The Uncertainty Principle

I honestly don’t know what the Nation’s Ari Melber is on about. Joe Lieberman has the power to hand the entire Senate back to the Republicans. I believe that makes him one of the most powerful members of Congress. Melber dismisses this little fact as:

He will have little influence or goodwill within the incoming majority, beyond his formal committee chairmanship. Flirting further with changing parties would seem petty, even by Beltway standards, in the shadow of a Congressional calendar that promises to be packed with hearings and legislation on Iraq, terrorism, war profiteering, the economy and healthcare

In fact, the Democratic one-vote majority means to me that Joe will wield considerable amounts of influence over the Democratic agenda.

Melber offers the typical Kos-ian liberal talking points about the emergence of the blogosphere (whose influence ended at the party primary’s edge – meaning that their mainstream influence among mainstream voters has yet to either be felt or demonstrated). The he goes on with how the liberal bloggers are not like New Left in the 1960s, and how the Democrats will not lose a series of elections by running with candidates like George McGovern.

I’m really not sure what Melber’s point is. Lets break down this argument.

Thesis: Lieberman is no longer important.

Statement 1: Lets not talk about Joe Lieberman anymore (though, Melber is writing an article about him well after he slipped from the news cycles)
S2: Lieberman spent his year being attacked by bloggers, and then heralded as important when he won election.
S3: Lieberman produced an ad attacking Markos Moulitsas himself, but refused to air it.
Conclusion to S3: Because he produced the ad at all, bloggers must be important.
S4: Washington insiders consider Lieberman newly powerful.
S5: Lieberman will have no influence with the new Congress because he is not a full member of the Democratic party.
S6: Flirting with changing parties would “petty” (as if politics never got never petty before)
C: Lieberman and Bush will be indistinguishable as the term wears on.

Melber’s deductive logic is pretty off. Lieberman will have extraordinary power – to turn Committee chairmanships, the organization of the Senate and control of the chamber right back over to the Republicans. He owes the Democrats no allegiance, having been ousted in a bruising primary. His only tie to the party now is that he campaigned under the idea of remaining a nominal Democrat. It is only by his grace that the Democrats even retain control of the chamber at all. Melber is off his rocker, but that’s typical of The Nation in a post-Kos era.

Posted by George Gordon at 9:16 PM | Permalink

I love NPR’s quiz show Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, and I usually get one or two great links out of it. Today, they did a quick snippet about a columnist for World Net Daily condemning soy as making kids, especially boys, gay, because of high level estrogen it contains.

Exploring the site more, I found that Chuck Norris writes for them. Then there’s this gem about a Christmas parody.

The radical Christian spin on this harmless little song, sung to the tune of Joy to the World:

“Joy to the world
I'm getting laid
I'm getting laid tonight.

We'll light the Yule log
Deck the halls
And then we'll play some
Jingle balls.

It's been a real long wait
This is our second date
It's Christmas Eve
And I'm getting laid.”

Is “CBS must apologize for having one of its television characters use a traditional Christmas carol to brag about his plans to sexually exploit a woman, according to the American Family Association.” [Emphasis Mine]. Hmmm. I’m not sure how that song has anything to do with sexual exploitation.

Posted by George Gordon at 12:48 PM | Permalink

It looks like Evan Bayh is out.

The Times notes that his campaign was drawing little attention, as reporters swarmed after Obama, and Bayh himself noted that he was a long-shot David candidate in a field already crowded with Goliaths. One thing is for sure. This is not 1992. Bill Clinton was able to come out of obscurity as a dark horse, because Democratic big shots did not think that H.W. Bush was ripe for the picking. Yes, 2008 is an open field but its being increasingly dominated by just a few contenders, most of which haven’t even officially announced. On the Democratic side, the contest is being covered in the media as an impending clash between the Hillary Clinton juggernaut and the pre-ordained next-big-thing Barack Obama. The Republicans are looking for a McCain-killer, and Mitt Romney or Sam Brownback are getting a lot of coverage for that role.

The “wide-open” 2008 field is narrowing, even a year before the first primary.

Posted by George Gordon at 10:41 AM | Permalink

One more small, short, insignificant blurb of inconsequential information before I go to bed. It seems that the world's oldest Hockey Stick is currently fetching $2.2 Million USD. The stick itself dates from the 1850s, and proceeds go to Canadian education charities. Anyone wishing to place a bid can go to here.

Also, its been a while since I've had a chance to catch NBC's "The Carson Daily Show," and I was unaware that he actually did a monologue. I'll leave it at that.

Posted by George Gordon at 1:34 AM | Permalink

MORE on Obama as Lincoln!

Granted, that's a letter to the editor, but it's a pretty interesting comparison, an good defense to the "no experience" card, and it seems to be getting a lot of traction, and will hopefully get even more as Obama inches towards announcing.

Posted by George Gordon at 1:25 AM | Permalink

Apparently, your astrological sign is a major factor in influencing how often you have a car crash, and get a ticket.

Bad news for me, with a birthday of January 24th.

Posted by George Gordon at 12:47 AM | Permalink

The New Republic's web edition has a piece on DC getting a congressional vote and Michael Crichton's incredibly childish takedown of Michael Crowley.

And the Economist, an issue back, had a great article (subscription required, I think) on the harms of ethical food shopping. The gist is:

On Organic

Organic food, which is grown without man-made pesticides and fertilisers, is generally assumed to be more environmentally friendly than conventional intensive farming, which is heavily reliant on chemical inputs. But it all depends what you mean by “environmentally friendly”. Farming is inherently bad for the environment: since humans took it up around 11,000 years ago, the result has been deforestation on a massive scale. But following the “green revolution” of the 1960s greater use of chemical fertiliser has tripled grain yields with very little increase in the area of land under cultivation. Organic methods, which rely on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, are far less intensive. So producing the world's current agricultural output organically would require several times as much land as is currently cultivated. There wouldn't be much room left for the rainforest.

On Fairtrade

Fairtrade food is designed to raise poor farmers' incomes. It is sold at a higher price than ordinary food, with a subsidy passed back to the farmer. But prices of agricultural commodities are low because of overproduction. By propping up the price, the Fairtrade system encourages farmers to produce more of these commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices—thus achieving, for most farmers, exactly the opposite of what the initiative is intended to do. And since only a small fraction of the mark-up on Fairtrade foods actually goes to the farmer—most goes to the retailer—the system gives rich consumers an inflated impression of their largesse and makes alleviating poverty seem too easy.

Certainly worth keeping in mind. They fininsh by arguing that buying local instead of from a supermarket is actually probably a waste of fuel, since most people live closer to a supermarket than to a farm, and going out of the way en masse to buy produce locally contributes more to pollution than shipping it from across the globe.

Definitely food for thought.

Posted by George Gordon at 1:12 PM | Permalink

Andrew Sullivan has a nice post about Romney's flip-fops.

It seems like, in the last few news cycles that the two front runners for each party at the moment, Mr. McCain and Ms. Clinton, have been burried in news about the young upstarts who are trying to close in on their commanding leads. In Romney's case, its a torrent of bad news about his previous support for liberal positions to try to win a Senate election in liberal Massachusetts, but in Obama's case, the press he's getting is still unbelievable. McCain and Clinton have been quiet recently.

Posted by George Gordon at 1:02 PM | Permalink

In light of my tirade against Jacoby's Globe article, I thought I would post what I thought was an intelligent and insightful critique of today's public atheism from today's New Republic.

Posted by George Gordon at 3:32 PM | Permalink

More out of Boston today.

The Daily Show did a brilliant sketch where they had President Bush debating Governor Bush. A version could be made with Mitt Romney.

On Gay Marriage
1994 Romney: "People of integrity don't force their beliefs on others; they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have,"

On a Senate amendment to ban funding to public schools who tolerated homosexuality as a lifestyle option
1994 Romney: I don't think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be,"

On Clinton’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
1994 Romney ”[Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is] the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military."

2004 Romney:'Do you support gay marriage or civil unions?' I'd say neither. If they said you have to have one or the other, that Massachusetts is going to have one or the other, then I'd rather have civil unions than gay marriage. But I'd rather have neither.”

And

“It would have been wrong for the Supreme Judicial Court to impose its mistaken view of marriage on the rest of the country. The continuing threat of the judicial redefinition of marriage, here and in several other states, is why I believe that the best and most reliable way to preserve the institution of marriage is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution”

I guess that rules him out as a person with integrity.

Posted by George Gordon at 12:25 PM | Permalink

I usually like Jeff Jacoby, but his column today struck me as particularly nasty. He starts in the usual conservative mode of bemoaning the invisible “War on Christmas” and then immediately moves into the war on faith in general.

"It's extraordinary," remarks Randall. "In an increasingly godless age, there is a rising tide of hatred against those who adhere to biblical values." A "tyrannical minority" of intolerant secularists is openly contemptuous of traditional moral norms. "The teachings and guidance of old-fashioned Christianity offend them, so they seek to remove all traces of it from public life."

You don't have to be especially pious to find this atheist zealotry alarming. Nor do you have to live in Europe. Though religion remains important in American life, antireligious passion is surging here, too.

Jacoby then proceeds to stake his claim against atheists and all non-Judeo Christians in general.

What is at stake in all this isn't just angels on Christmas cards. What society loses when it discards Judeo-Christian faith and belief in God is something far more difficult to replace: the value system most likely to promote ethical behavior and sustain a decent society. That isbecause without God, the difference between good and evil becomes purely subjective. What makes murder inherently wrong is not that it feels wrong,but that a transcendent Creator to whom we are answerable commands: "Thou shalt not murder." What makes kindness to others inherently right is not that human reason says so, but that God does: "Love thy neighbor as thyself; I am the Lord."
Obviously this doesn't mean that religious people are always good, or that religion itself cannot lead to cruelty. Nor does it mean that atheists cannot be beautiful, ethical human beings. Belief in God alone does not guarantee goodness. But belief tethered to clear ethical values -- Judeo-Christian monotheism -- is society's best bet for restraining our worst moral impulses and encouraging our best ones.
The atheist alternative is a world in which right and wrong are ultimately matters of opinion, and in which we are finally accountable to no one but ourselves. That is anything but a tiding of comfort and joy.

Well, well, well. Not only does Jacoby deny that people who do not profess a faith cannot live by any sort of recognized, overarching code of moral or ethical behavior, but he insinuates that only through the Judeo-Christian (and I suppose, presumably Muslim) Lord God your Savior can you find any sort of redemptive meaning to this bleak a-moral vacuum. The billions of non-Judeo-Christian-Muslims out there are presumably living their wretched, unwashed lives in sin, without any sort of moral compass, probably killing each other and eating the flesh of their human brethren. After all, without the Lord God, cannibalism becomes acceptable. Yes, Jacob says atheists individually can be beautiful ethical human beings, but his implication is that human society as a whole cannot find moral guidence without the Word.

Are we talking about the same nation, Mr. Jacoby? The nation who professes in poll after poll they would not elect an atheist to the highest office? The nation whose members of Congress, upon having a Federal Court strike down the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance (which was an artificial addition in the 1950s to set ourselves apart from the Godless Communists, anyway), gathered on the steps of the Capitol in defiance and recited the pledge as is. Or the nation who has more churches per capita than any other in the world? A nation where public officials and courthouse witnesses are still sworn in on Holy Bible. The nation whose Evangelical voters turned out in droves to return a clearly incompetent President to White House, because he shared their values and he didn’t want to permit something as human as allowing gays to marry? A nation whose Republican Congress passed a Bill stopping the right-to-die death of one woman as a publicity stunt to appeal to Evangelicals. There is a war on Christmas here? In America? Or could it possibly be that perhaps, in the spirit of multi-culturalism, pluralism and the recognition that America is a diverse place, that American business, in an shamelessly capitalism appeal, put up banners like “Happy Holidays” and market cards without Christian imagery to appeal to the broadest market segment and to avoid making the assumption that everyone is Christian? Could it be that the American government, because of a little known clause known as the Establishment Clause, doesn’t officially step in to recognize or favor Christianity over the plurality of other religious beliefs that citizens may or may not hold?

Never mind the assertion that no moral code can exist without religious authority. Mr. Jacoby, anatomically modern humans appeared probably between 100,000 and 250,000 years ago. By 40,000 years ago, our ancestors had moved into Europe, Asia and Australia and by 10,000 years ago, humans had crossed the Bering Strait and into the Americas. However, Christianity only rudimentally appeared less than 2,000 years ago and was not codified until a few centuries later. Your target in your article is atheists, but that’s not what you write a few sentences earlier. You don’t write that religious faith, any religious faith can offer us a model for ethical living, something akin to what Ghandi said (without the spiteful disdain for atheists). You write “What society loses when it discards Judeo-Christian faith and belief in God is something far more difficult to replace: the value system most likely to promote ethical behavior and sustain a decent society.” Thus, Mr. Jacoby, though my anthropology may be suspect, I believe you are insinuating that for just 100,000 years of our history, there were no truly moral code by which humans lived. Or that Greek pagan philosophers like Socrates and Plato, who professed only tepid and requisite enthusiasm for their religious Gods, and who were concerned almost exclusively with the problem of the Good Life, could not have possibly set down a system for moral and ethical standards, and laid the basis for secular philosophy, for they were not saved by the Lord Jesus?

J'accuse, Mr. Jacoby.

Posted by George Gordon at 12:12 PM | Permalink

It seems the Foreign Service Exam is changing.

In a proposed overhaul of its hiring process slated for next year and to be announced to employees in coming days, the State Department would weigh resumes, references and intangibles such as "team-building skills" in choosing who represents the United States abroad, according to three people involved in the process. The written test would survive, but in a shortened form that would not be treated as the key first hurdle it has been for more than 70 years.

Unfortunate, because as someone who has not yet picked a career, I was actually looking forward to trying to take the Foreign Service exam as soon as this higher education thing is over and done with. My feeling is that the test was probably a very merit-based way of picking well-rounded and smart individuals. References, resumes and “team building” seem the way to reduce the merit-based elements of applying to the Foreign Service, and would seem to reward people who didn’t have to spend their summers flipping burgers, and who could afford to take high-sounding, resume-building, yet-frivolous internships on their parents’ dime. But that’s just my take.

The redeeming piece of news in that article is that 60% of the Federal Bureaucracy is retiring within the next decade, meaning a good many job prospects for younger folks.

Posted by George Gordon at 2:26 PM | Permalink

I hear the numbers and statistics about Americans and their level of education, and usually they go in one ear and out the other, but honestly. I expect better out of top-level policy makers. Have they never cracked open a history book? It seems that the “stay the course” policy crowd in Iraq, and respected publications like The Economist advocate baring the brunt of the insurgency, while waiting for the Iraqi Security forces to be able to step up and provide security in lieu of the Americans. Even the Baker-Hamilton Report offers a similar strategy. Phased withdrawal, coupled with Iraqi takeovers of key security responsibilities.

In the 1968 Election, Richard Nixon trounced Hubert Humphrey, promising that he had a secret plan to extricate us from Vietnam, as well as promising to finding a way to end the conflict with honor. Of course, Richard Nixon had no such policy prescription, and his real strategy was to buy time, to train South Vietnamese security forces to fight the war themselves.

This was, of course, a disaster. The attempt to conjure a competent security force out of nowhere, and expect it to perform to the level of the US military was something that did not work in Vietnam, and certainly will not work in Iraq. In Vietnam, the local opposition to the US presence was much less. In Vietnam, there was no Sunni-Shiite split. And yet, training the South Vietnamese to step up to protect their own country did not work. The situation in Iraq is much worst. The trust in the Iraqi army and police forces is so low to begin with, and the national government is powerless. Security forces and Iraqi army forces have essentially no state and central government to be loyal to, and their sectarian loyalties will interfere with their ability to mediate a civil war.

There may be a solution in Iraq, but it certainly does not lay in the tired “as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down” solution. Historically, this has been tried. Locals, receiving basic training cannot perform to the level of crack professional American soldiers. Especially given the state of animosity and sectarian violence that already exists. Sorry. Try again with a real policy solution.

Links:
The Iraq Study Group Report – The US Institute of Peace
Wikipedia - Vietnam War – Vietnamization
The Washington Post – 7 in 10 Americans Disapprove Handling of the War

Posted by George Gordon at 1:49 PM | Permalink

Oh, look. Someone else has picked up on the Obama/Lincoln thing.

Not to toot my own horn, but you can find a similiar take, here.

Also, in other Obama related news, it seems that Mr. Barack will have to get used to the wall-to-wall coverage of his activities. A weekend trip to New Hampshire generated pretty intense publicity, even appearing on my Yahoo! homepage as I went to check my email. In other news, Obama seems to have that populist touch. A pretty a-political friend of mine who lives in Durham, New Hampshire excitedly messaged me, having just shaken "Borack"'s hand. I think she may have been confusing him with a fictional Central Asian journalist.

Posted by George Gordon at 4:07 PM | Permalink

Jay-Z, retired after the Black Album, is back again with both a new album and a PSA with Richard Simmons aimed at combating anti-Semitism. I’m not sure how to respond to this, except VH1 may have to revise its 40 Least Hip Hop Moments special (Number 3 is my favorite -- “Aaron Carter Raps”)

Posted by George Gordon at 12:39 AM | Permalink

Sam Brownback started an exploratory committee, perhaps filling a void that Bill Frist’s departure and George Allen’s self-destruction leaves – the white, heartland, socially-conservative, we-are-American values niche image. Brownback is probably a dark horse with little name recognition, but could be a serious contender if social conservatives flex their political muscle in the Republican Primary, in an attempt to remain relevant. Indeed, this is a major problem with the primary system. Front-runners like McCain must spend the next two years shoring up their conservative bona fides, and then must immediately tact to the middle during the generation election. The same problem occurs on the other side of the aisle. Dean was popular among likely primary voters, but how would a Dean general election campaign have been run?

Also, on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is stepping up activity. meeting with New York Governor-elect Spitzer and fellow NY Senator Charles Schumer, to shore up home front support for her inevitable presidential bid. Further the Globe article linked above discusses Evan Bayh’s recently formed exploratory committee.

In the wake of the midterms, the Presidential contest has officially begun. “I’m focused on winning this election” is no longer an excuse to dodge important questions concerning 2008. May the horserace begin.

Posted by George Gordon at 12:13 AM | Permalink

The year was 1968, and the campaign for the President is in full swing. The eventual winner, Richard Nixon, handily cruised to a victory over fellow Republicans George Romney, Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan. However, on the Democratic side, the nomination was up in the air, lending even more credence to the Will Rogers phrase “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat”. Sitting President Lyndon Johnson was eligible for re-election; however choose to withdraw after a particularly strong showing by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, and internal polling which showed him trailing badly in the next primary – Wisconsin. And of course, the final straw was Robert F. Kennedy throwing his hat into the ring.

Kennedy, announcing his intention to run in March of 1968, began building momentum and won the critical California Primary on June 5th, before he was shot dead by a Palestinian assassin on the night of his grand victory.

Enter Emilio Estevez, son of the great President Barlett, who, in typical Hollywood fashion, has produced a film, “Bobby,” dedicated to the events surrounding the Kennedy shooting. The movie is centered on the guests, hotel staff and Kennedy campaign workers at the Ambassador on the day of the Kennedy California primary victory. Kennedy himself is an invisible presence, drawn from historical footage.

Interwoven throughout the film are historical speeches by Kennedy, and convoluted subplots involving racism, feminism, adultery, the passage of time, the nature of the universe, drugs, hippies, youthful optimism, and love. It’s a grand, sweeping statement. Unfortunately, its all Hollywood tripe.

Though the dialogue is forced, and the soundtrack is used in an unbearable manner, attempting to elevate the mundane into the profound, Estavez’s greatest sin is his elevation of Kennedy to mythical status, aggrandizing him as a larger-than-life force, which unites and binds. Throughout the film, the optimism of Kennedy’s progressive campaign lifts the other characters and carries them on a journey of self-discovery and introspection.

The final emotional climax is the powerful scene of Kennedy’s assassination (which is probably the high point of the movie), which ties the intricate subplots together and unifies all the characters. Kennedy’s death then represents the death of an American Dream unfulfilled, the death of a certain optimistic political spirit and the brief unification and amalgamation of men and women of extraordinarily different backgrounds, circumstances and needs.

Apparently, Estevez did not do his homework. The best lines Edward Kennedy ever delivered were spoken at Robert’s eulogy. “My brother,” Kennedy thundered, “need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.” This is crucial. Estavez portrayal of Kennedy as a unstoppable deified force rather than a human being is more of a dishonor than a tribute.

Posted by George Gordon at 2:00 AM | Permalink

Congratulations to Stephane Dion, who today won the Liberal Party leadership today on the 4th ballot. Canadian leadership conventions are not the PR affairs that American conventions have become, but actual real events with decision making power.

His convention speech is notable for its use of both English and French. And god, his French accent is strong.

Posted by George Gordon at 6:25 PM | Permalink