A Dangerous (Partisan?) Game

I'm not even going to bother complaining about Cindy Sheehan, Katrina, or Ronnie Earle - my target today is one Irwin Redlener up at Columbia. A little background on this is necessary. As many of you will know, Asia is currently affected by an avian influenza epidemic to which we have no natural defense. Obviously, that makes very potent and pathogenic. Right now it's not a terribly big deal, because it can only be transmitted from birds to humans, not humans to humans; unfortunately there is a very real possbility that it may mutate to allow human to human trasmission. In that case, expect to see a very deadly pandemic, more leathal than the infamous "Spanish Flu" outbreak of 1918. As bad as that one was, this one will be worse thanks to modern travel which can easily spread it to almost every part of the world overnight.

For the last several years, scientists have known about H5N1, this particular strain of avian flu. But their warnings have fallen on deaf ears for reasons that I can only speculate are political. Finally though, officials have started listening and paying attention. The President recently discussed this issue at the United Nations, and health ministers will meet in Canada next month. This is all positive, especially the President's serious discussion of potential policies in case of pandemic. One of these would be to use the military for law enforcement in such a scenario, based I assume on the logical assumption that widespread panic would be the order of the day. The military's role, according to him, would primarily be to effect quarantines and thus limit affected areas; this is a role that I fear police might not be able to fulfill effectively. But Dr. Redlener has called this a dangerous precedent, and an "extraordinarily Draconian measure" - what this tells me is that the good doctor knows very little about Dracon. But I have to question this fellow's motives, as I do anyone at Columbia, and ask if he isn't playing with fire here. These arguments mirror those of Cindy Sheehan saying New Orleans was an occupied city, or the NYCLU decrying profiling in New York subways. All of these people desperately, and perhaps partisanly, seek to defend a definition of their freedoms more broadly construed than any of the Founding Fathers may have wished, and at such great cost. Is there any hope to separate policy from poliics?

My apologies

Sorry all few of you who read this for the silence of nearly two months - academics have dominated my life. But I'm trying to get things back into balance, and that includes this. So prepare yourself for another barrage - and tell your friends.

An Intelligently Designed Post

So the New York Times (and much of the rest of the liberal media) predictably screamed when President somewhat (somewhat) endorsed intelligent design. Now, I am in no way in favor of intelligent design and it clearly has no basis in science so it should in not be admitted into the classroom (as an aside, an agnostic amigo told me the first time he came into contact with ID was in his philosophy class - that seems more fitting).

But, I have to admit that I got a certain perverse pleasure from seeing the Left and its talking heads squirm at the thought of something outside of Leftist orthodoxy introduced into the classroom. Maybe they'll finally realize what others think when they force their doctrine - deconstructionism, multiculturalism, relativism into the classroom.

On a related note, scientific principle aside, I think that Bush was right in saying what he did as it would serve to redirect authority from Washington to the local level. Further, with some notable exceptions (namely a nationally mandated and designed civics program), it's arguably correct for municipalities and states to have a greater degree of control over their education curriculum than Washington and decidedly lefty teachers unions (in another aside, I may be totally wrong about this, but I think we've shown that national control and strict guidelines only produces bureaucracy and endemic failure). And if local control's really the issue at stake here, as I suspect it is, then we're going to see ID rising regardless, just check out these numbers. They show 54% of Americans disputing evolution, up from 46% in 1994, though interestingly, the number of people who say that Darwin's theory is proven by the fossil record has actually increased since just last year! Plus apropros to our discussion, it is worth noting that 55% of those surveyed believe that ID, creationism, and evolution should all be taught in school.

More generally, this may be the wave of the future - social conservatives looking to solidify their control and roll back Washington big-government behaviors. We'll see if I'm right - I hope I'm not.

The Annual Vacation Brouhaha

DailyKos and other loony lefties (who I admit I read, though only for the amusement value and the opposite point of view) are once again up to the annual "Bush leaves lets complain" left-fest. Yes, he has spent (thus far, and this according to Kos, so beware), Bush has spent 319 days on vacation. His pere, in contrast, spent 543 days over one term - this while a nuclear armed and existential enemy was coming apart at the seams, and with Saddam Hussein invading Iraq - yet the Kos et al. don't seem to care.

Further, no less a war-time leader than Winston Churchill spent about 1/4 of World War II out of the country and it doesn't seem that he got heavily slammed for it! Now admittedly, Churchill's time off cannot be construed as "vacation" per se, but if we consider how much transporation and technology have evolved since 1941-45, I'd say we're nearly on par in terms of productivity and accessability. Further, let's be honest - Bush doesn't just sit there and chop brush all day. If you consider getting briefed regularly and meeting with world leaders as vacation then I don't know what you consider work. Anyone who wants this vacation should just sign up, I doubt it's much of a vacation at all.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Crawford is the true center of power in this administration. Bush's administration is one that seems highly uncomfortable with formality, as witnessed by the paucity of state dinners he's hosted (far fewer than WJC, I might note); I would suggest that this extends to the White House in general. If you've noticed, he does a lot of politicking out on the ranch, especially with foreign leaders. The man, even

August Recess Legislative Wrap-Up

S.397
So the Senate's firearms bill passed easily yesterday despite some good criticism from victims' rights advocates and a worthwhile amendment which was offered up by Jack Reed (D-RI) and promptly defeated. Now as much as any honest businessman, I feel like this country's getting dragged down by a litigious culture; in that vein I applaude efforts to cap medical malpractice. It's a reasonable idea in that it keeps doctors in business - doctors in my home state were draining like IV fluid to neighboring states where the courts weren't so onerous. But all of this is an aside. The Senate should be less than congratulatory on passing S.397 but rather recognize what they've done. They have made sure that gun companies who are less than perfect in ensuring the legitimacy and precaution of dealers they sell to are immune for their mistakes. Rather, leaving manufacturers liable to individual suits would force them to hold their dealers to a higher level of compliance. Not to be. Interesting to note that many of the usual mavericks, McCain included, voted in favor of 397.

HR 6
So we finally have an energy policy of sorts, though goody bag might better describe the bill. My first beef (pork?) with this one is ethanol - farm subsidies in the guise of an energy policy. They'll probably result in gas prices which are 10 cents higher on the coasts, and this at a time of increased oil costs anyways. Does that make sense to anyone? Also notable are the Republicans who voted no - Chafee, Gregg, Kyl, Martinez, McCain, and Sununu. On a state by state basis, both senators from Arizona, Florida, and New Hampshire voted against it. Those of course exclude all those senators who voted against it for purely political reasons. But once again, pork barrel politics and short-sighted partisanship (from both parties) wins the day. Bravo Senators.

So I guess it's been a succesful session, especially if you're a gun manufacturer or a corn grower. I feel like one of these days we're all going to have to say that we're tired of our government spending recklessly and vote otherwise, or just maintain the status quo and take it. Somehow I think we're just going to maintain the status quo.

Byrd Hunting

For those of you who haven't seen it, the NRSC's gotten its first ad of the '06 cycle on the air, targeting Robert Byrd. Check it out here. For those of you who might be wondering "Why Byrd," I'll give you a one-statistic answer. The man hasn't polled less than 60% since Ike was office. That's the 1950s for those of you whose knowledge of American history is sketchy. I'm guessing West Virginia's changed since then, so I'm guessing the politics there need some change too.

Meddlesome Mullahs

The last few days have had a lot of news about Iran's recent presidential election (if such a term can be used) as well as some pretty interesting revelations about the man the Iranian mullahs (and maybe a few of their people) have chosen to elect president. First and most inarguably, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a hardliner. Even among the conservative candidates for president, he was considered the most conservative. Yet he seems to be a conservative with a populist bent, one who has been generally well-regarded in his time as mayor of Tehran. Further, his support is drawn largely from those who have benefited least from Iran’s entry to the modern world, namely the poor. In a campaign marked largely by its modern appeal, fueled by youth participation and a decidedly Western flair, Ahmadinejad’s electoral victory seems like a reaction from what might be Iran’s most conservative demographic.

Yet another question exists. Was this a victory at all? Did the people speak, or did the mullahs decree? Certainly, the mullahs had every reason for plausibly interfering. Though Ahmadinejad’s opponent in the runoff election, former president ‘Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was no moderate by anyone else’s standards, he was not as conservative as the eventual victor; further, in ensuring the triumph of one of their own, the mullahs secured the only major power center that had remained outside of their control. Ahmadinejad also had the proper revolutionary pedigree to be president, including a hand in the Hostage Crisis (which he denies, though I’m far more inclined to believe the hostages themselves), active service in the bloody Iran-Iraq war, and a variety of administrative posts over the last twenty years.

Evidence of tampering is also quite obvious – MEMRI reports, for example, that a conservative newspaper released the results far before they were officially reported. Also, Ahmadinejad garnered an additional 11 million votes more in the runoff than in the first round; that figure is almost equal to the total number of votes cast for all conservative candidates in the first round. I’ll say, then, that it looks like this vote was rigged. Administration officials have said the same thing. Yet perhaps the illegitimacy of this whole operation is a blessing in disguise as it increases our leverage against European attempts to turn a blind eye to troubles in Iran. Yet neither can we allow our desire to see a legitimate (and ideally pro-western) regime blind us from the necessity that we must deal with this current regime in an effort to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Asia is now host to three militaristic, aggressive, and illiberal regimes that have shown an unwillingness to act fairly with America. Whether or not this new Authoritarian Axis coalesces into a real threat or just continues to make angry but empty noises and gestures remains to be seen. Whatever the end result, however, the United States must turn its eyes to Asia. A new Great Game is being waged across Central Asia again, and we must lay out both our objectives and our interests clearly, and secure local allies, before we find ourselves unwelcome.

Durbin's Apology - Too Little, Too Late

Sort of breaking news - Dicky Durbin has finally recanted, to a point. Politicians never deal in absolutes or any form of totality, and Durbin maintains form. His apology is only aimed at "some" of us who believe his remarks crossed the line and targeting specific groups, Holocaust survivors (perhaps a nod to the considerable Jewish populations north of Chicago whose contributions I can only imagine benefits Durbin?) and the military. Despite his supposed emotions, he couldn't bring himself to apologize to all Americans. Perhaps he thought that doing so would betray his core constituents on the far left - though I imagine their support is pretty unconditional. In any case, Durbin has fudged his way out of a serious bind.

There are of course larger implications. First, the damage is done - Al-Jazeera (and I imagine other similar distortionist medias) have latched onto his words to further flame the fires of anti-Americanism. I suspect AJ won't bother to note his half-hearted change of attitude. He should have also apologized for the damage done to America's image and reputation.

Second, the fact that these statements were so widely accepted and even praised by the press (including the left side of the blogosphere) clearly show that the left is totally out of touch with mainstream America, despite their claims to be mainstream America. DailyKos and the rest of his ilk have aligned themselves with Howard Dean and the rest of the loony left. Of course, it's no surprise, but it's somehow unfortunate to see one of America's great political pillars committing suicide by a thousand cuts thanks to the good doctor and the rest of his peanut (-brained) gallery of pundits. I wonder - when is the mainstream of the Democratic party, those that Bill Clinton so succesfully wooed, going to shake off their apathy and attempt to reassert some sort of balance? Slowly, I think, moderate conservatives (of whom I am proud to call myself a member) have begun to find their voice, especially with the judicial compromise and the stem cell actions in the house. There's still work to be done, but I think the Republican party is slowly, almost imperceptibly changing course for the center...whither the Democrats?

Finally, I hope this comes back to hurt Dick Durbin in the future - that might be poetic justice. I expect he'll be one of the Republicans major targets in 2008 (especially if the Democrats succesfully revenge the defeat of Daschle by bringing down the embattled Rick Santorum) , and I know these words will come back to haunt him. If he keeps it up, he might even earn a reputation as Dick the Self-Destructing Democrat. Now I'm just waiting for him to howl.

My letter to Hugh Hewitt and the Weekly Standard

Hugh,
I hate to say it but you may be wrong or blind on this one. First off, I am a conservative and a Republican. I'll be working in the upper echelons of the party this summer, so I think my credentials in order. The two nominees who won't be given an up-or-down vote due to the deal were by no means assured a victory. Bush avoided two potential embarassments (like the one he may yet unfortunately suffer with Bolton). This whole thing is in no way deeply unethical, it is ethical in the deepest tradition of Senatorial compromise (and anyways, whatever happened to Senators advising as well as consenting?). And no greater issue than the war to the GOP? The economy, stupid. We're running sky-high deficits right now, with no clear path out. If McCain chooses to try and somehow balance the budget, there are conservatives that will vote for him. I speak for a younger, more moderate (I hope) wing of the Republican party to whom McCain is a truly great man. Don't slander his reputation (and remember - Kristol supported him in 2000). This publication never, NEVER was a mouthpiece of the administration, yet now it's lashing out, full of vitriol, against one of the greatest Americans of the last fifty years. McCain may not run for president, but he shouldn't be slandered in the meantime. As for Chafee - what is so wrong with independents and voices from outside of the party norms? The Weekly Standard was founded as a neoconservative publication, in an era when the neocons were essentially a voice in the wilderness. Indeed, neocons have always seemed to be socially moderate - until now. Now you have strayed from foreign policy to pick up the banner of the culture wars which isn't where you should be bothering yourselves anyways. On a related note, it sickened me to see Chuck Hagel, who I had always regarded as both a moderate and a good man pandering to the religious right (much as you now do), criticizing the deal, all to further his presidential ambitions. The Democrats were wrong to do what they did, but we were wrong too to try to not find the middle way out. I can only say thank God for John McCain and the other 13 brave senators who chose to stand with him, though I fear many will pay at the hands of vengeful religious zealots for their bravery. They truly serve this nation, not some craven interest group or base personal ambition. I can only hope they are not the last of a dying breed, but the first of a proud new generation to whom partisan is a dirty word, and patriotism equals compromise.
God Bless this country.

Nuts and Bolton

So the title's terrible. I admit it - I'm sorry. But I think all of the controversy swarming around John Bolton deserves a little discussion from someone as out of the loop as I am. First, unless I'm forgetting something about the US Constitution, the President's allowed to pick his top advisors. Mr. Bolton is one of them. So why all the hating on the Hill? It's probably got something to do with Bolton's attitude towards the UN which can (from what I've read) be best described as negative. But you know - is that so bad for a guy who will be working at the most dysfunctional organization I think the world's ever seen? (Remember, you can't have dysfunction without UN!) It needs cleaning up, and someone who realizes that and isn't happy with the status quo is the best man for the job. So really, as regards the UN, Bush has nominated a progressive. Shocking, huh?

Why do the Dems hate him so much? Good question - it may be the moustache (I can only imagine what the French are saying about it...). But more seriously, Bolton's mess arises from that same distate for the United Nations. They also likely see him as little more than a devoted follower of the Bush - but that's the point, isn't it? I mean the president wouldn't stand to gain much in terms of having a personal representative in New York from nominating, say, Al Sharpton to the position (though the comedic value would be immense).

But there is a glimmer of hope in all of this, namely that some Republicans are showing signs of resisting the tide of party conformity, if for the wrong reasons. The best of these is Lincoln Chafee, who may vote 'no' just to placate his home state constituency and try to save his bacon - though for a variety of other reasons, it probably won't work anyways. A more principled stand, by a man I think is one of the best people in politics today, was taken by Chuck Hagel. Nevermind that he'll probably end up toeing the party line - at least he had the chutzpah to stand up and say that he wanted to take the matter under further consideration before casting his vote.

So here I am saying that the Senate is playing activist in grilling John Bolton, and praising Chuck Hagel for demanding more information. Complicated? Not really. All of my ire in this matter is reserved for the Democrats who again are trying to stymy the President. And of course, John Bolton's moustache.

Rising Tempers in East Asia

It feels like all eyes are focused on Iraq these days - the 70 dead there recently have caused us to question whether or not we're actually winning the insurgency. We are. But in the meantime, I think we've been distracted from a more growing concern. In East Asia, storm clouds are gathering.

These are not the fluffy clouds of hot air created by appartchniks in Beijing and Tokyo, but rather deep rumblings from the Chinese street. We're heard all about the Arab street - Friedman references it regularly - but I believe it's the Asian street we must now listen to. Beneath the orderliness, nationalist feelings and ambitions, long supressed, are bubbling up. As we all know, the real catalyst for these protests was on the far side of the world, where Kofi Annan announced his plan to restructure the United Nations - including a permanent seat on the Security Council for Japan. In China, the government appears caught in a Catch 22. It can either play along with the hordes of protestors (which, incidentally, probably suits its policy goals), or it can repress them. Yet doing so likely incurs further dangers which they are unable to risk - the Communist government made much of its anti-Japanese credentials in the 40s and 50s, it likely fears a popular backlash, and (perhaps most importantly) they must seek to create a new "Chinese" identity for their nation based on something more than party membership.

Japan, on the other hand, has been remarkably silent. What I can see in their media (this without reading Japanese) is often defensive, though I doubt they'll back down on the Security Council issue. Right now, I don't see them overly concerned - after all, the Chinese government will not let popular sentiments interfere with economic profits. Or so we hope.

It's time for Americans to begin paying much more attention to East Asia. We seem to have convinced ourselves, in most circles at least, that the end of the Soviet Union meant the end of the superpower threat. Perhaps. Perhaps there is only a slim chance of a Sino-American war directly. But due to our long-term relationships with Taiwan and Japan, Chinese aggression could embroil us in such a war. So could a concerted Chinese expansion into the Middle East - it seems implausible, but China imports 40% of its total oil. Russia, too, may some day be confronted by an expansionist China. And of course, there is always the possibility of a clash between China and India, a conflict for Asian dominance. None of this is alarmist - it's all in the realm of possibility however. With globalization, a war in the Far East will be dangerously close to home. Let's keep our ears to the ground and an eye to the horizon.

Back to the Basics on Judicial Nominees

The acrimonious debate on the Hill about Judicial nominees has gotten worse and worse, exacerbated by the refusal of the Democrats to admit the obvious, not to mention the fact they've allied themselves firmly with the MoveOn wing of the party. The Republicans, for their own part, are equally committed to this debate. Tom DeLay is of course ravening at the mouth about all of this, perhaps to distract from his own troubles with that little ethics stink. Bill Frist, in what may be little more than an attempt to court the religious right for his WH bid in 08, has spoken out against the fillibusters in a video for the Family Research Council. And here is to me the crux of the problem.

Frist's newfound allies, the Family Research Council, has described the whole mess as a "fillibuster against people of faith" (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH05D02). What exactly does faith have to do with it? It doesn't seem that the Democrats are opposed to these judges on the basis of faith alone, but rather on their positions; the Republicans also seem more interested in issues than where their judges are on Sunday mornings. But unless I'm missing something in American history, neither faith nor positions should play any role in the nomination or confirmation of judges. Rather, we should look for people who will fairly interpret the laws of this country and seek to do justice, a justice that is universal, not based on politics or faith.

What should the pols do? Not go nuclear! The way the media is spinning this whole thing, the GOP is coming across pretty badly to the American public. The New York Times is already predicting a political shift like the one we saw in 1994, based partially on "Republican arrogance," as partially evidenced by their high-handedness on the judiciary. Yet Democrats aren't immune either. In a poll released last month, 67% of people surveyed agreed that "we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process" (interestingly, 69% of Republicans agreed while only 61% of Democrats agreed).

What Bush and the Republicans should do is back down. Let's not further divide this Congress or this nation on judicial issues, and in doing so endanger vulnerable Senators like Arlen Specter. What do the Republicans stand to gain from such a retreat? I'd argue a lot. Many commentators, left and right, are indicating that the religious right is starting to think and see green. Not money this time, trees. And animals. I'm not saying that Greenpeace will be taken over by born-agains. But it's not impossible. This also overlaps with commentary that the area that will be most affected by Bush's nominees is the environment. Family Research Council, Bill Frist, and Tom DeLay all want these nominees. But if your Joe Evangelical voter, so crucial to the Republican success last fall, is coming to love his trees and his fuzzy neighbors (viewed by him as God's green earth and all of God's creations), then he may not be pleased. The GOP will say they have a lot to lose by backing down. They may have even more to lose if they stay where they are.

In Victory, a Cautionary Note

The terrorists lost the most crucial battle of their illegitimate insurgency recently, but they were not the only ones vanquished by the droves of Iraqis who courageously went to the polls. The American and international left lost too. They doubted that the United States would ever succeed in holding elections in a land considered barren soil for democracy. They were wrong. They never thought that such an election, even if it occured, would be succesful. Again, they were wrong. Though we won't know for up to ten days who won the election, truly, all of Iraq won. Even now, it seems almost unbelievable - a functioning democratic election in the Middle East. Yet the international community mustn't lose sight of what this all means. It still remains for the Iraqis to create a permanent constitution, one which will hopefully take into account all the different pieces of the Iraqi mosaic, including women. Yet the government created by this constitution may not be a true democracy as we understand it; this, however, shouldn't be overly concerning. What we seek in Iraq is not first democracy, but liberalism. Liberalism first will ultimately create democracy; democracy first threatens stability with the specter of an illiberal government. In a state like Iraq, unfortunately rich in mineral resources and lacking a cohesive sense of national identity, democracy may indeed produce a result entirely opposite of that which we seek. Democracy has the ability to create a tyranny of the Shiite majority, a corruption of all which we seek rising from the imperfections inherent in democracy. It is after all, as Churchill once quipped, the worst form of government except for all others which have been tried from time to time.

Some may decry this simplistic analysis, but to do so is to ignore the historic truth that our democracy is built and girded by a foundation of political liberalism. That, then, should be the goal of our efforts in Iraq, and our most fervent home in the wake of this landmark election.

On Inauguration Day

I suppose I should note the time, for all of you who may otherwise miss it. It's currently 12:55 AM, on the morning of January 20th; yes, Inauguration Day. Three of my peers, all of them intelligent guys, just left for Washington, D.C.. Why? To protest. What? I wasn't very clear on that, and to be honest, I don't believe they were either. The president won clearly and squarely, no judicial intervention required this time around. That rules out, to the logical mind, protesting against Bush's reelection. They said they were protesting the war, which is I guess why I'm writing this column.

The theme of this week's inauguration festivities is to honor our nation's servicemen (and women, for the sake of PCness). As a result of that theme, Bush has invited many members of the military who have recently seen duty in Iraq or are slated to do so in the near future. It's not just a celebration of the president and his reelection victory, but a celebration and an honoring of those people who risk their lives to defend this country, and extend its precious freedoms to others in lands far distant. We're already in Iraq, and because the majority of the American people supported the president, and thus his choice to begin that involvement, we're there to stay. Protesteing the war has no real purpose; it only betrays the confidence those fighting in Iraq should have in the American public, in the fact that they are there not only as soldiers but as representatives of the American people.

We're in Iraq, we're not leaving. Protesting the war serves no purpose. Protesting the war serves only to strengthen the hand of those we are struggling against, with the future of Iraq hanging in the balance. Protesting the war only cheapens the sacrifice, often the ultimate sacrifice, made by those who chose to serve. The time for protest is long since past; it ended when we crossed the borders on a mission of mercy, a mission of freedom. Now is the time for solidarity and unity, a time to stand united with the knowledge that our mission in Iraq has the potential to remake the whole of the Middle East, and secure a new era of freedom and prosperity for our great nation. We stand united not just with our neighbors, but with the faceless young men and women who will risk their lives in Fallujah, Baghdad, and elsewhere.

Tommorow, at noon eastern, the president will be sworn in for his second term. I ask all Americans, regardless of whether or not you believe we should be in Iraq, regardless of who you voted for in November, to pause for a moment of silence when the inauguration commences. A moment of silence to stand in marked contrast to the racousness of the protesters. A moment of silence to let our soldiers know that while CNN may show a nation opposed to their mission, it is in truth only a minority; America stands with them. The protestors may believe that in their clamor and commotion they are showing their patriotism; we shall show ours through silence.

Good night, and God bless America and its forces in Iraq.