August 29, 2004

Gutting Out Those Fifteen Minutes

For those who are interested, I will be appearing on Walking A Thin Line this Thursday starting around seven Eastern. Walking A Thin Line is a radio show based out of Florida, talking about energy independence and whatever else comes up. I spoke with one of the hosts today, and he struck me as an interesting person, so I anticipate an interesting discussion. And, on the plus side, I really don't know anyone in Florida, so if I make an ass of myself, at least it won't be in front of people I know. You can hear the broadcast at the station's web site, if you're so inclined.

Posted at 07:03 PM | Personal | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)





Gulliver's Travails

Steven Den Beste has decided to hang up his blogging gloves, at least for the time being. His reason: he's tired of nit-picking letters from people reading his essays who tease out one niggling detail and try to debunk or improve his essay based on that. The bottom line was simple: he wasn't having fun any longer, and so he wisely chose to quit rather than force himself to do something he didn't enjoy.

For those who don't spend much time in the blogosphere, Steven was one of the giants of the genre. What Glenn Reynolds did for linkers, Steven did for thinkers: bloggers who like to get into the meat of a subject and really chew on it for a while. I have always admired his writing ability and his clarity of thought, even when I disagreed with the point he was making; his blog was always one of the first stops of the day, and almost invariably provided interesting reading, and plenty of it. But, like another giant, Steven found himself tied down by Lilliputians, using email rather than ropes. Here's hoping that, whatever he does next, it brings him some of the same joy he originally got from blogging.

Posted at 06:56 PM | Blogging | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)



August 27, 2004

The Swiftvets Speak

John O'Neill, one of the leaders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, speaks out to tell the world that they are not affiliated in any way with President Bush or his reelection campaign. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually prove anything, since ever if O'Neill was affiliated with the Bush campaign, he would deny it. I personally think he's telling the truth, even as I think that a number of the allegations the Swiftvets have brought against Kerry are as much the result of inaccurate memories 35 years after the fact.

The sad thing is, Kerry could end this so easily. If he were to sign a Standard Form 180 and release all of his military records, it would be impossible for anyone to continue accusing him of hiding something. (I believe President Bush has yet to sign an SF 180; in fairness, he should do the same.) From a political standpoint, it would probably be better for me if Kerry continues to stonewall, since that decision seems to be hurting him in the polls. But, while I am still planning to vote for President Bush, I'd rather he win on the merits than because Kerry's too stupid to do what it takes to put a 35-year old controversy behind him. Though I suppose that is another test of presidential fitness, of a kind.

Posted at 07:20 AM | Politics | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)



August 26, 2004

Golden, One Last Time

Congratulations to the U.S. Women's soccer team for their 2-1 victory over Brazil earlier today. I don't know if I'd want a rematch, as the Brazilian women seemed quicker than the Americans, and their stamina was clearly superior. But today, the last of American soccer's 'old guard' was just good enough, and it was a great game. We all have to go eventually. This was the best way to do it.

Posted at 03:42 PM | Unimportant (Non-Baseball) Sports | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)





Six Figures

Yes, I know it's less than what Glenn gets on an average day, but it's still not too bad for a hobby.

Thanks to all who have visited over the past 32 months. I hope it's been worth the price of admission.

Posted at 03:19 PM | Blogging | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)





Sell Your Amazon Stock

I'm browsing around the Internet seeking ideas for a good anniversary gift for Amanda (we celebrate our seventh in October), and I hit Amazon's gift finder. And what is the #1 Editor's Pick in gifts for her? The South Beach Diet. Yes, that's an excellent idea. Get your wife or significant other the gift that says hey, you're fat. Why not throw in a gift certificate to a local divorce lawyer while you're at it? I'm suddenly a lot less convinced about this whole 'new economy' thing.

Posted at 12:37 PM | Humor | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)





Domestic Issues and Voting

I see over at Anne's site that some of her regulars are appalled by my decision to prioritize war issues over domestic issues. Judging from some of the comments, they appear to believe that I don't believe domestic issues are important at all (though I get the impression many of them haven't read my work very carefully), so I thought I would lay out some additional verbiage (since we've been quiet here lately) explaining my thought process on domestic issues.

I have said that I consider the war more important than domestic policy for this election, and I stand by that. Part of the reason I believe that, however, is that I don't think we're likely to see any major domestic problems. Whoever wins the election, we're likely to continue to see a slow movement towards government control of health care, but I don't anticipate major moves in that direction under Kerry or Bush. Neither of the major party candidates is a winner on civil liberties, both having supported both the Patriot Act (which I'm not sure is nearly as big an infringement on civil liberties as it is advertised, but I personally prefer my civil liberties as close to totally uninfringed as possible) and McCain-Feingold, so I'm not sure what makes Kerry-supporters so certain Kerry will be any better than Bush. The liberties Kerry would like to suppress are often different from those Bush would like to quash, so perhaps that's where the difference lies. As for the economy, while government can do a great deal to hurt the economy, the notion that government is vital for keeping the economy healthy doesn't cut much room with me, as I'm not aware of any evidence of that. Roosevelt's massive interventions during the Depression succeeded only in making things worse, while Johnson's Great Society and Nixon's wage & price controls gave us stagflation and the lost decade of the 1970s. Our economic boom from the early 1980s to the present was built on a reduction of government influence in the economy, not a sudden increase in the puissance of bureaucrats.

But what I consider a far greater threat to civil liberties is another successful attack on American soil. In the wake of 9/11, we passed the Patriot Act almost immediately because Congress wanted to be seen doing something. Was the Patriot Act the result of Congress examining what went wrong on 9/11 and designing a bill to resolve those problems? Of course not; only now, in the wake of the 9/11 Commission's report have we even begun to grapple with those issues. Fans of The Simpsons will remember the hurricane episode, when Apu, the manager of the Quickie Mart, pencilled in the word 'hurricane' on every product, so that cat chow became hurricane chow, and suddenly everyone wanted some. Congress after 9/11 was no better than those Springfield shoppers. Patriot was a grab bag of things various bureaucracies had wanted well prior to 9/11, and they used the attack as an excuse to get their particular item approved (terrorist chow, anyone?).

Now imagine what kind of crap Congress might pass in the wake of a significantly worse attack on U.S. soil. Whether you consider the Patriot Act a wise response to terrorism or a frightful assault on civil liberties, I suspect none of us would be pleased by the far more draconian responses Congress might trot out in the future. Suffice it to say that I don't want to see what the government will come up with next time. Therefore, I consider success in this war vital to avoiding what I would find disastrous domestic policies.

I am aware that President Bush has numerous flaws on this issue, and Anne has already pointed a few out to me. But I'm not convinced that Kerry would be any better, and I believe that victory in a war requires taking the offensive. Even assuming a Kerry presidency would devote itself to improving our defenses against terrorism (an unlikely prospect, given that the candidate has never proposed anything like that in his current capacity as a United States Senator), the basic problem with defense is that it will eventually fail. The United States is simply too vast for any defense not to have holes large enough for terrorists to eventually find and exploit. Prevention of terrorism has to happen at the source, either by convincing people not to be terrorists, or by convincing them not to hit us (a far less satisfactory option, both because they'll eventually come back to us and because it is morally weak). Therefore I feel I must vote for the candidate most likely to take the fight to the enemy precisely because I think that's the best way to protect our domestic situation.

I suspect this won't change anything, but I'll point it out nonetheless: the fact I have chosen to vote for President Bush does not mean that I approve of everything he does, nor that I think he will be a particularly good president. I view him as the least bad option, nothing more. Therefore, pointing out his flaws is unlikely to sway my vote. If your goal is to tell me that President Bush has flaws, I am way ahead of you. If your goal is to sway my vote, however, you're going to have to demonstrate to me that John Kerry will be a better alternative.

Posted at 07:59 AM | Philosophy | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)



August 25, 2004

Wishing Won't Make It So

Anne has offered a large essay that counters my defense of my vote for President Bush, a decision that is predicated on the war (by which I mean the war with radical Islam, not just Iraq), with her own views. I greatly appreciate her taking the time to lay out her opinions, but I'm afraid I sharply disagree with them. Anne seems to believe that I want this war, and that my opinions are predicated on trying to continue it unnecessarily. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would love for the war to be over. Unfortunately, I don't get the deciding vote here. As long as our enemies want there to be a war, there will be one. And there seems little doubt that our enemies do, in fact, want there to be a war. Therefore, we can either fight or die. As those are our only options, I decided I'd rather fight.

Below I have excerpted much (but by no means all) of Anne's essay, and followed it with my own observations.

For instance, many of our interventions in the Middle East have been, fundamentally, about retaining access to their oil supplies. Do such actions fall, in your view, under the heading of "defense" or "domestic affairs"?

They cross the line, I think. Were we to lose access to energy supplies, our economy would suffer greatly, therefore rendering us less safe. However, in almost all cases, I think that military action is not the most effective way to safeguard energy supplies, since the oil-producing world has to sell oil in order to make keep their own economies going, so military action is generally unwarranted. Without specifics, of course, I really can't answer your question more precisely. But I will point out that defense generally comes down to protecting our domestic affairs, does it not? We don't go to war for the sake of going to war; we go to war because our domestic tranquility has been disturbed (or may be disturbed) in some way.

We've left a legacy of poverty, repression, unemployment, and disease behind us in that part of the world.

There are problems of poverty, repression, unemployment and disease in all-too-many parts of the world. Yet only those parts where Islam predominates produce incidents like the Bali bombing and 9/11. Correlation, of course, does not equal causation, but I believe a good case can be made that Islam is a significant factor in the problem we face. Does that mean that every Muslim is a bad person? Hardly. I suspect the vast majority of Muslims are generally the same as the rest of the world, more interested in living their lives than anything else. But it does seem to me that the character of Islam does drive a small but significant fraction to nihilism. When I refer to Islam, I am particularly referring to the brand practiced by our enemies, Wahabbism.

Bottom line: terrorists are predominantly Muslim, and many of them are not at all poor. If you want to convince me that poverty causes terrorism, you're going to have to show some examples of that, and there aren't any.

Nothing we're doing today is "fighting" terrorism. All we're doing is encouraging it.

So is it your assessment that if we were to simply leave the Middle East alone, we wouldn't have to worry about terrorism?

I would rather conclude that killing people isn't the answer and find a different path.

Anne, I mean this with all respect, but this is where you and I fundamentally differ. You live in the world as you want it to be; I live in the world as it is. Killing people is the most effective 'answer' in the world; that's why it's used so often. If you kill all the terrorists, the war will end. This is no different than any other war; during the American Civil War, William Sherman recognized immediately that the only way to win that war was to 'kill off the hotheads,' and that is how we will win this war as well. That knowledge brings me no joy, and I hope that the number will be a low one, but history is quite clear about what it takes to win wars. I see no reason to believe this one will be any different. Simply observe the behavior of many inhabitants of Pakistanis near the Afghan border. When we initially made war on Afghanistan, many of them rushed into Afghanistan to fight the infidels. When many of them never returned, or returned only as corpses, suddenly the excitement over fighting the United States evaporated. The world has worked like this for a very long time. When people realize their cause is doomed, most of them decide they'd rather not die for a losing cause. When this knowledge is combined with the promise of a better future, the enemy's will to fight can disappear rapidly.

...look back on the last 50 years and realize for himself that things are only getting worse and worse.

I'd love to hear how you think things are getting worse and worse. It seems to me that the world is much better off today than it was 50 years ago. If we win this war, I'm confident we'll be able to say the same thing 50 years from now.

I suggest that an immediate and verifiable world-wide nuclear freeze is a better answer to the problem than the approach of just trying to kill everyone we think might take action against us.

I would suggest that you take a closer look at how the world really works. How on Earth are you going to institute a world-wide nuclear freeze? Tell me, did you approve of President Clinton's technique for preventing North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons? Do you think that would somehow work better on a world-wide scale? If so, please explain how.

We could negotiate in good faith, live up to our commitments, and reach out to other countries with the hand of friendship instead of hand grenades.

I understand that you believe that this would work. But to me, this is just a set of empty platitudes that solve nothing. Do you think we could reach out to al Qaeda with the hand of friendship successfully? Once again, it would be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't, and all the wishing in the world will not make it so. The foreign policy you describe would amount to nothing more than letting the world push us around. Like it or not, we have diametrically opposed goals to many other nations. Talking nice will not eliminate those problems. Indeed, it will exacerbate them. Neville Chamberlain believed in extending the hand of friendship, after all. This did not work out particularly well for him, or for Europe. You would have us follow in his footsteps, though I know you think it will somehow turn out differently this time. Perhaps I'm simply too cynical, but I don't have that kind of faith in the world.

I'll also say that I think you grossly overestimate the desire of the Democratic Party to "socialize" and "regulate" the country. From your words it appears that you think they want to regulate just for the sake of regulation, which is far from the truth.

Not at all. I believe that Democrats want to regulate because they believe it will solve problems they believe it is the duty of the government to fix. I simply disagree, both that regulation will solve the problem, and that it is the duty of government to fix the problems. But I do not see the Democratic party as a group of people who just want to pass laws for the sake of passing laws.

My point is that I strongly disagree with you that the business of a country's government is not its own citizens. On the contrary, the first business of a country's government should be its own citizens.

On the surface, you and I are in agreement, but we are utterly opposed when it comes to what we think government should provide for citizens. I concur with Sir John Slessor, who observed that "the most important social service that a government can do for its people is to keep them alive and free." I believe government should only provide what people cannot provide for themselves. That means an Army and a Navy, a foreign policy, a system of courts, and a few other things. It doesn't mean jobs, health care, houses, clothing, etc. People have been getting those things (to a greater or lesser degree) for thousands of years without government assistance.

If he wanted to start building democracy in the Middle East, Afghanistan was the place to start.

Incorrect. Afghanistan does not possess the infrastructure or the population for representative government to thrive there. Even if we succeed in installing some form of representative government that, it will not spread. Afghanistan is too far off the beaten path. Iraq, however, is in the middle of the Middle East, possesses a decent infrastructure, and a relatively well-educated populace. Furthermore, Iraq is an Arab country. If we can get a representative system of government in place in Iraq, the rest of the Middle East is going to notice, because they will be markedly more successful than any other country in the Middle East (admittedly, not a particularly high bar to clear, but I submit that a freed people in Iraq will far surpass their neighbors). Such success will undermine the dictatorial governments elsewhere in the Middle East, because they will no longer be able to blame Israel and the United States for their woes. This is the ultimate goal, and we cannot get there through Afghanistan. There are other places we could have gone, but Iraq was convenient.

I'm dismayed by your perception that, left alone, domestic affairs will muddle along nicely without the government interfering.

You may think the proper occupation of government is not the people (a position that boggles my mind to begin with) but realistically you need to understand that you can't just start ignoring decades of programs and legislation without creating disaster.

I say this with all respect, but this is so very typical of what I consider to be mainstream liberal thought: the people cannot survive without the government. I'm sure you sincerely believe that, but to me it smacks of such deep condescension that it's hard for me to stomach. Again, the country is people, not government. We have need of some limited government, but not the nanny-state you desire to impose on us.

Possibly you've spent so much of your life in the military that it colors your view of life entirely, but I can assure you that for millions upon millions of people in this country, making war is the least of what we think we stand for.

I will bite my tongue on this and not say what first came to my lips. Let me leave it at this: it is my friends and comrades who are in Iraq and Afghanistan right now fighting and dying in this war. I may yet get the opportunity to go as well. I have been fortunate, to the best of my knowledge, in that none of my friends or former soldiers has yet died in the war (to my knowledge), but it is probably inevitable. So don't you dare tell me about how lots of Americans would like to think about other things; you only have that opportunity because my comrades are willing to fight for it.

I would like nothing more than for this war to be over and for us never to fight another one. But, contrary to what many people seem to believe, it only takes one to make war. We could stop fighting this war, but that would only mean that our enemy would have carte blanche to fight us at times and places of his choosing. The opposite of war isn't necessarily peace: if the other guy wants war, your only choices are war or surrender. That's an unpleasant fact, but wishful thinking will not make it any less true.

I'm not willing to live in the world you envision, where it's dog-eat-dog among the citizens of this country with the government shrugging its shoulders and lobbing another missile at whoever we don't like this week.

Which is why I wrote about two Americas a few weeks ago. (Though your belief that I would like to live in a world where we're lobbing missiles at people every week is certainly...interesting.) I'm not willing to live in a world where 51% of the people can decide to take away the belongings of the other 49% based on "need." But I'm stuck with it. And, whether you understand it or not, you're stuck with the world the way it is.

Further, I deny that that world exists.

That's lovely. You can deny that gravity exists, too, but I'd advise against stepping out of any tall buildings based on that belief. You can deal with the world the way it is, or the way you wish it was. But if you deal with the world the way you wish it was, you'll be in the same position as someone who jumps off a 30-story building in the belief gravity doesn't exist.

I think your motives are probably good, but your priorities are wrong and your perception of the future is intolerable to me. You envision a sort of low-grade, never-ending WWIII. I reject that. There has to be another path. At some point, we have to grow up enough to learn that throwing rocks at someone's window isn't an appropriate response to them backing over our bicycle in the driveway. Even Iraq, with the current disaster we've created there, is not beyond hope. I maintain that we have nether the right nor a mandate to keep a permanent military presence in Iraq against the wishes of the citizens of that country, so I suggest we start by ratcheting down the hubris a few hundred degrees and accepting that our way of life is not everyone's way of life.

News flash: I don't want to live in a future that involves a never ending war. But your solution, to pull back and hope that things magically get better, is the fastest route to that end. The terrorists aren't just going to leave us alone because we choose to unilaterally withdraw.

As for your facile comments about how people want to live, I'm going to suggest that while many people want to live very differently from how we live in the United States, the desire to live as they want is pretty common. Under dictators like Saddam Hussein, that ability doesn't exist. I don't want to make the Middle East like the United States; I just want to give the people there the opportunity to live as they please. More importantly, I want them to stop trying to kill us, and I believe a free people is going to have a lot better things to do with their time.

I've said it several times, but I'll reiterate here to sum up: the world is how it is. It's not how we want it to be, and it's not how we wish it to be. You chide me on the incorrect assumption I believe that the rest of the world wants to live as we do, but you refuse to acknowledge that there are people out there who want to kill us in large numbers, not because they're mad over what we did, but because they hate what we are. I'd love to find another solution than war. But what you offer isn't realistic. These people are willing to kill millions to get what they want. Offering to make nice isn't going to change their minds, it's just going to make their jobs easier. You want a solution other than war? So do I. But you can't always get what you want.

Posted at 07:54 PM | Philosophy | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)



August 24, 2004

On Voting for Bush

Anne Zook is one of my favorite people I've never met, (mostly because she skipped the last blogger bash; bad form, Anne.), because despite the wide gulf between our political opinions, she always comes at questions from a position of respect and honest curiosity, rather than simply assuming that the other side consists of barbarians and infidels. It is, unfortunately, a rare ability on either side of the political spectrum, especially when the impending election is driving partisans of every stripe to distraction. So when I saw her recent comment regarding my decision to vote for President Bush, common courtesy required a response. Further, her questions were good ones, and they provide me with an opportunity to further examine my motives.

To begin, this was the paragraph that I found particularly relevant (I have edited the quote for brevity):

I would never have believed, six months ago, that I'd be reading about someone throwing their support to a candidate whose domestic policies they disapproved of, whose approach to government they did not agree with, and whose handling of the "war" they found themselves forced to interpret as "a deliberate strategy to anger opponents and create the impression of incompetence" and the rest of the things you said.

It's a mystery to me how anyone could rationally cast such a vote.

In fact, the only solid reason you're giving for voting for Bush is that he "seems" to have the right idea in terms of making war. If, after 3-1/2 years of his presidency, you still don't know if he knows what he's doing, doesn't that furnish you with a clue about whether or not he actually does?

Let's leave all of that aside for the moment and tell me, if you can, some actually good reason for voting for Bush.

I am, for instance, quite honestly, very disturbed by the implicit assumption in your post that domestic matters are just amazingly less important to the future of this country than making war.

I can't figure out if your position is tied up in some "conservative" belief that "defense" should be the primary function of the federal government or where you're actually coming from with this decision.

Those are good questions. I will readily admit that I am not a fan of President Bush. While he has done some things well, he has done many things poorly, and the odds are better that he will do more things I dislike during his second term than that he will do even a few things of which I approve. So why am I voting for him?

My options in the coming election are quite limited. I already discussed the available candidates in my previous essay, but I didn't mention the other options: not voting, and voting for a write-in candidate. I do not believe I should not vote simply because my options are poor. There is still a least-bad option among the available candidates, and that is where I would like to cast my vote. Voting for a write-in candidate is little better than not voting, and so it is not a feasible option.

Anne wonders how the war can trump domestic concerns, and I can offer two answers to that. I believe that the war is more important than anything we can do domestically over the next four years. I also believe that the government's role in domestic affairs should be extremely limited.

This war we're in is going to continue for at least another 20 years, and I fear I may not live to see its conclusion. I can see only three ways the war can come to an end: the West can submit to Islam, the West can wipe out Islam, or Islam can reform to the degree necessary to coexist with the West.

The first option is wholly unacceptable. Islam, as currently practiced, is antithetical to the ideals of this country and to the natural rights all people possess. I cannot imagine a time when we would be willing to give up our freedoms to live under such a system. I know that I am quite willing to fight and to kill to prevent such a thing from happening, and I suspect I am far from alone. Islam ascendant is simply not going to happen.

The second option is only fractionally more acceptable. While I'm unwilling to live under Islam, the idea of wiping out millions of people because we simply cannot coexist horrifies me. Yet the war could easily reach such a level. Imagine if the World Trade Center had been hit only a few hours later, when both buildings were full, and the casualties that day had exceeded 50,000 dead. Would our response have been so measured then? What if an Islamic group succeeds in detonating a nuclear device in Manhattan, killing millions? There is a threshold past which the West will no longer accept being attacked, and I shudder to think what our response would be at that point.

That leaves what's behind door number three: reforming Islam to the point it can peacefully coexist with the West. This is no easy task, but it is the only moral option available to us. Succeeding in this is the most important thing we can do as a nation, because it is the only way we can continue as a nation. Under option #1, we would cease to exist. Under option #2, we would survive, but who wants to live with the knowledge their survival required the deaths of millions? I am therefore much more interested in the successful prosecution of the war than I am in any domestic program.

Furthermore, as someone who believes that the government the Constitution describes would be a much better place to live than under the current system, I really cannot win on domestic policy. Under the Democrats, I can expect to see a continued push for a national health care system that will inevitably move to become socialized medicine, massive regulation of business, the federalization of local functions like education and the redistribution of wealth based on 'need.' Under the Republicans, well, I'll probably see much of the same. There is no winning hand for me among the major parties. For me, voting on domestic issues is akin to a condemnned man getting the choice of being hanged or shot. The end result is quite the same.

Having established my voting priorities, how can I consider voting for Bush? Because he is the only one of the candidates who appears to be going in the right direction on the war. Badnarik wants us to know that it's all our fault. Nader wants to get the U.S. out of Iraq and turn it over to the UN. Kerry has convinced me that he does not consider the war a serious matter both by how he has run his campaign and based on his life's history, in which he has consistently stood against the use of U.S. power. Since I've already ruled out not voting and writing someone else in, this clearly makes Bush the front-runner.

It is impossible to be certain if President Bush intends to try to force an Islamic reformation through the occupation of Iraq. His comments regarding installing a democracy there are encouraging, but hardly conclusive. Further, the President would be crucified were he to publicly announce such a goal; indeed, such an announcement would be almost certain to mobilize opposition to the West to such a degree we might be unable to reach the goal. So it's possible the President does understand what he needs to do, but is being coy about it for the right reasons. It's also possible he does not understand what needs to be done. There is, truthfully, no way to be certain.

So am I a fool for voting for Bush based on the possibility he is on the right track? That's a judgement call, and you're free to believe that I am. But when my options are three people I'm convinced are on the wrong track and one person who at least appears to be on the right track, President Bush appears to be the only viable choice. He may not do what I believe what must be done, but if that's the case, he's no worse than my other options. It seems clear to me that a chance of success is better than no chance at all. Therefore, my decision to vote for President Bush is unchanged; on November 2 I will hold my nose and support him for a second term, because he's the best available option.

Posted at 04:36 PM | Politics | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)





Sound & Fury, Signifying Nothing

Tim Noah, who is now at least admitting his so very obvious biases towards Democratic candidates, is furiously spinning his hopes of abolishing the Electoral College with two essays in Slate. Presumably this is driven by Noah's lingering fury over the perceived outrage of Al Gore having received more popular votes in 2000 while losing the election. Noah is countered by James D. Miller, who I (surprise) find somewhat more convincing.

The biggest problem with trying to abolish the Electoral College is that it is highly impractical. As things now stands, Montana's 917,621 people represent roughly 0.3% of the population of the United States, but their three electoral votes gives them claim to 0.5% of the available electoral votes. California, on the other hand, holds 12.2% of the U.S. population, but gets on 10.2% of the electoral votes. Since there are more small states that get extra clout in the electoral college than large states that get reduced clout, getting a Constitutional amendment passed would be, to put it mildly, difficult. (I also wonder if Noah has pulled out the 'we shouldn't tamper with the Constitution' card in the gay marriage debate, but I'll let that pass.) Noah points to a study claiming that big states actually get disproportionate power in the Electoral College, but I find that claim questionable at best. Unless Noah can actually demonstrate why it would be to small states' benefit to vote for such an amendment, he's just tilting at windmills.

That doesn't address the question of whether or not abolishing the Electoral College is a good idea, however. Personally, I can see no particular benefit to tossing the institution simply because it disagrees with the popular vote once a century or so, and since we've had the Electoral College since day one, I'd argue that the burden of proof must lie with Noah. Still, let's address some of the perceived advantages.

It is hardly certain that the results of the 2000 election (or any other) would have been the same if we had been playing under Noah's rules. Since the popular vote totals don't count for determining the winner, candidates don't optimize their strategies to maximize their total votes. Therefore, there aren't many big get-out-the-vote parties in states that will go for one candidate over the other, as those resources can be better used in states that will be won by a narrow margin. Under a popular vote contest, candidates would instead try to pump up their vote totals wherever they could find them. This would severely increase the incentives for vote fraud, since each party has numerous states where they dominate government and they could therefore use that influence to artificially inflate their candidate's totals.

Eliminating the Electoral College would also wipe out the 'wasted vote' syndrome. When the media called Florida for Al Gore in 2000, many voters in Florida and elsewhere elected not to go to the polls because they knew that under the Electoral College, with Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida in his column, Al Gore was going to win. There's no way to know how many popular votes President Bush lost that way, but it certainly would have made a difference in the final vote totals. Half a million votes isn't many in a country of 290 million; it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which the Bush campaign could have found those votes in Republican strongholds in the West.

When the founders presented the Constitution to the people for ratification, they offered the nation a republic (if we could keep it), not a democracy. They did that for a very wise reason: democracy is really nothing more than mob rule. We've taken entirely too many steps down that road over the past century. There is no reason to throw ourselves deeper into the abyss.

Posted at 09:55 AM | Politics | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)



August 23, 2004

True Colors

Here we are in an election year, knowing that either George W. Bush will remain our President for another four years or that John Kerry will be our 44th President, and it's clear neither one of them gives a damn about the document they're supposed to support and defend. George Bush already signed the abominable assault on the first amendment known as McCain-Feingold, and now he informs us that he believes ads by outside groups are bad for the system. God forbid the people should get a chance to speak after all. John Kerry, meanwhile, wants to pull Unfit for Command from the shelves of bookstores and get the Swiftvet ads pulled off the air, demonstrating his own commitment to freedom of speech. When people tell me how they'd like to see John McCain run for president again, I can only shake my head.

Here's a crazy idea: let's keep the government out of the business of regulating political speech. I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere before. Is it messy? Clearly it is. I would much prefer to hear the candidates debate the best way to fight the war we're currently engaged in, or even how they're planning to wreck the U.S. health care system. But freedom is a messy business, much as we might prefer otherwise. Free people will frequently choose to do things that others do not agree with or even understand. I see no reason to use that confusion to authorize the government to prevent those choices.

Posted at 06:47 PM | Politics | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)





Dare We Believe?

This is what makes baseball the greatest game there is.

You cannot come back from a 10 1/2 game deficit with six weeks left in the season. Boston does this to its fans every year, making a charge that raises hopes before cruelly dashing them against the rocks once again. Whether its Bucky Dent looping a Torrez fastball over the Monster, Mookie Wilson rolling a slow grounder between Bill Buckner's legs, or Grady Little leaving Pedro on the mound to surrender a three-run lead, the Red Sox are masters of leaving their fans hanging on the brink.

And yet, Boston took its sixth straight victory last night, 6-5, in Chicago.

We're talking about the New York Yankees here, a team for which the term dynasty was created. A team whose greatest stars are some of the greatest players ever to take the field, from an outfielder named Ruth to a third baseman called Rodriguez.

And yet, New York dropped its third straight to Anaheim last night, and has now lost six of its last seven.

The biggest deficit Boston has ever overcome is ten games, and that was a deficit that peaked in June of 1988. On August 15, the Yankees stood 10 1/2 games ahead of the Red Sox, a lead that would require Boston to make up two games a week the rest of the way, a nigh-impossible pace.

And yet, Boston is now only 5 1/2 games out one week later, pressing hard on the heels of the suddenly bereft Yankees.

The Red Sox would have to win 75% of their remaining games to reach 100 wins. Even were they to pull off such a feat, would only have to win 24 games to Boston's 30 to win the same 100 games. Even finishing the year at a .500 pace would earn the Yankees 95 wins, meaning the Sox would have to finish 26-14 to win the AL East.

And yet...and yet...

Posted at 07:13 AM | Baseball | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)



August 22, 2004

Bush's Turn

The New York Times reports that President Bush will use his convention to lay out his vision for his second term. While it's unlikely he will actually be able to enact many (if any) of his proposals, this seems a wise strategy if he uses it properly.

John Kerry, the ABB candidate, offered very little substance at his convention, in large part because he needs to remain a cipher in order to retain the loyalty of the ABB voters, who can project their hopes onto him as long as he doesn't contradict them. Since the ABK voter bloc is significantly smaller than the ABB bloc (to put in mildly), President Bush is going to need to offer a little more than just not being someone. If he can find an issue that energizes people (more than it turns off), the President could offer people a real reason to vote for him. While his leadership in the war will be vital in retaining the office, the combination of his own missteps over the past four years and the desire of many Americans to think about something other than the war means he needs more than the war to win the election.

The question becomes, will the Bush campaign be smart enough to choose a truly useful issue? President Clinton rolled out a list of micro-initiatives for his convention in 1996, but he had the advantage of running against Bob Dole, a fine man and a lousy presidential candidate. If Bush does the same, I don't think it will get him far. He needs a big issue, something that will energize the base and a sizable portion of the undecides. No easy task, since any easy issue would already be on the table. Also a task fraught with pitfalls, as a decision to unveil the wrong issue could cripple Bush before the real campaign even begins. I doubt I'll watch Bush's speech, but I confess curiosity just might draw me in.

On an unrelated note, I think the Republicans are begging for trouble if they go through with their plan to try to link protestors to the Democrats. Such charges smack of Richard Nixon and suppression of dissent (they're not, but they will be spun that way) and will simply draw attention to the anger felt by the ABB crowd. The Republicans would be wiser to keep their mouths shut and let people see the protestors for what they are, rather than trying to spin them and probably making the protestors look better than they are.

Posted at 06:56 PM | Politics | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)





The Gauntlet Thrown Down

Donald Sensing has tossed out an intriguing offer to any person supporting John Kerry in this election: write an essay explaining Kerry's good points. Donald is curious whether there is anything out there other than ABB sentiment driving Kerry's campaign. Based on the responses in Donald's comments section, it would appear not, but there are still six days until the deadline for submission.

I confess I'd love to hear what Kerry's supporters see as his good points. Are there reasons to vote for Kerry beyond his not being George W. Bush? Personally, I hope not, as that will mean that even a Kerry victory will leave him a weak President with minimal ability to affect the national discourse. But I'll be eagerly waiting to see if anyone can meet Donald's challenge.

Posted at 10:13 AM | Politics | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)





Unwise Decision

Back in June, Army Civil Affairs Captain Oscar Estrada published a piece in the Washington Post discussing his experiences in Iraq. CPT Estrada asked some tough questions about the tactics he was seeing used in Iraq, and those questions didn't sit well with one of his superiors. Despite clearing the article with his commander, Estrada was reassigned and denied leave to get married. The unhappy commander, COL Dana J.H. Pittard, succeeded in getting Estrada's article additional attention while concurrently giving the Army a black eye.

I didn't see Estrada's piece when it appeared in the Post, nor do I recall a large discussion about it at the time. It therefore seems to me that COL Pittard's actions have only exercised his pique over a situation that wasn't particularly serious. At a time the Army needs to be gaining, not losing public support, COL Pittard's decision doesn't seem to have done much to help in that respect and may well cause us some harm. Army commanders would be wise to be a little more prudent in exercising their powers when it comes to their soldiers' speech. However legal COL Pittard's actions were, I don't see how they did anything to help the perceived problem.

Posted at 07:18 AM | Military | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)



August 21, 2004

The Swiftvets Get Down to Business

Were I a betting man, I'd wager that the release of the second advertisement by the Swiftvets marks the first time they've addressed their real beefs with John Kerry. Let me be clear in saying that I do not believe that the veterans are lying about what they remember about Kerry's service in Vietnam; but nor do I believe that Kerry's backers are lying about what they remember, either. After 35 years, I simply don't trust either side's memories enough to believe that either side's account is perfectly accurate. So discussions of whether or not John Kerry deserved the awards he won in Vietnam simply come far too late, and I'm inclined to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, since nobody came forward at the time with these allegations.

No, I think the reason the Swiftvets see Kerry as Unfit to Command is what he did when he got home from Vietnam. More importantly, this is where Kerry is most vulnerable. Even if the Swiftvets are perfectly correct about his conduct in Vietnam (which would surprise me), there are enough conflicting stories to minimize whatever political damage Kerry might sustain. I don't even believe the Cambodia story can hurt Kerry badly, although his decision to continue to claim that he was in Cambodia at some point may yet prove me wrong.

His actions as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War are well-documented and, in the case of his Senate testimony, available on film. There is no way to hide what Kerry claimed he and others did in Vietnam, nor the broad brush he used to tar every veteran of that war. If the Swiftvets can raise those actions into the public eye, then Kerry will have to either repudiate what he said then, angering his base, or acknowledge his words, in which case I suspect his campaign will sink like a stone. Kerry seems to know this, too, which I assume is why he's desperately trying to keep the stories from being raised. His success or failure in doing so will probably be a deciding factor in the November election.

Posted at 07:26 PM | Politics | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)