Dear Congressman Walberg

As your constituent, I am profoundly disappointed in your decision to sign on to a legal brief supporting Texas’s lawsuit against Michigan and other states. While there were admittedly inconsistencies in how the election was conducted in Michigan, it is clear from the evidence that these inconsistencies were:

• The result of human error and not a conspiracy to steal the election or defraud the public;
• In many cases corrected over the course of tallying the results, indicating the electoral process was functioning as intended; and
• Insignificant relative to the number of votes cast and the margin of victory in Michigan.

These inconsistencies merit investigation and practical solutions, potentially including national guidelines and federal funding, to ensure elections are conducted securely and results are tallied accurately and efficiently in the future. These inconsistencies do not merit, as Texas sought, the extraordinary step of throwing out our votes and having the State Legislature select Michigan’s electors instead. This suit, and your support of it, not only undermines Joe Biden’s legitimacy as the rightful president-elect but also the public’s faith in our democracy and the electoral process. I expect real leadership from you on this issue in the future instead of acquiescing to the irrational demands of soon-to-be former President Donald Trump and his supporters.

President, War Criminal

In an opinion piece published Tuesday, Joe Scarborough writes:

I suspect [history will be unkind] to those “progressives” horrified by George W. Bush’s anti-terror campaign but mute to the terror of the Obama administration’s savage drone wars. These sensitive souls, so repulsed by the waterboarding of three terrorists ten years ago, now celebrate their administration’s version of a war on terror that swapped out the targeted capture of terrorists with a drone program that all too often kills children, women, grandparents and scores of innocent young men.

Fair point. Barack Obama's record on civil liberties and executive privilege in the so-called war on terror is as bad as Bush's was. He has expanded the use of drones, which, yes, often kills innocent people and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorist groups, and has "embraced" a policy where all "military-age males" in a strike zone are presumed combatants, effectively rendering them guilty until proven innocent. He oversaw the passage of a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that includes, in the words of the ACLU, "an extraordinary expansion and statutory bolstering of authority for the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world." He even sidestepped the War Powers Act, the most symbolic and perhaps the most unequivocal restraint on executive power, during NATO's intervention in Libya.

Granted, not all liberals have been quiet about Obama's use of drones or other worrisome aspects of his civil rights record. (Glenn Greenwald immediately comes to mind.) But we on the left have far too often been quiet, when loud political pressure is needed if we ever want these policies to change.

So mea culpa, Joe, you are absolutely correct. Until you write:

The release of the movie "Zero Dark Thirty" will surely lay waste to at least one of the left wing's lies: that the CIA's enhanced interrogation did nothing to gain actionable intelligence. “Zero” is generating angst amongst movie reviewers and essayists who were swept away by the film but left conflicted and uncomfortable specifically because this first draft of history accurately shows how the CIA's program played a major role in finding and killing Osama bin Laden.

So let me get this straight. Shame on liberals for being silent on Obama's unacceptable use of drones while loudly decrying Bush's apparently acceptable use of torture? I suppose you could make the moral case that drones are worse. But you cannot claim that torture is acceptable. You can't even claim that torture was effective in gathering intelligence (unless you want to believe a Hollywood movie over a report approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee).

Doing so makes you guilty of the same intellectual dishonesty you just accused us of.

Until the Lion Learns to Speak (and Listen)

 

Until the lion learns to speak

The tales of hunting will be weak…

K’Naan, a Somali rapper now living in the United States (with a pretty amazing background), recently published a beautifully written piece in the New York Times about the kind of self-censorship in which  artists in the American music industry must engage in order to maintain success on the charts.  From his op-ed: 

I could reach more people, it told me.  Was it right to spit in the face of fortune, to not walk in rhythm with my new audience?  Didn't all good medicine need a little sugar before it could be swallowed?

So I began to say yes...some songs became far more Top 40 friendly, but infinitely cheaper.

K'Naan's article calls to attention a crucial problem in American [popular] culture today - the self-indulgence and the need to be sheltered and isolated from the less than stellar realities that many people around the world, and even within the United States, face on a daily basis.  Lupe Fiasco, an American rapper, writes frequently about social issues within the United States and has also critiqued the music industry and popular culture's will to "dumb it down" (Different is never good, good is only what we pick/You ain't got a hit unless it sounds like these did...).

Music indeed serves many purposes.  Music is a form of expression and entertainment that conveys a message through the lyrics, tone, rhythm, melody, harmony, breaks, and a variety of other aural rhetorical tools.  Sometimes, music can provide the listeners with a temporary escape from reality - the glamorous lifestyle of constant partying and financial success that many pop stars write about is an understandably appealing subject matter for listeners today living in a world struggling to emerge from a global economic crisis leaving many with economic troubles of their own.

However, the problem is that constant escape through these types of messages results in a willful blindness to and ignorance of crises in the real world.  A flat-out refusal by record labels to promote and radios to play songs that actually attempt to address these issues serves as a cultural tool of collectively devaluing the lives of those human beings caught in rough situations where music can actually have the power to make a positive difference.  And there is something seriously perverse about mass acquiescence to the willful devaluation of another human being's life.

This is not to say that music has to be serious and contain socially critical messages all the time.  As previously stated, music serves many purposes, but it is important to remember that music always contains a social message.  The question now is, what are the messages that we as a society collectively value?

Do we choose to turn a deaf ear to reality and remain immersed in 3 minute - 40 second escapes?  Or can we decide that other messages are important too, that the suffering experienced by others is real and their voices are worth our brief attention?  By constantly dumbing down the messages to which we are open to receiving, we dumb down our own humanity.

Here is a story about fame.  I heard it first as a fable in Somalia, before living it out in America.

The fox, they say, once had an elegant walk, for which the other animals loved him.  One day, he saw a prophet striding along and decided to improve on what was already beautiful.  He set out walking but could not match the prophet's gait.  Worse, he forgot his own.  So he was left with the unremarkable way the fox walks today...

So I am not the easiest sell to Top 40 radio.  What I am is a fox who wanted to walk like a prophet and now is trying to rediscover his own stride.

I may never find my old walk again, but I hope someday to see beauty in the graceless limp back toward it. 

So beware what's on the airwaves

And be more aware of what's not getting airplay...

Who's Responsible for the Debt?

"If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in the previous five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, the Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the wasteful budgets."

--One of those e-mails your Catholic grandfather forwards to you

Is any political trope more overused than the portrayal of Republicans as responsible fiscal conservatives and Democrats as "tax-and-spend" liberals? Well, let's look at how the deficit has changed over time and check whether this claim stands up. (Data taken from the FY2013 budget issued by the OMB.)

(Terminology note: The deficit is the discrepancy between the receipts or revenue the government takes in and the outlays or expenses the government sends out over the course of the (fiscal) year. This is not to be confused with the debt, which is the total amount owed by the government, i.e. the sum of all the deficits less any mythical surpluses over the entire history of the Union.)

Now we can see that the first claim is actually true. The FY2007 budget deficit was in fact the lowest in five years and the fourth-straight decline. It leaves out the fact that in FY2004--the year from which it was declining--Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. It also fails to mention that the CBO projected that $5.6 trillion would be removed from the national debt from 2002 to 2011, but instead $6.1 trillion was added to the debt due to the economic downturn & associated stimulus spending, the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other reasons:

Looking at the first chart, we see that deficits more or less increase during the Reagan and Bush administrations and decrease during the Clinton administration to the point of running surpluses. During W. Bush, deficits again increase, peaking in FY2004 before coming down than coming up again for FY 2008 and 2009. Deficits have remained high during the Obama years. (I've started with FY1980 because, with few exceptions, previous deficits cannot be seen on this scale.)

But before we give Clinton too much credit, remember it's Congress that actually passes the budget, so let's see how the deficit changes with the political composition of Congress. We'll add the percentage of Republicans in both the House and the Senate to the chart. (Since Congress should pass the budget for the following fiscal year, the line graphs are offset by a year, e.g. the first points show the budget deficit for FY1980, but the percentage of Republicans in Congress in 1979.)

There does seem to be a trend during the W. Bush years, where more Republicans coincided with reduced deficits. But no such correlation holds over the entire 1980-2011 timeline. We can see this more easily by graphing the deficit against percentage of Republicans directly:

Now we know that having more Republicans doesn't lead (or even tend to lead) to reduced deficits. But maybe you're saying, "But just like it takes a long time to change the course of a large ship, it will take time for Republicans to reduce the deficit. The deficits for which a Republican Congress is supposedly responsible may be caused by policies enacted by Democrats in the previous Congress." Well, that may be so, but if Republicans were serious fiscal conservatives, then they would at least be reducing the deficit even if they can't generate instant surpluses. So instead of graphing the deficit, let's graph the change in the deficit (the first derivative in calculus terms). If anything, that is even more poorly correlated to the number of Republicans:

So what can we conclude? Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the size of the national debt. If you're serious about reducing the debt, you shouldn't vote Republican, you should work to repeal the 22nd Amendment and elect Clinton/Gore in 2016.

Arab Spring Update: Yemen

On December 17, 2010, a street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest. Four weeks later, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was gone. Protests spread to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Some successfully ousted their autocratic leaders, some were brutally repressed, and others are ongoing. In almost all cases, the final outcome is still up in the air. More than one year on, how have the countries of the Arab Spring fared?

Read Part 1 on Tunisia & Egypt and Part 2 on Libya & Bahrain.

Yemen

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↓ 3

Protests began in late January 2011--after Ben Ali left Tunisia--as the Yemeni Parliament considered relaxing presidential term limits. Protesters feared this would have allowed President Ali Abdullah Saleh to remain in power or hand over the reins to his son Ahmed.

The situation started to turn violent as protesters and Saleh supporters clashed on February 17. At least five were killed. 45 were killed by security forces and Saleh supporters as 100,000 marched through the streets of the capital Sana'a on March 18.

Meanwhile, the Gulf Cooperation Council attempted to broker a deal between opposition leaders and Saleh. Saleh waffled between supporting the process and vowing not to sign the deal. In late May, a breakdown in the GCC process triggered battles between Saleh loyalists and fighters under Sadiq al-Ahmar, the head of the Hashid tribe (to which Saleh belongs) who sympathized with the protesters. A cease-fire was agreed upon five days later.

The truce was short-lived. Four days later, fresh clashes erupted between Ahmar supporters and regime forces and loyalists. Simultaneously, the regime attempted to clear protesters from the city of Taiz, the heart of the protests, killing 50. And clashes erupted between security forces and al-Qaeda militants in the southern city of Zinjibar.

On June 3, a rocket attack on the presidential compound injured Saleh. Official statements initially downplayed his injuries, but two days later, Saleh was in Saudi Arabia for medical treatment. Saleh's departure brought on celebrations and a drawdown in the fighting.

Attacks on protesters re-started on September 18. Over the next six days, at least 100 people were killed. On the 23rd, Saleh returned to Yemen.

In November, Saleh accepted the GCC deal. In exchange for stepping down, Saleh was to be granted immunity for any crimes committed as president. Yemen's Parliament officially granted Saleh--and his underlings--immunity in January. The deal has been criticized by human rights groups and Yemeni protesters. Saleh's vice president Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi was elected president in February with Saleh formally ceding power on February 27. Under the GCC deal, Hadi's government has two years to rewrite Yemen's constitution with fresh elections scheduled for 2014.

Though Saleh is officially out of power, Yemen's future is still uncertain. Separatists and extremists took advantage of the instability to consolidate their holds over parts of the countries. Houthis--Shiites in the predominantly Sunni Yemen--control the northwest. Southern separatists, wishing to undo the 1990 unification of North and South Yemen, control no territory but are capable of staging attacks against the government. They were responsible for attacks on polling stations during the February elections.

Most worrisome is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and their affiliate Ansar al-Sharia. They are widespread in the south and east. U.S. drone attacks have increased; at least 35 have likely taken place over the last year. Most famously, AQAP propagandist (and U.S. citizen) Anwar al-Awlaki was killed on September 30. Fighting between Yemeni forces and al-Qaeda militants is ongoing; today 6 Yemeni soldiers and 27 militants were killed.

More than any other Arab Spring country, Yemen sits on a knife's edge. On one side lies continuing strife between the various tribes and factions. On the other side, if southern and Shiite separatists can be co-opted by the new government, if AQAP can be defeated ideologically (i.e. not just militarily), if protesters continue to fight peacefully for their rights, then maybe, just maybe, Saleh's ouster can lead to a more democratic Yemen.

Arab Spring Update: Part 2

On December 17, 2010, a street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest. Four weeks later, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was gone. Protests spread to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Some successfully ousted their autocratic leaders, some were brutally repressed, and others are ongoing. In almost all cases, the final outcome is still up in the air. More than one year on, how have the countries of the Arab Spring fared?

Read Part 1 on Tunisia and Egypt here.

Libya

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↑ 33

With the help of NATO air support, Libyan rebels were able to overthrow Gaddafi's regime, taking Tripoli in August. After Gaddafi was killed in October, the National Transitional Council (NTC) declared Libya officially liberated.

The NTC is currently setting up elections for the National Assembly to be held in June. (The NTC has set up a government that will run the country in the interim.) The National Assembly is charged with writing a new constitution. Under the most recent election law, two-fifths of the seats will be filled by political parties with the remainder filled by independents. The final law dropped a 10% quota for women and reversed the decision to allow only independents to run. Electoral districts will be set up in the next few weeks.

The revolution has also unfortunately created a host of problems for the NTC and the region. Protesters in Benghazi have decried both the slow rate of progress and the inclusion of people like the NTC's vice president Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, who participated in the Gaddafi regime. (Ghoga has since resigned.) There have been clashes between the various rebel militias, between the rebel militias and the NTC army, and between Gaddafi loyalists and the NTC. Gaddafi loyalists even temporarily retook the town of Bani Walid two weeks ago. Proliferation of weapons, including portable, anti-aircraft weapons known as MANPADs, is a concern. And the influx of Tuareg rebels, fresh from fighting for Gaddafi, are causing problems in nearby Mali.

The lack of security and cohesion is disconcerting, but Libya is on the path of democratization. And according to Reuters, a recent poll says 80% of Libyans say their country is on the right track and 76% want a democratically elected government. Hopefully, the militias will view the National Assembly elected in June as legitimate and lay down their arms. But that will take both luck and pressure.

Bahrain

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↓ 22

The Arab Spring came to the tiny island nation of Bahrain on February 14. On that day, protesters clashed with police, leaving over 20 injured and one dead. The opposition al-Wefaq party quit Parliament. Suppression continued until troops left the Pearl Roundabout (shown above), which had become the focal point of the rebellion.

Though Bahrain is predominantly Shia, the royal family is Sunni. And while protests drew both Sunnis and Shiites at first, the government fostered a "sectarian divide" in the words of a prominent Shiite sheik.

At the request of the Bahraini government, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sent troops into the country on March 14 to restore order. Two days later, the protests were quashed and a curfew was established. There were reports of troops surrounding a hospital, preventing doctors and nurses from leaving and the wounded from entering. Opposition leaders were arrested. The government even tore down the iconic Pearl Monument.

Since then, the Bahraini government offered half-hearted calls to dialogue, as smaller demonstrations continued in Shia neighborhoods outside of the capital of Manama.

The United States, while rightfully condemning the violence, has not called for regime change as it has in other Arab Spring nations. Bahrain is perceived to be a strong ally in the West's struggles with Iran, and Manama houses the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet. In the case of Bahrain, the U.S. has allowed its strong, short-term interests dictate its foreign policy.

Now, protesters are preparing to go back to the streets to mark the one-year anniversary of the uprising. They are amassing in an area outside of Manama set aside for opposition rallies dubbed "Freedom Square" to convey the same spirit of the Pearl Roundabout. In anticipation, the government has again called for a dialogue. In any case, the protests that perhaps seemed quashed a few months ago are far from over.

Read Part Three on Yemen.

Arab Spring Update: Part 1

On December 17, 2010, a street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest. Four weeks later, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was gone. Protests spread to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Some successfully ousted their autocratic leaders, some were brutally repressed, and others are ongoing. In almost all cases, the final outcome is still up in the air. More than one year on, how have the countries of the Arab Spring fared?

Tunisia

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↑ 53

On October 23, 90% of registered Tunisian voters elected members of the Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting a constitution and forming an interim government. The moderate, Islamic Ennahda ("Renaissance") Party won a plurality (89 out of 217) of seats and formed a coalition with the center-left Congress for the Republic (CPR) and Ettakatol Parties. On December 10, the Assembly adopted a provisional "mini-constitution" that establishes the framework for the interim government until a permanent constitution is adopted. Ennahda's Hamadi Jebali was chosen as the interim government's prime minister. Jebali appointed a new government and took office on December 24.

Though Ennahda is an Islamic party, there is little worry of it turning Tunisia into a fundamentalist state and rightly so. Ennahda's representatives have advocated a government based on the "Turkish model," i.e. a secular republic with a combination of Islamic and secular parties. Its platform called for gender pay equality. And it will be counterbalanced by liberal, secular parties both in its coalition and opposition.

The real issue is that the government is not moving fast enough to combat the economic issues that triggered the revolution in the first place. (Though Tunisians are highly educated, Tunisia's per-capita GDP is only $9,557.) According to activist Lina Ben Mhenni, the

people, now in power, have ignored the real problems of Tunisian citizens—the problems that drove people to the streets last year. Instead of addressing them, as they promised in their campaigns, they are trying to divert our attention to those issues of religion and identity. And, unable to keep their promises, they have started to use violence against the people who continue to demonstrate. In recent weeks, at least five people have set themselves on fire.

Protesters gathered in Tahrir Square four days ago with some commemorating the anniversary of the revolution and others calling for a renewal in revolutionary zeal.

Egypt

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↑ 23

The Arab Spring came to Egypt on January 25, as tens of thousands poured into Tahrir Square. Those numbers swelled, and Hosni Mubarak resigned on February 11, devolving power to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) under Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi. Protests continued with demands ranging from speeding up reforms, postponing elections, and bringing Mubarak and others to trial. SCAF continued to use the emergency powers used by Mubarak, trying civilians in speedy military courts.

Elections for the People's Assembly--the Egyptian Parliament's lower house--were confusingly complex and held in waves from November through January. As in Tunisia, Islamists, in this case the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, won a plurality of seats due to their organization and their history of opposing the regime. The Assembly was sworn in on January 23, and the SCAF delegated legislative power to it. SCAF also announced a partial lifting of the state of emergency in place essentially since 1967. (In a statement, Tantawi said that emergency powers still applied in cases of "thuggery," which may render this statement hollow.) However, SCAF is still running the show in Cairo and has reserved 10 seats for itself in the Assembly.

Elections for the Shura Council (the upper house of Parliament) are ongoing and presidential elections are set to take place by June 30, after which SCAF will hand over power. Turnout for the Shura Council elections, unlike those for the Assembly, was low, as Egyptians are frustrated with the lack of progress. Both houses of Parliament will be responsible for creating an 100-member assembly tasked with drafting a constitution.

As it stands, there is a three-way contest for power between the armed forces, Islamists, and secular liberals. None of the sides are completely unified; indeed, there are over 100 political parties in Egypt today. There is a widespread opinion among the Egyptian people that the Muslim Brotherhood has made or will make a backroom deal with SCAF. More likely, in my opinion, is that the Brotherhood is trying not to alarm them in order to avoid an Algeria-style coup.

As in Tunisia, we should not worry that the Islamist FJP holds a plurality of seats. Though FJP's Saad al-Katatni is the Assembly's speaker, one of the deputy speakers comes from the Wafd Party (to Katatni's left) and the other comes from the Salafist Party (to his right). Like Tunisia's Ennahda, FJP has taken moderate stances in public and is rightly focusing on Egypt's economic problems. Egypt has been hit hard by inflation and a decline in tourism.

Tunisia and Egypt have arguably been the most successful in democratizing in the wake of the Arab Spring. Though the autocrats are gone, the revolution is not over, as the two nations wrestle with forming a new constitution, a new government, and new democratic institutions.

Read Part Two on Libya & Bahrain and Part Three on Yemen.