| Mar 26 | Can't Anybody Here Play This Game! (Special Terri Schiavo Edition) |
| Mar 14 | Bush's Non-proliferation Non-initiative |
| Mar 13 | U-Snub |
| Mar 12 | Thanks, but no thanks |
| Mar 8 | Glug Glug |
| Mar 5 | Belated Saturday Shuffle! Blogging |
| Mar 4 | Friday Snowboarding Blogging |
[This will be my one and only post related to the current pseudo-legal soap opera that the national press corps has decided is the most pressing issue of the day. That's right: the fate of a woman who has been in a persistent vegetative sate for fifteen years is more important than Iraq, Social Security privatization, or any number of issues that are of more importance to people those of us who are not friends and family of Terri Schiavo.]
There has been much liberal hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over the fact the Democrats are not publicly opposing the GOP. The logic works like this:
To which I say: no, no, no, no, no. No. A thousand times: no.
The primary political effect of l'affair Schiavo has been to destroy any remaining shred of public confidence in Congress. The job approval rating for Congress has dropped from 42% to 34%. Therefore, one way to turn this matter into a political win is to identify Congress with the Republican Party. Americans should think that the Senate consists of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, and 96 Republicans, while the House has 435 Republicans. Democrats should remind the American public each and every day which party is setting the agenda for America's government. If the people want a different agenda, they should pick a different party. This is not rocket science: if you are not the party of government, you can win by opposing government itself.
Other alternatives carry some amount of risk. Should Democrats join the GOP in favoring intervention? Probably not; it will be unpopular with many die-hard Democrats. Plus, you'd be throwing out the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Should they oppose loudly? No, that will hurt the few Democrats who represent pro-life districts. Attack Terri's parents as camera-hogs? That has some promise, but it could backfire. In contrast, sitting back and attacking government itself is risk-free. We just need more clever lines like the one Barney Frank had:
If you don't want something to be political, why would you ask 535 politicians to decide?
So, let's let the pro-life Democrats off the hook and vote for whatever abomination bill the Republican leadership creates for political purposes. Maybe it will reduce the chances that Focus on the Family will target them for defeat, maybe it won't. But very few liberals are going to remember this vote in November of 2006 and hold it against a Democratic Congressperson.
Matt Yglesias reminds us that the nomination of John Bolton to become the Ambassador of the UN is a really bad idea. It's worth mentioning that the PSI isn't really as much of a bright spot on the Bush administration's counterproliferation efforts as Matt makes it out to be. The PSI, as he points out has no new legal authority. What's more, it does not represent any new money being spent on counterproliferation. Here's a note on how they fits into the budget process from the State Department's FAQ:
Question: What is the relationship between PSI and International Organizations, such as the UN?
A: The PSI is not envisioned as a formal organization with a budget and headquarters, but rather a collection of interdiction partnerships among interested states taking steps consistent with their respective national legal authorities and international law and frameworks.
No new money, no new statutory authority. Awesome.
The Bush administration's utter indifference towards nuclear proliferation continues to puzzle me. The only rational explanation I can come up with is that they believe anti-proliferation efforts aren't cost effective -- countries that want will get nukes, and countries that don't won't, whether or not we spend a few billion dollars trying to make it harder. Of course, one should never make the mistake of thinking the Bush administration has a rational motivation for any particular policy stance.
I was all prepared to write a post about how the NCAA selection committee gave the Huskies the shaft. Then they went and gave them the number 1 seed they deserved, denying me the opportunity. I'm going to use the headline anyway, because it's simply too good to pass up.
The Yellow Jackets, meanwhile, parlayed their victory over UNC and near-defeat of Duke into a #5 seed. But if they win they'll run into the buzzsaw that is Louisville. Duke, who is the good team I'll be rooting for (I love you too, dad), is the #1 seed in a tough bracket.
You should take the 10 seed over the 7 seed in every matchup except Southern Illinois. Michigan State is as underrated as Boston College is overrated. Always bet against the Pac-10 if it looks like a close call. My bracket has Oklahoma State over Louisville, followed by UNC over Kentucky, followed by UNC over the Cowboys. Sorry, dad, it's just not going to happen this year.
Guest-blogging for Ezra Klein, Daniel A. Munz (of New Haven State University) licks his chops at the idea of a Senate race between Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, who is one of the few elected African-American Republicans in the country (and perhaps the only one elected to a statewide office), and former congressman and NAACP president Kweisi (often misspelled Kwesi) Mfume. Munz seems to think that this would be a genuine intellectual battle between the Democratic party's economic message and Republican social conservatism, and provide a test to see if the GOP social message succeeds in pulling some black support away from the Democratic party.
Allow me to count some of the ways in which this race would be a bad idea:
In short, the Republican party would portray Mfume as "a black man's black man" while holding up Steele as "everyone's black man", in an effort to woo white voters away from Democrats. I'm not at all saying that this is true in any sense, but it would be difficult if not impossible for Mfume to overcome this image.
Munz wants to see this race because, if Mfume were to win, it would end to the notion that the Democratic party take black voters for granted. That certainly would happen, and I would love to see that piece of conventional wisdom be put to death once and for all. On the other hand, if Steele were to win, it would usher in a new round of stories about how there were suddenly black Republicans and that if the GOP continues to make gains among African-Americans it will spell disaster for the Democratic party. I think we can pick a better standard bearer for this fight (someone like, say, Artur Davis) than Mr. Mfume.
It's Drinking Liberally time again.
We're at Montlake Ale House, from 8pm onwards.
Be there or be a mushy moderate.
I haven't played this game yet, so here goes:
Close. Not perfect, but close. There's not enough rap, and too much other stuff.
My top 5 philosophers? Oy. That's going to come perilously close to "the 5 philosophers that Nick can name". And it's going to have to include religious thinkers, who might not strictly be called philosophers.
The answers to your two questions are, "no, I'm not; it's a long story" and "soon, I swear".
What are the questions?
Last
updated by Nicholas Beaudrot on 06:16 20 September 2005