Guess this is my slow day at work... actually, it's my more productive day at work, and hence the time to surf a bit at lunch.
On with my theme about religion, here's another post. This is quite unbelievable, the exploitation of "minors". Shame on you, Scientology!
Oh, and in case you're still baffled by the contents of the recording, this is Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson, urging you to go to some Scientology event.
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.
Meet the Press this morning had Larry Summers and John Boehner talking about the stimulus package.
At first during the Summers piece I was getting really annoyed at David Gregory and then realized the problem wasn't him, it was that Summers is a terrible interviewer. By the time Boehner was done I was almost ready to personally write a billion dollar check to poor Bill Gates and forcibly shut down every State government (ok that is a slight exaggeration).
In case Larry finds himself within earshot of a microphone anytime soon here are some ideas.
If someone asks why you should give states $1.5 billion for retaining thousands of police officers instead of giving every American a check for $5, it is because recovery takes businesses not afraid of being robbed, not everyone buying an extra latte or extra value meal.
If someone wants to know how you could possibly let the Bush tax cuts expire, the answer is simple. Tax cuts cost money too. And if we have to choose between helping a handful of millionaires and millions of middle class American families - our police and teachers and military and factory workers and bridge builders - I will always choose the latter.
And if someone wants to know why you aren't 'forcing' banks to lend you note the irony of Democrats being yelled at for not intervening in the market, remind the interviewer you have only been in office for 5 days, inform folks that you don't have voting rights, and suggest that if that is a problem maybe we need to think about nationalization.
On a larger point I am glad to see the return of subject experts to government, but letting communication idiots - and Larry Summers has a long history of tying himself in knots - near microphones only makes the job of fixing things a hell of a lot harder.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=303695&f=24
NYT has an in depth piece on a new worm that is scaring the heck out of security folks. But in the midst of then piece there is this great graf:
"Yes, we are working on it, as are many others," said one botnet researcher who spoke on the grounds that he not be identified because of his plan. "Yes, it's illegal, but so was Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus."
If I ever end up in court I am totally stealing that line! And 'because of his plan' sounds insanely sketchy - who is he, Dr Evil?
On a related note, if government is worried about security vulnerabilities they could cut their risk.(and costs) by 25% if they just stopped buying Microsoft products. The value of their suite is integration and consistency of user experience, which are the things we completely suck at (and thus do not leverage).
Megan McArdle breaks the first law in talking about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:
I think the time for a two state solution has probably already passed - I don't know anyone who gives a convincing rendition of a viable Palestinian state on the remaining territory.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=D78B384E505C6FA372587C938D6B73E1.w5?a=303365&f=20
That may as well be the headline of this opinion disguised as news piece in the NYT. The story is disorganized and meandering (Did you know Arab schools are terrible? Did you know Arabs are hypocrites? Did you know Arabs have different national interests?). But the bias and sense of 'the region is a mess and it is all their fault' is pretty clear.
What would be more informative and interesting would be for the NYT to give a voice to the many progressive Arabs who have been fighting for years to bring better education and social services and equality to the region (or at least someone who didn't just learn that not everyone supports pan arabism).
I am by no means an expert on the region, but they at least deserve credit for recognizing their problems and things like the GCC, building King Abdullah City, and the growth of SABIC (and yes I know those accomplishments are all in the Gulf, give me a break that is most my know knowledge in the region).
And whitewashing the negative impact of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (which extends far beyond just 'the arab street gets mad' - it includes the refugee issue, respect for minority rights, water, and national security) doesn't help anyone. Just because you have a broken leg and migranes doesn't mean you ignore the cancer.
Andrew Sullivan flags this quote from Bishop Eugene Robinson:
A message to Rick Warren? Let's sit down. I think what would happen, which might frighten him, is that we have so much more in common than that which separates us. I would want to tell him about my relationship with my partner, about how just as in marriage--and by the way I was married so I'm in a position to compare these two - the church believes in marriage because it believes that kind of love between two people, that selfless, self-giving love, is a place where God can show up. And I would like to tell him where God has shown up in my relationship with my partner. Scripture says, "by your fruits you will know them" and the fruits of the spirit are appearing in gay and lesbian relationships, then couldn't he acknowledge those fruits of the spirit and begin to rejoice with us over those relationships.
Reading list:
Not surprisingly, Obama's letter to his daughters is a touching and well written piece.
I only flinched a bit when I imagined Obama's speechwriter pounding out the words of this seemingly personal "to my daughters" letter in a cafe or empty apartment.
I guess as president, no correspondence of his will truly be personal because it will be archived. But upon reflection this seems more a letter of Obama explaining to the world why on earth he decided to put his family through the roller coaster ride of a presidential campaign, with a bit of his-vision-for-this-country (so that he can justifiably talk a lot of fluff with no real substance) on the side.
Then again, I'd just be laughing out loud if this were McCain being the President-elect and publishing a letter to his children. It would just look too forced. Obama, on the other hand, seems to always have an interesting story to tell. Props to him for being able to pull that off, but really, if this goes on too much more I might start to think I'm watching a prime time soap op.
Laura Rozen over at one of the new FP blogs posts a summary of emails she has gotten from folks who are skeptical about the new administrations "Apply Online" approach.
In fact, the extreme secrecy of the process and the stated rationale of seeking the "best and the brightest" is designed to conceal what is actually happening in the foreign policy transition -- a determined and coordinated effort by Hillary Clinton and her team to maximize their power and position in the administration, thereby preventing Obama's people from running the foreign policy side of the government. (Some would call this a power-grab).
Totally unrelated to Gaza or nukes or health care (well maybe a little bit this one). On the bus this morning there was a little kid - maybe 3 or 4 - sitting in a window seat staring out intently as the world passed. Then I looked a little closer and noticed the kid was tonguing the window handle! GROSS!
Unfortunately the bus was packed and I was driven away before I could get a quick phone shot. But parents, please keep an eye on where your child puts their tongue.
Hands down the most interesting intellectual piece I have read in a long, long time. Possibly ever, but as a stereotypical academic (who's not in physical sciences), I don't ever commit to definitive certainty.
The article's about the British protocol in case of nuclear attack that kills their PM and one other unnamed person in the chain of command. It led to talking about many other countries' / religions' philosophy on the subject. At the end of the day, for decisions as monumental as this one, I honestly think that placing that burden on one person is too much to ask of anyone. From the perspectives of information, knowledge, experience, guilt, responsibility, and the fundamental notion of democracy, this system simply sounds flawed.
I'm off to research and read about strategic ambiguity now. I'm not sure there's an objective "truth" out there that can be sought on this subject, but the status quo needs to be closely examined, that's for sure.
Good question. One way to look at it is to assess their actions. One doing this would note that with the exception of three rockets fired last week - which caused no damage and they responded to by saying they weren't behind firing them - they haven't said a peep except an occasional, obligatory statement that invading Gaza is bad. And that probably means they really aren't looking to get in on the Gaza fight or cause more trouble.
The other take is to just make up hypothetical intentions based on the principles that "Israel is good", "Iran is evil", and "everyone in the middle east is a wholly owned Iranian subsidiary". In this world we assume Hezbollah omnipotence and omniscience and so if a rocket was fired they must have at least ok'd it and since they haven't done anything since that clearly means they are just planning and waiting. And since it is only a matter of time before Iran unleashes them we should bomb Iran now.
Note to Israel, paranoid and delusional analysts are not your friends.
Ezra Klein has two pieces this morning on food policy and the invocation at one of the inaugural balls that both illustrate the emerging Rovian tendency in the Obama folks that most worries me.
The crux of the problem is that change seems to be little more than a slogan. Rove was the master of surveying the landscape, identifying the big single (or small number of) issue groups, doing the math, and then giving the leaders of each a piece of the pie in return for delivering their constituents. Obama has flipped it a little by using the internet to cut out the traditional movement leaders.
But fundamentally it increasingly looks like most of what he does is a calculated SYMBOLIC move. Worried about selling your stimulus package, trickle it out in pieces with each one to either the right or left of what you want so that you can look like you are giving everyone something in the negotiations. A bunch of folks have rallied around Michael Pollan's book, give him a shout out in an interview and talk about setting up a White House vegetable garden. Evangelicals are feeling nervous, call in Rick Warren. Now the gays are a little nervous, call in Gene Robinson. Just imagine if the Voodoo community could get CNN to give them 5 seconds - the Illinois ball would probably be led off by a shaman.
In the end it looks increasingly to me like another four years of the same old just done by slightly smarter marketers. Change tastes like pretty weak tea.
This is a clip from a new conservative documentary, Media Malpractice ... How Obama Got Elected. Hilariously Palin has released a subsequent statement that Ziegler "misrepresents" her and takes things out of context with his editing.
On the Trig thing Andrew Sullivan - not some "nameless blogger" - has been the prime skeptic. And despite her talk about the "facts", the truth is Sullivan has said (rightly) all along that as soon as she releases a single medical record about the pregnancy or the birth certificate that shows she is the mother he will drop it. Until then, I side with him that the onus is on her to prove there is nothing to the rumor that Trig isn't hers.
I also chuckled when she mumbled on about the Couric interview. After two minutes of rambling on about how of course she reads "newspapers" and "magazines" you can see her catch herself and realize she should probably NAME one of these vague categories of periodicals that she reads. So she pulls out the big guns and mentions USA Today(!) and NY Times(!) as her reading of choice.
I will say that like most conservative talking heads she is really good at playing the victim.
Here's my two cents to add to the countless news sources / blogs out there on the Israel & Palestine conflict:
Number 1, whoever has to power to, PLEASE FIRE THE ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER. She's bad for PR, and I'm refraining myself from further, much less respectful comments by saying just that.
While I sometimes think that people use the holocaust card whenever they feel like it, I can understand for someone that has lived through the horror of the holocaust, the idea of being stateless is terrifying if not utterly unacceptable. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, but I believe it needs to be kept in consideration.
However, saying that Israel should have the right to exist as a state does not imply it has rights to specific plots of land, and I don't care what their ancient documents say. The world simply does not operate by allocating land ownership to whomever can show the oldest document claiming rights to it. (and I think the Brits ought to pay for playing the game of Monopoly with that piece of land when they oh-so-graciously decided to end their era of colonial rule -- aka that land no longer belongs to you, and not yours to give away).
To begin negotiations, Palestinians need to agree on one party that can represent them. And by that I mean a group that represent their interests not just vis-a-vis Israel, but that can ensure their survival and development as a nation independent of their issue with Israel. I am personally unconvinced that any political entities in Palestine's recent history can realistically (and separate from the Israel issue again, even though I know it's a big part of it) achieve all the above.
Any casualty / death / property damage from here on counts as negative points as far as their position in the land negotiation. I'm still trying to formulate the specifics of the negotiation rules and terms I have in mind, but my initial leaning is on Israel & Palestine bidding on land by paying the other side, with financial constraints accounted.
The actual structure is much more complicated than what I just described, of course. But the fundamental goals are to 1) figure out who-wants-what-parts and how-much-they-want-it; and 2) compensate and assist those that need to resettle; and most importantly 3) stop the wars and killings, what else!!
Well, dare to dream, right?
http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwalt.foreignpolicy.com%2Fnode%2F10732
Stephen Walt at his new FP home has an interesting thought experiment up considering what would be the response today if the Arabs had won the Six Day war and it was the hardline inhabitants of a Jewish rump pseudo state firing rockets.
Rather I should amend my characterization and say it could be interesting. But unfortunately Walt is just a bit lazy and takes the wikipedia history of the conflict and just flips the names. While I do appreciate his and Mearshimer's 'Israel Lobby' state the obvious paper for opening a dialogue, the goal here is pretty simplistic and unhelpful.
This exercise could be useful for developing final settlement principles for the US if you play out a true remapping from 1973 that contextualizes it within the Cold War, which was a major driving force for the decision making during most of that period. I also think another useful avenue for research would be dating the emergence of the Israel Lobby.
Right off the bat, I just want to say that I have no political comment on the current conflict in the Middle East or on Al Jazeera network. But I did want to highlight a really interesting technology implementation they are doing.
The War on Gaza web app is a real time crowd sourcing implementation. Using their website, twitter, or sms anyone can submit a short news item about the crisis. Each comment is geotagged and categorized by the author (and can include web links, photos, or videos). It shows up instantly but will remain identified as "unverified" until some authorized individual is able to verify the report. From the front page, those interested are then able to either use the map interface to browse around or read through a "news feed" implementation in reverse chronological order.
The coolest part to me is that they did this in a matter of days using Ushahidi, an open source platform that was developed in Kenya during the riots after the 2007 election. It is a great tool that is now being used in a few places across the world - from tracking crisis info to managing comments. And did I mention it is open source and free.
Times Online today has sort of a fun little op-ed on How Detroit Can Save Itself that caught my eye. And they were all good ideas for reducing the carbon emissions of a given trip and making driving cars more attractive. But the problem is that "Detroit" cannot unilaterally take advantage of most of them to improve itself vis a vis competition.
"Dedicated short range communication" and smart cars only works if everyone has one and they all speak the same language. Imagine you are driving and your car is a pc and you are heading into a blind curve with a mac coming the other way. Same with the highway convoy. And just imagine if a 15 car train is heading down 95 on New Years eve 2012 and the software has been written by the microsoft zune team.
The solar powered car runs into a chicken and egg problem with our current power grid - it doesn't make sense to make them until a lot of people have solar garages, and people have little incentive to get a solar garage if they do not have somewhere to park all their power. Plus I am not sure we really want GM in the solar panel business.
The last one has a chance. Some network to tell you where open spaces are relies on the local government to put in smart meters and traffic cams. But the latter piece about turning your car into a little personalized ad bar as a new revenue stream works (though like I really need more ads or restaurant services - that is what an iphone or bb is for).
And again, with all of these they do not help "Detroit", they just help car owners and perpetuate our car dependency by sucking up chunks of public resources and crowding out public transit options.
Yeah! Andrew Sullivan (along with Josh Marshall, the person most responsible for my RSS addiction) is back from vacation and still his sensible self.
I have already said my piece on the current violence. But I do find the continuing focus on Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel interesting. My brother was a prototypical angry middle child and frequently heard to utter such horrors as "I hate you" and "I wish you were dead" to our mother growing up. He even occasionally punctuated these shouting matches by knocking things over and slapping around our youngest brother. But I think we all recognized these were usually because he was negotiating with our mother to go hang out with friends or buy him a new pair of sneakers or reduce a punishment doled out. Since he never attempted to commit a homicide, we did not actually think he really wanted her dead or gone.
My question about Hamas is this: how much do they really want to "wipe out" Israel and how much is just posturing? I lean towards it just being posturing, but honestly do not know the answer here and am open to being convinced. Clearly there is internal debate within Hamas about when and under what circumstances to "accept" Israel, though whether they would if offered a deal is impossible to know at this moment.
I am also curious about their operational strength. It seems to me that an organization truly dedicated to an apocalyptic fight to the finish would be breaking more things if it had the capacity. Following the death of Nizar Rayyan today they seem to have again called for more suicide strikes against Israel. But what about the last two years? I can't recall a suicide bombing in Israel, though that doesn't mean they haven't been trying.
Of course the flip side of all of this is that if it is just words then Hamas could unilaterally accept Israel's right to the 1967 borders and blunt a serious arrow in the Israeli quiver.
Posts
All Comments
