Terminus

2003-04-29T17:59:00.000-04:00

I'm Outta Here!

Ladies and Gents, I'm pleased to announce that TERMINUS is movin' out!! Please update your bookmarks to here. I hope you like the new layout, and make sure you check out the expanded link list. Best part: no annoying ads!!

You know, back when I was in elementary school, I used to ride my bike home on the last day of school joyously (but quietly) singing "I'm Free" by The Who. I feel like that again, all of a sudden. Goodbye Blogger!!

2003-04-29T08:17:00.000-04:00

What I Learned from Harry Kalas. I learned, just last night, that the Mets struck out 27 times in a double-header Sunday against the D-Backs, setting a Major League Baseball record. Think about it, that's a combined complete game of strikeouts. Go Mets.

In other baseball news, the Philadelphia Phillies took two of three from the San Francisco Giants, the team with the best record in the National League. Their series win included a no-hitter by pitcher Kevin Millwood, the first no-hitter scored by any pitcher in the League this year. You'll recall, naturally, that the Phillies's Jose Padilla recorded the League's first complete-game-shutout not too long ago. Go Phils.

2003-04-27T12:19:00.000-04:00

The Politics of Hate. With a title like that, you just know I'm talking about those hideous reptiles, the Republicans. Josh Marshall brings together several elements of the Santorum flap, and reading it all gives you an excellent perspective on the whole matter.

What's most striking to me about what Santorum said is that, if we take the man at his word (hate the sin, not the sinner), it is possible to conclude that he is blissfully unware of his bigotry. It is ipossible to conclude that he isn't a bigot, however. He claims that he has no problem with homosexuals, and President Bush lamely calls him an "inclusive" man. Let's assume that he has lots and lots of gay friends, and they go out drinking every Friday and have a great time. There is no discomfort on Sen. Santorum's part, even when he goes the the men's room along with two of his gay-buddies at the same time. Let's take to a really extreme level and say that Santorum doesn't even have a problem when his gay-buddies take him to one of their bars. Even assuming all of this is true, which it obviously isn't, this "inclusive" man is still a bigot. Why? Because he thinks 1) states should be allowed to criminalize homosexual sex, 2) states should criminalize homosexual sex, and 3) states should enforce their criminal laws against homosexual sex. Nothing wrong with being a homosexual, as long as you never have sex. That's what passes for "inclusiveness" in the hate party.

No surprise. These are the same people who push pre-marital abstinence with one hand, push away gay-marriage with the other hand, and pretend not to notice that they've just damned gays to a life of celibacy. The fact is, these guys will ot be happy until gay sex, if not homosexuality itself, is obliterated from the face of this great nation. It ain't never gonna happen (as if this even needs to be said), and the electorate is moving fairly quickly away from this mainstream Republican position. Even my Republican friends, for instance, are pissed about Santorum's remarks (because it makes it harder to pretend to themselves that their party isn't run by vile hateful thugs, and because they are not, by and large, bigots). What this means: the Republicans are soon going to realize that they are losing this battle, but they won't be able to do anything about it. Most of them have managed, just barely, to swallow the "hate the sin, not the sinner" line, and some of them can even speak to homosexuals in public, if they try really really hard. But Rick Santorum (or people like him) will become to gay issues what Strom Thurmond was to race issues.

For a while, I hoped Santorum would be forced to take a hit from this one, like Trent Lott did a few months ago. It appears this won't be the case. To understand why not, check out this fascinating article by Eleanor Clift, called Standing By Their Man. The article also makes one point that I must pass along. Santorum's comments were in response to a Supreme Court case called Lawrence v. Texas. That case involves a criminal prosecution under Texas's sodomy laws, which make sodomy a crime if it's committed by same-sex partners, but not a crime if it's committed by opposite-sex partners. Santorum was talking about using the law to protect the traditional family in lots and lots of ways. He said that homosexual sodomy, adultery, polygamy, bigamy, incest, and bestiality all undermine the traditional family, and therefore a state should ban all of them and should enforce that ban. As Clift puts it, "It’s worth noting, since Santorum brought up “man on dog,” that Texas doesn’t have a law against bestiality."

If it's any consolation (and it is to me), Texas is almost certainly going to lose that case. And Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas are almost certainly going to vote with the bigots. I'll have that story for you when it happens.

2003-04-25T16:14:00.000-04:00

This Doesn't Bode Well For National Missile Defense. Via Franklin's Findings. The Patriot missile was long considered the great hero of Gulf War I. How can anyone forget the jubilant reports of incoming Iraqi missiles effortlessly shot down by superior American technology, making our brave soldiers all but invincible on the desert battlefield. Unfortunately for those of us who like a little romance in our warfare, it was all a bunch of hooey. 4 SCUD missiles were shot down by Patriots, out of 47 attempts. That's a pretty bad batting average, even for an American League pitcher. Twelve years and $3 Billion later, the Patirot had a chance to redeem itself in the latest installment of "Bomb the Brown People". This time, Patriot missiles managed to shoot down two aircraft, raising its total career aircraft hits all the way up to two. Unfortunately, those aircraft were friendlies, and coalition troops were tragically killed.

Every war is going to have heart-rending stories of friendly-fire accidents. Every war is going to have technology-problems and equipment failures and all of that. My question, though, after reading this story, is why people don't know this stuff. If I polled all of my friends, in and out of school, I doubt ten percent would know that the Patriot missile sucks, and it's always sucked. I wouldn't have, and I'm a fairly well-read guy, I like to think. Propaganda in war is one thing, but the Gulf War was twelve years, and the majority of Americans probably still think that the Patriot missile won the war.

It occurs to me that this is one of the things that feeds into our nations seeming appetite for warfare. We believe that we are so technogically superior that no other country, particularly not a country full of dirty brown people, can so much as prick us. That belief is not totally unfounded, but the reality is not messier than most people realize. That's something we should remember the next time the government promises us a "cakewalk" war.

2003-04-24T16:54:00.000-04:00

"Can't Be Fixed". Today, Bob Herbert in the New York Times gives us the definitive anti-death penalty argument. There's really nothing I can add. Regardless of your views on the death penalty, I urge you to read this column. If you oppose the death penalty, you'll get a narrow, piercing critique, centered around the case of Delma Banks, Jr. in Texas (a case which I have mentioned before). If you support the death penalty, you'll get a clear, uncompromising look at its flaws, which need to be addressed to prevent the unconscionable and irreparable harm of executing the innocent. Herbert says that the death penalty can't be fixed, and should be abolished forever. I'm not so sure that it can't be fixed, and so I support a national moratorium to examine the problems in depth and propose solutions. However, I disagree with the death penalty on moral and policy grounds, so the question of whether or not it can be fixed is not relevant to me in the first place.

2003-04-24T15:49:00.000-04:00

The Party of Personal Liberty. I should have spent more time online yesterday. [Instead, I watched Manchester United win a great match against Real Madrid, and yet still fail to advance to the next round of the tournament. I was also, simultaneously, playing "Zelda 2: The Adventures of Link". Time well spent, I think.] If I had ventured online yesterday afternoon, I would have surely seen dKos arguing that the Democratic Party is the natural home of libertarians. I was actually thinking about that, quite on my own, just yesterday. In fact, I've been thinking about it a lot since 9/11 and the radical authoritarian shift in the law since then. The Libertarian Party is a bought and paid for piece of the Republican Party. But libertarians, unaffiliated with the national party in Washington, have interests which are very much in line with the Democratic Party.

Several of my friends, in and out of school, either are self-described libertarians or just generally fit the mold. One is, sadly, an Ayn Rand reader, and is therefore such a hardheaded absolutist that he is too far outside the political mainstream to even contemplate voting. Another considers himself a hard-right conservative, but several of his issues point more to the Democrats than the Republicans. Liberalization of drug laws, for instace, tends to get a fairer hearing from the left than the right (though the Democrats are far from having enough spine to get anything done on this issue).

Kos argues, as I was idly musing yesterday evening, that the Democrats should take positive action to position themselves in such a way as to go after the libertarian vote. Rick Santorum's recent bigotry erruption gives them a perfect opportunity to lay the groundwork for this push. The Republicans want a cop in every bedroom. The Democrats think you're old enough to make your own decisions. But, as Kos argues, this approach can work in economic realms as well, where libertarians have traditionally sided with Republicans. It's been more than 20 years since the Republicans, as a party, could honestly claim support for "fiscal responsibility". Thanks to Bill Clinton, and the (admittedly) tepid opposition to tax cuts coming from Democrats in Congress, the Dems are now in a great position to push the "fiscal responsibility" angle, which is huge with libertarians.

This isn't about moving to the right to do better in elections. It's about identifying a segment of voters who may respond effectively to what is already being done, and target them. Democrats shouldn't even pretend to be tracking rightward, because their own base is pretty pissed off at them already (e.g., the Nader/Greens problem). Democrats just need to make the case that the Republicans are selling the libertarians out (and have been since Reagan), and the Democrats (since Clinton) are actually pushing a more small government agenda.

2003-04-24T14:41:00.000-04:00

Newt's Back, Thank Goodness. CalPundit has a great post on the sudden and unexpected re-emergence of Newt Gingrich, the famous family-values Republican who served divorce papers on his cancer-sricken wife in the hospital (warms the heart, doesn't it?). In this post, Kevin Drum argues that Newt's return is a good thing.

The other day, in case you hadn't heard, Gingrich blasted the State Department (in a very thinly-veiled attack on Colin Powell) for botching the pre-war diplomacy. Strangely, when Tom "El Diablo" Daschle attacked the diplomacy failure, he was tarred as unpatriotic. When Newt Gingrich said the same thing, even more harshly, he was lauded by the same people who bashed Daschle, not the least of which Rush Limbaugh. The difference? Daschle blamed Bush, Gingrich blamed Powell. Bush is infallible, Powell is black.

The political buzz on this incident is that Newt was speaking unofficially on behalf of Donald Rumsfeld and his Pentagon backers. There has been a vicious war raging between the Defense and State Departments for months now. Imagine that, the government of George "Uniter not Divider" Bush is home to the most destructive and public intra-Administration war of our lifetime. Who could have predicted it? The point is that the argument within the Administration is between Rumsfeld and Powell, Defense and State. Rumsfeld won the Iraq argument, eventually, and now, the Rumsfeldians are blaming Powell for the failures while giving Rumsfeld credit for the successes. Military success, diplomatic failure. Rumsfeld wins, Powell loses. Seems simple, right?

The question is, though, why exactly did the diplomacy fail? It started off so well. Powell and State were able to get a unanimous UN Security Council vote on putting inspectors back in Iraq. That was, as I've said many, many times, a huge victory for Bush, and State won it for him. Then, rather than allowing the inspectrs the time they needed to do their UN appointed job, the Bush Administration began pushing for war "now". That's when the diplomacy broke down. Is that the fault of the diplomats, or the policy? I want to say "policy, 100%", but it's not that simple. It's actually a very good question, and this battle will be a lot of fun to watch.

Kevin's point was that it's a good sign that Newt is siding with Rumsfeld, because Newt is a political ignoramus (he gambled his whole elected career that people cared more about Clinton's penis than they did about their own jobs, families, and lives, and he didn't win). So, Newt's involvement with the Defense faction is likely to work itself out in State's favor sooner or later. I certainly hope so.

2003-04-22T11:03:00.000-04:00

Politicizing 9/11. The Republican nominating convention is going to be held very, very late next year. According to this article in the New York Times, next year will feature the latest Republican nominating convention in the party's 150 year history. Why? To blend the nominating convention in with the 3rd anniversary of 9/11. No shit.

Honestly, am I on my own, here? Keith, Jenna, you guys like Bush, right? Do you feel that this is at all, umm, inappropriate? Tacky? An insult to the memory of the people killed on that terrible day?

Ok, I'll come clean, everybody tries to wring some political advantage out of literally whatever they have at hand. There's no doubt that Bush, or any politician in any part in Bush's situation, would try to play up the 9/11 tragedy for political advantage (by making "terrorism" and "homeland security" major campaign issues, for instance). But normally, politicians are decent enough to be discreet about it. We've already had the shameful case of the Republican National Committee selling photographs of Bush taken on 9/11 to make money for campaigning. That was bad enough. Now we have this, which is the most egregious example of politicizing a national tragedy that I can imagine.

2003-04-22T00:22:00.000-04:00

Bigotry Watch. I've missed a few doozies, like the Republican member of the House who implied that everyone who lives in black neighborhoods (i.e., blacks) are presumptively addicted to drugs. But I wasn't going to pass up the latest, via Eschaton. Apparently, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) thinks that gays shouldn't have the right to fuck. This man is an embarrassment to his party. Or rather, he would be, if his party weren't so bigoted and hateful as to agree with him.

Every self-respecting Republican should stand up and repudiate those comments. There's no room for that kind of hatred in the United States Senate.

2003-04-21T18:15:00.000-04:00

Speaking of Which. My last post concerned talk radio, and in comments to last Friday's post, I was talking to Martin Wisse about anti-gay bigotry. Well, via Hesiod's Counterspin Central, we find this story from the The Des Moines Register about how a local talk radio host (carried on a Clear Channel station, surprise, surprise) carried out a hate and harassment campaign against gay high school students. Apparently, a local high school had a student group in support of gay and lesbian rights, which included both homosexual and heterosexual members. When this local radio host, Jan Mickelson, heard about this group, he went nuts. He referred to the club as "the sodomy club" so often that many listeners thought it was the name of the club (it was not). He claimed that the student group was spending taxpayer money to push a gay agenda at the school and push homosexual practices onto the students-at-large. Claims like these are so outrageous, and so familiar, that they hardly need refutation. But, of course, it was all a product of Mickelson's fevered imagination. No taxpayer money. No pushing anything on anyone. Of course, the school received a shit load of angry, sometimes abusive, sometimes threatening phone calls.

This is talk radio, people. This is not a rare case, this is the way it operates. This is a repeat of the Maine case from several months ago when, according to Philadelphia talk radio host Dom Giordano, the National Guard accused elementary school teachers of harassing and taunting the children of military parents. The National Guard denied the story, claiming that they had made no such accusation.

You want to be a conservative talk radio host? It's easy!! Find an "enemy group", whether it's Arabs, Muslims, gays, war protesters, liberals, Democrats, or whatever, and bash the living shit out of them. Nevermind the facts, or the truth, or the lives and reputations of the victims. You have two weapons: a voice, and a microphone. Use them mercilessly, brutally, and ruthlessly. Destroy their lives, if possible. Verbally beat them into submission, and garner up a few more votes for the Republican Party while you're at it.

Never make a retraction. Never admit an error. Most importantly, only criticize "them", never "us". Never shit where you eat.

2003-04-21T16:54:00.000-04:00

What I Learned From Talk Radio. I was listening to Drudge last night on my way home from Duke's. For some reason, he was all bent out of shape by the fact that Madonna says she doesn't read magazines. Don't ask me, I really have no idea. Anyway, he got a caller who was pretty pissed off about the government crackdown on file-sharing. The whole story, as the caller related, sounded dubious to me, but it isn't very important. The point is that Drudge, like me, is concerned about the government going after peple for filesharing copyrighted material. I'm not going to defend the practice, but I will say that there are a few other issues that law enforcement might want to concentrate on rather than me downloading DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince songs, you know?

What struck me about this is that over the whole time that Drudge was railing against the government, he never once uttered the words "Bush" or "Ashcroft". Not that he was required to, but I thought it interesting that he didn't. And it put me in mind of another occassion when I was listening to my local conservative talk radio station. The after-midnight host, Rollye James, was talking about PATRIOT II, which she despises (as all honest libertarians must). But she kept talking about Congress doing this. It was "Congress" this and "Congress" that. She never used the word "Republicans" or mentioned any Republican by name, despite the fact that the Republicans controlled both house of Congress at the time. She never used the words "Ashcroft", "Justice Department", "White House", or "Bush". The only time any particular name came up was when a caller opined that this bill had been drawn up by Daschle's office. Let me repeat: DASCHLE (ominous thunder noises)! Strangely, Rollye neglected to inform the caller (and the rest of the audience) that the bill had actually been prepared, like its predescessor, by the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

It's something I've noticed about conservative talk radio. They will criticize their own side if they feel it necessary, but never personally. If he Democrats do something they don't like, everyone from Rush Limbaugh straight on down the line will start the "Daschle" routine up in no time flat, and they'll be sure to tell you, every four and a half seconds, that it's the Democrats who are doing this awful thing (probably trying to build low income housing, or something sick and evil like that). But when the Republicans do something they don't like (it doesn't happen much, which is another post in itself), it's never the Republicans. It's Congress. It's Government. It's those airheads in Washington. Conveniently, this ends up supporting, rather than attacking, the standard GOP anti-government ideology.

You see that: even when Republicans in Washington piss off talk radio, talk radio spins it around to help them. Brilliant! You have to admire the pure gall of it, don't you? I call it offensive damage control. It's one small part of the co-ordinated Right Wing message machine that is currently dominating our national marketplace of ideas. More on that later.

2003-04-21T14:48:00.000-04:00

Detroit Red Wings Swept by Anaheim. Or is it all just pro-American propaganda? Calpundit reports, you laugh. A lot.

2003-04-18T10:42:00.000-04:00

Quality Blow Jobs Available. I checked my e-mail this morning to see an e-mail from my Moot Court Instructor informing his classes that I was among the "Best Oralist" winners for our class. Needless to say, this has produced predictable ribbing among my friends. I walked into a conversation just twenty minutes ago when several of my male friends were analyzing my "oral" skills, all of them claiming to be drawing on personal experience. The award, then, is as much a downer as anything else. I mean, it isn't any sort of "real" award. It something which has dubious resume value, at best. I mean, there isn't even a certificate. But it is encouraging to know that I'm pretty good at oral arguments, and it justifies my decision to pursue Moot Court rather than Law Journal in my second year.

Of course, friends of mine teasing me for being "gay" (which, if you care to know, I'm not) is nothing new. I always try to take it in good humor, but then, it is indicative of a pervasive kind of homophobia that homosexuality is applied to known heterosexuals as a form of insult. That's something that has concerned me for many years. But what can you do?

I'll try to do some real blogging later today. If you couldn't tell, this was a "Haven't-posted-in-a-while-but-I-don't-have-anything-to-say" post. Sorry about that.

2003-04-16T15:43:00.000-04:00

Consensus by Fraud. We all remember, or at least, should remember, those chilling polls showing that a shitload of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11, despite the utter lack of evidence to support this belief (and despite the fact that even the Bush Administration, which has no particular loyalty to truth, nevermade this claim). Billmon wonders if the same thing might be happening again, this time with regard to WMDs in Iraq.

This isn't entirely of the Administration's doing, but they are certainly benefitting from it. When suspected WMDs are discovered, it's a huge, huge story. When those suspicions are proved false, that's a minor, minor story. That's a simple reality of the news business (which the Republicans also exploited under Clinton: allegations, big news; exonerations, not news). The result is that we've all heard the breathless and tense stories about possible WMD findings, but only the most observant of us may have caught all of the retractions.

I've seen this myself at law school. Several of my friends are utterly convinced that WMDs were found in Iraq, thus justifying the war retroactively. [There are two errors in that view, I feel, but at the moment, I'm only interested in the error of fact.] No WMDs have been found in Iraq. The UN didn't find any, and so far, the US hasn't found any. The question is, do Americans know that? Do they care? [It isn't necessarily wrong not to care, after all.] But the rest of the world knows, and the rest of the world cares.

If WMDs are not found, it may not hurt Bush, but it will definitely hurt America. According to a partial transcript posted by Eschaton, Ari Fleischer said "I think our credibility is rather strong." It isn't. It's actually extremely weak throughout most of the world, and whether or not Bush gets blamed at the polls next year, that is a serious problem for us all.

UPDATE: For more on this, see Jake Tapper's over at Salon.com.

2003-04-16T12:01:00.000-04:00

This was a Long Time Coming. A Venezualan general has accused the United States of taking part in the failed coup against President Hugo Chavez last year. According to this article, "Officials in Washington said they told opponents of Chavez they would not support any unconstitutional activity aimed at removing the leftist leader from power." Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test. White House officials were talking to opponents of Chavez, but they didn't support unconstitutional means? Perhaps, but it looks pretty suspicious, especially in light of the fact that the United States certainly dragged its feet on condemning the coup, waiting until it was clear that their boys had lost before pointing out that military coups were just not a good thing, by the way.

There needs to be a Congressional investigation of this issue. There also needs to be a more aggressive attempt by the federal government to combat poverty. These two issues are utterly unrelated, but both have approximately the same probability of coming about.

2003-04-15T10:51:00.000-04:00

"How Could Anyone Possibly Be That Stupid?" Joe Conason asks this question after learning that U.S. troops were placed to guard the Iraqi Oil Ministry, and nothing else. No surprise, then, that the National Museum of Antiquities, housing quite literally the cultural heritage of all the world, was looted, causing the loss and destruction of 170,000 irreplaceable items, and the Iraqi Oil Ministry was not tampered with at all. Conason is even more concerned about the defensive, evasive, and downright belligerent attitude Secretary of Offense Donald Rumsfeld took to Tim Russert's questioning on Sunday's Meet the Press. "Bad things do happen in life and people do loot," he said, but people didn't loot the Oil Ministy.

Is it any wonder that the American troops, just one week after the fall of Baghdad, are already wearing out their welcome? For the 1700th time so far, Bush's incompetence is standing in the way of achieving his own stated aims, but magically, doesn't seem to be getting in the way of him achieving any of the things that he denies being motivated by, like oil. How 'bout that!

2003-04-14T15:14:00.000-04:00

Fear Factor. Steve Gilliard, sitting in for the big guy at DailyKos, has today posted this tremendous essay on the impact of fear on American society post 9/11. It's pretty clear to me that fear is driving a lot of the things that are happening in America today. On one hand, the Bush Administration continuously employed fear in arguing for its war in Iraq. The spectre of chemical and biological weapons, linked with the spectre of terrorism, created a compelling (though ultimately fraudulent) argument. [The fear of nukes was even more compelling, before the U.N. inspectors let the cat out of the bag that Saddam had no nuke program to speak of.] Moreover, fear has allowed the governmet to get away with things that, I think, never would have flown pre-9/11. Like the USA PATRIOT Act. To be sure, 9/11 required several substantive shifts in policy, most of which have yet to occur, but also, 9/11 has justified policy changes which are not necessary or even desirable.

Gilliard's comments regarding "supporting the troops" are also well taken. It's all well and good to send the troops wetnaps and copies of Maxim (which are, I'm reliably informed, much sought after), but it would be much better if we gave them a better life, better job, better home, when they returned. The first thing we could do, for instance, is stop cutting veterans' benefits to save money for more tax cuts for the wealthy. Just a thought.

Anyway, it's a provacative essay, worthy of your consideration.

2003-04-14T10:15:00.000-04:00

Looting History. Joanne Mariner, human rights attorney and columnist for FindLaw.com, argues that the Pentagon (specifically Secretary of Offense Donald Rumsfeld) has been altogether too dismissive about concerns of looting in Baghdad. Today's column makes the point that the United States was obligated by international law to protect the cultural treasures of Iraq, that the National Museum of Iraq pleaded with American troops to protect the Museum (saying it would have taken two troops and a tank, that's it), American forces flat-out refused to help, and as a result 170,000 priceless artefacts, some dating back to the earliest days of human civilization, have been stolen or destroyed.

This is a huge tragedy to anthropology, archeology, history, and art. It was totally preventable, but the United States didn't prevent it. Rumsfeld, who surely had bigger things to worry about, might at least have the decency to feign regret.

2003-04-14T09:58:00.000-04:00

If It Has to be Said, There's a Problem. Courtesy of Ruminate This, here's a great headline from The Mirror: We Will Find WMD, Powell Says. Ok, now I've been against the war since since late last year. I always assumed that Iraq had lots of nasty chemical and biological weapons. I also assumed that Iraq had a thriving nuclear development operation, and would, if unhindered, have nukes within couple of years. Even still, I opposed war, because I thought that UN inspectors could ably handle each of these problems without the necessity of killing thousands of Iraqis and more than 100 brave American soldiers. Of course, now we know, from Hans Blix, that Iraq had no nuclear development program. Also, after having been in Iraq for nearly a month, and after controlling very nearly the entire country, we've found nada on the chem/bio weapons front.

My question, aimed specifically at pro-war people, as well as those of my friends who have beens somewhat ambivalent about the whole time, is this: does the continued failure of the U.S. to find WMDs shake your faith in the wisdom of this war? Assuming we never find and WMDs, and it eventually becomes clear that, despite Saddam's public muscle-flexing, he actually never had any at all: then what?

Personally, I think it's likely that, at some point, we will find some WMDs, probably not very many, prossibly not weaponized, and probably in a condition of severe disrepair. At this point, is there any likelihood that they could turn public opinion retroactively against the war? I doubt it. Americans love wars, I'm sad to say, and they especially love relatively quick ones in which very few American troops are killed. But still, I'm curious how pro-war people would respond to the eventuality that, just as those dirty treasonous peaceniks have been saying all along, Iraq was absolutely no threat to us at all, ever, and this war was therefore sold to the American people on the back of a huge fraud.

2003-04-11T09:31:00.000-04:00

Holy Shit! I'm going to the Flyers game tonight!! My law school friend Dave (well, one of them), asked me this morning what I was doing tonight. I looked at him like he had three heads and said "I'm watching the Flyers", with a clear inflection which conveyed a sense of "What the fuck do you think I'm doing?" I thought he was going to suggest that we go out to some sports bar or something, which I would have had to reluctantly decline. You see... tonight is the big night. Lima Beanz, in a moment of semi-drunken bravado, bet me $10 that he could drink three beers per period during tonight's game. Easy money, it seems to me, because Lima Beanz is way out of shape when it comes to drinking. But no, Dave asked me if I wanted to see the game live. My mind froze. I fell over onto the cold hard cement. I could feel the rain falling gently on the back of my head as I stared blankly into the barren ground, drool falling slowly from my quivering lips. After being resuscitated, I agreed. I can't even express to you how excited I am to be going.

If you're reading this, Lima Beanz, you are NOT off the hook. You have two options: either do the nine per period tonight, and we'll settle up when I see you again after the game, or postpone to another game, with the understanding that if the Flyers are eliminated before you have a chance to do it, I win by default.

2003-04-10T18:39:00.000-04:00

Dangerous Dickheads. DailyKos has a post about the Baseball Hall of Fame cancelling their planned 15th anniversary celebration of Bull Durham because Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins are against the war. I'm speechless. Check out the coments on dKos's post and you'll see a fierce debate about free speech. Unfortunately, both sides seem to have it wrong. This really isn't a free speech issue. It's a dickhead issue. It reminds of the proposed Dixie Chicks ban I told you about. [Recap: the 3L class president wanted to band Dixie Chicks music from the annual Barrister's Ball, but was eventually overruled.]

The Baseball Hall of Fame is under no Constitutional, legal, or even moral obligation to celebrate the 15th anniversay of Bull Durham. It sure would have been nice, though, as it is an excellent film deserving of special recognition. But the celebration was cancelled merely because Sarandon and Robbins are against the war in Iraq and aren't terribly fond of Bush. What possible motivation could there be for this decision, do you think? Hmm, well, maybe they could have sat down with Sarandon and Robbins and discussed the issue, agreeing to a no-politics rule. I can't say for sure, but I bet that would have been fine, especially considering Sarandon's performance at the Oscars: she briefly flashed the "peace" sign, and made no other comment. Obviously, Susan Sarandon is not Michael Moore, and she can keep her opinions to herself when she feels it appropriate to do so.

Alternatively, the Hall of Fame could have come up with some lame, obviously bogus explanation for cancelling the event. Even if Robbins and Sarandon were aware of what was really going on, it probably wouldn't have hit the news, and you and I wouldn't be talking about it.

Unfotunately, the Hall of Fame didn't do this. They decided, instead, to cancel the event because of Sarandon's and Robbins's political views, to tell them so explicitly, and now we've got a problem. Why? Because it further ingrains the idea, gaining more power everyday, that dissent will not be tolerated in this country. This is another development in the Republican PC campaign. Apparently, you are not allowed to publicly disagree with the President during war time. I should have to say this, but this is actually a pretty recent development in this country. Well, at least, this is a new iteration. Political dissenters were jailed in the early 19th century, and dissent during World War I was a very, very dangerous activity. But lately, we've all basically come to expect that, in this country, we're allowed to publicly disagree with our leaders.

Not for much longer, I'm afraid. Oh, there's not going to be any law passed any time soon to make it a crime to disagree with Bush. Even the feckless and timid Democrats would stand up to anything like that. But there will be a social cost to dissent, enforced by the P.C. Police (which is just about every Republican politician and pundit in the country). It's that social cost that's be wielded against Sarandon and Robbins. Bull Durham has nothing to do with war in Iraq, or with George W. Bush, or any of that. It's a great movie about baseball. But it won't get it's 15th Anniversary celebration because the Baseball Hall of Fame is run by a bunch of dickheads.

But they're dangerous dickheads, because everytime the P.C. Police enforce the Party line against foolish dissenters, the societal pressure to conform gets stronger. Welcome to the New America. Agree with Bush, or Shut Your God-Damned Face, You Treasonous Fuck!

2003-04-10T15:49:00.000-04:00

So What? Philippe de Croy at The Volokh Conspiracy has been listening to NPR a lot lately (and so have I). He claims that he's figured out the anti-Bush playbook. Well, I hate Bush, and I have my own little internet soapbox where I discuss that quite openly, so I'm something of an expert of the anti-Bush playbook. So let's take a look: First, he says, we must "Make clear that it was obvious all along what the military outcome would be, and that skepticism about it formed no part of your opposition to the war." Time out! It was obvious all along what the military outcome would be. Everybody said so. Liberals said "It might not be as easy as the White House is leading people to believe," and it wasn't. But everybody knew that the U.S. military would win militarily. That's what they're trained to do, and there's no better military in the world. Yes, the Super Bowl champs have beaten the local High School squad. So let's have a party and re-elect Bush while we're at it, because only a truly great President could have pulled off the military defeat of Saddam Hussein!!

Ok, let me wipe the vomit off of my chin, and then we'll continue. "State that of course you are happy for the Iraqi people -- those who weren't killed in the invasion -- but be careful never to end a sentence that way. Instead, always follow that sentiment with another that begins "but," or "; I only wish..." or "I only hope..." and then segue into other concerns -- the "diplomatic mess" we've created, or the "long term" picture, or "winning the peace," and so forth." Ok, I do this all the time. In fact, I did something like this just yesterday in an e-mail to Keith. But this is entirely in keeping with what I will call the liberal conception of the war. First, secure the military victory, which might be difficult but will definitely be achieved. Second, turn your attention to the deeper issues, the thornier problems, and the potential diplomatic pitfalls. Right now, we're on the cusp of that divide. Therefore, I'm very happy for the Iraqi people, but I hope we do better with Iraq than we did in Afghanistan. I was very happy for the Afghans, too, when women began throwing down their burqas and attending public schools. But, a year later, the situation in Afghanistan has not progressed, and is threatening to slide back into Taliban hands. I've said from the beginning that this entire enterprised must be judged, and can only be judged, by the situation in Iraq post-Saddam. So far, it's a kind of jubilant anarchy, as far as I can tell. For the rest, we'll have to wait see, and liberals would be well advised to mention the considerable difficulties that the Bush Administration will have to face, to try to make sure that those challenges are met.

"Talk a lot about things that "aren't clear" or that "remain to be seen." These sorts of assertions are good because they are hard to falsify. E.g.: "it's not clear how much of the excitement the Iraqis are showing is because Saddam is gone and how much of it is because of all the looting they are able to do." Or: "it remains to be seen whether the factions in the country can be governed in anything like the way the administration is imagining."" Is it clear what the Iraqis are celebrating? Is it clear that the factions can be governed? In other words, are these not perfectly good questions?

"Be forward-looking. Or past-looking. The point is to de-emphasize the present. Dwell on what hasn't been done, not what has been done. The sudden liberation of millions of people from tyranny is not, repeat not, the most important thing. Say that what counts is what comes next, that all this will only be meaningful if it ends up leading to true democracy and prosperity for Iraq." Excuse me? Let's try a thought experiment: imagine that the next leader of Iraq is a cruel and despotic dictator named Dassam Suhhein, who terrorizes his citizens, executes political dissidents, and starts trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction so he can sell them to international terrorists, then what's this war been for? Is it a good thing that Saddam Hussein is out of power? Certainly! But what comes next is more important, because we don't yet know what exactly the Iraqis have gained. We know that they will no longer be terrorized by Saddam Hussein. Do we know that they will no longer be terrorized? No we don't, and we must make it our mission to assure that they are not.

"Remember: you haven't been proven wrong about anything, and the neocons haven't been proven right about anything." Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything I've been proven wrong about yet. The neocons? They've been proven wrong about Iraq being a "cakewalk". It wasn't. It still isn't.

What really annoys me that de Croy doesn't refute, or even address, and of the claims or arguments he is attributing to the Bush-haters. He is merely objecting, I suppose, to the structure of those arguments, and their presentation. So what? Are these arguments wrong? Why?

It seems to me that conservatives everywhere do not merely want to declare the military mission to be a victory, but they seem to want to claim, or imply, that our objectives have been achieved and we should all pat ourselves on the back. Well, our military objections have been achieved, mostly, and that's wonderful. But liberals have been saying all along that the military phase would be the easy part, and many liberals, including myself, opposed this war in part because they didn't trust the Bush Administration to handle the hard part, which is starting now.

The point is, if you want to criticize the liberal critics, do it. But de Croy's snarky post is entirely without content, and fails to address any of the legitimate and very serious issues raised by the "Bush-haters".

2003-04-10T12:39:00.000-04:00

Battleground God. I was telling Lima Beanz and Jenna about this quiz about belief in God. Before Keith jumps down my throat, let me make clear that this quiz has no stake in pushing for a particular religious view. If you take the quiz, and I hope you do, you will be asked 17 true or false questions. Your answers will be evaluated on two levels. One, if any answer is logically inconsistent with a previous answer, you will take a "direct hit" (your character, innocently walking through the philosophical quagmire, will be shot). Two, if you have an opinion which most people would find ridiculous or what-have-you, you must "bite the bullet".

The idea behind the quiz is to prompt people to think more deeply about their beliefs concerning God. I took the quiz and got a perfect score, in that all of my answers were internally consistent. This doesn't mean, of course, that my views are correct, or that someone with very different views would necessarily score worse. The idea is to promote discussion of these ideas.

Take the quiz. Check it out. Let me know how it goes.

UPDATE: I don't mean to sound like I'm boasting about my perfect score. I'm not. I was a philosophy major, so I spent an unhealthy amount of time thinking about things like this and caring about the internal logical consistency of my beliefs. In other words, I'm a freak, deserving of pity, not praise. But then, you all knew that already, didn't you?

2003-04-09T23:17:00.000-04:00

Today Was a Good Day. I didn't even have to use my AK. But seriously, Josh Marshall, long-time Terminus favorite, has this post, the first in a series (scroll up) trying to put today's dramatic events in ther proper context. The key points are these: 1) on a basic level, it is very good news that so many Iraqis seem to be jubilant at the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; 2) in the long term, this could turn out to be really really good news if it translates to a fundamental change in perception throught the Middle East and the world, 3) the toughest battles will still take place after the war, and they'll be fought not by soldiers, but by politicians and beauracrats, and there's still a lot that could go wrong if we're not careful.

Despite the difficult road ahead, Josh wittles it down for us, and says simply and eloquently that today was a good day.

2003-04-09T18:04:00.000-04:00

NHL Playoffs Begin Tonight. Once again we are at that wonderfully exciting time of year: the NHL playoffs are about to begin, the NBA playoffs are around the corner, and Major League Baseball is underway!! The Flyers open a seven game series tonight against the Toronto Maple Leafs in Philadelphia. Shortly, I will head over to Duke's apartment to commence my annual tradition of drinking two beers per period of Flyers playoff hockey. It's fun and exciting, and makes sure that, no matter what the result, I will be in the proper frame of mind. Happy drunk or sad drunk: it's all up to the Flyers.

I have a good feeling about this series, and a good feeling about tonight's game. I think if the Flyers can out strong, they can put the Maple Leafs on the ropes early. Looking ahead, if the Flyers could manage to win the first two gams in Philly, it'll be all but over for Toronto. On the other hand, Toronto is going to play a very tough brand of physical hockey that would wear anybody down. That makes them a very difficult team to come back against. If the Flyers fall behind, it will be a very difficult series for them to win.

Fortunately, the Flyers finished the season fairly strong, unlike last year when they couldn't buy a goal in the final month of the season. They're playing well, and they look like a team. They've got scoring threats on every line, their defense has been solid, and their goaltender, Roman Cechmanek, has had a sterling year. Their powerplay is still something of a liability, but they've managed to pick it up a bit lately. It should be a really good series, because Toronto is a quality club that plays very hard (and very dirty). If this series goes into six or seven games, things will probably get pretty damn crazy.

Playoff hockey is damn near a totally different sport than regular season hockey, and every little thing takes on huge signifcance. A defensive zone face-off is an edge-of-your-seat moment, and a penalty kill can create nearly unbearable tension. It's extremely exciting, and I can't wait to get started.