Somebody made an oopsie!

From TGPW:

"Honestly, I've never paid that much attention to Michelle Obama. Just
what little I've seen of her and Senator Obama, is that they're a
member of an elitist class... that thinks that they're uppity."



-- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), quoted by CQ Politics.



'


Ok so this guy isn't a prominent Republican, but he's trying out a few attacks.
We've got the mention of elitism, which is apparently standard and doesn't seem to be that effective against Obama. We've got the dismissal of Mrs. Obama, which is also standard and doesn't seem that effective either.

And then we've got that one word: uppity.

All right then. I don't pretend to know what's going on inside Rep. Wesmoreland's mind, but when confronted with a mental picture of a black woman he would like to see politically defeated, he reaches for the word 'uppity.'

There are two groups of people the word 'uppity' applies to:

1. African-Americans who don't "know their place"
2. Women who don't "know their place"

This is what I'd call a political 'oopsie'. It probably won't get wide coverage, but let's be honest - it's not a very common word except in the above contexts. I don't want to argue about whether it's racist or sexist or not. I don't want to argue about whether those features are endemic to Republicans or not (for what it's worth, a large amount of liberal criticism of Palin is transparently sexist: I've heard her called a 'traitor' to her female-ness because she's pro-life). I would hope that Rep. Westmoreland sees he spoke loosely.

[Someday I will give a formal definition of the 'oopsie,' which I plan to make a political neologism just like 'truthiness]

Because I haven't been able to post anything substantial on the VPs

The following humorous anagrams are taken from The Volokh Conspiracy:

Who's the real secret Muslim in the race?

SHARIA PLAN

Who's most desperate to win?

I NEED JOB

As for Palin, who is more of a 'surprise' than Biden was, her rollout isn't working exactly as her party hoped. Sure she's got the Republicans excited, but when anybody unknown comes suddenly into the public eye there's a huge info-dump. Unfortunately, Palin's info-dump has made the McCain campaign seem...tabloid-friendly.

So all right, McCain picks someone his base loves, and it probably picks him up a couple points among women. But then it also kinda makes his campaign NOT seem like the 'safe' thing anymore. I have no idea whatsoever if this will benefit McCain in the long run.

Polls on RCP show a post-convention, pre-Palin Obama leading in Ohio and Florida. If he wins either, the race is effectively over. There's still room for McCain, but head-to-heads put Obama between 49-51% support. While the Republican convention will probably give McCain some support, will it really drain support from Obama? If he's winning more than half of voters it means that McCain would have to rely on turnout to win the election. The way I see it, the Democrats are the ones with the new turnout advantage in this election.

And let's not forget Barr and Nader. Nader polls at 1-4%. That's bullshit. There's no way that a guy who got .4% last time he ran will do twice to ten times as well in this election, where the nominee is more exciting to vote for than Gore or Kerry was. Barr gets 1-5%, and I think he'll get about 1-2%, basically getting .5% in the coastal areas outside the South and maybe up to 5% in the Midwest. I have no idea how Nader polls so high, but it is literally impossible for him to do as well as he's polling. More people might vote for nearly-crazy-"I'm so entitled I can hit police officers and disregard regulations" Cynthia McKinney, who's the real Green Party nominee this year.

SHAWCO

[ed: Pictures are sort of working now, this is a re-post.]
\
This is the school building where I've been teaching a group of 8th Graders in Math and English. It's located in Khayelitsha, South Africa. The kids who attend are all native speakers of Xhosa.

I'm working with SHAWCO, through the University of Cape Town. It's a student-run organization for volunteering.


These are a few of the students. You guys will recognize yourselves - leave a comment.

This is hilarious: fun with senate candidates!

Do you know who this is? This is the woman who was running as the Republican candidate for Joe Biden's senate seat. Her name is Christine O'Donnell. She was going to lose so badly that no one even bothered to do a poll for the race.

Now Biden is VP and the Democrats must find someone who can run in his place to maintain the seat. While it's not likely, there's the off chance that this new person will collapse under the weight of gaffes or scandals or some other unforeseen consequence.

While it's likely that O'Donnell's senate career will end before it has begun, it would be a hilarious bit of political drama worthy of the attempted spin-off of the West Wing if O'Donnell managed to make her way to the senate. At least if she doesn't appear to be a politician, she's not as unsettling as:


Bob Kelleher, Republican candidate for Montana, who loves his kerchief.

This man's name is Bob Tingle. Tingle. Would you, as a voter, let him tingle you?[Republican challenger for Rhode Island]


Scott Kleeb, Democratic challenger for Nebraska. Since when did they start casting former stars of Dawson's Creek for unwinnable seats?


Tom Udall, Democratic challenger and likely winner of New Mexico's open seat, a Nicholas Cage look-alike who thinks that the best photos are always taken in front of pseudo-picturesque mountainscapes.

Black is white, up is down, Francis Fukuyama...isn't a Neocon?

What is going on in this world? An OG of Neocon theory (possibly partnered with Samuel Huntington for this title) and author of a book titled "The End of History and the Last Man," a very 1990s democracy/triumphalism/USA-as-world-police idea, has written, in the Wall Street Journal:

"Iraq may be stable but the war was a mistake"

Fukuyama seems to be good with provocative titles, but his op-ed is nuanced. Here's the money quote, coming from such a respectable voice supposedly in the community of war-supporters:

By invading Iraq in the manner it did, the U.S.
exacerbated all of the threats it faced prior to 2003. Recruitment into
terrorist cells shot up all over the world. North Korea and Iran
accelerated their development of nuclear weapons.
Indeed, Iran has emerged as the dominant regional power in the Persian Gulf once the U.S. removed its major rival from the scene...

Ouch! Those fight-em-over-there-so-we-don't-have-to-fight-em-over-here war supporters must be hurting.

Creepiest drawing of Obama ever...

Apparently it's a big worry in Arabic-language media that the US is run/controlled by Jews. No matter what you think of that idea, it cannot excuse the terrifying thing you see above you, where a disoriented and seemingly underaged Obama emerges from the marsupial-like space in the back of Israel's ill-fitting jeans.

If McCain has to fight everywhere, he will lose

The advantage in the coming election is with Obama. If it comes down to undecided voters who don't know who to pick three days before the election, Obama will win. This is a time when Americans seem to want an opportunity to reject Bush's legacy, and in a pinch McCain is too similar. That doesn't mean McCain can't win, but it makes things hard.

In the past, Republicans and Democrats have been able to rely on certain "safe" states - Northeast and California for Dems, the South and West for the GOP. When the other party can break these blocs, they win the election.

But this election is slightly different. The same trends are evident - Louisiana won't go for Obama any more than New York will vote McCain. But a few of the more marginal Republican states are being pried away from McCain.

All in all, the only tossup territory McCain's actually secured is Florida. I thought it might be up for grabs, but now I predict it will go for McCain, narrowly but solidly. McCain also puts up a great fight in Indiana, Missouri and Ohio, and possibly in New Jersey. But besides New Jersey, all these states have been Republican once or twice in the last two elections. Bush won Indiana (11 electoral votes) by 15 points and 20 points. Now Obama is even or ahead there. However, these states could still go for McCain if he made a powerful push there and really succeeded. If this happened, he could win.

But another factor will prevent him from being able to make that push. Solidly Republican states from all over the map are being seduced by Obama. Polls have shown the following Republican states within striking distance for Obama: Alaska, Montana, Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Georgia, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico. Honestly, that's a lot of states to hold onto while still making a big push in Ohio.

I personally think McCain doesn't have the power to recover all of these states and also take the few he could steal from Obama. He's got limited time and money, plus everything he says to make Ohio happy could piss off voters in Nevada.

What will happen? The current RCP map shows Obama probably taking Colorado. I think he'll also pick up Virginia and New Mexico. McCain will retain the Carolinas and Georgia, but he'll have to spend a load of time and money to secure them - money that won't be used to help out in Ohio and Indiana. Nevada, the Dakotas and Montana will also likely stay with McCain.

The problem isn't whether McCain will lose those states, it's whether he can afford -in time, money and political capital - to keep them and pick up the swings. For McCain, things look grim.

Mugabe wins, or "Why the Big Dogs didn't act"

He wins with 85% of the vote. About a quarter million people voted against him, and there's a good chance these brave souls will be tracked down and maybe killed.

The election happened, and Mugabe bullied people into voting to raise turnout, then forced them to vote for him by basically removing the secrecy from the secret ballot. I continue to support Tsvangirai's last-minute move to pull out of the election, but I feel an opportunity was missed here. The three nations that could have had an effect were China, the US and South Africa. I will explain why none of these acted in a way that made a substantial difference.

China: most people don't know the depth of China's involvement in African politics. While the US is trying to recruit friends in the Muslim world and Latin America, and Russia is slowly reasserting itself over Central Asia and Eastern Europe, the third great power is doing a much better job of making friends. China has buddied up to Sudan, Chad, Zimbabwe and countless others. It's a business deal of sorts whereby China 'buys' geopolitical goodwill in exchange for either weapons or clout or cheap goods or other assorted items.
China runs its African associations not like a nation-state but like a business. If you buy, China will be much less likely to allow machinations against you go forward. It is amoral, which from time to time causes China to engage in a bit of immoral dealing. If, bowing to Western pressure, China cut Zimbabwe out of the loop, China would undo the two reasons it supplies Africa:

• By buckling to 'whiny liberal capitalist imperialists' China would be embarrassed geopolitically, since China had supported Mugabe less than a month ago
• By making an exception from the apolitical trade every single African country that does major business with China would feel pressure to conform to China's will. If China has to assert its will on any one country, the others will change attitude. They will no longer buy happily and support China happily but will be more like the US - buying because it makes sense and then complaining about it.

The USA: There are two schools of thought on this one: the cynical and the pragmatic. Cynics say that because Zimbabwe is poor or black or African or not in control of any important resources [read:oil] that the US won't have anything to do with it. Some have argued that the US didn't feel pressured to act because there was another competent, liberal democracy in the area to blame: South Africa.
I see more pressing reasons in the pragmatic argument. Even if the US had simply committed itself to supervising the elections itself, it would require troops. Zimbabwe isn't large, but let's not kid ourselves - the US can't spare any troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the US doesn't do much trade with Zimbabwe, so even sanctions wouldn't be that effective. Add to this President Bush's 25% approval rating and a general American exhaustion with new adventures overseas and any concerted action becomes increasingly unlikely.
Those who aruge that a tiny action by the US could 'fix' Zimbabwe are mistaken, and sound surprisingly like those who argued Iraqis would welcome the US with open arms and immediately become a stable democracy. These two groups are generally from opposite sides of the political spectrum, but they both seem to think intervention on their certain terms is easy. It's not. It requires more than just a removal of Mugabe (though he helps it all hang together). He's built a political machine that could either be dismantled, like de-Baathification in Iraq, or turned into a legitimate political party, the way the South African National Party, purveyors of apartheid, turned into the semi-respectable opposition party. In addition to political groups, many militias are loyal to Mugabe. Even if he died and his successor swore off violence, someone from his entourage would proclaim violent revolution and pick up a number of the militias.
The entire enterprise of Zimbabwe would have been a massive job for the US, and there was no political will, logistical understanding or military capacity to take it on in 2008.

South Africa: There are, I think, three reasons Zimbabwe didn't act: solidarity, Mbeki and history.
Solidarity: Mugabe was the guy who kicked the white minority government out, and until about 2000 he was the 'good dictator' of Africa. He plays up his role as Father of the Nation, and South Africa buys it to an extent. And why not? Half the Founders of the USA were slaveowners and another large chunk were abolitionist quakers. What Founders do isn't automatically moral. Unfortunately, by buying Mugabe's Founder status, and by valuing his African-ness over his dictator-ness, South Africa makes the mistake of exchanging foreign oppressors for local ones. It's misguided, but not at all uncommon. The UK and Australia stick by US policy in the War on Terror, even as the majority of their populations dispprove of it. Latin American countries decry US interference as the making of new Banana Republics. It's not only Africa that practices bad solidarity.
Thabo Mbeki: The President of South Africa has decided on quiet, closed-doors diplomacy for his entire career. It seems to have served him well except in the case of Zimbabwe. Mbeki's personality is not confrontational, and his style is not the kind that would intimidate Mugabe. Plus, Mbeki has taken a very hand-off approach to the economy during his presidency, so that he doesn't alienate the whites. The result of this is that any embargo against Zimbabwe would require a huge policy shift. Again, I understand why Mbeki acts as he does, I simply disagree with it.
History: This reasoning may be unfamiliar to Americans, but southern Africans know it well. During white rule in South Africa, the government carried out military operations against each of its neighbors and politically manipulated both the minor white governments and then the black governments that followed them. The number of operations and actions is staggering, especially since a great number weren't even announced. The Apartheid government played its neighbors, without a great regard for national soveriegnty. When apartheid ended, the new government rejected the previous ways of doing things. The white government had rigidly controlled the economy to keep the races separate, so the new government left the economy alone. The old government didn't address the greivances of apartheid, so the new one did. The old government invaded, bullied and sanctioned ruthlessly. I think that a rejection of apartheid-era foreign policy plays a large role in South Africa's inaction. Unfortunately, in trying to be respectful, it has been over-respectful of Mugabe, who does not deserve it.



'Fixing' Zimbabwe all the way would have been a massive job, possibly too much for this time and place. But maybe the first step was allowing a fair election, which I feel could have been done much more easily than a full-scale program. A fair election would have unseated Mugabe and put Morgan Tsvangirai in his place, and also ousted his political party.

As I think I won't be writing on Zimbabwe for a while, here's an index of every post on the elections:
Mugabe will win
Mugabe didn't win
Mugabe admits he didn't win
Mugabe arrests the winner
Mugabe refuses to lose
Mugabe equates voting against him with treason
Mugabe's opponent is bullied out of the race
Why I care about Zimbabwe

DC v Heller, first thoughts

First, the decision was broadly correct: ownership of arms is an individual right, and it was meant to be one. This means that McCain was on the correct side of this decision (helping him come back from his over-the-top and incorrect opinion of previous cases). Obama was on the wrong side of this; his statement that DC's ban was constitutional is flat-out wrong. I guess this puts the candidates at 1-1 with regards to the Supreme Court.

But I do have a criticism of one small part of the opinion. The majority, written by Scalia, states: "The prefatory clause does not suggest that
preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient
right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense
and hunting."

I'm not convinced of this at all; the founders probably would have seen little difference between militia use and self-defense use, since the guns of their day were slow to load and impossible to reload in a critical situation. The idea of a person carrying a gun on their person to prevent robbery would have been foreign. This doesn't mean it's not protected, I just object to the statement that the Founders would have felt hunting uses more important than militia uses after winning a war for freedom that depended largely on popular militias to win. The Second Amendment was put in place because the Founders felt only an armed population could resist illegitimate governmental tyranny, and that government had to be prohibited from being able to deprive people of the means to resist it by voting, protesting, speaking and writing, meeting with likeminded people, and by force of arms if totally required. A huge bundle of the rights in the Bill of Rights are directed to maintaining the freedom won in the American Revolution by preventing the government from curtailing the means by which people could undo tyranny.

When the Constitution was written, I think the most important meaning was for militias. This in no way means militias only. It simply means that I find it ridiculous that of all the concerns on the Founders' minds, they found time to make sure people would be able to hunt in the future and protected it in a specific right.

Let's not make this decision into a partisan shouting festival. Let's not overreact. There's a lot of moderation and good-sense arguments in the decision, and most Americans broadly agree with it. For the second time in a short while, I have to applaud the Supreme Court for issuing a correct decision to complement Boumediene. In that case, the liberal bloc issued a correct decision. In this one the conservative bloc did. But in both cases, the Court curtailed government overreaching and micromanagement.

Why do I care about Zimbabwe?

In an article titled "Who's Africa's Worst Dictator," Slate correspondent Peter Maass argues that Robert Mugabe is not the worst dictator in Africa. That honor belongs to Teodoro Obiang, who has been more ruthless than Mugabe both in crushing opposition and in oppressing the general public of his country of Equatorial Guinea. In fact, reading the article, I agree: Obiang is a master of dictatorship while Mugabe is simply adept at it. Maass compares Obiang's work to the mess that is North Korea, truly the most oppressive place on earth, without exagerating his original case.

If that's so, why do I keep on posting about Zimbabwe and only toss off references to North Korea and don't even mention Obiang? Because, in a world of limited time and political capital, I believe we should do the most good when the situation permits. Obiang's situation still finds him strong. Maass basically sums up my case:

"Obiang's enforcers don't need to club people on the streets. His
would-be opponents are too frightened to openly demonstrate against
him. His is the Switzerland of dictatorships—so effective at enforcing
obedience that the spectacle of unrest is invisible."

That's the difference: situations on the ground permit the democratization of Zimbabwe in the near term. I was surprised at the results of the elections there earlier this year, where Mugabe's ZANU-PF party lost control of the legislature to Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC. The earlier elections weren't free, weren't fair, but still had high turnout and somehow managed to displace the ruling party from at least one branch of government. What's even more amazing is that the legislative results will stand: the MDC will still be in power when Mugabe wins the Presidency on the 27th.

The people of Zimbabwe want democracy, as evidenced by their high turnout (something that was bad for Mugabe, and was not encouraged by him) and their actual legitimate exercise of the right to vote as they pleased. Mugabe controls the executive, the courts, the army and various local militias, but he's lost the legislature. The people of Zimbabwe are practicing democracy, as well as they can under the circumstances.

The most important reason why I write again and again about Zimbabwe and not, for example, Chad or Sudan, where dictators oppress and kill more people more cruelly is that Zimbabwe has a real alternative. The MDC is a legitimate, built-up political party. If allowed to govern, it would be able to do so (though it might not do very well, that remains to be seen). In many countries run by dictators, the opposition is either ethnic, religious or military. If that was the case in Zimbabwe, I wouldn't be talking about it. The MDC is a political group with national reach and appeal. It has regional and ethnic components, to be sure, but so do the Republican and Democratic parties in the US. So while I dislike Chad's dictator Idriss Deby, I don't talk about Chad because there isn't a ready democratic opposition to his rule.

Another country I do not address is Burma, where the military keeps democratic activist Aung San Suu Kyi virtually imprisoned for decades. While she is a powerful force for democracy, I'm not entirely convinced her party would be able to exist without her. I may be wrong on this point, but I see Aung San Suu Kyi as the glue of her entire democratic movement, while Morgan Tsvangirai is simply the head of a political party that matured from a democratic movement.

Because I see the opportunity for real and lasting change in Zimbabwe, I write about it.

It's officially over in Zimbabwe: Mugabe wins.

Morgan Tsvangirai has pulled out of the run off election. Only the current Dictator Robert Mugabe is left, and he will win the vote, which is still scheduled for this Friday, June 27th.

There are now two major schools of thought: that Tsvangirai should have stayed in, even though his supporters had basically been intimidated into submission, and that he was right to pull out.

I personally sympathize with those who wanted Tsvangirai to become a symbol for Zimbabwean democracy, but I think it wasn't the time and place to stand up and lose an unfair election. Mugabe would have won anyway, and with Tsvangirai no longer in the race his supporters don't have to disclose themselves by voting. Since Mugabe would have won, he might well have tracked down large clusters of MDC supporters and killed or tortured them.

There will be another set of elections in six years, and Tsvangirai will still be alive; since he didn't make non-electoral trouble for Mugabe this time, Mugabe won't have him killed. Zimbabwe can't stand to be that much of a pariah, and the country would take a massive popularity hit if Tsvangirai died.

The best reasonable course of action I can see is that if Mugabe dies before the next elections, his successor might not have the organizational capacity, popularity, power or desire to supress Tsvangirai and his party. In this case, a democratic or nearly democratic election could take place that would allow the people of Zimbabwe to finally be free.

The most important poll, part II

Until today, the electoral map I had been using for the Presidential election was very nearly the one we saw in 2000, except that Obama was making inroads with Virginian and Carolinian voters while picking up a few northwest or Midwest states. However, McCain was solidly in control of three big southern states: Georgia, Texas and Florida.

Now something has changed. McCain still has solid (read: insurmountable) leads in Texas and the rest of the "confederate" South. However, a new poll has Obama leading by four points in Florida. This is the first poll in nearly a month in this state, and the first since Clinton's candidacy was truly put to rest. Florida has 27 electoral votes, the fourth-largest total after California, Texas and New York.

Now what does this mean? There's been a lot of pundit-driven speculation that elderly Florida Jews won't vote for someone named 'Hussein'. But this group does not necessarily decide each Florida election. Obama has been strong recently in supporting Israel, and McCain continues to not convince people his foreign policy is different from Bush's. Maybe this contributes to the swing, or maybe other factors are responsible. It's also possible that this poll could be in error. Four points isn't massive, and with a three-point margin of error, it's possible that Obama's lead is really nothing of the kind. Yet the most recent previous poll (conducted by the same service with the same methods) showed McCain leading by four. This is an eight point swing which cannot be dismissed as an error.

The poll before that, conducted by the reputable Rasmussen service, had McCain up by ten. That's a fourteen-point swing towards Obama since May 19th. What used to be a safe state for McCain now becomes a heated contest for both candidates.

But unlike previous days, it's not all good news for the Obama campaign. A new Minnesota poll shows Obama winning by only one point. Previous polls had Obama up by thirteen and fifteen points. The most recent previous poll had Obama up by thirteen just two days before this newest poll started. This appears to be a twelve-point shift to McCain in just five days. A solid Obama state is now totally up for grabs. I personally think this new poll is an abberation - McCain's probably not that close. But it does notify McCain that the state can be won, and scares Obama into thinking the state can be lost.

Still, things appear in Obama's favor right now, as most poll movement is going his way. I'm not obessing about tiny deviations in polls but rather comparing old and new polls so that the swing becomes significant. For example, the reason McCain closed the Minnesota gap so quickly is not that he took votes from Obama but rather he firmed up his own support. His numbers went from 39 to 46 between polls, meaning a whole slew of previously undecided voters (probably leaning Republican the whole time) decided to tell pollsters that McCain was their man. This leaves about ten percent of voters as 'real' undecideds who can be picked up by either candidate. Plus, good manuevering could steal supporters from a candidate's pool. This race isn't anywhere over, but McCain does start with a disadvantage.

The most important poll, and other election observations

I personally believe that the most highly sought after state in this upcoming election is Virginia. Until this election it was a solidly Republican state for Presidential elections. Now we have a new Rasmussen poll that puts Obama ahead by one point. This is entirely within the margin of error, but means that no matter what, McCain will have to work hard not to lose this state. The easiest state for McCain to steal it New Hampshire, but polls show Obama passing McCain in recent times.

A Virginia VP pick for Obama could basically hand him the state, but the person I thought best suited to the task, Mark Warner, has taken his name out of consideration. I find this a bit strange: Warner was casting about for a Presidential bid in 2006, but took his name out of contention for the nomination before any of the real candidates even announced. Now he has a good chance to be VP, with a good shot at being the shoe-in for the Dem candidate next round, and he turns it down to win a senate seat. Warner's working very slowly, taking breaks in his political career. Why? Does he have some dirt that would cut him out of high offices? Does he have some ten-year plan? Or (I cannot believe I'm suggesting this) is he a principled politician with modest and incremental goals and relatively little burning ambition?

Looking outside America for a second (like anyone cares) we come to Zimbabwe. The run-off election is to be held on June 27th. But first I must clear something up: many (most) news articles I have read about Zimbabwe allege that current Dictator-for-Life Robert Mugabe lost the Presidential election to Morgan Tsvangirai. This is true, but it is always stated in such a way that it seems that Mugabe has already lost the Presidency. In fact, neither candidate gained over 50% of the vote, so there must be a run-off between the two. Except that these results took suspiciously long to come out, so Mugabe probably faked them to cause a run-off and buy himself more time. However, if Tsvangirai had simply tried to move into power he could have been cast as exactly as undemocratic as Mugabe for not playing by the rules.

Now as to the run-off itself, Mugabe has equated voting for the opposition with treason. He has harassed opposition supporters. He has had Tsvangirai arrested again. He had the wife of a local opposition leader burned alive. Barring military intervention by another country (which might backfire horribly and which I don't recommend in the slightest) Mugabe will crush the opposition and remain in power until the next elections. Thus, Zimbabwe has to wait six years (or until Mugabe dies) for its chance to be free. What could other countries have done differently? China could have refused to sell Mugabe weapons. The US could have given a crap about a country where people actually want democracy right now. South Africa could have been more confrontational. The African Union could have demanded to supervise all election proceedings.

All these were unlikely to happen from the start, since they all offer a payoff of nearly nothing in exchange for a pretty large political risk. I never thought Zimbabwe would be handed democracy and freedom on a silver platter by other countries, but it would have been nice if there had been some assistance from the outside. Zimbabwe can't get free by itself, at least not yet. For now, they must wait.

McCain said what?

"The United States Supreme Court rendered a decision yesterday that I think is one of the worst decisions in history..."

This is not something that needs context. 'Worst ever' means 'worst ever' no matter how you try to gloss it. I could rattle off a bunch more Supreme Court decisions that are worse, but I'd like to point out that this time Sentor McCain is simply wrong. The Supreme Court's decision, or at least the core holding of the decision, is right.

Here is a huge, well-thought out discussion of why. I will simplify it down to bite size:

The Suspension Clause does not require the writ of habeas corpus;
rather, it states that "[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

The power to suspend that writ is given to the President (probably) in time-critical situations, such as imminent invasion. Otherwise it is given to Congress. Since these detainees were in US custody for years, it is hard to see how the time-critical factor should even play a role. Congress didn't strip habeas corpus, so the detainees still have it. I know there are a whole number of complicating factors, but this is the base of the situation.

If McCain wants to beat up on a Supreme Court decision, he should pick a fight with Kelo v The City of New London, the taking-for-private-use eminent domain case. I would fully support anyone who wanted to overturn that incorrect, illiberal and undemocratic ruling. However, McCain is now on the wrong side of the law, history and apparently his earlier statements on the subject.

When a politician is wrong, I hope to call them out on it no matter what party they belong to. If Senator Obama had applauded this decision I would be castigating him. That's not the case. This time, Obama is right, McCain is wrong, and that's the end of it.

If not Webb, Warner? The search for the perfect attack dog...

Reading the article Anyone but Webb on Slate has gone a long way towards convincing me that while Webb (a former Reagan Republican with security and military credentials) would add quite a lot to Obama's presidential run, his 'extracurricular' activities might hurt Obama. These include Webb's temper - Obama can't fault McCain for his temper if his own VP has outbursts. Also, Webb has a history of specious statements about women. Right now, the Democratic party is experiencing more enthusiasm than it has in a decade. It's not smart to dampen it by raising Webb to VP where his statements could rekindle the identity politics of Clinton's campaign.

But an angry VP is a good idea. The VP is the hatchet-man for his candidate: he attacks while the candidate sits back and looks Presidential. Then the opposition has to respond and get down in the dirt, looking unPresidential. Cheney was a good hatchet-man. Romney has potential as well. Huckabee has said too many good things about Obama, and made too many jokes on the edge of racism to be an effective attacker for McCain.

But McCain's personality as his campaign crafts it allows him to take Obama on without needing a VP to do it for him. McCain is being presented as the man who speaks his mind; he will challenge the opposition when he feels they're wrong. Obama's campaign personality won't let him do that. He's all about reconciliation and nonpartisanship. He can't attack as ferociously. So what Obama needs is a VP who can and a means for that VP to do it that doesn't contradict Obama's main thrust.

Webb can't deliver that; his attacks would be either partisan or too ad hominem. This election, people don't want character assassination. I also doubt whether Bill Richardson could deliver this as VP. He's not confrontational enough.

But I know who could: Mark Warner, former Virginia governor. Yes, Warner couldn't attack McCain in the tried and true way of saying an idea was outright bad. Warner and Obama have built their images on reconciliation with the opposition; neither can afford to give that up this election. But Warner could do something else. He could attack McCain's positions as being centrist-in-name-only. If Warner expresses disappointment at McCain's failure to live up to a centrist and conciliatory image, if would help undercut McCain's broader appeal. Plus it fits in with Obama's move towards conciliatory politics beyond the usual. In addition, I think that disappointment from Warner would be more damaging to McCain than anger from Webb. Warner could attack McCain in a way that still goes with Obama's "Hope" message.

Of course, there are probably other ways to evaluate VPs but I personally think Obama needs someone to attack for him, otherwise McCain could portray him as a weak candidate. McCain should hope for a VP who won't or can't attack, since a toothless ticket would let him sell the security issue more easily - an area where Republicans usually win the fight but are in trouble this election.

The post-Clinton political roundup

General Info:
Everyone is calling for Democratic unity. Hillary Clinton's supporters are to join Obama against McCain. But the fact is that in polls, the defection of hardcore Clintonites has already been factored in, and Obama is still beating McCain in almost every poll. Put simply, Obama wants Clintonites, but doesn't actually need them.

How to win:
Meanwhile, pundits are trying to figure out how McCain can pull off a win in this most unfortunate of years for the GOP. One suggestion is to frame the Presidency as a job that is mostly about foreign policy and security. Obama has no experience in either of these areas, and so strategists think this would give him the boost he needs. I disagree, since if McCain's own campaign says the Presidency is about foreign policy, McCain will have to give direct, obvious and clear positions on the issue. Unfortunately for him, his maverick foreign policy is pretty well disliked by the public right now, since it's largely the same as Bush's. Given a choice between a policy they hate and a policy unknown, the voters might well move ever further away from McCain.

McCain could also try to pull a Clinton - run a campaign for the 'common worker' and try to paint Obama as an elitist or socialist. Unfortunately, he's not likely to get the union support he'd need to win this way. Also, his pro-immigration and pro-trade positions, while economically better for the country, are very unpopular in this constituency.

What has to happen? If McCain can make Obama fall apart during a debate it will bolster the 'no experience' image and give him an edge. This is a long shot, since Obama is more comfortable in public than McCain. Meanwhile, Obama would score a political headshot if, during a debate on Iraq and foreign policy, get angry and say something like "You're just another George W. Bush!" in a way that made McCain's temper go off. We've heard a few things about McCain's temper, and if it shows up during a debate people will rethink their image of McCain as a sober elder statesman.

VPs:
Obama needs a VP who can guarentee him a red or toss-up state. Mark Warner (VA) and Bill Richardson (NM) are two candidates who come as a package deal with their home states and either blue collar votes (Warner) or hispanics (Richardson) - both fertile Democratic areas that Obama is weak in. However, Warner is running for the senate now and is going to win. Thinking in a more expansive strategy, does Warner bring more to the ticket than he brings to the senate? Could a quick replacement for Warner actually win? As for Richardson, would his presence make the ticket a bit too...non-white?

McCain needs someone who makes people care about coming out to vote for a Republican in November. With dissatisfaction at an all-time high, he cannot count on people voting against Obama in large enough numbers. A VP pick that excites the religious right would be smart. Could it be Huckabee? Romney? Recent times have heard more chatter about Bobby Jindal. Unfortunately for Jindal, I think he'd actually be a better candidate for the Presidency in 2012 than VP in 2008. If he's on this ticket and loses, it could be like Edwards in the early primaries this year, tainted by defeat. If I advised Jindal, I would tell him not to accept the VP spot. Plus, while he's socially conservative, his emphasis is on economics and he doesn't excite the religious right enough.

A hilarious gay parade float

A pro-gay group wanted to have a parade float. A local government told the group it couldn't display any references to homosexuality on it.

The result?

the restrictions, which resulted in a float bearing a cowboy-and-Indian
diorama, signs such as "Who pays for school supplies?" and a giant
question mark in the middle of it.

A good, a bad in Zimbabwe

Morgan Tsvangirai was released today after being held for eight hours without serious charges. Most commentators see this as intimidation and disruption to his campaign. I see it as the first of a series of arrests. Maybe the third or fifth time Tsvangirai is taken in for questioning he'll "resist" and not make it back.

While it's good that he's out, I still hold by my near-alarmist post yesterday. Another unseemly sign has surfaced: [Quoted at length from this post on FP Passport]

Here's James D. McGee, the U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, describing the incident to CNN:

"Police put up a roadblock, stopped the
vehicles, slashed the tires, reached in and grabbed telephones from my
personnel, and the war veterans (Mugabe's supporters) threatened to
burn the vehicles with my people inside unless they got out and
accompanied police to a station nearby."

McGee added that his embassy felt the orders were
"coming directly from the top." Whoever gave the orders, threatening to
burn foreign dignitaries alive is a step beyond the usual Mugabe
bullying. It's sickening.

Until now, Mugabe had restrained his worst intimidation to Zimbabweans. Now he's messing with countries much more powerful than his own. Let's just say that if Iran threatened to burn US diplomats alive we'd have a causus belli if not a military action. I explicitly don't think military intervention is the right path, but maybe if Mugabe pisses off the US enough someone will take notice and issue an ultimatum. The fact that Mugabe is willing to insult the US like this shows that he takes outside equivocation for granted. Someone please prove Mugabe wrong.

A sad day for Zimbabwe, and no one really cares.

Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested today.

He is the leader of the current opposition party of Zimbabwe, and his party won resoundingly in the recent elections. He got more votes than current President-cum-Dictator Robert Mugabe, but neither candidate got over 50% of the vote. That is if you believe Mugabe's government's count. Tsvangirai claims get got 50.6% and doesn't need to engage in a run-off.

Upon seeing that Mugabe wouldn't just let him take over, Tsvangirai slowly moderated his position from saying that he won and would be denying it by engaging in a run-off versus Mugabe to his current one in which he would probably engage and would definitely win if the vote was fair.

Mugabe's men took weeks to release the election results, which were almost certainly tampered with. Now they have tried to purchase large quantities of weapons from China to enforce their rule. Opposition-friendly areas are being terrorized and community leaders harassed or beaten. The only hope I could see to a quick end was Tsvangirai's return (he was out-of-country to avoid assassination) and election victory.

Now Tsvangirai has been arrested without charges and is being held by Mugabe's government.
This is what happened last time he was arrested (inset of Robert Mugabe)


Zimbabwe is not South Africa, and SA still has its problems. But it is one of the most outstanding countries in Africa and I believe Zimbabwe has such potential as well. The first step to change is the removal of Mugabe and his cronies. The run-off election is scheduled for June 27th. I wouldn't be surprised is Mugabe held him until that date, then declared some bogus charge against Tsvangirai and invalidated the run-off, saying people can't vote for a convicted and imprisoned felon.

Until now, I still saw a way out for Zimbabwe. Now, with this arrest and mounting attacks on opposition supporters (some 30 have been killed) I am saddened to know that Zimbabwe will not be free this year. Its people may have to wait for Mugabe's death or the next election - which is six years away. In my estimation only three countries can truly change the course: South Africa, the USA and China.

China will not act against Mugabe. South Africa is slowly growing more confrontational - a good sign - and the incoming leadership is sometimes openly hostile to Mugabe. The USA does not seem to show an interest foreign policy-wise. This is, I believe, a mistake. If the USA wishes to spead democracy, a little well-placed pressure on China and South Africa could turn the situation around. While Americans bicker about whether democracy can or should be spread by force, they ignore a situation where some diplomacy could depose an illegitimate leader from power without the use of military force. This is, I should hope, something that all Americans can agree on.

I want Zimbabwe to be free - it is a moral good and will also massively increase the living conditions of the population. I don't want to have to wait another five years or more. I have been following the situation closely since before the 2002 elections. Each time, Mugabe hangs onto power because no other country will deal with him harshly enough. I am tired of waiting. If I could ask the Presidential candidates one questions, it would be "How do you plan to uphold democracy in Zimbabwe?"

Why are curses inherently bad?

I was listening to one of my favorite singers - Bonnie 'Prince' Billy - when I heard something that made me think. Billy (real name Will Oldham) is a truly crazy man with a Nietzsche beard who creates cavernous and terrifying pseudo-folk music.

He lulls you into complacency with sparse instrumentals and pretty but obvious lyrics about mountains and women and valleys. Then all of a sudden he hits you with the following:

If I could fuck a mountain
I would fuck a mountain
And I'd do it with a woman in the valley

Why is this so jarring? Two reasons: the image of a man copulating with a mountain is strange, and the use of a curse is totally unexpected. It's crazy and startling.

I asked myself why I was startled. The answer is that I was startled because he cursed. Why does cursing startle me? Because I've been taught (by parents, school and general society) that it should. But should it? Taboo words are part of basically every language. Since I'll be talking linguistically now, there will be quite a few curses. You have been forewarned.

I have seen some people - generally conservative Christians - who argue that words like 'damn' are affronts to God, and should not be said for that reason. Yet in common speech, the harshest curse is ususally 'fuck,' which has no blasphemous quality to it. Neither does 'shit' - the other harsh curse. The religiously-derived curses - 'hell' and 'damn' - are actually quite moderate.

Despite what some people may argue, no word inherently means anything at all. All the meaning comes from how people use a word. The situations in which people use words also determine when they are acceptable. A word is only a package of sounds; without society to inform it, the word is useless.

People object to words like 'fuck' because they're sexually explicit. Yet there are now so many ways of using 'fuck' that groups that guard 'decency standards' must grade whether the word was used in reference to sex or just as an exclamation. The former is heavily punished; the latter is punished more lightly. The fact is that almost any word could be sexually explicit in context. A censorious obsession with euphemism is, in my opinion, misplaced.

This doesn't mean that I'm going to go around cursing in front of little kids all the time. It won't change my habits at all to know that the taboo around 'fuck' is just invented. But it should give pause to those who would argue that there are universal laws of correct and incorrect in language.

P.S. Two fun facts about 'fuck':

1) Fuck comes from a German word meaning 'to strike.' It does not come from an acronym for "Fornication Under Consent of the King". It's been in the English language for longer than words like 'fornication' or 'consent'. I have been told this totally false story so often that whenever someone tries it on me now, I start shouting at them: "WRONG WRONG WRONG!"

2) Many languages have a third affix, in addition to prefixes and suffixes. The 'interfix' does not exist in English - except with the word 'fuck,' which is the only word that can use that form. When added, it emphasizes the meaning with a certain enthusiastic edge: in-fuckin'-credible!

Pfleger!

I have not looked into this new preacher very heavily. Because it seems people will be talking about him, I thought I would weigh in anyway. I've only seen about a minute and a half of his sermon. In fact, I have only seen this:

Rev. Michael Pfleger on Hillary Clinton

Before you say that I don't have context to judge Pfleger one way or the other, I'll say this: I agree. You don't have context. But this clip is all that most people are going to see of him. And you know what?

It's not what people are claiming. It's a comedy routine. The way the he enunciates, overdoes his gestures, makes everything into a world-ending shout. This isn't a hardcore political speech. It's a stand-up routine.

If you're not convinced, go to 1:00 in the above video. Pfleger says "Hey, I'm Barack Obama!" in such an over-the-top way - possibly the worst impression I have ever seen in my life - that I laughed. His following Hillary-inspired shriek of "Damn! Where did you come from?" is a pretty good encapsulation of the way many Clinton fans feel.

Is he racist? I don't know. Is he self-hating? It doesn't seem like he's critiquing white people, just white priviledge. It's obviously not politic for something like this to happen right now to Obama, but honestly Pfleger is further away and his routine isn't angry. It's funny. In fact, it kind of reminds me of a Lewis Black routine. If you think I'm going soft on Pfleger, watch the video again and ask yourself: does this man want to destroy America or does he just want to wring some comdey out of the primary season?

McCain should be saying "Oh shit!"

The Republican primary in Idaho was held yesterday. Now I've written before about how a staggering number of primary voters won't throw their support in with McCain. I assumed that the protest effect would get weaker and weaker as time wore on, since people who protest like this aren't going to vote Democrat in the fall. They would inevitably reconcile themselves to McCain, or they would stay home and not care to vote. Either way, there would be fewer 'dissenters' from the party's nominee.

I was horribly wrong in Idaho. McCain made the state his worst showing since winning the nomination. He got 70% of the vote. And this time, the protest vote wasn't split between "none of the above," Huckabee and Ron Paul.

Idaho voted 24% for Ron Paul.

In no way does this mean Paul's candidacy has a chance. But it does mean Bob Barr does. Barr only aims for 2-5% of the vote in November. Votes for Paul are votes of longing for a small-government GOP, which McCain does not represent. With the Republicans scattered and their candidate offering very little to right-libertarians, Barr could spoil the race for McCain.

No third party is even capable of hurting Obama this much - Cynthia Mckinney for the Green Party is a joke. She's a 9/11 Truther and is publicly disdained. [However, a quick google images search shows that much of that disdain is poured out in creepily racist ways]

Back to Idaho, I am not predicting a larger group of dissenters from now on. I think Idaho was an exception and that the remaining states will fall in line. It does point out the ways that voters desire a small-government conservative. Unfortunately, McCain has to choose his VP from either the small-government or religious right constituencies. I think he cannot win without the RR, and that, for practical reasons, his VP should be from that group. This means that he won't be able to pacify libertarian dissenters.

The New Mexico Republican primary is on June 3. I predict McCain gets 78% - better than his previous 75% scores or his painfully low 70% in Idaho. This doesn't mean McCain's out of trouble. By now he should be getting 85-90%. It just demonstrates how badly the GOP is limping right now.

From whence does the perfect VP hail?

Answer:
For McCain, from the religious right.
For Obama, from Virginia.

For the first time in decades, the Democrat seems capable of taking Virginia. Most polls put Obama within 2 points of McCain with a number of undecideds. Obama looks like he'll lose West Virginia now, but 'real' Virginia is much more important for gaining electoral votes. He has three choices: Sentor Webb, current Governor Kaine and former Governor Mark Warner.

Obama should choose one of these Virginians, and he should choose Mark Warner. Warner is a centrist, working-man's Democrat who won and governed much more solidly than Webb or Kaine. He is well-liked in VA and helps compensate from Obama's deficiencies with certain constituencies. Plus Warner comes with two further advantages: he's not currently in government (and didn't have to take positions on divisive economic or war issues as a governor) and could legitimately run for President himself in 2012 (if Obama loses) or 2016 (if he wins). Hillary Clinton doesn't make sense as VP; it's a small job she wouldn't be happy with. The only other VP who brings the heft that Warner brings is Bill Richardson - a generally small-government Democrat, he brings with him New Mexico and and experience as a governor. He also gives Obama an edge with Hispanics, where McCain is much stronger than your average Republican.

McCain isn't thinking in income or geographic terms. He needs to quell rumors that he's not a true Republican by nominating a VP who gives the religious voter a reason to come out in November. The thing that might kill McCain is if the religious right doesn't turn out as heavily since McCain doesn't excite them into voting. McCain is old: his VP will be, much more than Obama's, the successor to lead the Republican party. Several names have been floated: Huckabee, Romney and Bobby Jindal. Jindal is too young and too new, plus he's more about Reaganomics than religious conservatism. Romney's Mormonism still alarms some RR voters and some fear he's a liberal sneak attack.

Huckabee is the highest-profile, the most palatable and the most obvious. But he's got one fault: polls showed him losing by at least 10 points to Hillary or Obama in a head-to-head. Sure, VP isn't President but whoever it is will be important - they've got to be able to win in a legit election. On top of that, Huckabee balances his social conservatism with a few nanny state moves in health policy that scare small town and small government Republicans - who are already wary of McCain's candidacy. McCain's best bet is a southern governor who combines free market economics with religious conservatism, with an emphasis on the latter. This gives him a few choices.

I think that an Obama/Warner ticket would be the best move, as would a McCain/governor ticket. If these candidates make other choices, I'll have to talk about them. Meanwhile, we should dismiss ridiculous ideas like Obama/Edwards and McCain/Rice, since these pairings just exacerbate the candidate's major faults without giving them enough new support.

Hagee and Wright

McCain Endorser Hagee: God Sent Hitler, Jews Have Dead Souls

Barack Obama's Pastor his Christianity Jeremiah Wright


The captions on these videos are the names given to them by whoever put them on youtube, not by me. If you disregard the obvious partisanship of both sides, it becomes apparent that something interesting is happening religiously this election cycle.

I'm pretty sure there were a big chunk of Americans who go to thoroughly boring churches and thought that most everyone else did too. The thing is that people like Hagee and Wright have been shown on TV and the internet so much, the public consciousness about controversial pastors has been raised quite a bit. These standard Middle Americans are now questioning just how typical their boring church really is.

For a long time, there has been a misconception that America is mostly Christian (true) and that while they belonged to different sects, most Christians cared about the same things and talked the same way. This is a massive misconception; America may be mostly one faith, but it is still amazingly diverse.

If either of these guys had been preaching about how God loves everyone, even gays, or how gay marriage would undo the fabric of society people wouldn't have noticed. That's pretty much expected by now. The fact is that both these men are saying something many Americans haven't heard before, at least not in a religious context.

During this cycle people also learned a lot about Mormonism, and would have learned even more if Romney had won the Republican nomination. The fact is that the official LDS Church is more mainstream than Hagee or Wright. The mess in Texas with the FLDS has served to remind America unknown denominations aren't unified either.

Maybe later I'll write something about the word "cult," which has been horribly overused in discussing these issues and isn't really a helpful word at all.

Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma

Right now a large number of commentators are being hostile to Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa for not doing enough to solve various problems. He is perceived as not having done enough to prevent the mess in Zimbabwe. His term hasn't reduced crime that much, and land is still mostly (some 85%) owned by whites in a country where nonwhites are one in eight of the population.

I truly do understand his lack of 'movement' on these issues. South Africa has a history of being over-involved in the affairs of its neighbors; it controlled Namibia until about 1990. Meanwhile, making a serious effort to fix wealth disparities might either trigger a backlash from rich whites or from foreign investors. Better to let the economy alone, growing slowly, than to try to jolt it and maybe fail miserably.

Pundits are right to excoriate Mbeki for his stance on HIV - that it doesn't cause AIDS - and for appointing likeminded people to the health boards. Except that Mbeki's government doesn't officially make Mbeki's beliefs into policy; the emphasis has been on natural cures that don't seem to do much, but it has not cut off or banned or otherwise majorly interfered with those who want to distribute anti-retrovirals. Compare this to other countries that won't iodize salt to cure goiters because it's supposedly a sterilizer placed there by whites. Mbeki's government may think wrong, but on this issue they mostly act right.

Mbeki has one year left. When he leaves, current ANC president Jacob Zuma will most likely take over. Hearing about his rape trial and accusations about his financial dealings I grew to dislike, then heavily dislike, then hate Zuma. But strangely enough, nearly everything I've heard from Zuma in the last few months I liked. I liked it a lot.

He got tough when talking about Zimbabwe - obviously ready to take a more active role in resolving the mess. When China attempted to ship weapons to Zimbabwe through South Africa, Mbeki was silent. Zuma was fiery and angry, denouncing China in one of the most clear-cut cases of post-election violence in history. And I'll be damned, but Zuma has won me back. I'm now neutral with regard to him and his upcoming presidency.

Strange enough that a man I hoped would be crushed by scandals is now steadily winning back my respect. Both Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki have combined a small, less active government with restrained personalities. Zuma doesn't strike me as an abuser of power, but he would be more energetic. If South Africa wants to debut on the world stage in a new freshman class of countries that include Brazil, Argentina, South Korea and more, Zuma might be the man for the job.

A thought on atheism

I've mentioned before how many people at FSTDT assert, in insulting atheism and blaming it for basically everything, that atheism is a religion. My answer last time was, "So what if it is?"

I'm pretty well convinced that atheism is a religion, to the same extent that Confucianism - another non-theistic set of practices - is considered religion. In fact there are quite a few 'godless' religions, some of which don't even have a transcendent force involved. You could even argue that the hardcore fans of Classical Greek philosophies which rejected the gods and laid out the order of the world via logic were religions. I think all of these are religions.

Now it's obvious that the people at FSTDT hate atheists. They see atheism as a contagious and dangerous religion, which it is to them and their worldview. Since this is so, they might want to stop calling it a religion before someone in government notices.

Why? Because atheism is assumed to be non-religion, the government doesn't have to worry about calls for religious freedom when it interferes with atheist business. For example, at government functions that start with an invocation, the speaker will often make reference to 'god.' Now the point is that if atheism is recognized as a religion, then basically any invocation of God in a pledge, on US currency, in any speech, etcetera etcetera is the very obvious preferencing of one religion (probably Christianity) over another (atheism). This is not acceptable, and not allowed under the constitution any more than a public proclamation about the correct method of baptizing a new convert.

However, I'm willing to let this issue alone. Most atheists don't think their belief is a religion, and wouldn't dream of pushing for religious freedom on that basis. In fact, the only ones agitating for atheism to be called a religion are highly Christian christianists (they want the state to promote their faith more). What they don't realize is that if they succeed, atheists will have more rights and the references to God and faith in every single area that they've worked for will come under intense scrutiny to make sure it doesn't preference other faiths over atheism. If they succeed, it might be the greatest failure of the christianist movement since the Scopes trial.

Hillary knows she has lost, and now I have proof.

She lost a long time ago, really, when Obama started to pull ahead in delegates again and again. Yes, something unforeseen could have killed him, but those revelations (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, 57 states) didn't kill or even injure Obama - they just slowed him down and made him limp for a second.

Now Hillary Clinton has figured it out as well. I can prove this in a few easy steps:

1) She is not negatively attacking Obama anymore. This one was good for her even before she lost, since I don't consider the "he's inexperienced" jab a slimy assertion. Obama does not have experience at being President; no one does except incumbent Presidents. As for attacking Obama's character, that never served her well - it hurt Obama, but Clinton as well. By halting the negatives, she can not only go out well but also keep face by staying in the race until June/the convention.

2) Her base within the Democratic party - the people who gave her a MASSIVE victory in West Virginia - is about to have really good reasons to defect. Clinton won them by positioning herself as the 'average worker' candidate during the second half of primary season. During the first half, this was Edwards's thing. Now he's going to endorse Obama. More than that, there's some real chatter about Jim Webb for Obama's VP. Webb is a moderate Democrat, former Republican, won't stand for any hyper-liberal social agenda, from Virginia (a well-liked governor), experienced at something or other, and actually has cross-party appeal like Obama. If people wanted a reason to like Obama but stuck with Clinton because she was more 'down to earth,' then this group will soon begin to split for Obama after a possible Edwards/Webb double whammy.

3) This is most important: Hillary Clinton has begun the transition towards Obama. She's not stupid; she knows that if she dropped out suddenly right now, her partisans might not vote, or would vote McCain. She's going to ease out of it.

She said, just today:

Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in
common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the
world with the other than they do with John McCain.
I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously,
I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I
can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a
grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama.

Who knows? This actually sounds quite classy to me. Maybe Hillary will leave looking like a statesman after all. She probably can't run for President again, no matter what, but she could try governor or some cabinet position.

The reason the quotes are proof positive that she's done is that in the past she has done everything possible to highlight distinctions between herself and Obama. In fact, they're not so different policy-wise. She's easing her supporters into it before she ends it. This might even make her some new Democratic friends to replace the ones she lost over the campaign. Plus it's a smart move if she somehow pulls out a win, since her recent comments have skirted issues of race-based divisiveness.

I will say it now with confidence: even though she has lost the nomination, Hillary Clinton is still very smart and knows how to politic.

Some people REALLY like Ron Paul

This is nowhere near the end of it.

I IMPLORE you to visit this link to view the most glorious celebration of freedom, bad editing and anachronism in all of political art. It is called "Liberty Spears the Enemy". In it, Benjamin Franklin is smoking a joint.

Aliens and religion!

Yes it's a ridiculous subject. Yes I'm going to write about it. What if, tomorrow, aliens of some kind were discovered. How would this change people's religious views?

I don't think alien existence is impossible, but the chances of any smart species somehow reaching us within our lifetimes are very low. Most people agree that if life is found off-Earth, it will be simple, proto-animals or proto-plants. It might just be bacteria. I'm not going to deal with the question of sentient aliens or alien religion because they're too speculative.

A horribly sidetracked discussion on ReasonOnline finds one James Anderson Merritt saying the following:

I think it is important that the assertion was that a belief in aliens
would not contradict a "belief in God." Belief in the truth of the
scriptures, however, is quite another thing. Genesis, Chapter 5, says
quite clearly, "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God
made he him..." We styled ourselves "God's favorites," because we were made in "the
likeness of God," and were given dominion over all of "God's
creatures." I think it is interesting that the vatican assertion was
that aliens would also be among "God's creatures." So would aliens simply be animals? If they didn't look or think much
like us, which species would more accurately reflect "God's likeness"? While belief in aliens would not necessarily preclude belief in "God,"
it would be hard to believe in a God who made us in "his likeness" --
i.e., the God of catholicism -- if we were to encounter sentient
aliens, Unless, of course, they seemed exactly like us. Not being especially religious, I nevertheless hope that I live to see the answer to these questions.

This comment is basically on-track. Meeting aliens doesn't mean everyone will magically become atheists, despite the fears of some. Since the life would probably be simple, I'm not even sure that the problem of "In the image of God" would come up. How worked up would you be about bacteria infringing on your status as God's image? Besides, the quote above sees the word 'image' very narrowly - it could be a spiritual, symbolic image. Even a literalist reading of the phrase must give it some symbolic quality, since humans can't be strictly 'God's Image' since we don't all look alike.

However, life on other planets would be a blow to hardcore creationists since the Bible seems to make it clear that no other planets were mentioned. Obviously there are ways to reconcile this: God could have placed simple forms all around the universe. Or there could be denial that the life is actually extraterrestrial - it could be blamed on contamination from whatever probes detected it.

In Islam, a group of beings called the Djinns were created prior to humans. They are more powerful, but they are not angels, since those cannot sin in most interpretations. Djinns have free will like humans, and can convert to Islam - something Muslims were actually tasked with doing if they encountered one. I bring this up because alien life wouldn't shake up Muslims as much as Christians, since Islam has a looser creation story that has a bunch of ways to reconcile a new kind of life.

Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and friends don't often deal with creation issues right now, and something like alien life wouldn't do much to disturb believers. One thing I would predict is that certain New Religious Movements - the things that derisive media usually call 'cults' - would rack up a few more followers. There have been a number of prominent NRMs that openly predict and discuss alien life and especially aliens as technological salvation. A discovery that these groups had been a least partly right in their predictions would drum up interest and some conversions at the very least.

As for me, I think that as long as alien bacteria don't kill all life on Earth, I'm perfectly fine with any alien discovery.

Do you know Bob Barr? You should.

Bob Barr is the frontrunner for the Libertarian Party nomination. Yes. Libertarian Party. The one that doesn't break 1% nationally. The one that does worse than the Greens, the Reforms, the hardline Constitution Party. It basically beats only the Prohibition Party, which does still exist.

But here's a little something to note: between 15-20% of Americans have basic libertarian sympathies. This doesn't mean they even know it, or that they'll vote lib in the election. But self-identified libs are a generally Republican group. They're willing to vote this way because most Republicans throw them something about deregulation or lower taxes.

This year, two things combine to make the LP an important feature. First, McCain doesn't offer much to libs who would normally vote Republican. Obama may offer these voters something, since some of his rhetoric about judges and the executive is very lib-friendly.

The second factor, which is more important than a small lib swing towards Obama, is the now Libertarians know who they are. Ron Paul, never truly viable, has had a huge cultural effect. People know what the word means now, and might begin identifying themselves with it. If Ron Paul endorsed Bob Barr, I could easily see him taking 2-5% nationally. And most of that vote would be either 'new' votes - people who came out specifically for Barr and wouldn't have voted for either candidate anyway - or votes from McCain's pocket, since that's where most libs currently dwell.

Barr is against the Iraq War, a popular position and also a doctrinaire Libertarian one. He likes civil liberties and low taxes. Agree or not, these are pretty popular positions. If any 3rd Party gets a noticeable chunk of the vote this election, it won't be a 'spoiler' like Nader, whose candidacy brings up more issues about campaign finance and debate rules than actual issues. It will be the LP, probably with Barr at the head. Since the LP is friendly with both Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel, both candidates with hugely devoted fan bases, it is possible for the LP in 2008 to be the biggest 3rd Party since Ross Perot.

No, they won't win anything. But libertarians are getting more popular, and there's not a whiff of small-government conservatism from the Republican party right now. If Huckabee is the Vice Presidential nominee, then another group of secular libs may jump off the Straight Talk Express. Chalk up another thing against John McCain for November.

Hussein

For those about to use Barack Obama's middle name in referring to him, I ask this question: Do you really think that people don't know what you mean when you say it?

Sure, some people are called by their full names. However these people are rare, usually just use an initial and choose to present themselves that way. For example, we don't talk about John Sidney McCain. It is not conventional to use the middle name. Using it means something, and those about to use it know what it means.

It's coded language. It carries baggage - the Obama is a secret Muslim, or that he has been tainted by his Muslim heritage. Yes, it is his name. It is not automatically illegitimate to use it. But it is no more normal to say it with emphasis than it is for someone to call McCain "Sidney" exclusively. So when you shrug your shoulders and say, "What am I doing wrong by saying Obama's name?" I must ask, do you really think people don't know. The people you're speaking to know what it means, and so do I. You know. You're not saying it because you like middle names. You want to character-assassinate Obama.

I think that politicians should be judged on their policies and character. Obama's name is not part of that. Maybe his friendship with Rev. Wright is. But then again, so is McCain's personal life. I'm tired of politics motivated by anger. I'm tired of win-at-all costs races where party affiliation matters more than policies. Most of America is tired too.

Thus ends my rant. If you want to feign ignorance about what 'Hussein' means, then I expect you to actually be that stupid in real life. If you're not, I will not allow you to get away with it.

PS: the name 'Barack' is an Arabized version of the Hebrew 'Baruch' - which means 'blessed'. Baruch is a common biblical name, and there is a non-canonical Old Testament Book of Baruch. Buraq (pronounced similarly) is a creepy flying horse with a human head that carries Muhammad to heaven during the Night Journey. When I say creepy, I mean it.

This is how Buraq is depicted:

Primaries, even though I said I wouldn't

So I peeked. I promised myself I wouldn't look until tomorrow, which I then reinterpreted as starting at 12:01, not when I wake up.

At this point, Obama has kicked Clinton up and down North Carolina. Hillary may win Indiana, but it won't be by more than two points. She has no way to spin this whatsoever. It is, once again, over for her.

Since I must find something interesting to report:
Republicans have primaries too! Sure, McCain already has the delegates, but Indiana and North Carolina get to vote too. Here's the interesting nugget: McCain, who has won the nomination, gained 77% and 73% in those states. This means that something like 25% of Republican primary voters want to register protest votes against McCain.

And who got the big numbers that were taken from McCain? Wistful bloggers at Reason, a libertarian organization, had hoped Ron Paul (a quasi-libertarian if anything) would pick up about 12-18% of the vote, as protests against McCain's unsuitability. Paul is still in the race, but he has about a dozen delegates to McCain's hoards.

Paul got 8% in both states. This makes sense; this is his normal level of support, and his fans wouldn't prop up McCain since they're not loyally Republican, just jumping into the party to help out their impossible candidate.

But Paul came in third. Behind Mike Huckabee. A candidate who's not even in the race anymore got more votes in protest than Ron Paul, who's still viable as an issues-exposer. I think I know who those 10% are. They're the hardcore social conservatives who are afraid McCain (and Romney, and Guiliani) is a 'secret liberal' with agendas. SocialCons got used to being the big powerful bloc under Bush. But they failed this election, and they'll never hold the same power again. They just don't know it yet. So while they may come out in November and vote for McCain, it will be out of necessity, since no Democrat will follow their policies. Huckabee was their last chance, and he almost made it.

Here's an indication of how far the SocialCons have fallen off: head-to-heads showed Obama beating Huckabee by an average of 10-20 points. Some had Obama up by 25 points on Huckabee. His nomination would have been a concession from the start.

What might this mean for McCain in the fall? SocialCons will still turn out to vote for him, but noting beats enthusiasm. If Obama's supporters truly like him, and McCain's supporters just dislike the opposition, he will lose. John Kerry lost because his supporters didn't like him so much as they disliked Bush. The fact that one in four primary voters won't openly support McCain is a bad sign for him.

The Baha'i faith, an anecdote

A friend of mine recently converted to the Baha'i faith. If you've never heard of it, it's a unitarian faith the comes most directly out of Islam. It affirms that all the founders of each religion came from God, and that God progressively revealed more of his faith. Baha'u'llah, the Baha'i founder, was supposed to be the last prophet of this age who would draw all the religions of the world into one with his teachings. Baha'is see other religions as valid and correct, but theirs is the most correct and pure.

Such a poorly-known religion, with such tolerant principles and modern sympathies doesn't alarm the religious watchmen in the US. They would see it as either a useless outpouring of Unitarianism in disguise, or a secret way of injecting Islam into the culture. Baha'is are unlike Muslims, unlike Christians, unlike the rest. Their practice is distinct. It's a religion of its own.

But I noticed this: when my friend converted, her manners of speaking and writing changed. They seemed more mature; she used wonderful, beautiful flourishes when describing her thoughts on the world, humanity and the future. But as I read more of her writing I found these same phrases - like 'identity of all humanity' - used over and over. What had seemed special to me was actually lifted from Baha'i scriptures.

It made me uneasy in a gut reaction. I wanted to know why I reacted this way. It wasn't because I resented her conversion or disliked her religion or its teachings. It was because she constantly used these phrases and did not invent new ways of thinking. Her entire process was voluntary, but she stopped thinking so independently. I checked the books she had read; most of what she wrote was simply Baha'i teachings translated into language for people her age.

I was made uncomfortable because it looked a lot like brainwashing. But the process of acquiring language and ways of speaking is part of growing into a religion. You don't become a born-again Christian, for example, without talking about being born again, or salvation, or about faith.

Of course, there are people who convert or grow deeply religious, use a huge amount of their faith's vocabulary and still don't make me uneasy. It unsettled me the way my friend wrote because she was not one of those people; she'd been subsumed into the religious language and never came back out. Maybe in time she'll emerge a bit. I don't mean she should cool her faith, I mean that she may someday adapt the language she's using to say things with the variety she used to in her writing.

Isn't this better than a boring post about the Democratic Primaries?

I would have been wrong

At Volokh Conspiracy various bloggers are having an argument over Burkean conservatism. I don't in any way think of myself as a Burkean, and I am skeptical of the deference to tradition and status quo that Burkeanism includes. I will never truly understand the idea of preserving tradition for traditions sake in the face of opposition.

But there is a facet of Burke that I do subscribe to: gradualism. I think that huge problems cannot or should not be resolved quickly. I think that quick solutions either fail or simply steamroll the opposition without addressing their concerns.

What gradualism does not mean is opposition to anything happening quickly. It opposes big things happening quickly. Gradualism does not apply to whether we keep troops in Iraq, but it does apply to a general strategy of democratizing the world. In that sense, the idea that quick military impositions could overcome the systematic hurdles is totally against a gradualist approach.

But there are times I would have wanted to be too gradual and if I had been in power, I would have slowed down the progress of freedom. I also know why I would have been wrong.

For example, with regard to Apartheid, I would have favored a slow dismemberment of the system rather than the quick evisceration it got. The system went from the peak of its power in the 1980s to a 'palace coup' in 1990. Within four years, the legal framework of Apartheid was dead and a truly democratic government was elected in 1994.

This example will make me look very bad. However, it is the truth and I write it without animus. At the end of the Civil War, I would have favored a gradual approach to freeing the slaves. I would have argued, in that time and mindset, that a quick changed - and especially a move like the 13th Amendment - would create too much opposition to black freedom. I would have been too pragmatic and not idealistic enough, too willing to compromise with an evil system. Sometimes bad systems need to be shot in the head, not picked apart.

Yet, if I was a powerful person in either scenario I would have favored the side which eventually won, but opposed their methods. I've already talked about graduated emancipation as an alternative, but in a totally different context.

Why would I have been wrong in my gradualist way? Because I could not have seen the popular willingness to make radical changes. There are times when people want a big shift, and some event allows that. I would have thought that wagering so much on a hope like this was too risky, better that it happen slowly and surely. Slowly doesn't mean any specific period of time, but it does mean in stages.

So which way is better? I think more often than not, people aren't ready to make large changes. More often than not, gradual approaches don't force things along. For example, President Bush's advisers must have truly believed that Iraqis would quickly embrace democracy. That would have been a massive shift. Had it worked easily, gradualism would have been wrong again. It turns out that it was right this time; the systematic and cultural networks that would have made democratization quick and popular weren't present.

I will continue to be gradualist. When events prove me wrong, I will say so. But I believe that I will be right more often than not, and that the effect of overreaching is something to be avoided.

Cato on Cuba, as if they read my mind:

Article below is quoted in full from here:

"

Today, Cuba officially lifted its ban on the sale of computers to the general public.
Some other prohibitions have also been scrapped in recent weeks: Cubans
can now buy cell phones, stay in hotels previously reserved for
tourists, and buy appliances like microwaves and TV sets.

Is this a sign of openness from Cuba’s geriatric regime? Not so.

A Cuban dissident I met in Havana last year sent me today an article
he wrote about the real motive behind relaxing these bans. It has been
reported in the state-controlled media that people purchasing these
goods are later being investigated by the authorities who want to know
the real sources of their income. As it’s widely known, the average
Cuban salary is less than $20 a month, while the cost of most of these
goods ranges in the hundreds of dollars. Many Cubans get their extra
money from relatives in the United States, but many others run
independent (and illicit) small businesses.

My friend tells the story of the first person to purchase an
electric bicycle, which cost the equivalent of $1,070. This man had a
small butter factory that apparently was very profitable, since he was
selling the butter at a lower price than the government. After buying
his electric bicycle, the authorities investigated him and discovered
his factory. They proceeded to confiscate everything they found in his
home, including the bike.

Let’s not forget that, after all, there is still a Castro brother
running the show on the island. As my Cuban friend says about the
so-called “reforms,” the fact that something is no longer prohibited
doesn’t mean that you can do it.

"

There are so many Castros, what are we to do with them?

Cuba recently held elections for a national legislature. Fidel Castro stepped down and his brother Raul took over. I thought at the time that this was the first step towards further democratization, as the old guard of Cuba's regime slowly aged or died off.

FP Passport has made me think again.

Castro family members, and those who married into the family, represent a huge chunk of the top government and business leaders. Even if Raul and the current legislature chose to democratize further - which isn't likely at all right now - the other Castros would not want to lose their clout in the transition. Meanwhile, for one reason or another, Cuba isn't as economically wrecked by its semi-communist economics as other countries have been. This is probably due to an effective tourism industry that brings in valuable foreign money.

As for Cuba's health care system, it seems the country trains a number of competent doctors. However, recent reports indicate that there aren't enough, and that while people in major population centers may get free health care, rural people have no access to basic treatments. In a country like Cuba, where private health care is restricted, this is more than irresponsible.

What's more, the American boycott has not brought down the regime. Maybe it made sense in 1959. Maybe it made sense up until 1991. Does it make sense now, seventeen years after the Soviet Union broke apart? You could argue that it punishes and weakens the Cuban regime. Probably it does, but if the American economy was opened to Cuba tomorrow, the massive new selection of goods would demonstrate how superior the American system is. Unlike the lower-tech communist regimes like China and North Korea, Cuba could not stop American books, magazines and movies from finding their way into the country. The internet can also be a great tool for Cubans hoping to move their country towards democracy.

I thought that when the leader of Cuba was no longer named Castro, the US would finally lift the ban. The lure of America did help contribute to the democratization of Easter Europe. However, seeing Passport's never ending list of Castros, I wonder if democracy will come to Cuba in our lifetimes.