The 2000's: Shitty Decade or the Shittiest Decade?

A study by the Pew Research Group shows that a majority of Americans have a generally negative view of the 00's, and 53% view 9/11 as the decade's most important event. The Washington Post's most-influential-person bracket has George W. Bush edging out Osama bin Laden. The pictures for the decade in the 2009 World Almanac show 9/11, Bush's premature ejaculation (h/t) of mission accomplished, Hurricane Katrina, and the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis. No doubt about it: this decade sucked. But let's take a look back and see how it compares.

8. The 2000's: We survive Y2K only to have to deal with a controversial election. The country unites after 9/11, then divides bitterly after having its fear exploited and being told that criticism is un-American (as if that's not the whole point of the 1st Amendment) to invade Iraq. The world does nothing about climate change, beginning with Bush's decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and ending with bold inaction at Copenhagen. Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans eight months after a tsunami strikes South Asia. The U.S. ends the decade in recession, but with its first female speaker, its first black president, and change it might still believe in.

7. The 1980's: The Age of Reagan. Trickle-down and Iran-Contra. AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz. The Challenger explodes. Chernobyl and Bhopal. The Iran-Iraq War, Russians in Afghanistan. But 1989 sees the Berlin Wall coming down, and the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. Plus, I was born. Not all bad.

6. The 450's: Rome is sacked by the Vandals and avoids being sacked by the Huns by the intervention of Pope Leo I. The Council of Chalcedon leads to a schism in the Christian Church. Rome sees three emperors in as many years in a wave of assassination and counter-assassination. The Empire would be gone two decades later.

5. The 1790's: The French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and the horror of the guillotine. Napoleon is in power by decade's end. The Panic of 1797 hits the U.S. and England. A two-party system emerges in the U.S. with the Federalists and Republicans battling over the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson and Madison draft the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response, arguing that states can nullify federal laws and secede from the union.

4. The 1860's: The U.S. is at its most divided in the Civil War. About 625,000 die. Lincoln's assassination leads to feuds between radicals in the Senate and Andrew Johnson, culminating in his impeachment (but not his removal). Abroad, the French invade Mexico over Benito Juarez's suspension of debt payments, while Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay defeat Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance. But the Morrill and Homestead Acts allow for the establishment of land-grant colleges and the settlement of the West, and the Suez Canal and Transcontinental Railroad are completed in 1869.

3. The 1940's: World War II: The Holocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pearl Harbor, Dresden, the Blitz. Atomic weapons explode onto the world stage, setting up fifty years of cold war. FDR dies. On the plus side, the right side wins WWII and forms the United Nations.

2. The 1930's: Forget the recession, the world languishes through the Great Depression, with unemployment reaching 25% in the U.S. Hitler rises to power, unites Germany with Austria, is appeased by the Sudetenland, invades Czechoslovakia then Poland, starting World War II.

What could be worse than the Depression and the rise of Nazism?

1. The 1340's: The Black Death spreads across Europe, killing a good third of the continent's population. Jews are blamed and persecuted. French knights were mowed down by English longbowmen at Crecy. The Byzantine Empire is engulfed in civil war.

So the 2000's could have been worse. At least we didn't have the bubonic plague.

Dear Congressman Hoekstra

Your recent "Perspective" on the EPA's decision to designate carbon dioxide as a pollutant is worryingly disingenuous. First, you write that the "ruling makes it even more difficult for businesses seeking to grow and create jobs to predict what future energy costs will be, therefore discouraging growth." On the contrary, the designation indicates that the future price of fossil fuels will be higher, creating a market incentive to develop clean-energy technologies.

Second, three sentences taken out of context from thousands of private emails do not "cast doubt" on the science behind global warming. The much ballyhooed phrase "hide the decline" refers to the divergence problem: Tree ring data suggest that temperatures have been declining since the 1960's, even though we know from actual temperature readings that the planet has gotten warmer since then. Indeed, the last ten years were the warmest decade on record.

The science is clear: The planet is getting hotter, and human greenhouse-gas emissions are to blame. If you disagree with the Obama Administration's actions, please tell me what positive action you think we should take instead of misinforming your constituents.

Sincerely,

Wolverine

Reactions and Overreactions to Fort Hood

"[T]he more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security."

~Bryan Fischer, American Family Association

"Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."

~Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., Army Chief of Staff

On November 5, Nidal Hasan walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood and opened fire, killing 13 and wounding dozens more. Hasan was a major, an Army psychiatrist, and yes, a Muslim.

On November 6, Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" at the American Family Association, posted on an AFA blog his idea to prevent future Fort Hoods: Forbid Muslims from serving in the U.S. military. Some excerpts:

Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels...

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve...

This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism...

While Christianity is a religion of peace, ...Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old [sic] girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.

(To give AFA some credit, there is another blog post--rated higher by AFA's readers--that argues that expelling Muslims would be un-Christian.)

"Islamo-realism," eh? This realism tells you that because one person--with their own, personal, psychological issues--goes on a rampage, we should draw conclusions about an entire group of people? There are over 3500 Muslims in the military: we should expel them based on one incident? This is not "Islamo-realism," this is bigotry, pure and simple.

We should, if anything, be encouraging more Muslims to join the military: Linguistic and cultural knowledge would be useful in a counterinsurgency campaign. The Army can effectively "break down barriers [between] different ethnic groups." (The complaint that, as AFA's Fischer says, "[t]he military is not about social engineering" has been debunked here before.) Efforts to enforce current anti-discrimination standards should be redoubled, both to catalyze the barrier breakdown and to prevent an anti-Muslim backlash.

Diversity and tolerance are fundamentally American and are part of what makes us strong. Those who would discard these values so easily would be--and this is an analogy the AFA should appreciate--Delilahs brandishing scissors at Samson's hair.

Last word.

Bajoobahead #6: Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas apparently has a problem with gays serving in the military. Money quote:

The place to start is whether citizens of this country, through their elected representatives and the military leaders named by them, have a right to determine what type of service members best serve the interests, safety and security of the United States. I contend we do. The military should not be a test lab. Pressure is building to put female sailors on submarines, along with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, presumably. That many heterosexuals find homosexual behavior immoral and not conducive to unit cohesion is of no concern to the social wrecking crew.

Wow, how wrong is this? First of all, homosexuality does not hurt unit cohesion. A survey of military personnel, either currently active or recent veterans, shows that, of those who were certain they served with a gay or lesbian, 64% said it had no effect on unit morale. Of those who weren't, a plurality (49%) said it would have no impact on them personally. 73% said they were comfortable around gays and lesbians.

Even if a minority of heterosexual soldiers disapprove of gays serving, that doesn't mean that they could not do their jobs professionally serving with gays. That's also not a good reason to prevent homosexuals from serving openly. I'm sure several white soldiers would have disapproved of serving with blacks in 1948. I'm sure several compared Executive Order 9981 to treating the military as a "test lab," as it came six years before Brown v. Board and a full fifteen years before "I have a dream." I'm sure people argued that it would effect "our ability to fight and defend the country," but it didn't seem to impinge on our ability to drive the communists out of South Korea two years later.

Thomas does have one good point: We should be able to decide which people are best fit to serve in the military. But homosexuality should not be such a disqualification. Especially when 58 Arabic linguists, along with 11,000 other service members, have been discharged since Don't Ask Don't Tell came into effect. Especially when some estimate that DADT's repeal could spur up to 41,000 to enlist.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is not only morally wrong, it's a strategic blunder. And an op-ed that relies on hypotheticals that fly in the face of facts and history should not prevent us from repealing it.

Oops! Ahmadinejad's Done It Again.

Iranian "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is back in headlines after the recent protests contesting the legitimacy of his victory in the June 2009 presidential elections. This time, Ahmadinejad is once again touting his denial of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly this Wednesday and Iran, the United States, and other major powers are scheduled to begin negotiations in part addressing Iran's nuclear program. The United Nations will also be determining soon whether or not to enact stricter sanctions against Iran.

As quoted in the Associated Press, "the president's message during his U.N. visit will be 'peace and friendship for all nations, fighting suppression and interaction with all nations in the framework of justice and mutual respect," said a spokesman for Ahmadinejad's office, Mohammad Jafar Mohammadzadeh, according to IRNA.'" A little ironic given the elements of the government that supported Ahmadinejad and the crackdowns on protestors as recently as this past Friday, September 18, 2009...

In the words of Maz Jobrani:

Silver Lining

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is estimating that CO₂ emissions will fall 2% in 2009, the largest drop in 40 years. The IEA attributes 75% of the decrease to the global recession.

This shows that the best way to reduce emissions is simply to reduce consumption. For instance, reducing the number of pregnancies is "five times as cost-effective as deploying low-carbon technologies." I'm not saying that we should enforce draconian limits on childbirth, but providing condoms and birth control to developing nations would reduce everything from environmental damage to the spread of AIDS to fighting over limited resources. (It's no coincidence that Rwanda has the highest population density in mainland Africa.)

And on that note, Happy Peace Day.

Bad Arguments and No Arguments

Ten days ago in the Michigan Daily, Chris Koslowski politicized the death of Ted Kennedy. But not in a way you might think:

Obama has said again and again that a major factor behind the failure of the current health care system is the execution of needless or futile medical procedures. Among these procedures, Obama specifically mentioned surgeries for terminally ill patients. During a primetime ABC broadcast from the White House this summer, he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”...

Obama, and everyone who is in favor of public health insurance, needs to ask themselves... Would Kennedy, if he were a private citizen of average income under Obama’s public plan, have been able to pursue these life-extending procedures, given his age and condition?

Koslowski makes the point of all opponents of reform: "Obamacare is bad." But that doesn't fully address the relevant point: whether health-care reform will be better than what we have now. The fact that Koslowski doesn't ask whether his hypothetical, average-income Ted Kennedy would have been covered under a current, private plan (Answer: Probably not) shows that he hasn't done this cost-benefit analysis.

The problem is Democrats and proponents of health-care reform have not been making this argument effectively. Yes, whatever plan that comes out of Congress probably won't cover everything. But it will be better than what we have now.

Putting America to Work

From the 127-96 junction near Lansing to I-94 around Battle Creek to some stretch of I-75 in Ohio, road signs are popping up announcing construction season. But one sign in particular stands out.

These signs are politically brilliant. Just as people are starting to wonder where the stimulus money went, these signs pop up saying, "You can thank Barack Obama for these (soon to be) smooth roads."

So Happy Labor Day everybody. Hopefully, we'll all be employed again soon.

Broken Promises

"Please note that because these funds are not yet available and funding is uncertain, you should make arrangements to cover the amount of your Michigan Promise Scholarship with other resources."

~University of Michigan Office of Financial Aid, in an email to students

On June 23, the Michigan State Senate, facing a $1.7-billion deficit, voted to axe the Michigan Promise Scholarship, which provides funds for over 96,000 students across the state, including (for the sake of transparency) me. (The scholarship may be reinstated before the state budget is due on October 1.)

I understand that the state has to either cut something or raise taxes, but I feel I have to respond to this guy:

These kids will just have to work their way through school like the earlier generations did. The days of the handouts are over.

Unfortunately, that's just not economically feasible. Upper-level engineering tuition at U-M is $15,926. How anyone could possibly be expected to pay for that plus rent, utilities, groceries, books, etc. without scholarships while taking on a full course load is beyond me. In my case, the $3300 that would have come from the Promise and the Michigan Competitive (also of uncertain future) is the difference between having expenses covered and taking a serious hit to my savings account. (The no-handouts crowd should note that I'm already assuming I'll work next summer and during the school year.)

Furthermore, financing college education makes good economic sense. College graduates are less likely to be unemployed, poor, or incarcerated, less likely to smoke, and more likely to volunteer, vote, and give blood. But because individuals don't consider the benefits to society when deciding whether to go to college, too few enroll. Government intervention in the college market makes sense, especially in Michigan, the Water Winter 15%-Unemployment Wonderland.

Yes, the state will have to do something unpleasant, but this unpleasantness hurts students now and will hurt Michigan in the future.

Afghan Women Update

Back in April, 300 women took to the streets of Kabul to protest a new law that would require Shiite women to have sex with their husbands and restrict their ability to get an education and even leave the house. The bill had passed Parliament and had been signed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but had not been published in the official gazette and was not yet law.

Now, the amended bill has been published. The amendments have hardly improved it. The bill, according to the BBC, "allows a man to withhold food from his wife if she refuses his sexual demands; a woman must get her husband's permission to work; and fathers and grandfathers are given exclusive custody of children." Karzai supported the bill likely in order to win votes from the Shiite community in the impending August 20 election.

The bill is sadly just one reminder of how far away decent treatment of Afghani women still is.

Even Smart People Can Be Stupid

So I was reading The Bent, a quarterly publication by Tau Beta Pi, like a good enginerd, and one of the letters made my blood boil. It was written by Pierre R. Latour, who worked on the Apollo Program, and was part of the back-and-forth on global warming that's been raging for nine issues. Let's go through some of it:

1. Earth's temperature is a property of a distributed, dynamic chemical process control system. A thermostat reduces variations about a desired set point by feedback manipulation of significant energy flows.

This letter was written by an engineer to an audience of engineers, and even though I'm an engineer, I don't know what he just said. Maybe it's because I'm the wrong type of engineer (civil, not chemical like Mr. Latour) or maybe it's because I'm still a lowly undergrad. Either way, this paragraph doesn't actually say anything, and merely serves to make Mr. Latour sound smart.

2. Earth's average atmospheric temperature is unmeasurable...

Okay, it's true that we couldn't take the temperature of every single point on Earth and calculate the exact average. But we could sample a bunch of points on Earth and get a good guess and a margin of error. If the sample average changes beyond the margin of error, then we can be confident that the actual average is changing. Apparently Mr. Latour never took a statistics class.

No professional control engineer would accept responsibility for engineering Earth's thermostat. His first duty is to do no harm...

First, I don't think anyone wants to engineer a global thermostat. A thermostat, as Mr. Latour was probably trying to say in his first, jargon-filled paragraph, responds to the current temperature. I want my apartment to be between 68^o and 78^o. If it's hotter than that, turn on the AC; colder, the heat. That's a thermostat. The response to global warming is closer to, "Hey, the heat's been on for a while. Let's turn it down before it's 90^o in here."

Second, you would think that "first do no harm" would be an argument to stop pumping CO₂ into the atmosphere. Under this guise, if you don't know what it will do, you shouldn't do it. The Earth seemed fine before we started pumping it out.

3. While Earth's temperature has been warming slowly for 25,000 years and drifted up 0.6^oC from 1975-98, (0.026^oC/year), [sic] it stopped increasing since 1998...

Hmm, the "unmeasurable" global average temperature increased 0.026^oC/year between 1975 and 1998? Interesting. And while the Earth's temperature does fluctuate naturally, there has been a sharp increase that started, incidentally, about the same time as the Industrial Revolution:

4. The melt rate of ice is proportional to atmospheric temperature, not the derivative of temperature [i.e. how fast the temperature is changing, for the calculus-deprived]. Ice melts because its surface is warm, not warming. A glacier shrinks because it is warm; [sic] even if it is cooling.

Wow. And if its surface keeps warming, it will be warm enough to melt.

5. The prime mover of Earth's energy balance and temperature is the sun. Atmospheric CO₂ lags ocean and atmospheric temperature because its solubility decreases with temperature, just like champagne bubbles do. So temperature changes cause CO₂ changes, not the other way around.

You know where else the sun acts as the prime mover of temperature? A greenhouse. But a greenhouse wouldn't be as warm without the glass. A greenhouse is, of course, in no way analogous to the effect to which it lends its name.

And temperature changes causing CO₂ changes doesn't automatically discount "the other way around." You would think a systems engineer would have heard of a feedback loop.

6. CO₂ is not a pollutant; it is green plant food. Its greenhouse-gas effect is irrelevant and benign. H₂O vapor effects are 1,000 times greater. The greenhouse-gas effect is essential for life...

Most of what Mr. Latour says here is true; he just fails to understand the concept "too much of a good thing." Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect are both essential for life. (Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about -17^oC.) Water is essential for Mr. Latour's life, but I doubt he wants me to pump 27 trillion kg of it into his house every year.

And it's true that the contribution of water vapor to global warming is higher than that of carbon dioxide, but the effect of adding more of it into the atmosphere is not as dramatic as that of CO₂. First, more water vapor means more clouds, which increase the Earth's albedo, reflecting sunlight back into space and reducing the amount of heat that reaches the earth in the first place. Second, increasing water vapor concentrations won't close the atmospheric window. (The greenhouse effect happens when molecules in the atmosphere absorb electromagnetic radiation, trapping it in Earth's atmosphere. But molecules absorb electromagnetic radiation only at particular wavelengths. Water, for instance, absorbs wavelengths around six microns, and practically none of that escapes the Earth's atmosphere. There is little in the atmosphere that absorbs in the 8-12 micron range. CO₂ does.)

8. By March 16, 2009, more than 700 international scientists have testified to the Senate's environment and public works committee,...debunking any claims of scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming (AGW)...

While it's true that belief in AGW is not universal among scientists, 84% of scientists "think that earth is getting warmer because of human activity."

No benefit-cost financial analysis...has been provided...

Really? What's this?

11. It has been clear since 2006 that AGW is a scheme to tax people with CO₂ caps...

Really? Global warming is an elaborate hoax to provide political cover for taxing businesses? Since when have politicians put this much work into anything?

Besides, if they wanted to tax business, there are better things on which to base the taxation, like revenues or profits. I'd hope that the Democrats aren't such Milquetoasts that they have to invent an elaborate hoax and convince millions of people of its veracity before they are comfortable enough to enact a simple tax.

After the end of his letter, it says that Mr. Latour graduated from college in 1962, which means he's around 70 now. If he's wrong, he won't be the one who has to live with the consequences.

One More Angle

With the recent commotion surrounding the bill for health care reform (and the fact that the bill is 1000+ pages), there has been a great deal of misunderstanding of the issue from all sides. Fortunately, Jonathan Cohn broke it down very accurately and comprehensibly on The Colbert Report last night. Check it out.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Jonathan Cohn
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Meryl Streep

"The Daily Show" Peeks Behind the Veil

While this post may be a little late as far as airtime, the issues are still apt. In June, "The Daily Show" sent correspondent Jason Jones to Iran to cover the Iranian presidential elections. Due to unanticipated events, the show (and Jones) got more than what they bargained for. The four links below are the four segments The Daily Show produced. Like other pieces the show has aired, the subject is covered in detail, depth, and serious unique to Stewart's brand of humor. And as usual, the perspective is unique and vastly more intelligent than any other programming. Enjoy.

Behind the Veil: Minarets of Menace (aired 17 June 2009)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Behind the Veil: Persians of Interest (aired 22 June 2009)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Persians of Interest
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Behind the Veil: Ayatollah You So (aired 23 June 2009)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Ayatollah You So
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Behind the Veil: The Kids are Allah Right (aired 24 June 2009)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - The Kids Are Allah Right
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

The video below is the music video for "Ye Mosht Sarbaz" by Hichkas. English subtitles are provided.

Below is an interview with Reza Aslan, scholar and author on Islam and Iran.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Reza Aslan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Coming Up ACES...Almost

On June 26, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act (aka Waxman-Markey) by a vote of 219 to 212. ACES has come under fire from both the right and the left. Some environmental groups, including Greenpeace, oppose the bill because it does not go far enough. (While they have a point, I support the bill because it appears to be the best we're going to get and could spur better legislation in the future.)

The right has meanwhile responded with, "AARGH!!! THIS BILL IS GOING TO KILL THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!!!! APPLE PIE WILL NEVER TASTE GOOD AGAIN!!!"

Well, they're wrong. But let's look at their claims and take them apart one by one:

This bill will cost American families exorbitant sums of money. The CBO estimates that the average American household will have to pay an extra $175 per year by 2020 in direct costs, or about 0.2% of post-tax income. The EPA estimates it will cost $1100 per year by 2050. Even if you claim that those numbers would be higher, it's important to remember that Americans will be making and spending more by then anyways. ($164,348 per year in 2050)

It's important to note that the costs borne by households vary because of progressive subsidies and varying usages. The poorest fifth would actually receive a net $40, while the richest 20% would pay $245 in 2020. Costs also vary by state in ways that might affect Senate votes:

This bill will make manufacturing in the United States more expensive. Companies will outsource. First of all, it doesn't seem like companies are too thrilled to employ Americans in manufacturing in the first place. It's easy to make this claim and then blame all future outsourcing on ACES, though they might have moved even if ACES had not been passed.

More importantly, the consequent goal should not be to avoid adopting stringent environmental regulations in the United States. It should be to make foreign countries adopt more stringent environmental regulations. This will ameliorate environmental problems and level the economic playing field. Obama has an opportunity to do just that at Copenhagen. China and India, presumably the countries that has the right-wingers most concerned, have an incentive to do so: they will be hit hard by global warming.

Global warming is expected to reduce global GDP by only 5% anyways. GDP should not be our main concern. Nate Silver shows how 81 countries, accounting for 2.8 billion people, could be wiped off the face of the earth and the global economy would only suffer a 5% hit. These countries mostly lie in sub-Saharan Africa or the tropics, incidentally the same places that would suffer the most from global warming.

This bill will increase prices, reducing consumption and thus production. Yeah, well, that's the point. Currently, we produce too much greenhouse gas pollution. We do this because the cost of emitting is external to the company doing the emitting. The company accrues all the benefits of producing thingamajigs but the cost of the resulting pollution is borne by everybody. By internalizing these costs, i.e. making the company bear these costs, a more economically efficient amount of pollution will be produced. Cap-and-trade is an ingenious, market-based solution to a classic market failure.

Now, the bill moves to the Senate, where I'm hoping it will be improved. But that's like hoping that a tornado will come along and clean my apartment.

The Specter Defection

On April 28, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties from Republican to Democratic. The Senator has been encouraged for years to defect by Harry Reid, Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. But the tipping point came after 161,000 Republicans registered as Democrats to vote in the Hillary-Obama primary in April 2008. Specter feared he lacked the moderate votes to win the upcoming GOP primary and promptly changed allegiances. Specter's calculations were derided by GOP chairman Michael Steele:

Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.

But it is telling that a sitting senator felt that he had to switch parties to win. Does it not show how out of favor the Republican Party is?

The switch, along with Al Franken's eventual seating, will give the Democrats a 60-seat supermajority, theoretically enough to override a filibuster. The last time the sitting president's party had enough Senate seats and enough cohesion to regularly achieve cloture was 1937.

Which raises the musical questions: Will Specter vote with the Democrats? Does the switch really matter? Specter, after all, has not changed his ideology; he has merely gone from a liberal Republican to a conservative Democrat.

It will change things, just not as dramatically as one might hope. Since 2007, 158 motions for cloture have been filed. Specter's defection undermines Republicans' (perceived?) ability to filibuster. For low-profile issues, the GOP might save face and not even try.

Also, Specter may face an opponent in the Democratic primary, Joe Sestak. The threat from Sestak may push Specter to the left to prove his Democratic bona fides. If he does not, he may well lose the Democratic primary, and irony will have the last laugh.

The Moderation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Some positive signs seem to have been coming from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the past month or so. First, on April 15, he announced that his administration was preparing a new proposal for talks with the West over Iran's nuclear program. Next, when Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi was sentenced to eight years in prison on trumped-up charges of espionage, Ahmadinejad urged on April 19 "that the accused...enjoy all freedoms and legal rights to defend themselves and their rights...not be violated." Saberi was released on May 11.

Granted, I don't think that the nuclear proposal was ever completed. And Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel at a UN racism conference caused diplomats from 23 countries to walk out on him. However, his comments seem tamer than normal: Israel is a "cruel and repressive racist regime" as opposed to Israel must be "wiped off the map." He's like a smoker who's gone from two packs a day to a few cigarettes a day; he's not quite there, but he's progressing.

So why are we now seeing the softer side of Ahmadinejad? A combination, I think, of Barack Obama's willingness to engage the Iranians and their upcoming elections. Obama is popular in Iran (so popular that Ahmadinejad is willing to steal Obama's slogan), and Obama's popularity is making it difficult to maintain the hard-line, "death to America" position. Ahmadinejad is adopting a more moderate tack in an attempt to dispel the "view...that [he] was right for Bush, but not right for Obama."

Even if Ahmadinejad is re-elected, it seems that the next president of Iran will be more moderate. This is how foreign relations should be done. And just think how much better off we'd be now if it was done sooner.

TORTURE! Part 2: What Should Be Done

So it's clear that the torture authorized by the OLC memos was immoral, illegal, and ineffective. But what should be done about it?

There should be at least an investigation into how this happened. There should be some consequences for the officials responsible for okaying torture. (I would be fine with not punishing the interrogators because their actions were based on what they thought was--and should have been--sound legal advice.) Disagree? Please allow me to refute your counterarguments.

Investigating and prosecuting torture would be looking backwards; we should be "focused on looking forward." Yes, President Obama has a lot he wants to do to improve our future: stabilizing Afghanistan and the economy, reforming health care, energy and education, and investigating and prosecuting torture. To fail to do so would establish a dangerous precedent, sending the message that the President and upper executive officials can flaunt the law and get away with it.

We should not prosecute a previous administration "for policy disagreements." That is what "banana republics" do. Agreed, we should not prosecute for mere policy disagreements. Anybody who says, "No Child Left Behind was a terrible idea. Off with Bush's head!" is as insane as the Queen of Hearts. But that is not what we're saying. We do not wish to establish a law ex post facto that makes what the Bush administration did illegal. What the Bush administration did was already illegal and should consequently be punished.

Democrats in Congress would be prosecuted too. Good. I don't care. This is not a partisan issue. Anyone who advanced the case for torture or consented to it should be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the law.

Accountability advocates have "an unworthy desire for vengeance." Maybe I do. Maybe it's even true of the 62% of Americans, every last one of them, who favor some sort of investigation. But motives are irrelevant here. The significant question is not "What are their motivations?" but "What's right?" And what's right is upholding the law.

Prosecuting is "too divisive." I'll let Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings answer this:

I think that upholding the rule of law is more important than avoiding divisiveness, and besides, since any prosecution of high administration officials is always divisive, this principle would seem to me to imply that no high official should ever be punished for breaking any law. I think this would be disastrous.

Moreover, not to prosecute would be illegal. The U.S. is required by "the UN Convention Against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it."

So I think I've established that at least some sort of investigation is necessary. The only question is what sort.

The right special prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald?) would be considered non-partisan and would "ensure genuine accountability," (h/t) but might not be able to expose the whole truth. (h/t) A Congressional investigation, such as the one currently being undertaken by the Senate Intelligence Committee under Dianne Feinstein, might work, but would probably be seen as too political by the right and too deferential to secrecy by the left. A bipartisan commission (like the 9/11 one) would practically guarantee "that there [would be] no major political repercussions."

For me, then, the best option would be the two-course meal: a bipartisan commission followed by a special prosecutor. Establishing the truth without the taint of bias is paramount. It would then be up to us to take the commission's findings and apply the political pressure needed to get a special prosecutor appointed.

But I sincerely doubt that this will come to pass. Simpler consequences, however, are more easily achieved. Jay Bybee now sits on the Ninth District Court and can be impeached. Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury could be disbarred. Their actions demonstrate either gross incompetence at best or a nearly complete disregard for the law and established legal precedent at worst. Either way, they are unfit to keep practicing law.

TORTURE! Part 1: What Was Done

On April 16, the Obama Administration released the memos authored by Bush's Office of Legal Counsel that provided the legal rationale for torture.

Though this comparison seems a little over the top, the 2002 memo from Jay Bybee authorized "attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box, and waterboarding."

Some in the CIA felt betrayed, "broken and bewildered" by the release of the memos. President Obama tried to allay these fears in his statement on the memos' release, saying:

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution...We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Not one, not two, but three scientists cited in the memos objected to their work's inclusion. The scientists researched the effects of sleep deprivation, and their conclusions were used to support using sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique. But those who participated in their studies were (a) not deprived of sleep for as long as prisoners were (40 vs. 180 hours), (b) were in perfect health, and (c) were not simultaneously subjected to anything else.

The Bybee memo predicted that walling and cramped confinement would not constitute "serious physical injury." Compare to the Red Cross report:

Abu Zubaida's [often romanized as 'Zubaydah'] attorneys said he "has suffered approximately 175 seizures that appear to be directly related to his extensive torture -- particularly damage to Petitioner's head that was the result of beatings sustained at the hands of CIA interrogators and exacerbated by his lengthy isolation."...

"The stress on my legs held in this position [crouched in a confined wooden box] meant my wounds both in my leg and stomach became very painful," he told the ICRC.

The "learned helplessness" that psychologist James E. Mitchell believed was integral to a successful interrogation (even though he had never personally conducted one) leads to depression. ("You put an animal, human or non-human, in a situation in which bad things happen that it can neither escape nor control, and eventually it just gives up.") Furthermore:

Most of the released detainees, to this day, live with severe anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, including intrusive recollections of trauma suffered in detention, hyperarousal (persistent symptoms of increased arousal, e.g., difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger, and hypervigilance), avoidance and emotional numbing behavior. PHR’s clinicians determined that these symptoms were directly related to the torture and ill-treatment reported having taken place while in US custody.

Sounds like "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and "prolonged mental harm" (which constitute torture under US law) to me. So it's illegal, but was it, at least, effective?

Dick Cheney thinks so, and, bastion of openness that he is, thinks we should declassify "the memos that showed the success of the effort" so we could have an "honest debate."

However, it seems clear from items already in the public domain that torture techniques are ineffective and unnecessary. These techniques had, after all, solicited false statements when they were used on Americans in the Korean War.

A footnote in the 2005 Bradbury memo notes that:

The CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have information. . . . On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques.

Those who believe that information was acquired from torturing Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and used to foil a plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles are completely wrong. The plot was foiled a full year before Sheikh Mohammed was even captured. (h/t)

And a former FBI agent (h/t) who interrogated Abu Zubaydah argues that:

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions.

But effectiveness is ultimately irrelevant:

If “effectiveness” is all we care about, any form of torture would necessarily be ok. One could, for instance, drag in a detainee’s child and begin torturing him or her in front of the detainee. I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line there. If they didn’t, that tells you pretty much all you need to know.

But if they do concede that certain methods go too far (i.e., that such things are relevant), then they’re stuck having to argue that the methods we used simply
aren’t that bad. In other words, if they concede a line exists, then they’re forced to argue that these methods don’t cross it.

Sundry items of note:

• The memos were only lightly redacted, in contrast with documents released by the Bush administration, which were so heavily redacted that the Onion joked that the CIA had been accidentally using black highlighters.
• Glenn Greenwald: "Finally, it should be emphasized -- yet again -- that it was not our Congress, nor our media, nor our courts that compelled disclosure of these memos. Instead, it was the ACLU's tenacious efforts over several years which single-handedly pried these memos from the clutched hands of the government." (h/t)
• Andrew Sullivan: "If you want to know how democracies die, read these memos." (h/t)

The Provocations of North Korea

On April 5, in a special birthday message to Mrs. Wolverine, North Korea launched a missile. The first stage of the rocket fell into the Sea of Japan; the rest flew over Honshu, Japan's main island, and crashed into the Pacific Ocean.

Japan, South Korea and the U.S. say the launch violates UN Security Council resolutions banning any ballistic missile activity from the North. China and Russia have urged caution and restraint.

The North Koreans claim that the rocket launched a satellite into orbit, which is now broadcasting patriotic songs from outer space. North Korea says they, like all other countries, have a right to use outer space for peaceful purposes, having joined the Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space in March. The only problem? They have not registered the satellite, a tacit admission that the launch failed.

So what to make of this?

While conservatives have fulminated--John Bolton: "The missile launch is an unambiguous win for North Korea"; Newt Gingrich "would have disabled the long-range missile before North Korea was able to launch it"--the truth is that North Korea has a long way to go before they have a viable nuclear ICBM. They must develop (1) a stronger missile or a miniaturized warhead and (2) a re-entry system. Plus, the North Koreans tend to respond to a failure by restarting from scratch. (h/t)

In response to the Security Council's eventual condemnation of the launch, North Korea vowed to restart its nuclear program, eject IAEA inspectors, and boycott six-party talks. North Korea later said they would start a uranium enrichment program, in addition to their previous plutonium program.

So why the launch and the subsequent "diplomatic hissy fit"? Perhaps to gain leverage in international talks. Having long-range missile technology and a nuclear program (even if they are, shall we say, limited), the North Koreans enter negotiations in a position of strength, and the international community would have to grant more concessions to make them give up these things.

Another theory says that North Korea is acting for domestic reasons. After having a stroke in August, Kim Jong-Il is demonstrating North Korea's nuclear and missile technology to solidify his leadership and to secure a stable transfer of power to one of his sons.

Finally, what should be done? Probably work through China at first, leading to six-party talks then bilateral negotiations with the United States.

Ten Steps Backward for Afghan Women

Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a law in February, curtailing the freedoms of Shiite women. Karzai supported the law to gain Shiite support in the upcoming presidential election. What would the law do?

• “Unless the wife is ill, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband.”
• Wives are obliged to have sex with their husbands at least once every four days.
• Women can only leave the house if they have "a legitimate purpose."
• Wives cannot work or get an education without their husband's permission.

The law triggered a firestorm of criticism, both international and Afghani. In response, Karzai ordered a review of the proposition to verify that it does not violate Afghanistan's constitutional protections. Even if though it had been passed by Parliament and signed by Karzai, the act does not become law until it is published in the official gazette.

However, Karzai also defended the measure, saying it had been "mistranslated" by the Western media.

The law only applies to Afghanistan's Shiites, who make up between a tenth and a fifth of the population. But women's rights groups are worried that it could influence pending legislation concerning Sunni families and violence against women.

About 300 women took to the streets of Kabul on April 15 to protest the law. They were taunted as "enemies of Islam" and, oddly, "whores." Some women professed their support for the law. Other women were members of the police force separating the two groups.

I would like to see more of them.

Israel Update

[Programming note: There are a fair few topics that I have wanted to cover but have been unable to. Hopefully, as the semester winds down, I'll be able to get to them. So if it seems slightly anachronistic that I'm talking about Israel, it's because it's the oldest project.]

Last time we talked about Israel, they were bombing Gaza. A lot has happened since then.

Details of the War Come Out

"If you want to know whether I think that in doing so we killed innocents, the answer is, unequivocally, yes." ~Tzvika Fogel, a brigadier-general in the Israeli reserves

Testimonies from Israeli soldiers were published in Ha'aretz in March. The soldiers were given the impression that Palestinian lives were "very, very, less important than the lives of our soldiers." A commander told them "to write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls...just because you can." Then, there's this story:

There was a house with a family inside ... We put them in a room ... a few days after there was an order to release [them]. There was a sniper position on the roof. The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn't understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go and it was OK, and he should hold his fire and he ... he did what he was supposed to, like he was following his orders.

The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him, closer than the lines he was told no one should pass. He shot them ... In any case, what happened is that in the end he killed them.

International Responses

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International condemned Israel's use of white phosphorus (pictured above) in densely populated areas. White phosphorus is often used as a smokescreen, but can also be used as an incendiary. It is particularly lethal because, in addition to being burned, the body absorbs the phosphorus, leading to organ failure.

Based on these accounts (and another where a Palestinian boy was used as a human shield), the United Nations concluded that Israel committed war crimes and violated human rights. The Israelis accused the UN Human Rights Council of bias.

The Human Rights Council recently named Judge Richard Goldstone to head an investigation into the conflict. Judge Goldstone is of Jewish descent and was an important architect of post-apartheid South Africa. According to an anonymous government official, Israel will not cooperate with the inquiry.

Parliamentary Elections

Elections for the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, were held on February 10. The elections were contentious. Both Tzipi Livni, of the centrist Kadima Party, and Benjamin Netanyahu, of the more conservative Likud Party, claimed victory on election night. It was not known which party won more seats until February 12. Kadima led by one:

However, the 28 seats won by Kadima was well short of the 61 needed for an outright parliamentary majority. A coalition was needed, and both Livni and Netanyahu could make arguments for the premiership. Livni's Kadima had won a plurality, but conservative parties won 65 seats, and Netanyahu was well-placed to form a coalition.

The ultra-right Yisrael Beiteinu placed third, and its head, Avigdor Lieberman, was proclaimed the kingmaker. Lieberman, however, is a controversial figure. He advocates a loyalty test for Arab Israelis and maintains that "the peace process is based on...false...assumptions." But achieving the premiership without his support would be either difficult or impossible.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Ehud Barak led the fourth-place, left-wing Labor Party into the Netanyahu coalition. Said Joe Klein, "The decision removes the last wisps of credibility that the Labor Party--the party of Ben Gurion, Dayan, Meir and Rabin--had in Israeli politics." Barak became defense minister; Lieberman, foreign minister.

Odds & Ends

Joe Klein says Netanyahu "is mostly blowing smoke" in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg on Iran.

Lieberman is being investigated for "bribery, money laundering and breach of trust," upholding a longstanding tradition among Israeli politicians. After all, accusations of corruption led former PM Ehud Olmert to step down last September, which led Livni to take the reins of Kadima and the former coalition to fall apart, requiring the election in February.

Op-Ed: R E S P E C T

Is anybody else sick of Michelle Obama being judged day to day on her appearance, fashion, arms, and nothing more? What about the fact that she is an extremely intelligent, capable, successful, driven woman who has a lot more to contribute to the world aside from being somebody's wife? It's disgusting that already society has tried to define and contain her sphere of influence to the realm of women's fashion, as if to say that a woman cannot be beautiful, a mother, or an intellectual all at the same time. This is ridiculous. She's the First Lady, and the first black First Lady. Get over it and let her define herself and what she wants her role and influence to be.

Upon winning his Oscar for best leading actor in 1964 (the first black American to do so for a leading role), Sidney Poitier had this to say when confronted with all the media hype about what this win in particular meant to him: "I am artist, man, American, contemporary. I am an awful lot of things, so I wish you would pay me the respect due."

So please, America, pay Michelle Obama the respect she's due, too.

~J-Mad


*Not that by acknowledging a blog post as an op-ed piece is too different than what the blog format is all about in the first place, but I just thought I'd make it clear exactly what's going on here. This post is a little different than most other, headline-driven blog posts but I hope you enjoyed it nonetheless.

African Unrest

In Madagascar, Andry Rajoelina was officially sworn in today as the nation's new president after deposing Marc Ravalomanana. The turmoil began in November, when the Ravalomanana government and Daewoo inked a deal to cultivate crops on 2.5 million acres (an area roughly equal to Rhode Island and Delaware combined) of the island. Madagascans felt betrayed by Ravalomanana's apparent selling-out.

In January, a TV station owned by Rajoelina broadcast an interview with Ravalomanana's foe, former President Didier Ratsiraka, and was shut down by the Ravalomanana government. Rajoelina supporters marched on, looted, and set fire to the state broadcaster in retaliation. Rajoelina was then fired from his post as mayor of Antananarivo, the nation's capital.

The opposition was losing momentum until February 7, when 28 Rajoelina supporters were killed. Defense Minister Cecile Manorohanta resigned in protest. Ravalomanana resigned on March 17, transferring power to a military triumvirate, who in turn handed over power to Rajoelina.

In response to the coup, Madagascar's membership in the African Union has been suspended and the U.S. has cut foreign aid. The responses seem a little rash. The Ravalomanana government cracked down on free speech and killed opposition members; that does not seem like an entirely legitimate government to me. And Rajoelina has promised to write a new constitution and hold elections within two years. A little longer than I would like, but this hardly seems like a power grab. I may be proven wrong in time, but I do not yet have a reason to distrust Rajoelina.

But along the South Africa-Zimbabwe border, South African authorities have shut down the Musina refugee camp. Zimbabweans fled to South Africa to seek refuge from economic and political turmoil and a cholera epidemic. And now the South African government has shut down the camp, dispersing 4,000 refugees.

A South African spokeswoman, Siobhan McCarthy defended the move, saying:

The showground is simply not designed for people to live. There is no water, there is no ablution facilities, there's nothing there, so people cannot live there. It has already become very unhygienic.

Why doesn't the South African government just provide the needed supplies? Mostly xenophobia:

With thousands of Zimbabweans homeless and roaming the streets of the city, human rights activists and opposition political parties in South Africa have raised fears of a fresh outbreak of xenophobic violence.

Business people in the city have complained to the government, saying the presence of Zimbabweans on the streets was affecting their business.

HIV/AIDS at Home and Abroad

Two important articles regarding HIV/AIDS crisis, both domestically in the USA and regarding the Pope, were published today. In light of Wolverine's prior post discussing the myriad of problems that the Obama administration is attempting to address, I found these articles extremely relevant for your review.

First, the BBC announced today that Washington, D.C. is suffering from an HIV/AIDS epidemic on par with the infection rates in some African nations. The article reports that HIV is defined as a generalized and severe epidemic when the overall infection rates among residents of a specific geographic area exceed 1%. Washington, D.C. clocks in at 3% (although the real figure may be higher), putting the United States AIDS epidemic in just DC at the same level as Uganda's. The article also states that the hardest-hit segments of the population are black men and people aged between 40 and 49. Additionally, the primary means of transmission is men having sex with men, followed by heterosexual sex, and infection through drug use. For the full article, please click here.

In my opinion, this is a shame for the United States. With so much knowledge about how to prevent HIV, ways to make programs effective, and the availability of condoms and medicines to treat HIV/AIDS in the United States, one would think that the representatives in the country's capital would take far better care of the residents. The unfortunate truth is that the residents of Washington, D.C. tend to be ignored despite all the politicians and representation within the city. The United States has been a leader in the development of treatments for HIV/AIDS and as such, should be a leader in prevention as well. The entire country needs to do a far better job encouraging people to get tested and be proactive in their health. For more on HIV/AIDS prevention, see one of my previous articles: "HIV Myths Sentence Man to 35 Years."

The second article that is also the subject of the most recent "What do YOU think" poll, regards Pope Benedict XVI's trip to Africa and the statements he made regarding condoms and HIV/AIDS.

"You can't resolve it [HIV/AIDS crisis] with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane heading to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

The pope said a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease, as he answered questions submitted in advance by reporters traveling on the plane. His response was presumably also prepared in advance.

The Catholic Church rejects the use of condoms as part of its overall teaching against artificial contraception. Senior Vatican officials have advocated fidelity in marriage and abstinence from premarital sex as key weapons in the fight against AIDS.

While abstinence is the only certain way to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV, latex condoms when properly and consistently used have been found to have a 98 to 100% rate of effectiveness. Additionally, abstinence-only education programs have been found to fail where sexual intercourse was the primary means of HIV transmission. Furthermore, male circumcision has been found to be up to 60% effective in preventing HIV transmission in the aforementioned circumstances. While it is never a good idea to pursue only one policy avenue, it is a critical mistake to discount the effectiveness of condoms and the necessity of safe sexual practices.

As Rebecca Hodes, head of policy, communication, and research for the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, so aptly stated, "if the pope is serious about preventing HIV infections, he should focus on promoting wide access to condoms and spreading information on how to use them. Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to hiim than the lives of Africans."

For the full article about the Pope, please click here.

Please voice your thoughts, questions, or concerns in the comments area or in the poll on the right of the screen (link provided above).

Politics: You're Doing It Wrong

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't understand either politically or intellectually why prominent politicians and intellectuals are saying and behaving as they are. First,

President Obama

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Optimist Prime

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Let me explain. I think what Obama said he would do is both good and extremely important. But trying to achieve everything he said he would--fix the economy, improve health care, ameliorate the education system, slow climate change, stabilize Afghanistan, and so on--is incredibly ambitious. And promising accomplishments in all of these fields is politically dangerous. Despite the difficulties, a failure (and I will be pleasantly surprised if he succeeds on all fronts) could be held against him and could cause his being voted out of office in 2012.

Obama must walk a fine line between hope and realism, and it just seems that his non-State of the Union address fell too far away from the realistic side.

Republicans

Lately, Republicans' and conservatives' statements have seemed incredibly vacuous. Take, for example, this editorial by Charles Krauthammer about Obama's non-SOTU. You would think, it being an opinion piece, that Krauthammer would explain what he thinks and why he thinks it. Not so. He merely describes Obama's plans in a negative fashion:

Conservatives take a dim view of the regulation-bound, economically sclerotic, socially stagnant, nanny state that is the European Union. Nonetheless, Obama is ascendant and has the personal mandate to take the country where he wishes. He has laid out boldly the Brussels-bound path he wants to take.

Let the debate begin.

"Let the debate begin." That's funny. One would think that Krauthammer would want to take part in that debate, but evidently not. 'Because it makes us look like Belgium' is not a good reason to oppose universal health care, limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, and providing college educations.

And claims that Obama is a socialist because he's raising taxes to Clinton-era levels are ridiculous. Ditto on claims of class warfare. No, what we've had, where "each family in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000 check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners," was class warfare.

The sad thing is that there are legitimate arguments to be made. But Republicans seem to be unable to make them. You cannot say that we should not do everything Obama wants because you're concerned about the national debt: you presided over its near doubling over the past five years. And you need to provide an alternative plan. Besides tax cuts. Because they obviously have not worked.

Lewis Black used to joke that the Republican Party was the party of bad ideas and the Democrats were the party of no ideas. For now, at least, the tables seem to have turned.