since they’re far more complicated cases than Iraq and you guys don’t care much for complexities, but you’ll have to get over that because the atomic clock is ticking. In North Korea’s case, it’s been at midnight for some time now, and Iran isn’t far off. I don’t have the specific answers and you have access to more astute foreign policy brains than mine, but I’ll just say a few things: 1.) Don’t treat Clinton-esque aid bartering as anathema just because he couldn’t keep it in his pants. Buying our security is nothing new for America, and there is nothing about keeping us safe that doesn’t bring “honor and dignity.” 2.) I like Westerns, too, but the stakes are too high to play cowboy. Find a balance between assertiveness and inclusive diplomacy: the world’s getting smaller and terrorism doesn’t care about borders, so going it alone will not pay off in the long run. And in the short run, the UN and IAEA can be valuable resources and means to legitimacy. A little respect can go a long way.

Finalize the Yucca Mountain facility: Making the decision for the central nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain was exceptionally far-thinking and politically courageous, especially considering the current administration, and I have to say, Kerry’s Nevada pandering was nothing short of embarrassing. Yucca Mountain has the perfect combination of geographic isolation and geological composition to serve as the solution to the problem of unsecured nuclear waste, which will have dire environmental and/or national security repercussions if left as is. You couldn’t talk about it during the campaign with Nevada at stake, I understand that, but now’s the time to follow through and do the right thing. Besides, with proper spinning the nationwide political gain can offset the political cost within one small state, and once the facility is fully in place and operational, Nevadans will see firsthand just how remote and secure it is and they can stop panicking. After all, they used to actually test nuclear weapons at that location, and Nevada still stands.

To the Democrats:

Fight for the terms of the debate: What kills us more than anything is the way the basic premises of the Republicans’ arguments go unquestioned, leaving the debate framed in their favor. It was never whether we should drastically cut taxes, it was where and when we should do it. It was never whether we needed to deal with Iraq militarily, it was who should be included in the coalition. It was never whether increased testing was the way to improve education, it was how much it should be funded. Just because Republicans are a majority, it does not in any way mean that the central arguments should be taken for granted. If anything, the strength of the Republican majority is an incentive to use this time to articulate an opposition agenda, since they’ll do what they like anyway. That way, when the time comes to campaign, you have something stronger to run on than the force with which you squabbled over the details. Of course you can’t fully set the terms of the debate when you’re in the minority, but simply accepting what’s offered by the majority is the perfect way to stay in the minority.

Make a stand for Social Security: This is a perfect place to turn things around. Social Security is a decades-old program that is extremely popular, successful by any objective criterion, and immediately identifiable with the Democratic party, which is why Republicans have been gunning for it since the day it was implemented. First, rebut the Republican claim that the program is in dire need of radical, permanent reshaping. This can be done easily with those silly little things called facts, which show that we have a lot of time to work on this. This tells people that the first suggestion doesn’t have to be the one to go with. Next, characterize Social Security not as a broken program, but a successful program with a strong purpose that simply needs to be brought up to date. Get out in front and propose modest changes in salary cap and retirement age, which will extend Social Security’s fiscal solvency for decades. Set it up like this: we want to implement some minor, minimally painful changes to keep Social Security intact for the baby boomers, while Republicans want to replace the safety net with the uncertainties of the market, and in the meantime, they’re taking money out of the system that the boomers need.

The phantom “issues gap”: I think we’ve all figured out by now that gay marriage and abortion didn’t cost us the election. And more so than that, these issues are actually winners if you can play them right. A majority of the country is ready to accept civil unions: Bush himself came out in favor of them on the eve of the election. Make the Democratic Party the party to provide them while the Republican Party the party who wants to deny queer Americans their rights. The best way to do this is bring it down to an individual level. Ever notice that whenever Republicans talk about the issue, it’s about the “institution of marriage” or the “social fabric”? These are broad, impersonal terms meant to make people disassociate the issue from their queer family members, friends and co-workers. The trajectory of American attitudes is clearly towards queer rights over the past two decades, so go with the flow, it’ll pay off in the near future. In the meantime, if the Defense of Marriage Act pops up again, just ask the Republicans: whatever happened to federalism? And as for abortion, it’s not as much of a question mark as it’s being made out to be. A majority of the country is pro-choice, so be unabashed in support of the basic right (I could never figure why Kerry danced around it so much). The Republicans are politically savvy enough to not go after abortion as a whole, it’s far too popular. This year will be more of the status quo, with Roe unchallenged but Republicans nibbling at the edges.

...oops, couldn't help but to make a prediction there...

The Slows

2004-12-23T16:02:00.000-05:00

Posting is excruciating from my dial-up here at home, so this will probably be it through the New Year, unless something very interesting comes up, or unless I get very bored.

God bless us, every one.

The man of the hour, sure, but the year?

2004-12-20T12:23:00.000-05:00

President Bush is Time's Person of the Year for 2004. I won't go down the route of whether he's "deserving" of the honor since the intention of the award is to recognize who's had the biggest effect on the news, for better or worse; previous honorees include Hitler, Stalin, and Ayatollah Khomeini.

Rather, I think that the choice of President Bush, along with some other recent choices, shows that Time may be losing its way. My understanding of Person of the Year is that it is meant to recognize an individual's extraordinary role in the shaping of the news, which would mean a person who initiates some kind of action or change.

Instead, recent awards simply take the biggest news story of the year and attach a person or group to it, disregarding Person of the Year's intention to recognize an individual and/or someone who initiates the news.

2001 was of course dominated by 9/11, so Person of the Year went to Rudy Giuliani, who reacted admirably but initiated nothing.

2002 was dominated by scandals in the corporate and intelligence communities, so the respective whistleblowers from Enron, WorldCom, and the FBI shared the award. Of course they should be recognized for their courage and I suppose those stories would not have existed without them, but the whistleblower could have just as easily been the person in the next cubicle, so perhaps Person of the Year should have gone to the people who actually perpetrated the scandals?

2003 was dominated by the Iraq war, so Person of the Year went to the "the American soldier," (insert "I support the troops" disclaimer here) which was touching but a massive cop-out. They could have gone with Rumsfeld, Hussein, Chalabi, Blix, Bremer, somebody, anybody, but (insert second, more strenuous "I support the troops" disclaimer here) instead Time gave "Person" of the Year to 2 million people who did nothing to initiate or even shape the news.

2000 and 2004 were dominated by close Presidential elections, so Time gave Person of the Year to the winner of those elections. Blah. One can argue that this year's award was for President Bush's leadership style, etc. but the actual Time article pretty much just talks electoral strategy. If they want to say the 2004 election was pivotal in terms of the way campaigns are ran and politics are thought of, there is certainly an argument to make there. But if that's the case, pick Rove.

The one aspect that runs through these choices is that a potentially disagreeable choice is passed over in favor of an agreeable one, i.e. Giuliani instead of bin Laden, "whistleblowers" instead of Ken Lay, etc. , but I can't say exactly why Time has lost its nerve. Fear of "liberal media" labeling? Caution against being "unpatriotic"? General fear of controversy, blandness being the sales key to general interest magazines? Regardless of what the explanation is, one thing is for sure: "Person of the Year" has become more akin to a "Year in Review" piece, and we know how exciting those are.

Catching up

2004-12-14T16:42:00.000-05:00

Now to address an issue that was played out in the blogosphere about a week ago, but due to my academic sequestration, was unable to take part in: Peter Beinart's call for a explicitly and uniquely anti-terrorist Democratic party: A Fighting Faith. (sorry, subscription only...ask me and I'll email it to you, it's worth it) Michael Phillips, tough on terrorism in his own way, responded with a three part essay (1 2 3) which contains good points, but he himself does not endorse it. In his response to Beinart, Jon Cipriani (Dec. 3 and 8 posts) revels in Beinart's evocation of a 50 year-old example of a model Democratic party, and himself offers a counterterrorist view that involves growing Muslim populations in Western Europe.

I wish I wasn't so behind on this, but I just now got to read the Beinart piece. Anyway, here's my take.

First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with Beinart's central thesis that a liberal vision for counterterrorism is long overdue. Throughout the article, he's really singing my song, so I don't feel a need to take issue with any of his main suggestions. The need for an anti-terrorist approach that employs economic development and foreign aid, as well as setting a domestic example for the democratic values we wish to spread, are things that I've written about myself in the past, here and here.

However, the way Beinart evokes the Cold War example is a little off. The nature of the Cold War conflict is similar to the conflict against Islamic fundamentalist terror, but the difference in content precludes some of what Beinart calls for. He declares Michael Moore and the leadership of MoveOn to be akin to the communist-sympathizing labor and civil rights organizations of the late 40's, but he exaggerates their passivity towards terrorism, as well as their role in the party. As a whole, the Democratic Party does not need to be told to be anti-terrorism in the same way it needed to be told to be anti-communist. No one sympathizes with terrorism today, while those people did genuinely see communism as an ally in the pursuit of civil rights and economic equality.

Therefore, the intra-party purging and coercion of communist sympathizers in the late 40's, cited by Beinart, does not apply today since we do not have terrorist sympathizers. Rather, the problem today is that the Democratic party takes anti-terrorism as a given, so puts it behind more contentious domestic issues. The solution is to make anti-terrorism primary, and not only by having a well-coifed Boston Brahmin mutter "find and kill all the terrorists," but by having an anti-terror policy that embraces our own values and works hand-in-hand with our domestic agenda.

Also, the need for a liberal alternate to President Bush's approach to the War on Terror is cited by Beinart as something needed for political purposes, and he's right. However, I think he could have spent more time discussing how it is simply a better policy. President Bush's counterterrorism policy, despite it's rhetoric, is ineffective in both means and scope. It is sloppy and purely militaristic, garnering more enemies than it kills, and is applied according to domestic political needs. Meanwhile, his democracy-promoting "Greater Middle East Initiative" is merely a hodgepodge of programs that existed before 9-11 and are continuously underfunded. In general, the Republican view of terrorism does not take account of the roots of anti-Americanism. "They hate us because we love freedom" doesn't quite cut it.

A distinctly liberal anti-terrorist policy will arise, but it will not be a political ploy. It will come about as the War on Terror reaches a degree of maturity wherein people begin to realize that it is not simply a matter of killing the terrorists that are already out there, but making sure they are not replaced. This will involve a far-thinking approach that builds societies up rather than tearing them down, promoting rights rather than suspending them, and ensuring security and justice not only for ourselves but for the world. Beinart is right when he says that liberalism can defeat terrorism, but what he failed to say is that only liberalism can defeat terrorism.

Humbug

2004-12-10T22:19:00.000-05:00

A different perspective for the holiday season.

Some people never learn, some do

2004-12-10T22:04:00.000-05:00

Why does this administration have to be publicly (read: politically) embarassed before it comes to terms with reality?

Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) has a better memory, discussing why the internet rumor of an impending draft gained the traction it did. Link via Jill, whose boredom at work benefits us all.

So the truth comes out...

2004-12-03T10:47:00.000-05:00

A letter to the editor yesterday lumped me in with what he perceives to be an over-represented conservative cohort in the WSN. Don't worry, I'm not taking this too seriously, but this is not the first time my writing has blurred perceptions of my politics among those who don't know me better, so I'm curious as to why readers might think this way. A few theories:

1.) Selective reading. There are columns like this one , this one. and this one where my siding with the Democrats couldn't be more clear. On the other hand there are columns like this one, this one, and this one that either give Republicans credit or advance positions on issues that could be said to be conservative. Perhaps if one by chance tends to read the latter pieces only, confusion can be understandable.

2.) My own topic selection. When I choose what I want to write about, it tends to be on matters where I break with liberal orthodoxy. I avoid issues that would just have me repeating DNC talking points, since that would be uninteresting both for me and the reader.

3.) George Will-itis. I think it is valuable for columnists to critique their own side as much as it is to build its case. So therefore, while I did my damndest to practice restraint on criticizing Kerry and the Dems, I have written columns like this one and this one, intended to be constructive criticism but I suppose could be mistaken for a conservative attack on the campaign.

4.) NYU. In a place as liberal as NYU, labels take on a whole new subjectivity, wherein anyone to the right of Jason Rowe , or at least anyone who doesn't use "Republican" like a dirty word, can be called conservative. (By the way, Jason's latest column is terrific.)

So those are my theories. Opinions as to which one it is, or alternate explanations, are welcome. In the meantime, Omar Tungekar has reprised his invitation for me to join the College Republicans, and once again I am flattered by the offer but will decline.

Mail Bag

2004-12-01T01:14:00.000-05:00

I hardly ever get letters in response to my columns, either because my writing is dispassionate, or because I'm always right: I'll leave it to you to decide. But anyway, I have been getting letters in the past few weeks, which is exciting because I like the idea of a discussion with readers, but I feel as though the challenges have been pretty shoddy, and I should take some time to respond.

First, there is this letter, written in response to my column describing the NYU College Dems' trip to Pittsburgh (which obviously swung PA in Kerry's favor). A few problems with this one:
1.) In paragraph 3, it's clear that he doesn't know what "status quo" means. "Status quo" is not tantamount to any current or future Bush policy.
2.) In paragraph 4, he states, "The Democrats are trying to get support from voters who oppose the war, and want the billions wasted on it spent on improving our lives here at home. Kerry doesn't have anything to offer those people, so the whole idea of change is narrowed down to exchanging Bush for Kerry." This just confuses me. Is his first sentence not a description of what it was Kerry was offering people?
3.) He concludes by writing that Nader was "polling best" among Arab-Americans and those making less than $15,000. Does "polling best" mean he got 2% instead of 0.5?

Second, there is this letter, written in response to my column about the success of the youth turnout, and how the facts differ from the media myth saying it never materialized. I won't go into specifics, but I'll just say that by his logic, any increase in youth turnout short of full parity with the electorate at large is nothing to be happy about. In short, a 10% increase in turnout meant nothing to him, because it wasn't 20%.

Third, there is this letter, written in response to my column about the way language is twisted in discussions of the Middle East conflict. Again, a few problems:
1.) He claims that I "would be surprised" if I knew many Israelis themselves, including prominent leaders, called the presence in the West Bank an "occupation." I'm not surprised: I did indeed know that, that's why in no part of my column did I say it was only used only by Israel's opponents. In fact, I note the term is common, and a theme that runs throughout the column is that these terms have come into use by those who are neutral, or even well-meaning.
2.) He says he suspects Prof. Mitchell's use of "occupation" was intentional. I agree and I thought so at the time I wrote it, but I didn't care to make the column about Prof. Mitchell, the idea was bigger than a refutation of him: more sensible letter-writers took care of that.
3.) He refutes my characterization of the term "intifada" with the infallible authority of a Google search. I hope he doesn't do all of his translation with Google, or else he must have a hell of a time with his Spanish homework. Anyway, he says he found a direct translation of intifada as "shaking off," and this is why in my column I said the term intifada implies peaceful civilian overthrow of an oppressor, an implication formed through a combination of that direct translation, along with the way the term intifada is used in Palestinian discourse.
He goes on to say the term was popularized in 1987, which is an attempt to refute my claim that it has been twisted to meet the ends of the post-2000 terrorist attacks. But lo and behold, the most recent attacks are the second intifada. Care to guess when the first one started?...If you said anything other than 1987, we're not friends anymore. Much like the infamous refutations of Jan Messerschmidt, this is a critique that only serves to prove my point.

Just so you know...

2004-11-30T13:09:00.000-05:00

My blogging frequency probably won't be great for the next week and a half or so. Thesis, final papers...you get the idea.

No More Mr. Nice Guy

2004-11-25T21:40:00.000-05:00

Today I am thankful that Tom Friedman's finally getting pissed.

Corrections Department

2004-11-22T13:15:00.000-05:00

I got this email concerning my column today:

All opinions should be respected at WSN.
But in today's op-ed about israeli-palestinian conflict, Shaun Mchelenny, among other lies, writes that Israel was invaded in 1967. Is this some kind of joke?
From the Israeli Defence Forces website: "The Six-Day [1967] War started with a far-reaching air attack, code named ?Moked?, to shatter the Arab air forces while their aircraft were still on the ground."

Ok, slight error on my part. It slipped my mind that 1967 was an Israeli pre-emption of an Arab invasion that was sure to come. In the grand scheme, though, recapturing land that belonged to Israel in a war against an invading force, as opposed to recapturing land that belonged to Israel in a war against a to-be-invading force, doesn't make much of a difference.

I guess there have been so many attempts to eliminate Israel, I can't help but get them confused...

Trouble in paradise?

2004-11-21T02:55:00.000-05:00

For me at least, one of the bigger questions towards Bush's second term is how his relationship with the Congress will change. The conventional wisdom has been that with the Congress under even stronger Republican control, Congress and the White House will enjoy even closer collaboration.

However, second-term presidents traditionally have more trouble with Congress than they do in the first term. Logically, this makes sense because Congress has less reason to be pliant: they're not thinking about re-electing a President anymore. And in Bush's case particularly, the historical trend stands to hold. Bush's big ticket spending legislation must not have sat well with Congressional GOP conservatives, true conservatives who believe in fiscal responsibility.

The fault lines could be opening already. This article is a fairly bland piece on inter-camera wrangling over immigration provisions in the intelligence reform bill, but when you read between the lines, this statement stands out:

"Republican leaders were caught between angry conservatives, who threatened to vote against the bill, and President Bush, who insisted it should be passed."

There was some bluster between Bush and hardline conservatives in the first term, but it never really stopped anything from getting done. This is something to keep an eye on.

The Meaning of Insanity

2004-11-17T19:24:00.001-05:00

If Kerry showed this sense of humor of his during the campaign, he might just be President-elect right now.

Seriously, though, does Theresa go through the paper before he gets to it and cut out all the articles about him being the embodiment of the aloofness and inconsistency that the Democrats need to overcome? That's the only explanation I can think of.

Easy Answer

2004-11-15T19:53:00.000-05:00

Bush's choice for Powell's successor is revealing on a few levels.

First, it couldn't be more clear that it's a political choice. Immediately replacing the foremost prominent African-American on the national security team with the secondmost prominent is more than a little transparent. I thought maybe the election would change this, but once again Bush and Co. places politics before good government.

Secondly, it says a lot about the administration's approach to foreign policy when it comes to weighing militaristic versus diplomatic options. National Security Advisor is a mostly military gig, and the Secretary of State is at least supposed to be diplomatic. Moving the former into the job of the latter definitely shows how little regard this administration holds for diplomacy.

Timaeus and Critias Reloaded

2004-11-15T01:31:00.000-05:00

I hope that this isn't for real. Atlantis' value is as a mythical icon of an idyllic past and a utopian state, not as an archaeological site.

The archaeologist who is claiming it's legitimate is pointing out that the ruins sync with Plato's descriptions, saying that if this isn't the real thing, it's "the world's greatest coincidence." It's probably not as great a coincidence as he thinks. The acropolis of any city-state of the time would tend to fit a certain pattern.

Furthermore, bringing up Plato could actually undermine the argument that this site is Atlantis, rather than enforce it. First of all, Plato places Atlantis in "the western sea," but the Mediterranean off of Cyprus is about as far East as the Greeks conceived of. Also, Plato was no stranger to imagining utopian communities, so if he's the authoritative source on Atlantis, its very existence is more likely fiction than fact, especially since a society as advanced as Atlantis supposedly was would contain more solid historical records.

What's funny is that at the end of the article, it's kind of snuck in that the expedition was partially funded by the Cypriot Tourist Organization, making the archaeologist's enthusiasm suspect. I don't think there should be a rush to lay claim that this site is the legendary city. If Atlantis becomes something tangible, what's the fun in that?

Mayor Mike

2004-11-13T22:42:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the 2004 Presidential defeat, talk among New York Democrats is refocusing on dislodging Republican Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's a little difficult to partake in this, since I really don't have anything against Bloomberg. In fact, I think his mayoralty, while not sweepingly ambitious, is altogether refreshing when it comes to NYC politics.

To begin with, I'll address the party issue. Bloomberg's a lifelong Democrat, he only switched his registration because billionaire tycoons don't stand much chance in NYC Democratic primaries. And even after switching, he hasn't been the GOP lackey that some make him out to be. Unlike erstwhile New Yorkers like Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki who are nursing presidential ambitions by sucking up to Bush, Bloomberg has been a consistent advocate for the city when it comes to getting our share from a Republican congress whose constituencies lie elsewhere.

Also, Bloomberg's cuts to the city budget have been cited as evidence that he's out of touch. It's not Bloomberg, but the City Charter, that is out of touch with New York's needs. The Charter's balanced budget amendment ties government's hands during a recession. Any mayor, Bloomberg included, is forced during hard times to raise taxes and/or cut programs, the two things you're not supposed to do. To his credit, Bloomberg struck a balance of both.

In general, I think Bloomberg's mayoralty is valuable because of its style. The worst thing about NYC politics is politicians playing constituencies off of each other for their own gain: neighborhoods, races, interest groups, etc. Bloomberg doesn't do this. One gets the impression that he is attempting to serve as everyone's mayor, and this is good to see. Also, Bloomberg exhibits a type of candor and commitment to good government that isn't usually practiced by today's ultra-handled, win-at-all-costs politicians. If he has a tough decision, such as those concerning the budget, he says it was a tough decision and he made his choice for such-and-such reason. No excuses, no spinning, and no blame game.

Oh, and who could forget the smoking ban? You can say all you want about rights, but if you ask me, 20% of the population doesn't have much right to poison the rest. Bloomberg's right to be proud of this measure.

My vote isn't etched in stone, but I'm not going to immediately vote for whomever the Democratic primary produces. Actually, if anyone currently being talked about, other than Ferrer, wins the Dem nomination, Bloomberg has a good chance at being the first time I've ever crossed party lines.

Do Californians not remember "Junior"?

2004-11-13T22:11:00.000-05:00

This is a surprisingly thorough evaluation of the Governator's first year, considering it's coming from CNN. At the end, it mentions that support for an amendment allowing non-native-born Presidents is low, and I can't help but project that the most immediate reason for this is that the question immediately makes people think of the prospect of President Schwarzenegger.

Horse Latitudes

2004-11-13T02:20:00.000-05:00

I'm realizing now that I haven't posted in a few days, which is both good and bad. On the good side, this means that I'm actually working on my thesis...for real. On the bad side, it's made me realize how thoroughly we're trapped in a speculative news cycle. I hate it when these sort of items fill the media: storylines that everyone tries to predict, but can't possibly have any real idea. All that can be done is to game out the possibilities and take shots in the dark as to what's going to happen, which I don't particularly care to partake in.

First, a post-Arafat Palestine. The succession process is shady enough to have been run by me, so there's really no telling who is going to step up and how they're going to act. Is this a step towards peace or just more of the same? I don't know, let's wait and see.

Second, Alberto Gonzales replaces John Aschcroft. There are competing views over his predilictions in that he has both moderate and conservative tendencies. Which will come through in his tenure as Attorney General? I don't know, let's wait and see.

Third, Scott Peterson is found guilty. Do I agree with the verdict? No clue. I haven't followed this thing at all, and anyone who hasn't watched every second of the trial has no right to weigh in.

So that's what's out there right now. This news cycle, together with a freezing, rainy weekend, couldn't serve better as thesis-writing encouragement.

Minor party, major possibilities

2004-11-08T23:49:00.000-05:00

The Working Families Party had a big showing in the past election, which I'm glad to see. I like the WFP, and in fact I voted on their line for everything except for judges, whom they didn't endorse. It's a model organization when it comes to taking advantage of New York's cross-endorsement rules to do what a third-party ought to do: push issues into the mainstream dialogue without harming the existing parties. And the way they keep things simple and tackle economic issues by giving them a moral imperative could become a model for the national Democratic party.

How Tron's Livin'

2004-11-08T23:21:00.000-05:00

Gotham Gazette's comprehensive breakdown of the potential for Bush's second term, from a uniquely New York perspective.

Dukes and pinkies up

2004-11-08T20:47:00.000-05:00

This Slate article comes pretty close to what I've been thinking but haven't been able to articulate in the wake of the election: that perhaps Bush's appeal has roots not so much in issues, morality, etc., but in the way his agenda fits into a kind of public psychology, including a short attention span and visceral tendencies. Bush's message, if nothing else, is certainly easier to comprehend, and appeals to baser instincts of vengeance, xenophobia, and fear.

There, I said it. Let the Northeastern liberal elite-bashing commence. Oh wait, should I say "commence"? Is that too elitist?

Could we all become Deanocrats?

2004-11-08T20:34:00.000-05:00

When I first heard Howard Dean is flirting with seeking the DNC chair, it seemed like a bad idea, but I was thinking from an electoral perspective, i.e. as if Dean was taking another shot at the nomination. But that's not the nature of this job. The DNC chair is there to energize the party, raise money, and draw the contrasts between the Dems and the GOP, and who does those things better than Howard Dean?

And besides, it's not like I'm biased or anything...

Code Red

2004-11-06T19:28:00.000-05:00

Recently, I've been scaling back my post-election thinking to consider that perhaps 2004 was not the grandiose cultural battle it's being made out to be and that maybe we just lost an election. It was close enough, after all. It was decided by 4 million votes nationally out of 114 million cast, or you could even say it was decided by 150 thousand votes in Ohio out of over 5 million cast. Therefore, maybe the issues at hand were smaller than we thought. Maybe it was something about the candidate, or the issues, or the campaign's execution.

Today's David Brooks column would reinforce this thinking. He argues that the large percentage of exit poll respondents who say they voted based on "moral values" was skewed since this was an option in the poll's multiple choice format. Under this hypothesis, respondents said they were voting based on moral values, but took a subjective view of the subject and were voting on anything they considered moral, not necessarily abortion or gay marriage.

There are a few problems with this idea. First of all, a look at all of the poll's options for "most important issue" shows that abortion and gay marriage are not among them, so voters who were voting on this basis had no option other than to place it under "moral values."

Secondly, and more gravely, there is the matter of political code. Codes are nothing new to the GOP. Just as 40 years ago "states rights" was code for racism and "law and order" was code for...well...racism, "moral values" today has come to signify anti-abortion and anti-gay attitudes that are almost explicit in the term.

So maybe Bush and Kerry were the culture warriors they're being made out to be. I keep going back and forth on this...check back with me later.

Nobody Doesn't Like Harry Reid

2004-11-06T19:03:00.000-05:00

This doesn't make much sense to me. To be fair, I'm not an expert on Harry Reid, maybe there's more than meets the eye. But even if there is, the fact that you have to look hard at all is the problem. For a party just relegated to an even shallower minority and searching for its voice, what is the sense in choosing an inconspicuous inside-ballplayer as our foremost elected official? Would it not be better to nominate someone who is more of a national figure? Someone who can impose discipline? Someone who has an agenda to articulate? Someone who can inspire? I guess that would make too much sense.

I Tiresias

2004-11-06T11:16:00.000-05:00

Don't say I didn't warn you.

"VOTE RED. THE PEOPLE ARE GOOFY."

2004-11-03T23:11:00.000-05:00

In the interest of sanity, and for the relief of returning to some kind of normalcy, I've been trying to avoid in taking in or giving out postgame analysis, but I suppose I have a certain obligation to the Blogger community now, so I'll just say a few preliminary things.

First and foremost, this was a close race. It doesn't feel like it because of all that we had invested, but any objective evaluation would say this race was incredibly tight. For this reason, any attempt to explain the outcome with a singular reason is pointless. A million things could have made it turn out differently, so it is folly to say it was any one thing.

On the question of where we go from here, it's going to be more fundamental than most of the premature solutions that are being thrown out there. After a campaign as well financed and energetic as the one the party just had, the answer can't be as easy as a slight shift to incorporate this segment of the population or the other (i.e. move to the left, move to the right, build larger majorities among women, Hispanics, etc.)

Rather, the change must be more fundamental. We did everything that can be done on the campaign front, but it didn't get through.

To redress this, primary voters will need to rethink the way they make decisions. Rather than play campaign advisor, primary voters just need to vote for someone that they actually want to be president, so the victor will have similar appeal in the general.

Also, there'll need to be a change in the way we communicate. Even after this campaign to end all Democratic campaigns, it didn't work. It's not about getting the word out, it's what we say and how we say it. More later...as I said, I'm taking it easy.

By the way, a hearty congratulations to the NYU College Democrats for carrying Pennsylvania. We did our part.

"...and you still break stone."

2004-11-02T00:47:00.000-05:00

On the eve of the election, my main man George Will is bringing everyone back down to earth (or at least everyone who reads George Will, who were probably fairly earth-bound to begin with).

He has two main points. The first is that either president-elect is going to have conflicts with the Congress upon being sworn in for next term. The second is that government, while important, will not change the "basic conditions of life," at least not on the turn of a dime.

I agree. It's true that while we shouldn't be devaluing elections, particularly this one, we should always remember that the real work gets done between elections. Also, while the mood and direction of government would be drastically different under these two candidates, the water will run, the sun will shine, and the birds will sing on November 3 no matter who the victor is (or if there's none at all).

This isn't backpedaling; I'm still optimistic about Kerry. It's just that good ol' George Will has a way of putting things in perspective.

My Presidential Endorsement

2004-11-01T20:01:00.000-05:00

Kerry.

...whew, just barely got that in.

Boo!

2004-10-31T10:06:00.000-05:00

In view of the recent Osama bin Laden video, many Democrats have been forecasting gloom and doom for the election, as they are wont to do. Democrats' morbid desire to predict electoral defeat is a topic for another day, but I can just say for now that in this case, it's misguided. The bin Laden tape will either have no effect, or even give a slight nudge to Kerry.

As noted in the Times this morning, this isn't the type of thing for which people switch their votes. There is not an appreciable number of undecideds remaining, so the video will only serve to reinforce the partisans on each side. Bush supporters will think of 9-11 and rally to Bush, Kerry supporters will say that the only reason OBL is still around making tapes is because Bush hasn't caught him. Therefore, for the most part, it's a draw.

However, if someone stands to gain from this, it's Kerry. As noted by TNR's Noam Scheiber in an article I can't find a link to, Kerry has a tendency to gain in the polls when the election's focus is on national security. The reason for this is that it is Bush's default strong point, so when it's on the table, Kerry has an opportunity to chip away at it, while his own strong point, domestic issues, remains untouched. However, when the focus is on domestic issues, Bush can deride Kerry as a big-spending liberal, weakening Kerry's advantage and leaving Bush's untouched. This theory makes sense, seeing as how Kerry's biggest gains were after the DNC's military-themed convention, Kerry's anti-war speech at NYU, and the first debate, which was centered on national security. In keeping with this theory, Bush's biggest poll gains were after his Kerry-and-the-liberals-bashing RNC convention and the third debate, which centered on domestic issues.

Kerry and the Democrats shouldn't be concerned with bin Laden's foray into the election, because if anything, it reminds voters that on Bush's biggest strong point, he's all talk and no results. But I doubt it will have even this effect. The voters are set. From here on in, it's turnout, turnout, turnout.

Double Feature

2004-10-30T22:34:00.000-04:00

For a while, the strangest double feature I've ever seen was "Jackass: The Movie" followed by "The Ring." Last night, I think I topped that with "Saw" followed my "Team America: World Police."

I knew next to nothing about Saw going in, except that it had mixed reviews which depended on whether or not the reviewer was a particular fan of horror or not. Since I am a fan of horror, I was optimistic. This hope was enforced by the first half of the movie, which was adequately creepy and tense. However, towards the end, some major, unforgiveable plot holes came to form, and the acting was bad throughout. I'll just say it was done with a lot more intelligence and tact the first time, when it was called "Seven."

In spite of being a South Park fan, particularly the topical, satirical direction the show has gone in the past two seasons, I was still nervous about Team America. I didn't care for "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" since it was pure shock value and lacked the intelligence of the show, although the music deserved every laurel it received. I expected a similar reaction to Team America, since the trailer and commercials made it seem as though it was going to fall back on stereotypes and perceptions broader than what's used in the show, in order to appeal to a movie audience.

However, the movie greatly exceeded expectations. Contrary to the perception given by its ads, the film is hilarious and a creative and effective critique of both doves and hawks, in true South Park fashion. Simultaneously, the film lambasts Bruckheimer-esque action flicks in a way that was strong enough to be noticed (unlike Parker and Stone's failed sitcom-parody: "That's my Bush!), but not too overpowering. The music is again fantastic, and the grand analogy used to reach a compromise at the conclusion is so great that it tempts me to write a spoiler, but I'll just say this: rent "Saw" if you're curious, see "Team America" even if you're not.

The Kerry Coalition

2004-10-28T16:28:00.000-04:00

Much has been said this election season concerning John Kerry's under-performance among traditional Democratic constituencies, namely women, blacks, and Jews.

The alarm concerning the first group, women, has been greatly exaggerated. The argument that Kerry's "losing women" is a misperception that dates back to the post-GOP convention days. At this time, Kerry was losing all sorts of voters, and women, being voters, were part of this. Also, this charge has been based on a series of anecdotes, rather than empirical evidence. News stories talking about a new cadre of "security moms" don't actually look at polls, but instead discuss Mrs. Jane Smith from Saginaw, Michigan, who thinks George W. Bush is the only one who can keep her children safe. When one actually looks at the polling data, it can be seen that the gender gap, while slightly diminished, is still very real.

Next is the loss of blacks. The overwhelming support of blacks has been essential to every Democratic presidential win since FDR, and their status as a minority requires their support to be just that: overwhelming. Therefore, there has been much ado about Kerry polling at 80% among blacks rather than 90%. Compared to the perception about women, this is a genuine loss. However, it should have been an expected one. The black community as a whole is more church-going than the community at large, so there is a natural response the GOP's increasing projection of social conservatism and religious piety. Also, the black community is more affluent than it was 40 years ago. The inherent opposition to inherited wealth cannot be any longer expected of at least the wealthier parts of the black community. The first generation of black millionaires is about to die.

Last but not least is Bush's increased support among the Jewish community. This is usually attributed to Bush's unflagging allegiance to a Sharon government that has been successful in defeating the intifada. Also, the idea of a "war on terror" has much more relevance in Israel than it does here. However, the percentage of Jewish voters who vote based on Israel policy alone is very small, not to mention that most Jews know that there is nothing anti-Israel about Kerry. Therefore, Jewish support for Kerry might be a little weak this time around, but it is by no means an abandonment of the Democratic Party. There is more to being a Jew in America than supporting Israel.

On the whole, while Kerry is in fact not polling as well among these groups as his predecessors, I do not think that this erosion is as much cause for concern as one might think. Those who are disturbed by Kerry's polling among these groups are lacking a grasp of a simple logic. Think about it: Kerry is polling similar to where Gore finished in 2000, even though Gore performed better among these groups. This means that these votes are being replaced by traditionally Republican voters, or from swing voters.

Whether they have been attracted by Kerry or scared off by Bush, this development is good for the party and for Kerry. From a policy standpoint, the Democratic Party for too long has lacked the elements of a true cross-section of the country, instead being a party of separate interests groups. And from an electoral standpoint, you're much better off polling at 50% among everyone than polling at 90% among certain groups and 35% among everyone else. Simply put, Kerry and the Democratic Party shouldn't have all their eggs in one basket.

Tom Friedman's Gooey Center

2004-10-28T16:16:00.000-04:00

Every once in a while, Tom Friedman writes a bland column wherein he laments the erosion of a bygone worldwide governing class of even-headed moderates which may or may not have ever existed. Reading the synopsis of his piece today, I thought this was going to be the case. However, upon reading the whole thing, I found it to be one of the more pithy and far-thinking critiques of the Bush administration's foreign policy that I've read. And while Mr. Friedman likes to keep his political affiliation ambiguous, I'm just going to say I hope he votes absentee back in Minnesota.

A Nation of Cheeseheads

2004-10-26T01:15:00.000-04:00

A few electoral analyses that I've seen now, including my preferred one at Slate, have identified Wisconsin as the state that can swing the election. Not being as familiarly acquanited with the Badger State as I'd like to be, I can't make a prediction as to which way it will go, although my continuing theory of latent Democratic voter strength through new registrations and casual voters energized by the last election make me hopeful for Sen. Kerry's prospects.

Regardless of which way it might swing, the election's shift to Wisconsin has prompted a few thoughts. The first is the outright ridiculousness of the electoral college. The very fact that at any point in the election we're reduced to one state, or even ten or so states, as the sole possessors of any importance on the eve of the election saps our democracy enormously.

Also, while only the most committed Deanocrats may remember this, Gov. Howard Dean focused the strength of his waning campaign on the isolated primary of the state of Wisconsin, hoping that a win would provide much-needed momentum. Once I recalled this, I realized that pretty much every candidate-related problem the Democrats have had this past election would have had their antithesis in Gov. Dean: message inconsistency, liberal voting records, or lack of strong critiques and counterattacks surely would not have even been issues.

With this in mind, it adds another reason not to look forward to Nov. 3 should the election not go Kerry's way, because the Democratic Party is going to have one hell of a round of "I told you so," and I'll be right in the center of it.

Barnaby, Hardly Working

2004-10-24T23:16:00.000-04:00

Usually, it is more engaging to stay on the cutting edge of a band's work, seeing what comes next, how it has evolved from what came before, and how the change relates to the evolution in the times or that in the band itself. However, from time to time, it is just as interesting to look at the unknown previous work of a band. Sometimes, what you find is not a whole lot different from what is more recent, but sometimes it is so different that it speaks to the breadth of the group's range, its taste for experimentation, and its willingness to change.

Recently, I've discovered a work of the latter form, Yo La Tengo's "Fakebook" (1990). Being a fan of their more recent efforts "I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One" (1997), "And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out" (2000), and "Summer Sun" (2003), I was interested to see what their early work would sound like. The three albums I just mentioned display a straight progression, from the impetuous and varied indie rock of "I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One" to the mellow and instrumental "Summer Sun", so I figured "Fakebook" could be aligned on the same gradient.

However, "Fakebook" lands nowhere on the progression of these three albums, not even holding a place as a distant forebear. Yet while it could have just as easily been the product of a different band altogether, a few listens shows that "Fakebook" certainly has a place in Yo La Tengo's catalog. While it may lack the bravado and tongue-in-cheek genre experimentation that marks the other albums, "Fakebook" exudes a warmth and human sincerity that is present throughout Yo La Tengo's later period, albeit muted.

A collection mostly of cover songs, "Fakebook" has a folksy and honest appeal that could have become the band's trademark, if only their later albums hadn't shown the band's guts as well. While a country-tinged old timey album may not seem like a romp to fans of Yo La Tengo's later work, I can assure that it only strays towards the sappy or hokey on only a few tracks, namely "Speeding Motorcycle" and "The One to Cry." On the whole, regardless of how it fits in the band's catalog, Yo La Tengo's "Fakebook" is always a good spin, especially when you're studying, as I should be doing now.

al-Mahdi al-Aqsa

2004-10-24T21:48:00.000-04:00

I don't believe the mid-term period ever had as much palpable significance as it has had this year. Mid-terms are never pleasant, but I've never wanted them to be over more than I do now. Largely, I'm sure it has to do with the congruence of mid-terms, law school applications, and an exhausting trip to Pittsburgh, PA. Also, perhaps it's a case of senioritis, but I think it has more to do with what comes after mid-terms. First, once my mid-terms are done there is a week left until the election that has dominated my life for the past year. Second, I can finally set to work on my thesis, which I have barely touched since last May. Odd things to look forward to, but they motivate one to study the tenets of Islam with just a tad more vigor.

Is this a bad idea?

2004-10-23T23:42:00.000-04:00

I've always fought the unrelenting blog urge. While I do like to write and share my opinions, I already have a column for that, not to mention plenty of discussions with friends and enemies on both sides of the aisle. However, at the same time, that writing and those discussions have their limitations. Certain topics or styles fall beyond the pale of particular contexts, so why shouldn't I have a little more control? And besides, couldn't I use another thing to do that isn't school work? I'm sure my roommate thinks so, since he's made it clear to me that I really don't do school work anymore. Anyway, here goes my entrance to the blogosphere...

The Lost Column

2004-10-23T11:59:00.000-04:00

I wrote this piece for the Washington Square News, but it did not publish for lack of an appreciable NYU focus. Fair enough. So here is the secret song of the album that is my tenure at WSN:

It Takes One to Know One
Bush can’t bring democracy anywhere, if not to U.S.

In all the talk of President Bush’s management of Iraq in the presidential debates, the content has mostly been concerning procedural matters. Regardless whether Mr. Bush applied the necessary resources and strategies needed to win the peace, the fundamental reason that he will be unable to bring genuine democracy to Iraq is that he has proven himself unwilling to practice democracy here at home.

To be sure, Senator Kerry’s criticisms of President Bush’s stewardship of Iraq have been salient, as these matters do have bearing on the short-term security of Iraq and our soldiers there. Troop levels have been too low, rebuilding projects have been under funded, potential allies have been spitefully shoved aside, and the Bush administration’s reliance on starry-eyed exiles to shape their vision of postwar Iraq was clearly quixotic. In addition, the refusal of President Bush and Vice President Cheney to make honest assessments of the situation in Iraq serves as a barrier to progress. However, there is more to be done in Iraq than having the streets safe and the water running.

Someday, the Iraqis will need to self-govern. This is not to mention that a strong democracy in the region will be an asset to long-term security, as a responsive and transparent democracy in the center of a region entrenched in autocracy can serve as a valuable example, and can therefore be a first step towards a Middle East whose denizens are not so violently opposed to America.

When it comes to actually making an Iraqi democracy a reality, I will grant that President Bush is right to begin by assuming that democracy is not an anathema to the Muslim world. Indeed, we can agree that democracy holds an appeal that is neither Western nor Christian, but human. There is certainly nothing in the Islamic religion that precludes its followers from coming together and making their own decisions concerning the way they are ruled. It has been custom, not theology, which has consigned the Middle East to the rule of despots for so long.

Therefore, President Bush is correct to believe that democracy is possible in Iraq. However, the problem is that he is unquestionably the wrong leader to actually implement it. His unfitness for this task can be seen in his domestic governing practices, which reveal his anti-democratic instinct to be about as strong as any Baathist insurgent.

In the past four years, President Bush and his surrogates have built a clear record of suppressing information, decreasing transparency, and using the procedures and resources of government to perpetuate their own administration. A book could be written on the subject, but space permits me to briefly mention a few: the intentional underestimation of the Medicare reform bill’s cost and the overextension of its House vote, the illegal use of $9.5 million in treasury funds to air TV ads touting the prescription drug benefit, the employment of Department of Homeland Security officials to track down Democratic lawmakers protesting gerrymandering in Texas, the suppression of the State Department’s candid “Future of Iraq” project, and a steadfast reticence towards congressional committees, the 9/11 commission, and the press, who have been granted only fourteen press conferences with the President in four years. These instances are merely the tip of the iceberg.

This administration requires an undemocratic process in order to create policy along the lines of ideological panaceas, rather than an honest and open process derived from the appraisal of fact. Unfortunately, this sequestered and stubborn mentality has been taken by the administration to Iraq, where lack of popular accountability and public transparency in the interim government, as well as the absence of frank assessment of the challenges ahead has been the rule.

The Bush administration is setting up Iraq’s upcoming January elections, however flawed they will be, as a quick fix for democracy. However, the real hurdle for Iraqi democracy is not security, religion, or will. Rather, the problem is that it has an incapable architect in the Bush administration, which has shown itself unable to practice what it preaches. When democracy is genuinely fulfilled in Iraq, it will not be because of George W. Bush, but in spite of him.