Wonderland

Filibustering Judges

2005-05-23T12:40:00.000-04:00

I think as a matter of principle that it is fine for a Senate minority that represents approximately 49 percent of America to filibuster 10 of 45 appeals court nominees that it finds too ideologically extreme. I also think that if the Republicans press the nuclear button, and use their majority to prevent the filibuster of judges, then Democrats should follow through with their threat to slow business to a crawl. This is perfectly fair.

Of course, if the Dems can get a deal that would let some or most of the judges through in exchange for a Republican promise not to kill the filibuster, they should take it. Because this fight is truly over the next Supreme Court vacancy, it is important that the Dems maintain a 60-vote threshold to ensure that whomever Bush appoints to replace Rehnquist (and possibly O'Connor and, God forbid, Stevens) isn't a right-wing maniac. Any deal that preserves a filibuster will not only give the Dems the ability the block a judge that is a right wing ideologue, but will also send a message to the White House not to send someone up who can't command 60 votes. That will shorten the list of potential judges and, hopefully, prompt the White House to pick someone who is mainstream conservative. (Judge Posner comes to mind as a very good choice.)

This fight also underscores how the Republicans have figured out that the ideological makeup of the courts truly matters. The right wing -- especially the Dobsonite Christian right wing -- has seen its most favored issues die at the hands of federal judges: abortion restrictions, erosion of the separation between church and state, keeping gays in their place, etc. They understand that to make their Christian right wing vision a reality, they need to replace moderate and liberal federal judges, especially Supreme Court judges, with social conservatives who will rule in their favor in the future.

They also realize, perhaps, that their unprecedented grip of the majority party in Washington is a temporary thing. And they want -- need -- to get through as many like-minded judges as they possibly can before there's a Democrat (or moderate Republican like Rudy) in the White House, or before the Senate switches hands. Since either or both of these things have at least a decent chance of happening by 2008, they need to get these judges confirmed NOW. Hence the absolute disregard for traditional Senate rule-changing procedures and for the spirit of comity and cooperation that the Senate likes to pride itself on.

So, if the Republicans do go nuclear, the Dems should stand up and fight back, slowing Senate business and going public with charges of abuse of power and contempt for the rules. The Republicans have shown no mercy in the pursuit of their (mostly wrongheaded) agenda. The Democrats should get some killer instinct of their own.

Preposterous Shit in My Life, Vol. I

2005-05-19T23:39:00.000-04:00

Well, I had intended to blog a bit over the past few days, but I got waylaid in a hospital bed with what some doctors deemed to be viral meningitis (not deadly like the bacterial kind, but not pleasant either). Other docs couldn't say one way or anther what it was. Anyway, I'm home now, chilling with some antibiotics, and feeling much better. Thankfully. Hospitals are no fun, no matter how you cut it.

I will hopefully find some time tomorrow to weigh in on both the fight over judicial filibusters and the shitstorm that our country's irresponsible and immoral ditching of the Geneva Conventions at military prisons has sown.

Anyway, I should get some rest now. Thanks to those of you who passed along your well-wishes by email and phone. Word up.

Preposterous Shit in the News, Vol. I

2005-05-16T18:40:00.000-04:00

So, I heard about this story within the past day or so and it really crystalized why I think the Catholic Church is morally bankrupt and hemorrhaging churchgoing members in Europe and America.

The long and short of it is that some priest in Minnesota denied communion to over one hundred mass attendees because they were wearing sashes or ribbons to church "to show support for gay Catholics." Most of these people, it seems, weren't even actually gay -- no, they were just making a symbolic gesture to support other Catholics who they believe are being treated unfairly.

Of course, what they were wearing -- or whether they're gay or not -- is beside the point. Denying churchgoing Catholics the eucharist is just unconscionable.

The Catholic clergy -- from this pathetic priest in Minnesota all the way up to Right-Wing Ratzinger in Rome -- is so horrifyingly arrogant and out of touch I think I need to vomit in a bucket. Has this priest received word from on high that certain types of "sinners" are less worthy of communion than the rest of the flock? Would he be willing to deny communion to those who have committed the mortal sin of divorce? Or masturbation? I mean, how can this one little man purport to determine who, in God's eyes, is worthy of communion and who is not?

Look, among my friends -- most of whom grew up Catholic and most of whom have some higher education -- the Church is a fucking joke. It's sad, because so many of us who grew up within the tradition -- were baptized, received first communion, took CCD and were confirmed -- are sick to death of Catholic priests and bishops telling us what is and is not moral, so we turn off. In Europe and America, where you have a highly secularized, technological, and educated society, the Church's influence and authority wanes each day. This is especially true among younger people who don't share their elders' compunctions with faggotry, birth control, and responsible sex outside of marriage. The Church's refusal to "modernize" -- to rethink the role of women, teachings about gays, and proper birth- and disease-control methods, among other things -- ensures that the Church will become less and less influential in the secular West as time goes on.

Why are young northeastern Catholics so jaded?

For one thing, the Church is an institution of old men -- yes, all old men -- who did NOTHING over the course of several decades to prevent rampant child abuse by priests. Here in Boston, we have an archdiocese in which the disgraced ex-Cardinal repeatedly transferred a known child molester from one parish to another so he could touch new and ever younger boys. Where is this Cardinal now? In fucking Rome, sitting in a posh Vatican apartment where he is has a special honorary post as the "archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major" and papal prelate. For these men to lecture on morality is like Al Swearengen to lecture on the threat prositution poses to public health.

Not to mention the fact that Church talks about the sanctity of life, and then refuses to allow local priests to okay condom use in their AIDS-ridden third world parishes. "Life is sacred," they tell us, "unless saving it would require us to allow you to put rubber on your wee-wees."

The point of all this is not to shit on the Catholic faith. I understand and believe deeply in the power of Jesus' message, and I understand the importance of the Church as an institution for promulgating and preserving that message (even if they do mess it up way too often). The point of this post is, however, to shit on those who purport to represent Jesus on earth but take profoundly immoral actions against those who don't share their close-minded view of what our faith means.

Back from Brainville

2005-05-16T17:48:00.000-04:00

Howdy to all nine people who read this!

I've decided that my two-and-a-half month long unofficial blogging hiatus is over. This is mainly because I am done with law school and have absolutely nothing to do until June. It is also because I read more and more preposterous shit in the news each day that I want to complain about. My roommates are sick of me by now, so that leaves only YOU to listen to (read) my griping.

First order of business:

I went to Suffolk Downs today with Rolando (who has put some funny stuff on his co-blog in the past few weeks) and put some dough on some horses, almost all of which failed us. That's okay, though, because our losses were reasonable from a monetary perspective and it was a fun day, regardless. The only sour point came when a horse in the 7th race collapsed at the finish line and had to be carted off by an equine ambulance, probably to meet its maker. It didn't seem like a broken leg -- some people were speculating it was a heart attack type situation. Anway, that's the life of a race horse, I guess.

I did nail a perfecta in race 8, which netted me a cool $30 on my $2 bet (I'm not exactly rich, so stop snickering at my crap-ass $ throwdowns). Anyway, word up. More to follow. Thanks for reading.

Killing Kids

2005-03-01T23:22:00.000-05:00

Today, in Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court ruled that executing convicted murderers who were minors at the time of the crime violates the 8th Amendment (banning "cruel and unusual punishments") and is therefore unconstitutional. "Conservative" Justice Kennedy, siding with the Court's "liberals," provided the deciding vote in this 5-4 decision.

At first glance, after having read the majority opinion (Kennedy) and one of the dissents (Scalia), I think the majority is right on policy and wrong on the law. As a member of the "realist" school when it comes to analyzing constitutional juriprudence, it seems to me that this is a classic case of 5 justices knowing the decision they want to reach and then using "the law" the justify that decision, rather than a case of the Court soberly and unemotionally applying precedent to reach a previously undetermined outcome. So in that respect, Scalia is correct when he complains that the Court is substituting its judgment for that of the state legislatures, and hence, the people.

Of course, this is similar to what I've spoken about before, albeit in a slightly different context -- Courts often ignore precedent and rule according to the personal beliefs of the members who make up a majority. The Supreme Court does this all the time, but only when the members of the majority feel as though public opinion is such that a backlash is unlikely to be strong enough to undermine the authority and prestige of the Court.

Brown v. Board also had nothing to do with settled constitutional law. But the 9 justices who unanimously outlawed segregation knew that a majority of the public was ready for it -- indeed, saw the wisdom and justice of it -- and threw down the gauntlet.

Obviously, the societal changes that occured between Plessy (establishing doctrine of "separate but equal") and Brown (outlawing "separate but equal") were more profound and occured over a longer period of time than the ones referred to by the majority in Roper. And Brown did not address the "national consensus" issue on which the Roper majority primarily based its decision.

Despite the differences, however, the Court in Brown and the Court in Roper did one thing the same: they saw a practice that offended their sense of decency and justice, and they outlawed it. They essentially dared those who favored the practice at issue to make a fight of it. "We may not have precedent or a strong 'legal' foundation on our side," they are saying, "But we do have justice on our side. Let's fucking get it on."

So that's what the majority of the Roper Court did. They basically said, "Look, minors are called minors for a reason -- they're not adults, and don't have the capacity to act as adults. 30 states do not allow for their execution. Virtually no country on earth, except ours, does either. We don't execute insane people or retarded people, and we're going to stop executing minors, too. So deal."

I can see how Scalia and the other dissenters take issue with this. But while they might be right from a purely constitutional law standpoint -- the precedent the majority relies upon is weak -- history will look favorably upon the majority. The majority knows this, as they must also know that it will be virtually impossible for a significant portion of the American populace to undermine their authority by taking up the "pro-death penalty for minors" banner. This was a chance to do away with a disgraceful practice without harming the court's reputation in a serious way. I'm glad the Court seized it.

And, like I said in previous posts, if the Court's decision is so repugnant to the other branches of government, or the people, there are mechanisms to reverse it. If it's so important to be able to execute minors, then supporters of such a policy can propose a constitutional amendment, or, even easier, can lobby to ensure that the next Supreme Court nominee(s) is/are pro-death penalty for minors, bring another case, and get Roper overruled. It won't happen, nor should it.

Score one for progress.

Back From Cali; Bloc Party Hits Mainstream

2005-03-01T22:26:00.000-05:00

Got back yesterday from my February vacation, which took place in California, USA. It was an awesome time.

And whattaya know, Bloc Party, a band I've mentioned a few times (here and here), just got a small but favorable writeup in the March 7 edition of Newsweek (p12). (Curiously, the Newsweek piece is not on the website, although all the other "Periscope" features are. Go figure.)

Not sure if I agree with reviewer Andrew Romano's take on the band's influences. I especially think his failure to mention the Talking Heads is a real oversight, since they have a number of David Byrne-inspired tunes ("Price of Gas" comes to mind) -- to my ear, anyway.

The new album, "Silent Alarm," comes out in a few weeks (March 22). Be sure to check it out.

Issei Responsible for Sox' World Series Title

2005-02-16T00:44:00.000-05:00

Almost fell off of my chair when I read this article on redsox.com, which states that Dave Roberts is one of three Japanese-born players to have played for the Sox. Apparently, he was born in Okinawa. Crazy.

So, along with reliable cars, electronics, anime [porn], and tourists, you can chalk up Game 4 of the ALCS -- and, hence, the whole damn championship -- as a product of that great island nation.

P.S. -- Young, speedy utility infielders are good, too, so it should be interesting to see how the Machado pickup plays out over Spring Training.

Check That -- It's Explicable: Drudge v. Rock

2005-02-15T23:56:00.000-05:00

Came across this interesting tidbit that answers the question asked in the post before last, namely, why is Drudge going after Chris Rock re: hosting the Oscars?

Answer: bad blood. The two have a little history, apparently:

Of course, this wouldn't be the first time Rock has gotten into a Drudge match. In March 2003, the comedian blasted the Internet maven for an online report alleging studio bosses at DreamWorks pressured Rock to refrain from making any un-funny remarks against President Bush and the War in Iraq before his comedy Head of State hit theaters.
At the time, Rock said: "I don't know Matt Drudge, I never met Matt Drudge, but if I see Matt Drudge, I'm going to take my red-blooded American foot and put it up his un-American ass for trying to disrupt the opening of my movie."

Nice.

Vagina Monologues = Satanic Filth

2005-02-15T15:37:00.000-05:00

Okay, I'm certainly hyperbolizing the position taken by erstwhile National Review Online blogger Shannen Coffin in this post, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still completely indefensible.

She's apparently pissed that her Catholic alma mater, Loyola U. (New Orleans), has the temerity to allow the public performance of the Vagina Monologues. She cites one particular scene in which a character describes statutory rape to undergird her claim that the play "has no place on a Catholic college campus." My guess is that she find the entire concept of the play offensive and inappropriate, not just the controversial dialogue about statutory rape.

Coffin -- despite her admission that she hasn't "seen the play," but apparently has "read enough about it" -- seems to think that "this sort of non-sense" [sic] should be rejected by Catholic universities. That is, they shouldn't allow productions like the Vagina Monologues to be performed on campus.

Now, I saw the Vagina Monlogues in College. I thought the play kinda sucked, and left about two-thirds of the way through. Watching women talk about their vaginas for two hours can get boring, and I had a game of pong to play. So I'm not criticizing Coffin for disliking the Vagina Monologues. In fact, it's probably the one thing we agree on.

That said, Coffin's complaint is ludicrous, and her desire that Loyola's president step in to stop the play is downright dangerous to academic freedom and free speech on campus. Catholic universities are still universities, and the Vagina Monologues -- whether you like the play or hate it, think it's hilarious or think it's offensive -- is performance art. Period.

Where would Coffin draw the line? Maybe the university-run film society should stop showing movies that contain violence or rape or plain old sex -- so much for Natural Born Killers or Boogie Nights -- or any other material a "conservative" Catholic like Coffin would find offensive or inappropriate.

Maybe the drama department should be told they can no longer perform Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus," which, by the count of S. Clarke Hulse, has "14 killings, 9 of them on stage, 6 severed members, 1 rape (or 2 or 3, depending on how you count), 1 live burial, 1 case of insanity and 1 of cannibalism--an average of 5.2 atrocities per act, or one for every 97 lines."

Slippery slope, people.

One more thing: I find it particularly ironic that Coffin is complaining that Loyola's president, by defending the performance, has "succeeded in dumbing down an excellent educational institution in the name of political correctness." If anything, it's Coffin's breed of right-wing political correctness that threatens to dumb down Catholic campuses.

P.S. -- I know it seems as though I'm consistently criticizing those on the right of the political spectrum on this blog. That's because I'm a relatively liberal guy who tends to disagree with the "right" on most issues. However, one thing that I share with conservatives -- or, given Coffin's stance, better yet, with libertarians -- is a strong disdain for political correctness in general, and campus speech codes and censorship in particular. Unfortunately, most campus restrictions on free speech are creatures of the left. Needless to say, I find left-wing PCism as offensive and dangerous as right-wing PCism. In case you were wondering.

Drudge's Inexplicable War on Chris Rock

2005-02-14T17:13:00.000-05:00

I am extremely puzzled by the recent spate of Drudge Report news flashes (here and here) that are seemingly aimed at drumming up controversy over the Academy's decision to have Chris Rock host the Oscars next week.

First of all, it's dishonest for Drudge to use lines from Rock's standup routine as though he had said them in a serious manner. Case in point, Drudge's current headline screeches "OSCAR HOST CHRIS ROCK SHOCK: ABORTION IN AMERICA IS 'BEAUTIFUL'." But if you click on the article, you realize that Drudge is a moron, and that Rock is frigging hysterical:

"Abortion, it's beautiful, it's beautiful abortion is legal. I love going to an abortion rally to pick up women, cause you know they are f**king," Rock said during his club routine.

Offensive, sure, but he's a goddam comedian. Saying offensive shit is his job. He's hilarious and famous, and that's why he's hosting the Oscars.

It is supremely bizarre that Drudge seems to be trying to stir up some sort of movement to get Rock ousted. I just don't get it.

P.S. -- Also hilariously contained in the Drudge "article":

During a recent rant, Rock blasted heartland Americans. "Weird white guys getting overly patriotic, with their f**king flag hats on," Rock said."I am not scare of al Qaeda, I am scare of f**king al Cracker."

Bloc Party. Concept Albums. F-Lips.

2005-02-09T02:28:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I was thoroughly disappointed to learn yesterday that the Bloc Party CD release show at the Troubadour in L.A. that I thought I was going to is actually something that I am not going to. (Hat tip: Rolando.) That is, I will have to wait until early April when they come to the Paradise, here in Boston, formerly of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Bloc Party-- linked in a previous post -- is pretty darn good. I've had their self-titled EP (2004) for a few weeks now, and I dig it. More recently, I somehow [?] got my hands on an advance copy of their forthcoming (March 2005) release "Silent Alarm." Verdict: ultra good stuff. Interestingly, the second half of the album, in my opinion, is much better than the first, which is unusual (from a marketing and stylistic standpoint), especially for a debut full-length release. Anyway, can't wait to see these guys live. Brits. Gotta love 'em.

Also, very early on I wrote a post about how Pink Floyd has some insanely sweet concept albums (e.g., Dark Side, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall). Well, I was trying to list other concept albums that I personally think rock, and came up with:

1) Who -- Tommy; Quadrophenia (not technically "concept" albums, but close enough)
2) Beatles -- Sgt. Pepper's
3) Flaming Lips -- Yoshimi
4) Phish -- Rift

Of course there are likely dozens of other good concept albums out there, so if you can think of any in particular, post a comment, dammit.

Also, I'm wondering how Green Day's "American Idiot" is. Anyone? Is it a concept album?

One last thing: the Flaming Lips rule. "The Soft Bulletin" is an amazing record. From "Race for the Prize" to "Spoonful Weighs a Ton" to "What Is The Light" to "Waitin' for a Superman" (remix of this is better version) -- this album is just great.

P.S. -- Dungen.

La Guerre and Le Vote

2005-02-07T18:53:00.000-05:00

The recent Iraqi election was an objectively good thing. I'm happy that the people in that country who have been living under a repressive regime and have had bombs raining down around them for almost two years now have had an opportunity to hit the polls and vote for their leaders. Anytime a previously oppressed population gets to vote in a more-or-less democratic election, it's a good thing that deserves praise.

That said, none of the following 10 things are true:

1) Congress would have authorized war if they knew the true extent of Saddam's weapons capabilities.

2) Bush's decisions to go to war when he did, and in the way he did, were right.

3) The occupation was well-planned.

4) The election demonstrates the wisdom of the Iraq War as a policy decision.

5) The United States is safer because Iraq has, or will soon have, a relatively democratic government.

6) The war against global terrorism, specifically Al Qaeda, is better off because of the Iraq War than it would have been had the war not occured.

7) The national security benefits gained from invading Iraq were worth the cost in American lives, taxpayer money, domestic political capital, and international political capital; the erosion of American credibility; the fraying of Euro-American alliances; the degradation of U.S. military capability, readiness, morale, and recruitment; and the recruitment of more terrorists by Al Qaeda and similar groups.

8) The war was sold to Americans as a war of liberation for the Iraqi people, rather than to defend the national security of the United States.

9) The fact that Iraqis voted last week renders irrelevant the fact that the war was based on undeniably false premises.

10) The political parties that won a majority of Iraqi votes will necessarily be friendly to American interests.

Remember all this when you see obnoxious no-name Republican Representatives waving purple fingers at TV cameras, as if they were the ones who braved death threats and martial law to cast a vote.

Welcome Back, ACU. [or] NYC was a blast.

2005-02-07T18:23:00.000-05:00

Theoretically, my gauzed-ass bro over at all cooped up is back to the blog, catalyzed by his quasi-gay love for Tom Brady and the end of his abridged employment adventure.

Spent some time in NYC this weekend, and I learned a few things.

One, there are shady people in New York. Such as: the 300 lb. dude who was walking around Cherry's Tavern (6th St. and Ave. A) at 2:30 in the morning, muttering "Coke, Special K, who needs it?" I was like, "What the fuck is this, Phish Tour '98?"

Two, New York is a money pit of epic proportions. Remember that old bumper sticker: "MONEY TALKS (Mine only knows how to say goodbye)"? True. In New York, I hemorrhage cash like someone with dystentery of the wallet.

Three, those delivery guys who ride bikes are completely insane and must have a deathwish. They go like 40 miles an hour, ride within millimeters of speeding cars, and will not stop for anything, including nuclear armageddon and/or to poop.

God Bless the Apple.

Extremely Grim . . .

2005-02-07T17:57:00.000-05:00

. . . are the Two Grim Dudes, who recently started up a new blog. One of the 2GDs is relatively short, the other is really short. One is a Pats fan [DYNASTY!], the other a Steelers guy [maybe next year, bro]. They are both smart. They are both grim as hell. Visit.

Although, if you are reading this, you probably already know about it. Anyhow. Hi.

Obviously, I Agree . . .

2005-01-25T02:26:00.000-05:00

. . . with Jon Stewart that Bush is a wimp for phoning in his support to anti-abortion protesters recently, rather than appearing in person. Yes, I know he was at Camp David for the weekend, blah blah blah, and I know that Ms. Roe (of Roe v. Wade) has since repudiated abortion and asked the Supreme Court to overturn that decision.

The president is an outspoken opponent of legalized abortion who has said he favors a constitutional amendment banning the practice. But he doesn't even have the guts to speak in front of anti-abortion activists who are virtually on his front lawn. I guess he and Rove were afraid of too many pictures or something.

(Disclaimer: even though I think abortion should be legal, I am uncomfortable with it conceptually and with the jurisprudentially unwise way that Roe purported to "solve" the abortion issue.)

That said, it is extremely bizarre that the anti-abortion activists that Bush addressed were "protesting" at the White House. Why the fuck were they protesting there? Are they upset that Bush hasn't even more aggressively and recklessly undermined the legislative check on Executive power and subverted the constitutional division between Church and State?

I mean, it is the nominally socially liberal-moderate Supreme Court that maintains the constitutional right to an abortion. And it's the Senate -- more than half-populated with pro-choice Democrats and socially liberal Republicans (who do still exist, ostensibly) -- that bears responsibility for the ideological makeup of the Court. Why not protest at those locations?

The bottom line is: An anti-abortion "protest" in front of the White House? Whaaaaaaaa? That's like a pro-choice protest in front of the Planned Parenthood HQ, or something equally foolish.

In any event, it says something about the political center re: abortion that Bush -- newly inaugurated for a second term and largely free from political pressures -- wouldn't speak face to face with abortion opponents who were gathered in front of his house.

Dungen

2005-01-25T01:50:00.000-05:00

It's been some time since I last blogged. I've been: busy. In the meanwhile, I stumbled across a rock album from the band named in the title above. Dungen. Very good, if in Swedish.

Also, got The Flaming Lips albums: Clouds Taste Metallic, Transmissions From The Satellite Heart. Already have, and love, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots and The Soft Bulletin. The Lips rule.

Other bands newly aquainted: Bloc Party, Broken Social Scene, and The Arcade Fire.

The Killers the The Postal Service, also very good.

Word.

Scary, But True

2005-01-16T14:01:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to point out that what Bush said (via Josh Marshall) regarding his handling of the Iraq War -- that "[w]e had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," so no changes are going to be made with regard to Iraq policy or the people who are running it -- is fundamentally right, scary as it is. And I can say without restraint that the American people made the wrong decision. It happens sometimes. (See Richard Nixon, presidency of.)

It's scary, however, that Bush sees his reelection as a ratification of his Iraq policy, which has been an absolute mess. I might add that this kind of rationalization on the part of the president highlights the danger of a Rovean reelection strategy that focuses on discrediting and attacking the challenger at every turn rather than defending and debating the incumbent's policies and alleged achievements. It turns the election from what it should be -- a referendum on the current president -- into mudslingingfest in which the person who can avoid the most mud wins. Again, not good for the country.

I'm seriously beginning to think that the best thing to do in Iraq is to get the newly elected government to ask us to leave and then to slowly begin pairing down the troop levels, and to let the Iraqis deal with the insurgency (civil war?) by this time next year. I'm also open to the argument that this would be a bad idea. You tell me.

Reason #1078 . . .

2005-01-14T02:21:00.000-05:00

. . . why the Iraq War was a bad idea viz. the war against global Islamic terrorism. Link. About the only reassuring part of the article is the fact that there are still some people in the U.S. government who are interested in discovering and analyzing facts, rather than applying rigid ideology, for the purpose of guiding policy.

"Third Infantry Division transitioned into Phase IV in the absence of guidance.”

2005-01-12T13:00:00.000-05:00

Phase IV being, of course, the occupation and stability operations in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Baathist government in Iraq.

Through Andrew Sullivan's blog, I came across this article by the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon that is an unequivocal and seemingly irrefutable indictment of both the Bush Administration and the Military Command with regard to their utter lack of planning for the post-invasion occupation. It is something everyone who is interested in the Iraq War must read.

I say nothing more than this: above and beyond all the other reasons I thought Bush had been a horrible first term president and did not deserve reelection, his failure to adequately and competently plan for the occupation was the number one reason he ought to have been rejected by the American people. While the decision to go to war in the first place was, in my opinion, a monumentally poor one, I'll give Bush the benefit of the doubt for the sake of this argument. But to start the war with, in the words of Hanlon, a "seriously flawed and incomplete" plan is both "short of proper professional military standards of competence" and "unconscionable."

The fact that Bush started a war at "a time of [his] own choosing" and didn't have an adequate occupation plan in place is as depressing as it is infuriating. The only thing more depressing and infuriating is that the American people didn't hold him accountable when we had the chance.

Answer: "Zero." Question: "How Many WMD Were in Iraq?"

2005-01-12T01:03:00.000-05:00

I find it highly depressing reading this CNN.com article, which declares the end of the U.S. search for WMD in Iraq. Needless to say, they didn't find one damn thing. I won't get into the extent to which this embarrassing failure can be blamed on Bush (and Cheney, Rummy, etc.), but I will just point out how this episode should demonstrate the dangerousness of an extremely aggressive preemptive war policy.

I also want to point out that this episode has inevitably compromised our ability to fight future wars based on intelligence that we are in immediate danger (e.g., an imminent missile attack from North Korea). The credibility of the U.S. has been seriously damaged. This goes not only for marshalling allies -- European ones, in particular -- for a future conflict, but also, more importantly, for convincing the American people that war is necessary and proper. Given the diversity of threats posed by antagonistic states, there is an unfortunate possibility that we may have to fight a defensive war at some point in the not too distant future. And when George Bush gets on TV and says, "We are in serious danger and must fight," the entire thinking portion of our country will have every right to flip him the bird and turn off the TV, regardless of whether he's right. That's not good for our national security.

That is why I think the inflation of the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq was a grave error. The removal of Saddam was justifiable in its own right, if not the smartest strategic decision by the U.S. But to conflate the removal of a miserable dictator who desired, but certainly did not have, WMD with an action to defend the U.S. against an extremely grave and immediate threat to its security has undermined the ability of the U.S. to actually respond to a truly grave and immediate threat. To paraphrase Dash from the Incredibles (a great movie, btw), if everybody poses a serious threat, then nobody does.

I guess the next question should be: post-Bush, how does the U.S. regain its credibility? Who knows.

And So It Begins

2005-01-10T17:23:00.000-05:00

Last-first-day-of-second-semester ever for yours truly. Law school began again today, after a long and pretty damn satisfying vacation.

I'm taking a seminar in Federalism, the Rehnquist Court, and the 11th Amendment, so I expect to post on those types of topics a bunch over the next weeks and months. Inasmuch as the law can be fascinating -- I'm often skeptical -- I think issues of federalism, and the role of the courts in hashing out federalism disputes, are quite neat.

On a completely unrelated note, I just wanted to mention that although I've listened to it half-assedly in the past, I've recently come to the realization that the Velvet Underground's self-titled album totally kicks ass.

Also wanted to mention that I visited some friends who live in the vicinity of my alma mater (located in the cold north) this past weekend. Due to an unfortunate situation -- specifically, my buddy Jiggs is a moron, and apparently likes driving into snowy ditches for no reason -- I was stuck on campus for several hours on a slow Sunday afternoon. It was strange, because although I'm several years out of college and clearly didn't feel like I "belonged," the campus and the students seemed pretty much the same as always, which was comforting in a way, but also distressing, as if my presence, and the presence of my close friends, were somewhat irrelevant in the scheme of things. I'm glad that things haven't changed (except for some new construction), but it's sort of depressing to think that beside for my bound history thesis (buried on some shelf in the stacks) and my photo on one fraternity composite, I might as well have never attended the place.

Our A.G. To Be

2005-01-09T13:51:00.000-05:00

A few comments on the next Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.

Put aside Gonzales' extremely controversial positions regarding the President's legal authority as commander-in-chief to override the Geneva Conventions as explained in the infamous "torture memos." This is a humongous deal, but I want to discuss another key issue on his resume.

When Gonzales was Bush's counsel when Bush was the governor of Texas, he was the guy who oversaw the death-penalty clemency process by writing and editing memos which Bush would read prior to each scheduled execution. The memos ostensibly were designed to apprise the governor of the legal issues surrounding each death row convict so that Bush could make a decision as to whether the prisoner's sentence should be commuted, reduced, etc., or whether the execution should proceed as scheduled.

This WaPo article raises some extremely troubling questions about Gonzales' performance of his duties in this regard. The article explains how many attorneys familiar with the cases at issue say that Gonzales, in drafting the memos for Bush, skirted over, ignored, or misstated key legal issues -- in effect ensuring that Bush would check the "execute" box at the bottom instead of, theoretically, fairly assessing the case.

Now, I realize that the bulk of the attorneys interviewed by the Post were defense attorneys with vested interests in the cases upon which they commented. This certainly taints the legitimacy of the Post's "accusations" that Gonzales was derelict in his duties. For instance, one defense attorney complains that Gonzales' memo in his case was merely "a skeletal attempt to brief Bush on a complex case." Now, Gonzales may have skirted some issues (accoring to the attorney, specifically the convict's mental capacity), but memos are just that, summaries. So this complaint seems weak to me. Likewise, in another case, the defense attorney complained that Gonzales' memo did "not really address in any way . . . all the questions that were raised about his [client's] guilt." Again, while perhaps meritorious, there is no way to infer simply from this one losing attorney's complaint that Gonzales seriously failed to do his duty.

However, two specific instances documented in the article, in which criticism of Gonzales' performance does not rest on the opinions of the opposing defense attorneys, should raise red flags. The Post reports towards the top of the article that in one case, Gonzales' memo failed to even mention that an earlier investigation by the Texas Attorney General's Office (no bleeding heart liberal outfit) had concluded that the condemned prisoner had indeed not killed the woman and has falsely confessed. Now, the prisoner in question had a long list of convictions for murders, etc., and it is possible that Gonzales, given the convict's prior record or other factors, disagreed with the conclusion that the Attorney General's office has reached. And certainly, as Bush's counsel, he would have been well within his rights to say as much in the memo. But to fail to mention the investigation at all is inexcusable and is clear evidence of Gonzales' incompetence/ill-will/unprofessionalism/malpractice/conduct unbecoming a member of the bar, you name it.

Moreover, in two separate cases, Gonzales produced memos stating that the death row prisoners at issue had "no worthy pending legal issues" (the Post's phrasing), only to have appellate courts (and, this being Texas, probably not liberal ones) subsequently grant stays and order additional evidentiary hearings.

No attorney is perfect. But it's important to remember that these just aren't in-house memos for a senior partner, or half-assed court filings in a civil case that's probably going to settle anyway. These are memos written for the State of Texas' chief executive about whether or not to fucking execute someone. To willfully fail to state all the legal issues, or to swing and miss so badly on the legal issues you do address, should give everyone serious pause as to whether this guy is the best man to be the nation's top law enforcement official. Those within the legal profession -- I'm looking at you, Footman -- should be especially wary of a man who dealt with the pentultimate legal issue -- state-sanctioned killing -- with such seeming flippancy.

Ahhh, Vacation

2005-01-06T18:11:00.000-05:00

So, as the final weekend of my long winter vacation approaches, I want to make a couple of quick observations:

1) It was great to see everybody in NYC over the holiday. That goes for Footer, Ben @ enricopallazo, and of course, mr. all cooped up. Not to mention everybody else who made it a legendary weekend.

2) I intend to blog more once the school semester begins, since then I'll actually have stuff I need to get done and therefore will need to find things to do to proscrastinate. Needless to say, procrastination is probably the main reason I started this blog in the first place.

3) As I mentioned earlier, I knew the Yanks would land the Unit. Damn. Makes them considerably better than they were last year, which was pretty damn good (i.e., 3 outs from sweeping the Sox and the heading to the Series). I can only hope Jayson Stark is right.

4) I have never seen anyone as masterful as LB was on New Year's Eve. That kid is a genius.

5) Ocean's Eleven (the newer version) is a good movie; Ocean's Twelve sucks on a level heretofore unbeknownst to mankind. A Series of Unfortunate Events, which I saw today while hail and freezing rain punished the streets of Boston, is worth seeing. Creepy and cool.

6) I hope you (thousands and thousands of readers) will continue to check in over the next weeks and months. Thanks.

Definitely Could Be Bleecker . . .

2005-01-02T13:18:00.000-05:00

Ahhh, the New Year in New York. I experienced a major highlight this morning, tuning into my "trilogy" (his terms) of horrendous early-morning voicemail messages from my homeslice over at all cooped up. Suffice to say that drinking ghetto-mosas (40s and OJ) at 7:30am is not a particularly good idea.

It has been a legendary few days. I love New York.

Happy New Year. More posts to follow, hopefully, today.

Church/State Jurisprudence and Limiting the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts

2004-12-28T01:45:00.000-05:00

Ok. Check out this brief post over on NRO's the Corner. Essentially, the author of the post is criticizing another (likely conservative) author's opinion that the Senate should kill the "Pledge Protection Act" that passed the House. The Act would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases that challenge the constitutionality of the use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

I should make a few things clear before going any further.

First, I personally don't give a damn that the pledge includes the words "under God." It's not important to me that the words stay in, nor is it important to me that they get taken out. I certainly am not offended that words are there -- yet I understand that there is a small minority (mostly atheists) which is. I also understand that a majority of Americans would probably be pretty upset if the words were removed. I also tend to think that a large minority, perhaps even a plurality, wouldn't give a crap either way.

Second, under all but the most strained interpretation of centuries worth of Supreme Court Establishment Clause (First Amendment) precedent, the Act that added the words "under God" is unconstitutional. Brief history lesson. The pledge was written around the turn of the 20th century, and the original version, which was recited until the 1950s, simply read: ". . . one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice . . ." During the height of the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s, Congress added the words "under God" after "nation" and before "indivisible," and as the legislative history clearly shows, the express purpose of adding the words was to make explicit reference to the fact the United States and its democratic/capitalist system was rooted in the values of monotheism, whereas the Soviet Union and its communist system, by definition, were rooted in values of atheism. It is virtually impossible to argue, after reading the Senate, House, and Conference reports on the Act, that the purpose of the Act was secular, and not religious. Without getting into a long discussion of establishment clause jurisprudence, there can be little doubt that a fair application of Supreme Court precedent on the matter would render the Act in question unconstitutional. (Of course, there are legal arguments that can be made that the Act is not unconstitutional -- namely, the "ceremonial deism" exception or a wishy-washy "de minimus/minor infraction" argument -- but accepting these arguments would truly be a stretch and would throw Establishment Clause precedent into disarray.)

Thus, given this conundrum, those who want the pledge to reference God but who can see the inevitable crash course with Supreme Court precedent are trying to pass a federal law that would prevent the federal courts from addressing the constitutionality of the pledge. Advocates of such "jurisdiction stripping" laws argue that the Article I of the constitution gives the Congress power to define the jurisdiction of the courts. This practice is exclusively a tactic of the right wing, as has been advocated with regard to abortion, gay rights, and other hot-button cultural issues that religious conservatives feel have been hijacked by liberal, elitist courts. Pass these laws, and the courts will no longer be able to hear such cases and impose their view of the constitution (ostensibly through the application of Supreme Court precedent) on an unwanting populace.

All that said, I want to state emphatically that such "jurisdiction stripping" laws are unconstitutional, pernicious, and dangerous to our democracy. Acceptance of the legitimacy of such laws would undermine the concept of judicial review, that oldest of doctrines rooted in Justice Marshall's Marbury v. Madison decision. One need only to engage in a brief thought experiment to understand how dangerous such laws would be.

Suppose you have a spectacularly anti-gay Congress, and they want to send a message to America's youth that being gay is really, really bad. If such "jurisdiction stripping" laws were valid, the Congress could easily pass a law declaring, "No federal court shall have jurisdiction to hear any case challenging the constitutionality of any Act whose purpose is to deter America's youth from being gay." Then, with the free pass, the Congress could pass a law stating that federal marshalls are to confiscate the property of all openly gay people, or some other such crap. And the courts would be powerless to intervene.

I tend to doubt this tactic has much currency outside of the hard-line, angry, religious right (who, by the way, seem to be the sorest winners in the history of electoral politics). But to see it creeping into "reputable" conservative journals like National Review is frightening. The dangerous slippery slope of jurisidiction stripping ought to be obvious to anyone who values the role of the courts not only in protecting minorities, but also in interpreting the constitution. These people might just want to protect "God" in the public sphere, or stop what they consider the murder of innocent fetuses, or discourage what they consider to be the moral abomination of faggotry, but in the process they're willing to rip up the constitutional system as it has been in practice for 200 years. People of all political persuasions, even those who might agree on the substance of the issues, need to make sure this does not happen.

Legal rant, over.

And While We're on the Subject . . .

2004-12-27T14:11:00.000-05:00

for those of you who are baseball fans, you absolutely have to read Moneyball by Michael Lewis if you have not already done so. By far the best baseball book I have ever read. For Sox fans, the bonus is that it features Kevin Youkilis prominently and Theo Epstein less prominently.

Also, FYI, I'm in the process of reading Faithful by Stewart O'Nan and Stephen King (yes, that Stephen King), a journal-like chronicle of the 2004 Red Sox season.

It's very light reading; basically, the musings and thoughts of the authors as the season progresses. Frankly, it's not terribly prolific. I'm just reading it as a vehicle for remembering the day-by-day of the past season, which, considering the outcome, is a fun exercise.

However, it does kind of piss me off that by virtue of his fame, Stephen King gets to publish this best-selling chronicle of what are virtually baseball-related diary entries and make a shitload of money. What's so special about his take on the season? Why can't I publish my thoughts? Or Jimmy from Quincy, Franky from Watertown, or Gino down in Providence? Where are their books? What's so special about Stephen King's baseball musings? Nothing, from what I can tell from the book, anyway.

I wouldn't have bought it on my own. But, since I got it for Christmas, I'm obviously going to get through it. Hell, the Sox won the Series. Reading about and remembering how it all went down, well, that won't hurt one bit.

Monied Ball

2004-12-27T13:34:00.000-05:00

So, being a Rhode Islander for most of my life, I've had the distinct pleasure of reading Sean McAdam's columns in the Providence Journal over the years. He's one of the best sportswriters out there, and I love his appearances on WEEI's Big Show as well as his contributions to the espn.com baseball page. His most recent offering is (mostly) right on the money. No pun intended.

I'd put the Pedro Martinez (Mets) and Troy Glaus (Dbacks) signings as the most risky of the bunch this winter, seeing as both are being paid a ton of money, and both are prone to injury.

Although McAdam bunches the Sox' signing of Varitek in with others that he deems improvident (specifically because they guarantee more than three years), I have to disagree. The Sox absolutely had to sign Tek, and if it took a four year contract to do it, then fine. By making him the Captain, they sent the right message to the other players and the fans. "This is the guy who plays the game the way it is supposed to be played," the Sox seem to be saying. "He's led us in seasons past and we intend for him to do the same for four more years. Hence the big money and the long-term deal." Although catchers usually peter out after they reach their mid-30s, and Tek will be 33 in April and 36 when the contract expires, he is in prime physical shape and is as valuable for his mental tools as he is his physical ones. So, I'm in favor.

And, by the way, the incentive-laden one year contract worth a guaranteed $1.5 million that the Sox recently inked with Wade Miller is a perfect example of what McAdam is not talking about.

This Miller deal could turn out to be a real steal. Miller is a health risk who had a frayed rotator cuff that kept him out for a big chunk of last season. He elected not to undergo surgery, and instead has worked on rehabbing the shoulder through strength exercises. Yet, as Peter Gammons wrote in a recent column (scroll down):

[T]he Red Sox got encouraging medical reports from Dr. Lewis Yocum, ran their own physical Wednesday and figure he's worth the risk. Put it this way: if Miller is healthy, the only free agent on the market with better stuff or upside is Pedro Martinez. . . . "If Wade takes a little longer to come back," said one Houston official, "what they may have is the best pitcher acquisition in the middle of the season."

So, a $1.5 million gamble seems truly appropriate given that Miller could be a legitimate #2 behind Schilling by June or July. If that happens, the $4.5 million that Miller would earn through incentives would be totally worth it. His career stats certainly show that he has the stuff. If he's healthy, this could be a great move by Theo.

Cool Your Jets

2004-12-27T13:10:00.000-05:00

The Pats rebounded in a big way last night against a surprisingly lackluster Jets team. Brady, making up for his career worst performance last week at Miami, played excellently. His Jets counterpart, Pennington, absolutely sucked.

The Jets defense seemed to be exhausted by the midway point of the 3rd quarter. Chalk that up to a miserable performance on the offensive side of the ball. When you're playing a team like the Pats that can beat you offensively in so many ways -- with Dillon, with short outs, with long posts -- it is imperative that your offense stay on the field as long as possible. Not only does that prevent the Pats offense from getting opportunities to score, but it allows your defense to stay fresh. The Jets defense was on the field far too much. They had no chance.

So, we wrap up the #2 spot in the AFC, and look to be on a collision course with the Steelers in Pittsburgh, who won their game this weekend. Of course, if the Pats end up playing the Colts in the AFC semifinal, their depleted secondary makes that game a real question mark.

But I'm happy they got the job done in the Meadowlands, stuck it to the Jets and Pennington, and looked to be back on track. Next week against SF should be an easy win, but clinching the second seed this week allows them to take the pressure off and rest some key players. It will come down to injuries, so I'm glad they have the meaningless game next week and the bye-week in the playoffs.

Dodgers Screw Yankees, Make Wonderland Happy

2004-12-22T16:40:00.000-05:00

Well, I thought that this week would offer up a twofer in terms of devastating sports outcomes, with both the Patriots losing in perhaps the worst fashion I have seen in the Belichick era, and the Yankees snagging the Big Unit.

We all saw the Pats game, and boy, was it horrendous. Check out acu's thoughts on the subject if you are a Pats fan, and Footer's if you are not and are out only for the fantasy points. Also, I had no idea that Belichick's name is spelled the way it is. Go figure.

But, really the point of this post is to give Dodgers' GM Paul DePodesta a huge e-high five for scuttling the Unit-to-Yanks deal that all Red Sox fans dreaded. A couple of related thoughts:

A) I still have this disgusting feeling that the Yanks are going to figure out a way to land Johnson anyway.

B) Do the Yanks have a budget at all? Apparently not, because the rumor is that they're also the front-runners to sign all-world centerfielder Carlos Beltran, for whom the term "five-tool player" was invented, for approximately $200 million over 10 years. I mean, if they get Unit and Beltran, they will easily be over the $200 million/year mark in terms of payroll.

C) Why were the Dodgers even thinking about going through with this deal? It was horrible for them, as they would have received the disappointing Javier Vasquez, a mediocre reliever, and two prospects in return for all-star Shawn Green, starters Brad Penny and Kaz Ishii (?!?! -- hasn't he been one of they're most reliable starters over the past three years?), and two other pitchers. Thank God for Dodger fan and all-star roommate Rolando over at geez oh petes, who personally would have found and violently murdered DePodesta had this deal gone through.

D) I like the Roberts-for-Payton-and-Vazquez deal that the Sox just inked with the Padres. Although I think very highly of Roberts -- "one of the biggest stolen bases in baseball history," according to Theo (and me, incidentally) -- this deal makes sense for the Sox because they got another halfway decent guy (Payton) who can platoon with Nixon if need be and can backup the other outfield positions in case of injury (God forbid), and a versatile substitute in Vazquez, who has played all four infield positions.

Anyway, let's hold our breath on the Unit deal, and hope for the best -- specifically, that David "Doesn't Eat So" Wells refrains from getting into any bar fights, at least until the seasons starts.

Straight Outta Crooklyn . . .

2004-12-22T15:47:00.000-05:00

. . . comes my good friend's blog, "all cooped up," which deals with many topics of interest, including Judaism, the Patriots, politics, eternal questions of science, and probably lots of bitterness and cynicism. Go read. Also blogrolled at right.

acu's question of the day: Does carbon help hangovers?

May Alice provide us the answer.

Oh My Darling Clement[ine]

2004-12-20T15:50:00.000-05:00

Well, good news on the Sox front as of two days ago: the signing of Matt Clement. Certainly no silver bullet, as the impending Yankee pickup of Randy Johnson will be, but a solid pickup nonetheless that seemingly completes the 5 man rotation.

So, it's Schilling, Wells, Clement, Wakefield, Arroyo. Not quite as good as last year, but certainly respectable. If the Sox can somehow finalize a contract with catcher Jason Varitek, they will have a decent shot of doing something in the playoffs.

However, given the strength of the prospective Yankees rotation, there is little chance that the Sox will be able to beat them out for the AL East regular season title. Not that any of that matters, as this excerpt from Peter Gammons' recent column explains:

Whether they go get Carlos Beltran or not, or if Tino Martinez has to replace Jason Giambi, the Yankees are going to be really good. Sure, Johnson is expensive; he's also one of the five greatest left-handers who ever lived, and conditioned to be great for a while longer if his back holds. Sure, Mussina is being paid $19 million this year, Brown $15.7 million. . . .

The rest of the American League simply has to play in their different financial divisions. If the Yankees are 1, the Red Sox and Angels are 1A, with the Mariners coming up. And that's fine. Red Sox GM Theo Epstein says "we build with the assumption that the Yankees are going to win between 100 and 110 games a year, and we concentrate on putting the best possible team on the field and then doing what we can to beat them head-on."

So, there you have it. Based on what happened this past season, I think Epstein has the right idea. Although beating the Yankees during the regular season would be nice, it's not nearly as important as constructing a team that matches up well head-to-head, and can win in the playoffs. The addition of Clement should help along these lines.

National Review Review

2004-12-19T02:30:00.000-05:00

Ok, so of all of the writers over at NRO, if I had to pick one column to read, it would be Jonah Goldberg's, because, well, it's almost always better than the other unthinking, hard-right "Bush is our Savior" junk that tends to make the main page.

But his column from Friday on Social Security (SS) is absolutely atrocious. And not because he's arguing for the end of SS. I realize that ever since the '30s there've been conservatives who are opposed to the program for ideological, anti-welfare-state reasons and that's fine. While I strongly disagree with them, it's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of propping up retirees.

But for a column whose main page heading reads: "Social Security is a bad deal. Period.," you'd kind of expect the author to tell you why it's a bad deal. I've read the column twice, and I'll be damned if I can find an explanation for why SS has to be dropped. As far as I can tell, Goldberg's only actual argument against SS is:

Well, here's the problem. Social Security was launched when there were more than 40 workers carrying the costs of each retiree. Today there are three workers for each Social Security recipient, and we're heading to a 2-1 ratio soon. It sounds to me that, whatever its original merits, the experiment has run its course.

That's it. That is the extent of the explanation for why SS needs to be ended. Now, anybody who can do math can see that the current/coming situation in which you have nearly as many retirees as you do working people is a problem. But is it solvable? Is there no solution but destroying the system altogether? According to Goldberg, who cares? It's a bad deal. Get it?

To be fair, the rest of the article does go on to discredit -- correctly, I think -- the notion that we need to keep SS as some sort of tribute to the legacy of FDR. Of course, I'll be damned if I know anybody on the left who is actually making this argument -- the preservation of FDR's legacy -- a significant part of their defense of the program. But if they're out there, then Goldberg's already got 'em pinned. Congratulations, dude.

P.S. -- Not to pile on Victor Davis Hanson, but check out this idiotic tribute to incoherency and misplaced outrage, a stinging broadside against the morally bankrupt leftists/liberals who exist only in his own mind. Take note: This column, like so many other ridiculous partisan screeds from the right, references Michael Moore. I'd be curious to find out when the far left-wing conspiracy-theorist filmmaker got elected official spokesman of American liberals and the Democratic Party. Because I must have missed that meeting.

"Bush Looking at Freezing Domestic Spending"

2004-12-18T04:33:00.000-05:00

is a lot like:

"O.J. looking to not murder any more ex-wives . . ."

Damage done, bud.

Tax cuts for rich people and protracted foreign wars? Awesome.

Requisite Bush gripe, over.

Thanks! Now leave.

2004-12-17T18:12:00.000-05:00

This Time article regarding the upcoming elections in Iraq is quite good, and I'd suggest reading it to those of you interested in this stuff.

It raises many questions, but one in particular stands out to me. What happens if the popularly elected government tells the U.S. to get the hell out?

According to the article, interim PM Allawi has said that U.S. withdrawal will be conditioned upon the creation of an Iraqi security force that is capable of both defending the government from insurgents and protecting Iraq's borders. But it remains to be seen what kind of sway Allawi will have after a popular election is held. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the new Shiite-dominated government -- which will likely be closer to Iran than the current government is-- will flip Allawi and the U.S. the bird. "Thanks," they'll say. "Now leave."

Should the new government ask (or tell) us to leave following the vote, it would leave the U.S. in an incredibly awkward position.

Primarily, there's this issue of the fourteen quasi-permanent military bases the U.S. is supposedly constructing. What happens to those? According to the article linked above:

As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners.

"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

The wisdom of maintaining these Iraqi bases as part of "a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region" can be fairly debated. Although I am very much in favor of, and hopeful for, the spread of democracy in the Middle East, I am very skeptical that a "democracy at gunpoint" approach -- i.e., military invasion, occupation, and engineered elections -- is a good way of going about it. In fact, I tend to think it's a very bad way of going about it -- but, as I said, it can be fairly debated.

But what cannot be fairly debated is that, should the elected government of Iraq demand the departure of U.S. military forces, we're going to have to leave. If we refuse, our constant invocation of the virtues of "freedom" and "democracy" in Iraq will be exposed as a farce.

But this conundrum is only part of a larger problem. Although it is a good thing that Iraqis will be able to hit the polls for the first time in a long time, there is no guarantee that the government they elect will be favorable to the interests of the U.S. Far from it -- the new government is likely to be heavily Shia and, therefore, at least nominally pro-Iranian.

The point is that a democratic Iraq could very well be good for U.S. interests, but it could, just as easily, be very bad. And given the sacrifices that our soldiers have made and will continue to make and given the amount of money we've spent and will continue to spend, any situation in which the democratically elected government in Iraq aligns stongly with the Iranians -- or acts in a multitude of other ways that would be damaging to U.S. interests --would be a terrible disaster.

I realize that the U.S. has ways -- both coercive and above-board -- to ensure that "our guys" get elected. You can bet your ass that the CIA is already gearing up for the election season, making sure to bolster those parties that are favorable to us and sabotage those that aren't. But aside from the typical liberal complaint that such tactics go against the very notions of democracy and self-determination that we are ostensibly trying to promote, I seriously question the practical efficacy of such tactics. When the CIA gets into the business of picking foreign governments, the results are almost always bad (see Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Afghanistan, Congo, Vietnam, Laos, Greece, Chile, etc.). If anybody has a counterexample, where secret CIA involvement ended well, I'd be interested to hear about it.

In any event, let's hope a bad outcome can be avoided. Frankly, however, I'm getting sick of relying on hope alone. This faith-based policymaking has to stop sometime.

"The Hudson Flows to Atlanta" or "Pinstriped Unit?"

2004-12-17T14:37:00.000-05:00

It was disappointing to hear that Tim Hudson, the insanely low-priced Oakland ace, had been traded to Atlanta. I was hoping the Sox could somehow work out a deal for him, and thus retain a bona fide replacement for Pedro. Too bad. The Braves rotation, despite the loss of Wright and Ortiz, seems better than last year, with the addition of Smoltzie (who will be replaced as closer by the solid Dan Kolb, formerly of Milwaukee) and Hudson. I can't see anybody in the NL East beating out the Braves, but what's new?

Even more troubling is the word on the street that Randy Johnson is extremely close to being in pinstripes next season. This ESPN.com article has the deal further away from reality than does this New York Times article, but the mere possibility sends shivers down my spine.

If the Yankees get the Big Unit, their rotation will be very, very good: Johnson, Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano, Wright, and Kevin Brown. Talk about a solid 1-5. Of course, there are still questions about Wright's health; Pavano, in my opinion, is overrated because he had a very good season last year, but if you look at his career numbers they're not terribly great; and Brown, who in addition to being an asshole, is clearly on the decline and is no lock to be an effective #5. But a Johnson-Mussini one-two punch is at least as good as the Schilling-Pedro one-two punch that took the Sox all the way last year. If they both stay healthy, the Yanks will be very difficult to beat in the playoffs.

A revamped Yanks rotation including the Unit sure as hell would look a lot more solid than the Sox' rotation of Schilling (who will be out until at least May), Wells (who is fat), Wakefield, Arroyo, and Cap'n Crunch. So the Sox will, should all else fail this offseason, definitely be in a position to go after a big time starting pitcher before the trading deadline at the end of July.

Of course, the Johnson deal could implode, and let's hope it does. Then, it would seem, the Sox and Yanks would again be pretty evenly matched, so long as the Sox finish the deal with Varitek and find someone capable of giving them some good starts out of the 5 hole (the NYTimes article linked above says El Duque may be in the running).

Remember: pitching wins. You can have all the Renterias and Manny Ramirezes and David Ortizes in the world, but if you don't have a solid rotation, one or two solid relievers, and a bona fide closer, you will not do anything in the playoffs. Let's hope Theo doesn't get possessed by the ghost of Duquette and forget that.

Beijing is Wicked, Wicked Far Away

2004-12-16T17:36:00.000-05:00

And it also happens to be the place from whence another college buddy of mine, Ben @ enricopallazzo, blogs.

So, check it out. The fact that it's hosted by xanga.com single-handedly makes it "ragingly dope."

Ben offered some comments re: the question whether there are 4 straight albums from any one band that surpass Pink Floyd's Dark Side-Wish You Were Here-Animals-The Wall run from 1973-79, discussed in this post, below.

There have been some interesting nominations in the comments, especially Footer's call of the Stone's Beggars Banquet/Let It Bleed/Sticky Fingers/Exile on Main Street run (leaving out compilations and live albums in between, which is a valid move). He also noted that it's hard to compare four-great-albums-straight to four-great-concept-albums-straight. I agree. And just to be clear, I don't think there's an overarching theme to the Floyd Four collectively, I just mean that each of the four albums is a "concept album," as that term is usually defined, in and of itself.

FWIW (full disclosure: I love GN'R) I would nominate Appetite for Destruction/GN'R Lies/Use Your Illusion I and II for another great four-album run.

'Cause Everything Is Renteria

2004-12-16T05:41:00.000-05:00

Well, four years at $10M per is a lot of money, but the Sox definitely got one of the best all-around shortstops in the bigs in Edgar Renteria, native of Colombia, and the man who recorded the last out on that comebacker to Keith Foulke that sent us all into a quasi-raging-on-PCP-we're-World-Series-champs craze.

I have to admit I really liked Cabrera because he didn't make errors and he came up with some incredibly clutch hits. Throughout, he was as cool as can be. Hell, in the first inning of WS game 1 the guy got hit in the face and barely even flinched, then comes up next at bat and laces an RBI single to left. What's not to dig?

That said, Renteria is a damn fine replacement. He, too, tends to avoid errors, especially recently -- clocking in at a respectable 19, 16, and 11 through 2002-04 respectively, after a very mediocre 26, 27, and 24 over the span from 1999-2001. And the career .289 average ain't half bad for a National League shortstop, especially considering his career OBP (.346) and season average for Runs (92).

So, despite the possibility that the price was probably too high -- like, $1 or $2 million per year too high -- I'm very excited to see this guy play for the Sox.

Now, if we could just find another starter . . .

P.S. -- Yes, the time stamp is indicative of what time it really is. I've been working on a paper for school all night long. I must sleep.

Reciprocation

2004-12-16T02:19:00.000-05:00

Might as well go check out the other blog listed at right, geez oh pete's, which showcases the musings of the mysterious Fayza, who always has plenty to say, and my roomy Rolando, who is mentally imbalanced and thinks he has been receiving emails from our other roommate's cat.

Ah, whatever. At least he's a bitter mo fo.

No Accountability

2004-12-16T01:52:00.000-05:00

Andrew Sullivan absolutely nails it in his posts re: the widespread, illegal abuse of Arab prisoners in the war on terrorism.

I was amazed (and annoyed) that Kerry never made an issue out of the fact that Bush did not hold one damn person accountable for the abuses that occurred at Abu Graib. You have a PR disaster of epic proportions at Iraq's most important POW prison, with images of Americans torturing Arabs all over Arab TV, and all that happens is that the half-dozen lowlifes -- err, "bad apples" -- who actually got caught on film get thrown to the wolves. Truly amazing. Not to mention the fact that, umm, human beings were tortured. By Americans.

Did you know that there have been 130 people among American military personnel convicted or charged in connection with prisoner abuse? Neither did I, until today. That is astonishing. And it doesn't even count those incidents that were never reported, didn't lead to charges, or were simply swept under the rug. It suggests not only massive failures of oversight on the part of the military leadership; worse, it suggests systematic violations of the law of war and basic standards of human decency; worst of all, as Sullivan points out, it suggests implied -- or maybe even explicit -- approval of such actions from those on top.

Look, I don't hold any illusions. I know that war is a horrible, violent business. I know that the Iraqi insurgents or Islamic Jihad types that we round up and interrogate would show our soldiers no mercy at all. I know that extracting intelligence from prisoners is important, and that sometimes it takes ugly forms of coercion to do so. And I understand that war tends to erode the moral, not to mention psychological, well-being of those engaged in it.

But when the armed forces of the United States of America have systematically abrogated their responsibility under the Geneva Conventions to act in accordance with the law of war -- well, that, simply, is unacceptable.

There are those that justify or quasi-justify the systematic abuse of prisoners by pointing out that the Geneva Conventions were meant to apply to the "uniformed" armies of signatory nations only. Technically they're correct. But the White House has said that the Conventions apply in Iraq (except, it seems, for foreign fighters/Al Qaeda types).

"The Geneva Conventions are applicable to the conflict in Iraq, and our policy is to comply with the Geneva Conventions," White House spokesman Sean McCormick said.

Well, do they or don't they? Which is it?

At the request of the CIA, the Justice Department drafted a confidential memo that authorizes the agency to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation -- a practice that international legal specialists say contravenes the Geneva Conventions.

The two quoted sentences are from the same Washington Post article, dated 10/24/04, linked again here. The piece goes on to discuss the somewhat common practice of hiding certain Iraqi detainees from the Red Cross, which also violates international law.

I realize that "international law" in general is a fuzzy notion that should be viewed with skepticism. But the Geneva Conventions are not. They are clear and they are the law of war. As the professor quoted at the end of the article put it, "There's no ambiguity here."

I've heard many argue, somewhat persuasively, that the war on terrorism, and particularly the unique threat posed by stateless terrorists, has rendered the Geneva Conventions obsolete. I'm willing to listen to such an argument. But there has to be a public debate. The Conventions have formed the legal underpinnings of our nation's actions in wartime for 122 years. The United States' signed the Geneva Conventions for more than simply protecting our own POWs. We signed them to bring as much decency and justice -- fundamental American values -- as you can to a war zone.

If the Conventions are to be abandoned over the threat posed by Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern counter-insurgency campaigns, it should be the decision of the Congress, representing the people, rather than that of the Executive and a few of his closest advisers and lawyers.

The Coming Civil War in Iraq

2004-12-15T20:57:00.000-05:00

Related to the post below re: Iraq, I came across this post on NRO's the Corner, which states:

James Carafano, Sr. Fellow for Defense & Homeland Security at the Heritage Foundation, was on my radio show on Friday. He explained that we don't have all these troops McCain and others keep talking about, that sending them to Iraq -- if we had them -- will increase casualty figures and further complicate the provision of supplies (such as armored vehicles, etc.), and that the administration's goal of establishing a government and helping with training of Iraqi forces is the only way to accomplish our objectives in Iraq. Deploying and basing more and more forces in Iraq won't do it.

Now, I agree with this assessment, as far as it goes. Which is to say that adding more troops now -- if there even are troops available, which is questionable -- will indeed cause more problems than it solves. But in assessing the conduct of this war by the Bush/Rumsfeld team, it seems clear that the failure to provide enough troops immediately following the invasion was an extremely serious mistake. Weapons depots were emptied, major cities in the Sunni triangle became insurgent havens, and a general atmosphere of lawlessness ensued -- and all of these things undermined our efforts to provide security and begin the nation-building process. More troops likely would have solved -- or at least mitigated -- some of these important problems.

But my main reaction to the Corner post quoted above was that it is, in effect, a tacit admission that our goal is to build and train an army that will defend the government that is aligned with us against the Sunni insurgents. So, essentially, we're setting up a situation in which the majority Shiite government (that will be elected in January) will depend on a security force trained and armed by the U.S. to fight off the Sunni insurgents who are attempting to bring it down.

In other words, Shiites v. Sunnis. That is, sectarian civil war.

Again, absent a political solution that brings the Sunnis into the government, is there any other possible outcome? I'd love to hear one.

Also, suppose, for the sake of this hypo, that we stay in Iraq for 4 years, after which we leave behind a several hundred thousand-strong government army to fight off the insurgency. And suppose a civil war goes on for a year or two, and then the insurgents win and take over the government? Do we reinvade? Or what? Your guess is as good as mine.

Procrastination = This Post

2004-12-15T19:19:00.000-05:00

Being the gigantic goddamn nerd that I am, I purchased (on behalf of my roommate) the DVD for The Return of the King yesterday, the day it was released, at an area Blockbuster.

The movie, with almost an hour of extra scenes not shown in theaters, is awesome, and deserved all the many Oscars it won.

However, much to my dismay, my copy came out of the packaging with major scratches on it, causing (a) the movie to skip in at least three spots, (b) a prolonged sequence in which the dialogue was about 1 second removed from the accompanying mouth movements, and (c) a complete shutdown -- "can't read this disk" -- stoppage right at the beginning of a brand new scene featuring the "Mouth of Sauron" (which occurs right before the very final battle in front of the Black Gate of Mordor).

Which raises the question: How the hell does a brand new DVD, right out of the packaging, get scratched? Amazing. Anyway, I called Blockbuster and they're letting me trade it in for a new copy.

Somewhat relatedly, I am completely and utterly opposed to columns, like this one, which attempt to analogize the Lord of the Rings with modern politics. The reason is not really because such analogies are ab initio misguided, seeing as Tolkein denied his book had anything to do with mid-20th century politics, let alone politics a half-century later (although that's true too); but mainly because any moron could come up with an analogy to promote their own political viewpoint, no matter how idiotic.

E.g., Saruman represents the eeeevil corporations that are cutting down trees and bespoiling the sacred Earth in order to promote their imperialist-capitalist plan of world domination, and the Ents represent the American people -- who are currently sleeping, oblivious -- but who one day will wake up to a polluted, dying Earth and rise up against the eeeevil corporations, washing away their filth and forever living happily in their new earthy hippy enclaves, free from the yoke of the corporatists.

See how dumb that sounds? Good. Somebody better let Victor Davis Hanson and National Review Online in on the secret.

More on Judicial "Activism"

2004-12-15T17:40:00.000-05:00

Responding to hotfoot's comments on, and elaborating on my thoughts re:, the "Judicial Activism" post below:

I don't think this is really a quasi-originalism "use amendments to change things" argument, so much as it is a basic statement of how checks and balances works.

I don't think that courts should be able to say what the constitution means "on a whim," rather, I think so long as a constitutional interpretation is reasonably based on the facts and precedent before the court, then any majorly wrong decision will eventually get righted by the machinations of popular government.

The larger point is that as a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary will always be inherently "activist," that is, trying to maximize its power in influencing the course of American law, politics, and history. If the courts go too far, the other political branches will always be there to beat back. In other words, judicial activism is as old as the judiciary; e.g., where in the Constitution does it give the judiciary the powers of Constitutional interpretation and review that Marshall so brazenly invented in Marbury? It doesn't -- and thus Marbury stands as the original, and probably most influential, "activist" decision in history. Which is why judicialism activism, being as old as the Republic, doesn't threaten the Republic. It's the natural state of things.

So, while conservatives in the 1950s saw the Warren court as activist, reversing longstanding civil rights principles (most notably the "separate but equal" doctrine), and while modern conservatives see the Roe decision as activist (broadening privacy protections not specifically enumerated in Constitution), likewise, modern liberals sometimes see the Rehnquist court as activist, especially in its federalism cases (reversing longstanding principles re: the extent of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause, i.e., departing radically from Commerce Clause jurisprudence developed since the New Deal).

It's all "activism." And if it leads to outcomes which the large majority of American people find abhorrent, those decisions will eventually be overturned, either by amendment or by the replacement of the Court's members. It is worth noting that the latter of these scenarios may come into play re: Roe if Bush gets three pro-life judges to replace Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens, the most likely retirees, which would seemingly give the court a 5-4 anti-Roe majority.

P.S. -- Although most of you peeping in at this point are probably in the know about Footer's blog, for those of you who have stumbled across Wonderland from another direction definitely go check it out. Footer is my buddy from college, and he offers intelligent political commentary from a center-right viewpoint, along with a lot of other stuff (news, music, life in general). He's wicked smaaaht, dude guy.

"Mercenary Decision"

2004-12-14T19:32:00.000-05:00

Having written what I did in the previous post -- which I stand behind -- I also should note that I agree with much of what is written in this Peter Gammons column, especially this excerpt:

In New York, there will be no pass, nor should there be one. This is completely a mercenary decision by Martinez, and he will have no complaints whatsoever if he is savaged by New Yorkers. Why not? Pedro Martinez went to the Mets solely because they offered him more money. Period. If he doesn't perform to the standard GM Omar Minaya has promised his owners ... it won't be a pretty picture.

I cannot overstate the risk the Mets took paying Pedro for four years at that rate, because many on the inside say that Pedro has a serious tear in his shoulder that will guarantee long stretches on the DL over his four-year stint in New York.

And given the NY media's and fan's hostility toward the guy, it could get ugly if he doesn't hold up, as Gammons opines above. But the fact that the Mets made this incredibly risky move doesn't change the fact that Pedro was within his rights to do what he did, as were the Sox.

Money Talks, So Stop Whining

2004-12-14T17:52:00.000-05:00

Well, you knew it would happen. It is officially time for the Boston Sports Media to start tearing apart Pedro now that he's headed to New York, just like they did to Garciaparra after he was dealt to the Cubs at the end of July.

I caught a few minutes of Glenn "Big O" Ordway's Big Show on 850AM this afternoon. And of course Glenn and his cohorts were whining about what a "big liar" Pedro is for saying that he loved playing in Boston, that his heart was here, and that he wanted to stay. And they were whining about how Pedro took the Mets deal simply so he could claim "victory" in the "big game," and brag about how he got more than Pavano, hell, even more than Schilling.

Let me put this as simply as possible so you rabblerousers can understand: money talks. Pedro was guaranteed $16 million more from the Mets than he was from Red Sox. That's $16 million. In the bank.

Now, I know some of you are thinking: "That guy has made more money than he can count. What difference does an extra $16 million make?"

Now, you're right that he's rich. And you're right that the extra $16 million won't materially affect his life. But $16 million is $16 million. It's a ton of money. And while you can't buy love, you can certainly see how an extra $16 million might make you brush aside your nice feelings for a team and a city and say, "Damn. If they're willing to pay me that much more, why not?"

Either baseball is a business or it isn't. (It is.) And as long as there's free agency and hundred-plus million dollar payrolls, the Big Show isn't allowed to complain when a Hall of Fame pitcher decides he going to leave Boston to take more money playing elsewhere. That's the nature of the modern game. Stop whining about it, and stop attempting to throw Pedro under the bus for doing what any red blooded American -- or Dominican -- would do: follow the money.

UPDATE: The original articles about the Pedro deal had it at $56 million, approximately $16 million more than the $40.5 the Sox offered. But more recent news articles have the Mets deal at a reduced price, somewhere around $52 million. So the difference would actually be $12 million. Which is still a heck of a lot of money. So the point stands.

Judicial Activism? Big Deal.

2004-12-14T04:16:00.000-05:00

The following is the (slightly updated) text of an email I sent to my father last spring in response to his pointing out this interesting article, by Larry Kramer, which makes the historical argument that popular acceptance of judicial supremacy is a new, and generally undesirable, phenomenon. A good example of the more banal, highly partisan, and typical conservative argument that liberal judicial activists are threatening the Constitution and the Republic can be found here. My response argues against both notions:

Yo --

I really like the historical aspects of this paper, but I disagree with the conclusion that "judicial supremacy" is real and dominates our country.
If a court makes an intensely unpopular decision about what the constitution means, the citizens of a state or the country can always amend the state or federal constitution to tell the judges exactly what they think the constitution says. If people are that upset about, say, gay marriage, then they can amend their constitution to say, "marriage = man + woman; no gays allowed" and the courts won't be able to do much, especially if the majority of local government officials think the court is wrong. The courts don't have police squads or their own armies. (E.g., the court's decisions desegregating public schools were only enforced in the South because Eisenhower, the popularly elected executive, sent in federal troops. The court had zero power to enforce its own decisions -- only their righteousness, words on a page, compelled Ike to act.)

Furthermore, even if 60% of the country is firmly opposed to a court's decision about what the constitution means -- a clear majority but not enough to pass an amendment -- the majority can elect legislators and executives who promise to use their powers to oppose and undermine the court's decision. You see this with the abortion issue today. The Supreme Court has said all first-, most second-, and some third-trimester abortions are a constitutional right. A majority of Americans agree and respect that decision. But a very large minority does not, and they elect people to office (e.g., Bill Frist, George W. Bush) who pledge to do everything to limit and ultimately reverse that decision. If their position is popular enough, the people's will eventually wins out, as legislators pass laws chipping away at the decision (see Partial Birth Abortion Act) until the executive can replace enough members of the court to reverse the decision. It may not be terribly efficient, but it seems to work pretty well. And it only happens when there's an exceptionally contentious constitutional issue.

I do agree with the idea that the judiciary is an elitest, educated, aristocratic check on the craziness (and sometimes, stupidity) of popular democracy. But I'm not convinced that's an inherently bad thing. The legislative and executive branches are filled with elitest, educated, and aristocratic idiots, too. Without a strong court system protecting minority rights against the will of an inflamed majority, you have segregated bathrooms, state executions of retarded people, and gay people getting arrested in their bedrooms. Given all those people who would, lacking the court's protection, be discriminated against, immorally executed, or arrested in their bedrooms, I just don't see the judiciary as some sort of all powerful, tyrranical entity. Personally, I think the system works pretty damn well as is.

Love,
[Wonderland]

P.S. -- I also don't buy Kramer's claim that the lack of popular revolt against the Bush v. Gore decision means that the American public is now completely acquiescent to the court's decisions. After 2000 election, I think that most people just realized that the Florida legislature was Republican, the U.S. House was Republican, Bush had already been declared the "winner," and there was no way in hell Gore was going to win that political battle. Regardless of whether most people disagreed with the court's decision, there wasn't a popular revolt because people accepted that short of armed revolution, Bush was going to be president.

Rumsfeld Is a Twit -- Just Ask John McCain

2004-12-14T03:49:00.000-05:00

Regarding John McCain's recent comments about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: I couldn't agree more.

Rumsfeld should have been fired long ago, like, after the whole prison torture scandal. But apparently nothing is anybody's fault in this administration: shit happens, and George Bush moves on, oblivious.

Regarding the mess that is Bush's and Rumsfeld's rather, shall we say, "imperfect" occupation of Iraq: As is clear from the various instances in history when a militarily superior foreign occupying army is up against a local insurgency, the superior force can win every single military engagements with insurgents, and the troops and their civilian leaders can have all the willpower, heart, and desire to win in the world. But short of declaring martial law and shooting anything that moves, unless the occupiers come up with a viable political solution that either (a) mainly marginalizes the insurgency or (b) brings it into the political process, the insurgency will persist indefinitely and never dissipate.

There is no purely military solution to a home field insurgency that is premised, in no small part, on opposing the occupiers. The longer we stay without implementing a viable political strategy, the more potent and numerous the insurgents will become. There are no two ways around this inevitability short of a "total war" military policy.

Rumsfeld and the suits at the Pentagon know, or should know, this. Without trying to draw a false analogy, they certainly have read the books about Vietnam, haven't they? Well, the Iraqi insurgents certainly have -- you can count on that. They know, as should we, that the failure to implement a viable political strategy dooms the type of anti-insurgency occupation effort in which we are currently engaged. Period.

Rumsfeld and Co.'s complete abrogation of their responsibility to adequately plan and implement a viable political strategy ought to be reason enough for their dismissal. (Remember, these were the people who seriously believed that Ahmad Chalabi -- yes, this Ahmad Chalabi -- was the man to run post-invasion Iraq.) And George "The Buck Sure as Hell Doesn't Stop Here" Bush bears much responsibility for handing the occupation over to the Pentagon, rather than the folks at the State Department who actually have some expertise in matters of Iraqi politics and nation-building -- and who, incidentally, had done tons of pre-invasion research and put together a substantial list of recommendations that was largely ignored by the Pentagon.

The bottom line is that until the U.S. and its political allies in Iraq can implement a political solution that assuages the Sunnis so as to take the air out of the (mainly Sunni) insurgency, Iraq will be engaged in civil war from now until eternity, or at least until one of its major ethnic groups -- most probably the Sunnis -- is well-subjugated and/or mostly dead.

The only question, absent a viable political solution, is whether we'll be doing the fighting or whether we'll get the hell out of there and let the Iraqis hash it out. Neither is a very good option. But then again, neither was starting this war in the first place.

Four Straight from Floyd

2004-12-13T22:23:00.000-05:00

Pink Floyd rules. This is an indisputable fact. If ever a band would both reignite its popularity and make me wet my pants by getting back together and touring, they're it.

Along those lines, it seems like Floyd is also among the most underrated bands out there, especially among younger rock and indie fans who weren't old enough to appreciate their pre-Waters-departure albums. I happen to fall into this younger demographic, but luckily I developed a love for Floyd sometime around age 14 when I was first introduced to The Wall, Division Bell, and, interestingly, Atom Heart Mother and Relics, which my dad had on LP from his college days. But I get the impression that those youngsters today who adore Radiohead, Coldplay, and even more post-punk outfits like Interpol and Franz Ferdinand, have a lack of appreciation for Floyd, the band that invented and laid the foundation for the rise of British acid-pop.

There is no Radiohead without Pink Floyd. Remember that.

But my main point is this: I want to know if there is a 4-album string -- not counting the Beatles or Zeppelin -- that is better than Floyd's run of Dark Side of the Moon/Wish You Were Here/Animals/The Wall. Because I don't think there is. It is hard to think of a hot streak that beats out Floyd's from 1973-79.

What sets this run of albums apart is that each is a true "concept album" that runs from beginning to end seamlessly, that follows an identifiable theme (both musically and lyrically), and that breaks new ground, i.e., neither album sounds like the one before it. Culminating, of course, with The Wall, perhaps the greatest concept album of all time. (And let's not even discuss the fact that Meddle, another insanely good album, preceded Dark Side.)

Anyway, if you can think of four consecutive albums put out by any band that top these four -- hell, you can even include the Beatles and Zep -- then post your nominations in the comments. In the meanwhile, go listen to those four Floyd albums, and marvel.

Pedro to Queens

2004-12-13T18:40:00.000-05:00

Well, if the reports coming out of Boston.com are correct, then Mr. Martinez, at his peak the greatest pitcher I will probably see in my lifetime, will be leaving us to play for the Mets.

If so, it's a sad day in Boston. Not simply because the rotation for next year is now incredibly tenuous (Schill, Wells, Wake, Arroyo, and ?) but because Pedro, for all of his faults, was one of the greatest pitchers ever to wear a Sox uniform, electrified Fenway every time he started, and was one of the toughest, most fearless competitors I've seen play.

I don't blame him for going to the Mets. They apparently offered him a guaranteed fourth year, something the Sox were unwilling to do. And when you're talking about money that big (somewhere between $12.5 and $14 million per year), with a guy his of his age and physical status, as well as his desire to just pitch, it is easy to see why he jumped at the deal that guaranteed him a fourth year.

I also don't blame Theo and the Sox front office for refusing to match the Mets offer, if the reports are true. By the end of his final year of his contract with the Mets, he'll be within one month of his 37th birthday; given his physical condition, which doubtless is not what it was for the period between 1997 and 2000 (his dominant years); and given the big money, it is easy to see why the Sox weren't willing to chance it.

But man, will Fenway miss Pedro. No one could light up a Friday night at the Park like Petey could, not even Schilling after his arrival last year. Pedro simply electrified the crowd every night he pitched, probably because you knew you were going to see a lot of bad swings and plenty of Ks, but also because you never knew when he would drill somebody just for the sake of doing it. He had guts. And for every time I saw him lose in a close game against the Yanks (a few times, at least), there were performances that I'll never forget. Not because they were close, or even important, games, but because I had the privilege of watching baseball's best pitcher absolutely embarrass other teams in a way that no other pitcher save Randy Johnson could.

In particular, an 8-inning, 18 K game against the DRays some years back (if memory serves), and an equally awesome performance against the Mariners on the same day they retired Carlton Fisk's number, a game I was lucky to catch with my little brother, after a last minute ticket-grab, and one that I will remember forever. I remember very clearly watching that 1-hit, 17 K game against the Yankees on TV with my father. A long-time Dodgers fan who adored Koufax, he called that game "probably the most dominating performance I've ever seen." And, in the interest of full disclosure, it was right around the time when my girlfriend gave me a signed 8x10 photgraph of Pedro for my 21st birthday that I realized she was a keeper. (She had mailed him the picture with a letter and a return envelope, explaining that I would love an autograph for my birthday, and he obliged.)

Just take a look at his stats over the years. If you've been lucky enough to see him pitch at the Fens, realize how special this guy truly is, and how privileged you are to have seen him compete in baseball's greatest ballpark. And realize how huge it was for him, in his final appearance for the Sox, to win a World Series game (in dominating fashion) on the way to Boston's first world championship since the Great War. He truly deserved it. As he deserves a nice, shiny plaque in Cooperstown someday, something he will no doubt receive.

Anyway, so long, Pedro. It's been fun. Thank you.

Suicidal Blue Staters

2004-12-13T03:25:00.000-05:00

One more thing. Red state people are always talking about how Blue Staters treat them like they're ignorant, or stupid, and don't know what's best for themselves.

E.g., Blue Staters: "Gay people are human beings and should have equal rights under the law. Oh, and by the way, creationism is not science and shouldn't be taught in the public schools." Red Staters: "Stop telling us how to run our lives, condescending liberal elitists!"

Well, it works both ways. This entire election cycle, conservatives of all hues were arguing that the Democrats were "weak" on terrorism and wouldn't protect the homeland or go aggressively after the terrorists abroad. Yet, in virtually every major population center that is likely to be a terrorist target, the people voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. How can this be?

If, according to right wingers, Democrats are the party that will increase the terrorist threat (or, more charitably, decrease the threat more slowly), then it follows that the vast, vast majorities of people who voted for Kerry in Boston, New York, Philly, DC, Chicago, LA, Seattle. etc. -- i.e., every damn city that is likely to be the site of the next 9-11 or worse -- are all completely suicidal and want to get blown up. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voted for Kerry, who would have been "soft" on terrorism, and made an attack more likely, right?

Or, if not suicidal, then stupid. Maybe they just were too dumb to understand how "weak" the Democrats and Kerry were on terrorism, and voted for them out of ignorance.

Or, and this is a mind-bender, maybe they realized that Kerry wouldn't have been "soft" on terrorism at all -- and maybe they thought that the bad decisions of George Bush had actually made them less safe, and that Kerry would do a better job. But that would require complete suspension of disbelief, because that would mean that Kerry and Dems aren't "weak" on terrorism, which, as we know from reading right wing websites and listening to VP Cheney's town hall meetings, can't possibly be true.

As Stephen Colbert of the Daily Show put it during the post-election episode, "Thank you, Red Staters, for saving us from ourselves."

"Hard" and "Soft" on Terrorism

2004-12-13T02:33:00.000-05:00

Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power as a "natural" response to 9-11 has thrown the intellectual left into disarray. The invasion of Iraq has made it virtually impossible to even define "terrorism" -- so liberals have a hard time defending themselves when politically motivated right wingers start calling them "soft" on it. Of course, to these folks, being "soft" simply means not supporting the decision to start a war in Iraq as the next step in the overall war on terrorism, but such simplification is a symptom of the larger problem.

Liberals can't get behind Bush's war on "terrorism" because they don't even know what George Bush's definition of "terrorism" is. Is it Group 1: jihadists, i.e., those who are ideologically aligned with Osama bin Laden (OBL) and Zarkawi, the hard fundamentalists, who want a return of the Caliphate and an end to permissive Western civilization? Or is it Group 2, the repressive ayatollahs, oligarchs, and dictators who spread anti-Americanism and whose governments are responsible for the crushing poverty and corrupt polical systems that foster jihadism? Or is it Group 3: basically any Islamic person that does not like Israel and America? (Naturally, the three groups I've described are not mutually exclusive, or all-encompassing . . . there's certainly overlap.)

Prominent bloggers and pundits like Jonah Goldberg and the right wingers over at Redstate who throw around idiotic platitudes like "hard on terrorism" and "soft on terrorism" ought to ask: who are we fighting? Liberals overwhelmingly support war against Group 1. Look at the vast Democratic support for the war in Afghanistan (and yes, there will always be far left types who oppose all wars, because pacifists are just that, pacifists). But the vast majority of liberals are very much in favor of fighting an aggressive war against the jihadists -- seriously, in the name of self-preservation, how could they not be? (see next post) -- they just differ with the conservatives over what strategy will be more effective.

If a strategy that includes isolated special forces strikes against terrorist strongholds, economic and diplomatic pressure on host nations to eradicate terrorist cells, and better ideological and psychological warfare to marginalize the appeal of jihadism is "soft," then that label has no meaning. Likewise, if an ill-advised, unprovoked foreign "experiment" involving the removal of a dictator with tenuous ties to jihadism, a protracted occupation and war of attrition with local insurgents (some of whom are Group 1 but some of whom are simply Group 3) in order to catalyze some reverse-domino democratic government-spreading theory that only existed in the mind of Paul Wolfowitz is "hard," then that word is meaningless too.

And I suspect that a majority of liberals would be up for fighting wars against Group 2 types, like Saddam, so long as there is ample international support (yes, this probably means a UN resolution, which, back in the days of George H.W. Bush weren't so disdained) and a clear exit strategy.

The analogy that Peter Beinart and Goldberg cling to -- that the fight against Islamic terrorism is analogous to the fight against Communism -- is inapt and won't get us very far. While I agree with Beinart that liberals ought to make their primary goal protecting the country from terrorists and rooting them out where they exist, the analogy to the Cold War in unavailing. Communism posed a severe ideological and military threat to the underpinnings of post-Enlightenment democratic civilization, and had much support among populations all over the globe. Jihadism is a backwards, 14th century ideology that has very little support outside of the Middle East, and would be far less popular there if (a) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict moved towards some decent settlement, and (b) the region weren't so impoverished and politically repressed.

That's what I think Kevin Drum at Political Animal meant when he wrote (here and here) that jihadism probably poses a far smaller threat to the long-term security of the U.S. than Communism or fascism ever did. Not that the jihadists couldn't succeed in killing a whole heck of a lot of Americans -- they've already done that once and will probably do it again -- but that they could never pose an overwhelming ideological or military threat to the existence of the United States, or Western Civilization, as a whole. Their ideology is just too anti-modern and plain old insane for that to ever happen; not to mention the fact that the movement's leader, besides having no army, lives in a cave and is forced to communicate with his followers every couple years by videotape. His ideas are as noxious as Hitler's and Stalin's, but he is not even close to them in terms of his ability to follow through with his diabolical scheme to impose fundamentalist Islam on the entire planet.

Despite all the right-wing handwringing over liberal wussiness, you 'd be hard pressed to find a liberal that didn't want to (a) protect the homeland in such a way as to make it as difficult as possible for terrorists to repeat 9/11, or worse; and (b) eliminate jihadists on their own turf in such a way as to ensure that there won't be more of them down the road.

What you will not get from liberals, however, is support for a "war on terrorism" that includes more essentially unilateral invasions and occupations of countries with tenuous ideological and operational ties to the sickos who were behind 9/11 and their ideological compadres. If that makes liberals "soft" on the Jonah Goldberg Anti-Terrorism Toughness Chart, then so be it. As I said above, such labels are arbitrary.

Liberals know that the insane, fundamentalist jihadism of OBL and Zarkawi poses a true, civilization-toppling threat only if "average" Islamic people (Group 3) get it into their heads that Islam is under siege, that war with the West is inevitable, and that they are better off casting their lot with OBL-types (and, hence, dying) than they are with rejecting terrorism and attempting to improve their lives by siding with the forces of modernity (i.e., us).

Such an all-out war outcome, of course, would be a disaster of epic proportions. It is also certainly avoidable. Our job, therefore, should be convincing average Muslims that they have a hell of a lot more in common with us (e.g., desire for religious freedom, peace, representative government, and prosperity) than they do OBL (e.g., desire for endless war against the West and the institution of a horribly repressive, totalitarian Islamic state). That, and finding OBL and his network and annihilating them. The fact that the man behind 9-11 is still out there, spreading his ideology of murder, is highly depressing. The sooner he is dead, the sooner we can neutralize the ideology that makes people drive planes into buildings in the first place.

So, that said, no more "hard" and "soft" bullshit. Supporting George Bush's version of the war on terrorism is not a prerequisite to being serious about the threat from fanatic Islamists. Liberals' main problem with George Bush's war on terrorism -- of which the war in Iraq, in his terms, is the "central front" -- is that it needlessly broadened the scope of the conflict between Islam and the West; has blurred the distinction between terrorists and your average Muslim; created a whole host of "Group 3-turned-Group 1" types, thus aiding terrorist recruitment; and has made an all-out war between Islam and the West that much more likely.

Not to mention the fact that there is no guarantee at all that the outcome in Iraq will be favorable to our national security interests -- which should blow your mind, considering the human, political, and monetary costs of the adventure -- but I digress.

A Great Way to Fight Off Depression

2004-12-13T01:41:00.000-05:00

Clicking here and watching the streaming video in all its glory.

I think it is worth pointing out that the primary reason the Red Sox won this year is that they were incredibly deep, both in terms of the 9 field players and in terms of the bench. Clearly the deepest Sox team, 1 to 25, that I can remember. We may never see a team like this again.

Just think about it. All of the following players made gave-saving or game-winning plays at some point or another over the incredible 8-game run: Roberts, Meuller, Ortiz, Wakefield, Cabrera (and that's just ALCS game 4), Varitek, Schilling, Bellhorn, Damon, DLowe, Pedro, Nixon, Foulke. That's a ton of guys who made big contributions over a relatively short span, when it mattered most.

Also notice that Series MVP Ramirez, outside of his 1st inning homer in game 3 (technically a GW hit), and perhaps his RBI single late in game 1, never really had a game-altering play (except, of course, the fielding errors). That's why -- despite the fact that Manny was very solid throughout -- Foulke was clearly the Series MVP, recording the final out in all four games.

FYI

2004-12-13T01:32:00.000-05:00

I have no idea where this is going to go. But I figure to write about life in Boston and New England in general, baseball/Red Sox, maybe other sports, politics, the war, music, and any other random crap that seems appropriate. Comments welcome.

Boston, You're My Home

2004-12-12T23:34:00.000-05:00

Where to begin but the corner of Boylston Street and Yawkey Way, sometime between 1 and 3 a.m. on the morning of October 28, 2004, cigar in my mouth, Pabst in right hand, amidst a wash of people more drunk than I, and one shirtless, tatooed, shaved-head maniac hanging from the lightpost, using a broom to beat back at the riot officers who were attempting to coax him down using, yes, their billy clubs.

That was the precise moment when I came to, realizing that I had lost the previous three weeks of my life -- to what, precisely? It hadn't yet sunk in. It had happened far too quickly. It had been drowned in a sea of bourbon. But there we all were, celebrating an event that I had too often forced myself to believe might never happen.

When I woke up later that morning, deeply hung over, it seemed like the end of history. I was absolutely and thoroughly exhausted, from weeks of nervous half-sleep, too many glasses of Jack, a curriculum that was killing my enthusiasm for higher education, brooding over the dead of war, the two hundred fifty miles that separated me from my girl, and the eight-game whirlwind that turned another lost baseball season into the one that we will remember, and talk about, until our last days on this earth.

I stumbled out of bed, my greasy hair matted to my head. I cracked a beer to try to kill the headache, and I decided, without further debate and certainly without any handwringing whatsoever, to take the day off from school. I'd never felt so shitty -- and so great -- at the same time until that wicked sweetest of days.