Purple Stained Fingers

Complete with clever voter fraud and tactical voting, the election in Iraq was a success. At least, with the exception of the occasional insurgent attack, it can't be any worse than what we have in the U.S. (which, while having its quirks, isn't so bad compared to countries where elections tend to start civil wars).

Some random quotes from one article of many on the subject of the Iraqi election:

The polls opened at 7 a.m. to the boom of a mortar explosion inside the fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad that injured three people, including a U.S. Marine.

"This the best election yet," said Ibrahim Mohammed Ali, 53, a shopkeeper ...

"It's great, it's wonderful, it's exciting. You can't describe it in any other words," said Saif Thamer, 22, a Sunni student voting in Jamiaa, another Baghdad neighborhood known for its insurgent sympathies.

"This election is going to change everything, because everyone realizes now that the only way to take power is through the ballot box," said Abdullah Mohammed, 32 ...

"This is a real election," said Ammar Sami, 27, a player for Iraq's national basketball team who voted for the first time in the Yarmouk neighborhood. "The first one didn't mean anything, but this one will decide the fate of the country."

"The election is important but it will not stop the attacks," said Mohammed Ahmed Hassen, 37, who voted for the Iraqi Consensus Front. "I think all this trouble would be less if there wasn't this presence of U.S. troops."

Then, there's Idriss, the tactical and fraudulent voter that proves the Iraqi voting system is truly modeled after ours:

Schoolteacher Lamis Idriss, 30, a Sunni Arab voting for the third time, said she hoped the former U.S.-backed interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi would win enough seats to lead the next government. But because she also fears the violence will worsen if Sunni politicians aren't sufficiently represented in the new legislature, she decided to vote for the main Sunni coalition, the Iraqi Consensus Front.

"Allawi has a lot of supporters, so I want to create a balance," she explained.

Idriss had also figured out how to vote twice; by coating her finger in Vaseline before dipping it in the indelible ink designed to deter double voting, she was able to remove the ink and vote again. "It's for the sake of the country," she said.

(okay, okay, the voter fraud article I linked was just one of many involving every part of the political spectrum, but when I saw one about Daschle, how could I not?)

Dancing in the Show Tonight

Yesterday, Ian blogged about D.C. from Oregon. Today, I'll blog about Eugene from the District.

This week the Chronicle of Higher Education has a tiny number of words on the Vincent draft plan (not only is it a "five-year plan," it's also a draft. Another good reason to oppose it!) which begat this post by (also D.C.-based) Joanne Jacobs; the story is also getting play at web journals such as this one and education blogs such as this one.

The word's getting out — better start preparing for the Hannity interview now.

(Full text of the Chronicle blurb after the jump.)

The Chronicle of Higher Education
June 10, 2005, Friday
SECTION: THE FACULTY; Pg. 10

LENGTH: 161 words

HEADLINE: U. of Oregon Diversity Plan Sparks Criticism

BYLINE: SCOTT SMALLWOOD

BODY:
The president of the University of Oregon has backed away from some of the more controversial parts of a proposed five-year diversity plan after some professors balked at it. Because of their objections, the plan will be sent to a committee of faculty members for further consideration.

The draft plan, which was released in early May, called for changing tenure and post-tenure reviews to include assessments of professors' "cultural competency." It also called for hiring 30 to 40 professors in the next seven years in several diversity-related areas, including race, gender, disability, and gay-and-lesbian studies.

In a letter to the president, David B. Frohnmayer, 24 professors called the draft plan "frightening and offensive." They complained that it would spend too much money on "diversity-related bureaucracy."

Mr. Frohnmayer said in an interview that administrators had "taken a step back from the draft plan, given the extent of the response."

Dear Ted Rall:

This column is BS. Please have unprotected sex with Ann Coulter so you two can bear moderate libertarian twins to cancel yourselves out of the gene pool.

Thanks,

M-Dog

I Can See The Future

Below is last year's ASUO Elections editorial, I think I might have, like, ESPN or something. Most prescient points in bold.

Weʼre Late, late, late for a date of minimal importance. With as much emphasis as the folks down in Suite Four place on the ASUO elections every winter or spring, one would think more of an effort would be made to ensure enough publicity for real student participation. Sadly, that is not the case. The elections are a fiasco every year, and this one has been no exception. The difference, however, is in the exact reason behind the newest chapter in the quite sad comedy of errors known as student governance.

The delays caused by the general incompetence of all parties involved are certainly well documented by this point. That doesnʼt really change from year to year. As of publication there were yet to be any grievances filed this cycle, but that will change.

With only 12 days of campaigning, however, these sorts of things are likely to play a smaller role than they have in past years. The major worry this go-round is Progressive Students Starting Today or PSST. Weʼre pretty sure that the PSST kids were really trying to play up the onomatopoeia because they think itʼs clever. Hereʼs a hint, folks, itʼs not clever, itʼs dumb.

Aside from a silly name, and politics just slightly left of your average radical Marxist, the progressives are getting quite preferential treatment from the current ASUO. Each of the PSST candidates is supported by Melton and Morales. Further, Melton is reportedly involved in many of the PSST campaigns. This, quite obviously, sets a bad precedent for the ASUO. The PSST will, undoubtedly, vote for every ethic, environmental, and left-leaning piece of fee-allocation available. Their answers in the ODE vis a vis viewpoint neutrality have been, to be polite, less than adequate. This makes us wonder what exactly would happen to groups that the PSST campaigners did not like.

Viewpoint neutrality, not of groups but of the process by which they are funded, is vitally important to the legal administration of the incidental fee. If the PSST bloc gets elected, and with the low turnout thereʼs a reasonable probability of that happening, groups with unpopular opinions could be in real trouble. The 11 PSST candidates would pose a large bloc of votes on Student Senate, PFC and the ADFC. With only 18 senators, and 10 PSST candidates, a simple majority would be quite easy to maintain. Even worse, the PSST would be only two senators away from a 2/3 vote…under the right circumstances two senators would be easy enough to persuade. If all of the PSST candidates are elected, they will be a nearly unstoppable bloc of power within the Student Senate. Further, the candidates who are under the PSST umbrella for PFC At-Large and ASPAC positions will give even more power to a rather narrow group of kids.

Control over Senate and PFC by the PSST would likely toss viewpoint neutrality out of the game completely. An even greater negative consequence is that the PSST would not likely represent the student body very well. Low turnout in ASUO elections is a constant problem, and the 10-15% of the student body that bothers voting is largely comprised of the same wonks who wish to hold office in the first place.

The average student goes to class, goes home, has a beer or ten on the weekend, and doesnʼt worry too terribly much about being “involved” in campus life. How is a student whose only goal is to graduate served by paying nearly $600 a year for activities in which he or she has exactly zero interest? We can agree that some level of incidental fee collection is probably allowable, but the level to which the fee has risen at Oregon is really quite ridiculous. Electing a PSST senate will in no way help the pocketbook of the representative student.

That Melton and Morales, whose campaign last year swore to be about “ME Working 4 U,” are sponsoring this sort of thing isnʼt really surprising, but it is certainly disappointing. The hypocrisy of that sort of campaigning is also commonplace, but equally obnoxious. While trying, most often ineffectually, to meet pie-in-the-sky goals, the Executive loses sight of action that ends up costing students money. A constantly increasing fee is just one more expense students must pay in order to attend the University. If the Executive actually cared about the average student, they wouldnʼt keep milking the student body for money via the fee.

The only recourse that we, as students have, is to say no more. The PSST must be stopped, and it is now that we must stand astride the woeful tide of history and yell stop. Vote against the PSST, make sure that one group of hard-left sympathizers is not allowed to seize control of the ASUO. The consequences for the rest of us would be far too grim.

Tsunami, Now a Political Dance Party

I caught this on the Today show this morning; I find it disturbing the direction this tsunami fiasco is taking. The entire transcript here, courtesy of "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."

Tim Russert, questioning Sec'y Colin Powell,
"...Much of that opposition comes from the Muslim world, and several of the countries hit by the tsunami have large Muslim populations. `This was a golden opportunity for President Bush to speak to the victims of the tsunami and the Muslim world by showing care and compassion,' said David L. Phillips, a former senior advisor to the State Department."

By bringing up this tidbit, is Russert implying that the only reason the United States in sending help at all is to woo the Muslim world?

Golden line of Powell's reply, "There is always some former official around, some Rolodex ranger that always shows up to criticize what we are doing. "

Russert pushes the envelope: "In terms of winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, how important is it that the West be seen as so much more than indifferent to their needs?"

Powell shutting him down: "We should be seen not just because it's a Muslim nation but because these are human beings in need. "

"Let me taste your tears" watch

Tim Noah, eyeing the 19th hole:

If 18 Bush electors betray both their party and the popular vote and cast their votes for John Kerry on Dec. 13—when, as we Electoral College bores like to point out, the real presidential election takes place in state capitals around the country—then John Kerry will become president.

Tim Noah, moments earlier, still going over every blown stroke at the 18th hole:

If John Kerry had gotten 118,776 more votes in Ohio, he would have claimed Ohio's 20 electors, giving him 272 electors to Bush's 266. For want of 118,776 votes, John Kerry lost the presidency. I'm not going to pretend I don't still brood about this.

I wish I could be the first to say . . .

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

. . . And perhaps technically I am, but a hat tip must go to Hit & Run.

It Took Them This Long to Catch On?

Republicans Outnumbered In Academia, Studies Find
George Will, Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and Observer of the Obvious Extraordinaire, says:
"Oh, well, if studies say so. The great secret is out: Liberals dominate campuses. Coming soon: "Moon Implicated in Tides, Studies Find."

He goes on to point out,

..."American campuses have more insistently proclaimed their commitment to diversity as they have become more intellectually monochrome.
They do indeed cultivate diversity -- in race, skin color, ethnicity, sexual preference. In everything but thought."

Kind of nullifies those bumper stickers in the faculty parking lot that so delightfully read: "Dissent is Patriotic"

I know, there are those of you out there who do not like the Washington Post. But as one of conservative mind, who attends a sometimes violently liberal university, Will is dead on with his views of liberal-dominated acadamia.
It is not to say that all liberals in acadamia are hideous swap creatures of the night. Most are very nice. But Will brings up an excellent point:

"Bauerlein says that various academic fields now have regnant premises that embed political orientations in their very definitions of scholarship:
'Schools of education, for instance, take constructivist theories of learning as definitive, excluding realists (in matters of knowledge) on principle, while the quasi-Marxist outlook of cultural studies rules out those who espouse capitalism. If you disapprove of affirmative action, forget pursuing a degree in African-American studies. If you think that the nuclear family proves the best unit of social well-being, stay away from women's studies.'"

Also, note to self: do not send any future offspring to Berkeley:

"...George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at Berkeley, denies that academic institutions are biased against conservatives. The disparity in hiring, he explains, occurs because conservatives are not as interested as liberals in academic careers. Why does he think liberals are like that? "Unlike conservatives, they believe in working for the public good and social justice." That clears that up."

Now, someone tell me that this Lakoff man is not rotten, biased, discirminatory, and completely full of shit. I dare you.

This is what your country looks like... ON WEED!

I know most of you have probably seen those election maps floating around the internet with their red, blue and purple hues.

Well, this one made by researchers at the University of Michigan adds another ingredient to the formula. It takes into account the population of each county, and morphs a map the U.S. appropriately. The result is a funky looking, warped version of our nation. Long Island itself is as big as Oregon and Washington combined, and the Midwest is about as thin as heroin addict's waistline.

Them There Eyes

Ever get the feeling you were being watched?

Someone in the South is watching. I can't wait to find out the final results of what their angel eyes see...

Battle of the Bulge?

Remember when everyone was talking about that bulge underneath President Bush's suit during the first debate? Well, Wonkette posted a short blurb pointing to some political gossip from The Hill.

According to sources in the Secret Service, the bulge came from a bulletproof vest that Bush was wearing under his suit. The president's handlers didn't want to reveal that during the campaign, because disclosing information about the president's personal security is generally a bad idea.

Are you conspiracy theorists satisfied now?

Mmm, probably not.

Montana: Gay Marriage? No. Marijuana? Yes.

It's sad news for libertarians that 11 states passed laws against gay marriage. On the bright side, the same number of states now have legislation legalizing medical marijuana. Voters in Montana approved an initiative allowing the medical usage of marijuana, making it the 11th state to do so (the 9th west of the Mississippi).

Despite banning gay marriage and helping to re-elect Bush, Montanans passed the medical pot legislation by a wide margin; 62 percent to 38 percent, the highest ever for a medical marijuana ballot initiative.

Did we rock the vote?

Doing a Google News search on "young voters" turns up a bunch of articles that proclaim that the youth vote this year was monumental, and another batch that says youngsters didn't turn out to the polls as much as expected. Huh.

MTV announced that 21 million people under that age of 30 voted in this year's election, up from 18 million in 2000. Voteordierockthevote!! WOO!!!11!

Four dead in Ohio

Drinks, that is. Now that I've killed them, I'm out. If I sleep long enough, I may wake up to a president-elect. Have Wolf Blitzer wake me if'n it happens.

I had a post election ballot measure rant going somewhere around here, but I postponed it when it descended into profane rambling. In the meantime, consider these words from God, and take heart:

. . . Now you see this one-eyed midget
Shouting the word "NOW"
And you say, "For what reason?"
And he says, "How?"
And you say, "What does this mean?"
And he screams back, "You're a cow
Give me some milk
Or else go home"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

Voting Is Awesome!

Well, I went to a polling place for the first time and did my civic duty (having been an Oregon voter previously I did the mail thing). The electronic machines sure are easy to use, but the lack of a paper trail makes me a little nervous. I'll go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of poll workers are probably honest, so I guess there's not too much need to fret, but tangible proof of my vote would be pretty handy. I was not the victim of any aggressive eye-rolling, so I wasn't intimidated by the nice old people whose job it was to check registrations; it was a bit weird to be asked if I wanted the machine in English or Spanish (because trust me folks, nothing about my appearance screams anything but "honkey"), but other than that it was easy enough.

Democracy Kicks Ass.

The damned election still hasn't happened

But at least according to one indicator, it's already settled. Advantage Kerry.

{Awareness raising: The "Unarmed Prophet"}

Okay, This Is Just Great

The Instastandin Megan McArdle (Jane Galt) links to this fairly old video of Bush. I have no idea when it's from, but from the look of it I'd guess somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 or 20 years.

I'm sure a lot of people will latch on to this as some example of how Bush lacks a sense of propriety and blah blah blah be serious on TV cakes. Me? I think it's hillarious. Bush doesn't take a TV appearance seriously, he knows he's not being broadcast, and he does something pretty random that's not too dissimilar from what I might.

As an aside: I have, many times, flipped the bird at the sun.

Bush's Website Says No! to Foreigners (and Absentee Voters)

Lauren pointed me to this Boing Boing post on internet users not living in the US who are unable to access President Bush's campaign website.

I doubt that being able to see Bush's website would change the mind of any U.S. soldiers who are going to vote for the voice of KITT or other talking cars, but I wonder how other absentee voters might feel about this.

The military vote

I just got an email from my brother, a specialist in the 1st Armored Division, who as I've mentioned here before is disgusted with both sides of The Most Important Election Ever (boom, boom, ba-boom, boom!).

Anyhoo, I had assumed his vote for the voice of Kit was an abberration among the military absentees, usually a stalwart GOP bloc, but among the mechanized grunts in the 1st Armored Division, at least, it's fairly typical:

{D}on't fret about the absentee military vote. It won't be nearly as Republican as usual. It's hard to find anyone who spent 15 months in Iraq who is voting Bush. There's a machine-gunner down the hall with a t-shirt picturing our Commander in Chief, bearing the inscription "Operation Enduring Stupidity."

Can't say how true this holds for the military as a whole. (If any bunch of soldiers has a good reason to hate Bush, it's the 1st Armored: their Iraq tour was extended at the last minute by 90 days, a move that had some transport planes turning around mid-flight and some other soldiers enjoying a few hours of false relief on the ground in Germany before they were told they had to go back. I'd be bitter, too.) But I thought I'd pass it on.

Wearing Red in Blue Country

A commenter over at Asymmetrical Information points to a Slate article where the writer dons a Bush/Cheney t-shirt, tote bag and "W" button and saunters around LA's hip Silverlake district. Horified looks, muttered insults and glares follow.

Dining nearby is a young girl who looks to be about 6 years old; she gazes at my shirt with a look so forlorn, I expect to learn that Dick Cheney just stole her crayons. Her mother arrives and gives her a hug of consolation. The girl starts to talk, but I can only make out "Bush shirt," which she says to her mother as she points my way. The mother turns and glares, shaking her head at me. I start to wonder what sort of person I am to inflict this on a poor child.

How Interesting

One of the major points of contention this election cycle has been candidate stance on the economy. Supporters of both sides tend to claim that theirs has the answers whereas the other is, alternately, a pinko-communist or a tool of the corporate oppressor. Apparently, we've all been wrong this whole time.

"The economic impacts of the Bush and Kerry budget plans are so close as to be almost indistinguishable," said Nariman Behravesh, [Global Insight]'s chief economist.

Yet more evidence for a foreign policy only election? I report, you do what ever it is you do.

Another stab at why foreign policy is irrelevant

A while back I made a semi-articulate effort to explaining why I think foreign policy, far from being the main issue in this election, is actually something of a nullity.

Fortunately, Jonathan Rauch has a piece at Reason.com that states the argument a little better. A gander:

Bush's "forward strategy of freedom" is a sound and overdue policy change. Kerry is not as outspoken about it, but he won't abandon it, if only because the old policy of supporting Arab tyrannies is a self-evident failure. For his part, Bush has pretty much run out of countries to democratize by force, and out of troops to do it with. Bush sees democratization in the Arab world as the work of decades, not years, and he is right. So the difference is mainly one of emphasis. Regardless of who is elected, democratization will remain—as it long has been—a polestar of U.S. foreign policy, and it will also remain slow going.

Check it out.

Not that this argument, if you buy it, makes the choice between these numbskulls any easier. If you tilt right domestically, you'll still vote for Bush. If you tilt left, you'll vote for Kerry. If, like me, you are some schizoid combination of right and left, you'll just have to make a gut decision. (Me: Kerry.)

But it's an argument worth noting if you find yourself in a terrorist panic on November 2: just calm down and make a rational choice on domestic policy.

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore

For those of you who haven't bothered to thumb through the Oregon Ballot Measures Voters' Pamphlet, allow me to direct your attention to one of the funniest and most expensive practical jokes in recent memory.

One "M. Dennis Moore" apparently shelled out $1,500 to reserve the first three slots for arguments in favor of Measure 36, the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Oregon, for no other reason than to mercilessly parody every bible-thumping ad that would follow. An excerpt:

Where will it all end? After 6,000-some years of frightening attacks on old traditional values, will history never cease to unfold? Will God never stop throwing all of these radical social changes at us?

My friends, there is a simple answer. All you have to do is

VOTE TO TURN THE CLOCK BACK!

It's really that simple!

Now, which one of these radical social changes will this measure turn the clock back to? Oh, come on, let's just

LEAVE IT TO BEAVER!

See all three ads, in full, right up top here. Then, hell, scroll and compare. And, as you read the real religious arguments in favor of Measure 36, ask yourself: Do they have anything to do with government? Should government have anything to do with what marriage is or should be?

An Open Letter To Libertarian Non-Voters

If you've not heard of this movement, let me explain. You see, many Libertarians and libertarians (the capital can make all the difference, I'm not just being a joker) are very dissatisfied with both major political parties in the United States. Not surprising, really, and I'm sure many folks of all political stripes are fairly dissatisfied with both parties for all sorts of reasons. But, you see, what sets some Libertarians apart is that they make a big hairy deal out of it and, on-principle, decide to stay home because they don't like the platform of any of the candidates. They vote by not voting, refusing to lend credence to either party. Now, I suppose I can understand this in theory, but I don't think it has the same practical effect that they might want. Of course, it's within your rights to not vote, go right ahead, I can't make you. But, let me suggest a better way to get libertarian ideals out there: Vote instead.

More importantly, register as one of the major parties and vote in their damn primary. Some states don't require party registration, but I know many do. Oregon does, but its primary is so late as to not matter. I'd suggest the GOP because it seems more likely to be moved substantially in a libertarian direction by a large enough influx, but if you get organized something similar would work for the Democrats. The reason I suggest the GOP is that the younger elements of the party are already moving that way (Arnold, Guiliani, Franks, Rice, Pataki, &c.), and I think it'd be easy to help push that along more expediently. You see, by doing this, you can get libertarian ideas into government again instead of staying at home and complaining about the state of American politics.

It's true that there's not a small government party in the US anymore, and that makes me very sad, but it's not going to change so long as others like me who believe in small government principles stay at home and let others make decisions. I know it's very un-libertarian of me to suggest a course of action to others because I think it would be better for them than what they're doing [and let me emphasize again, are more than welcome to keep doing if they feel like it], but if the goal is smaller government, more individual responsibility, and less involvement of the state in people's lives, we're going ot have to make some steps. So dammit, libertarians and Libertarians, go out there and start influencing primaries and local elections, this is the way to win back a small-government platform because it's obvious that the rest of the population who is, you know, voting every election doesn't want that. And that's fine, they can think that, but it's not my idea of good leadership and I think there are enough non-voting-libertarians out there to have a major effect on the outcome. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just thought I'd let y'all know.

The FMA

Is, I think, generally considered an affront to justice by pretty much everyone sensible. Personally, and I think this goes for most of the folks at the OC, I see no problem with same-sex marriages, and I sure as hell don't want to see marriage made into a federal issue.

Bush is known to be completely wrong on this, but is Kerry also?

"The president and I have the same position, fundamentally, on gay marriage. We do. Same position. But they're out there misleading people and exploiting it."
--JFK [NYT]

Does that mean that Kerry is also for the FMA? Will Andrew Sullivan react? Stay tuned. Also, how is Bush misleading people and exploiting his very clearly defined stance in favor of the FMA? Huh?

(Benedict) Arnold Schwarzenegger

This is a week old, but The Govenator has signed a bill banning the production and sale of foie gras in California.

Animal rights groups called the signing a major victory for the ducks and geese.

A major victory for the ducks and geese? Since when are ducks and geese part of the electorate? Why on Earth did he sign this? I guess it "only" puts one guy out of business. Congratulations, Gov, you just took away that man's living because some wackos think making food out of ducks is cruel. Way to really stand up for the importance of entrepreneurship.

Where's the liveblogging you promised me?

Oh that little Bushie is sooooo cute. What kind of pen is he holding? What a great tie. Blah blah. Where are you people?

Republican Scare Tactics

Check out this flyer with a return address of the Republic National Committee, which warns Arkansas voters (Arkansans?) that if "Liberal politicians and their hand picked activist judges" have their way, men holding hands with other men will be ALLOWED and the Bible will be BANNED.

(via Boing Boing)

The debates are on? That means it's drinking time!

We all should expect that Wonkette, our favorite political gossiper and lush, would have a drinking game (and a non-drinking game) for tonight's presidential debate. But who knew that the Chicago Tribune would print one (username: freechi, password: freechi), one that is written by a fellow in Canada no less. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the people most cynical about our elections would not reside inside the country.

It's Called Charisma....

And I think Bush has oodles more. Take a look at this Bush quote from the article linked:

"[Kerry] voted for the use of force in Iraq and then didn't vote to fund the troops," Bush said. "He complained that we're not spending enough money to help in reconstruction in Iraq and now he's saying we're spending too much. He said it was the right decision to go into Iraq and now he calls it the wrong war.

"He could probably spend 90 minutes debating himself," Bush added to hoots of laughter from his supporters.

Even if you're a Kerry supporter, you must admit that the line is funny and personable. Sure, it might be fairly predictable given that much of Bush's strategy is painting Kerry as a waffler, but it still works pretty well. Now, check out Kerry's response:

"When U.S. soldiers are in harm's way, the American people don't want jokes and fantasy spin from their president, they want to hear the truth," he said in a statement issued from Spring Green, Wisconsin where he is preparing for the debate.

The Kerry quote is pretty lame by comparison and not at all engaging. It's the same sort of dry, humorless crap that his campaign has been pumping out since day one. Better Kerry responses:

At least then we'd have two intelligent sides at the event.

Sure, but at least I know how to speak.

Hey, leggo my eggo!

I only need an hour, and I'll come up with three better plans than Bush has.

That last one is a little weak, maybe. For Christ's sake John, have a goddamn sense of humor about yourself, maybe if you didn't take yourself so seriously all the time you'd come up with some better ideas AND actually be able to sell them to the American public. As is, you come across as a boring, stiff, self-important buffoon. Now, I want you to lose, so I'm okay with that, but still. A laugh every now and again never hurt anybody.

Yet Another Post Likely To Really Make Some Folks Mad.

I was talking with my Dad earlier about the upcoming election, and it's interesting to discover that the ol' man is even more cynical about the way government works than I am. However, he did raise one very intersting point: Kerry's constant carping that things in Iraq are being done wrong is not an indictment of Bush so much as a slight to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the Generals in the theatre, and the commanders in the field.

Dad's point being that it isn't the President who does all of the logistics for a war. Sure, he has final say, but most of the planning is done by the high-level military commanders. So, to say that the war is being administered wrongly is to attack the capability of those actually doing most of the planning, not the President. This is not a very smart thing for a man who wants the Presidency to do. Kerry would, of course, appoint a new Secretary of Defense, but the folks over at the DoD and the Joint Chiefs will be the same. Would those folks really work well with a man who's spent the election cycle questioning their abilities? Just a thought.

Is That A Big Tent, Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?

Armed Prophet is back starting tomorrow, where I'll be covering the convention as much as I can  -- anecdotes, factoids and even a bit of on-the-scene reporting. In the meantime, here's something interesting from Variety:

Will the Al Jazeera logo appear in U.S. broadcasters' shots of George W. Bush when he accepts his party's nomination at the Republican National Convention next week?

The Arab newscaster has been vilified by the Bush administration for airing terrorist tapes and providing an outlet for stridently anti-American comments.

But U.S. news net execs inside Madison Square Garden said Thursday the Al Jazeera banner, which is in English, was posted and visible above the stage of the RNC.

You'll remember that last month in Boston, the Dems plastered a johnkerry.com banner over Al Jazeera's logo. No fan of the Qatar-based news net am I, but the GOP has nothing to fear from letting their presence be known. Quite the opposite -- look for Ed Gillespie to be citing this as an example of Republican openmindedness and Democratic intolerance by early next week.

Well, look for it if you can find any convention coverage on the broadcast network -- I'm skeptical they'll show much more than Arnold Schwarzenegger and (maybe) President Bush.

The best reason to vote for Bush

I was talking to my old man about this yesterday and I had never thought about it in quite this way. He said that the best reason to vote for Bush, especially for someone with libertarian leanings, is that Bush gets to appoint judges. In his view, any Bush appointees will be a lot more likely to leave the big social questions to the ballot, rather than deciding for us in the courts. I think that's the most compelling argument I've heard so far.

The Right's New Wing

Here's a somewhat interesting article in TIME about young political types such as we fancy ourselves. Apparently it's way hip and counter-culture to be libertarian. Which of course is why I'm involved. That and the cocaine.

More Election-Related Thoughts

Via The Blog Father, I have come across a most excellent piece in Reason magazine. Mostly it covers Kerry's record on civil liberties. This raises even more doubt in my mind about a Kerry presidency. You should read the whole thing, but there are a few key points that jump out at me.

1) Kerry was for the cryptography export laws. Essentially, he was for punishing technology rather than criminals who use technology. Kerry is basically in favor of making all software have a "back door" for law enforcement. For obvious reasons, this should disturb any civil libertarian greatly. John Ashcroft, oddly enough, was against this.

2) Kerry favors asset forfeiture laws that allow the property of people who are not accused of crimes to be seized. Kerry was in favor of any property used in drug-related crimes being taken by the government, even if the owner was not charged. The owner would then have to sue, and prove that he/she had no knowledge of the crimes in question, in order to get property back. I'm against government seizure of property under any circumstances, even that of criminals, because private property is one key to individual freedom. Ashcroft was also against these laws when he was in the Senate. Some bits were, apparently, recinded after the bill to do so was made weaker by the Reno DOJ.

3) Kerry is in favor of imposing undue regulations on the banking industry. For the uninitiated, banking is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the nation already. There are required reserve ratios, laws about deposit insurance, myriad securities laws, banks cannot own certain types of assets, and they are required to report any withdrawls over $10,000 to the government. Kerry would have all electronic fund transfers monitored, and would not give banks or their customers any privacy what so ever. Not to mention that he authored the hyper-obnoxious banking bits of the PATRIOT Act.

It's clear that Kerry favors government power over individual liberty, at least on some issues. What Bush's positions on those issues are is probably not too dissimilar, except the banking thing, probably. Although, the cryptography regulations were undone in 1997 and the PATRIOT act and Ashcroft DOJ made no effort to reinstate them. I also have a feeling that Bush's take on private property might favor individuals more, but given that he's definitely for the War on Drugs, as it were, those two things probalby come into conflict. There are, of course, other civil libertarian issues that Bush has got wrong (abortion, gay marriage, stem cells), but Kerry hasn't up to this point said terribly much to give me confidence on the gay marriage thing, and he's made rather cryptic statements about abortion. Overall, things in this regard look like a toss-up, and as stated below, there are other issues that are important enough to make me go Bush.

By Popular (Okay One) Demand (Read, Polite Request)

Mr. Chris Crawford of Jacksonville has requested in comments to this Bill post has requested a discussion with some reasonable Bush supporters. Well, I fancy myself such, and I'll gladly discuss my reasons. I want to run this particular comment Tacitus style. Please be polite, no profanity (unless it's funny and not ad hominem), et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, okay, that's a hilliarous set of requests coming from yours truly, but I'll do my best to be cordial. Perhaps we can get the same going from the Kerry supporters among us. Ruff (even if you are a non-voting felon)? Flog? Should I be looking at you guys? All right, my Bushpinions after the break.

Huzzah! Here we go, in handy list format:

1) Let me preface this by saying that I do not support all of Bush's policies. He's wrong on stem-cells, abortion, gay marriage, the damnable Medicare give away, the damnable Dept. Of Homeland Security [and it's even got a really lame title], and John Ashcroft. I also think he's grown the size of federal government too much, and done a piss-poor job vis a vis trade policy. I'm not exactly sure the man has a good grasp on Federalism, but that's a discussion for another time. Those are the negatives, as I see them...there are others but mostly of the niggling detail variety.

2) I think Bush is right on the things that matter most to me, though. That is, taxes and terrorists. I think marginal tax rates in the US are too high on individuals across the board, and I think the Bush tax cut did a great job of reducing that burden. Steve Verdon, Steve Antler, Don Luskin, and a whole host of other people who are smarter than me have covered this in some detail and at great length. I'll even give that rich people benefited the most from the reduction in rates, but then again rich people pay most of the taxes, so I don't really see a problem with that. I'm not sure if I buy Grover Norquist's "starve leviathan" hypothesis, but I don't see how reducing the tax burden across the board is a bad thing. Bush's tendency toward protectionism is sort of worrying, but I think there's a big enough free-trade element of the Republican party left to counter balance a lot of it. And, besides, big labor always goes Dem anyway, so there's no point in courting the AFL-CIO and their brand of neo-Mercantilism.

As far as terrorists are concerned, I'm definitely of the "find them and kill them" school of thought. I think it should've been happening since the 1970s, but Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, and Clinton all dropped the ball very severely. It certainly should've started after the first WTC bombing, or the embassies, or the USS Cole, but didn't. As far as I'm concerned each of those is a declaration of war against the US, and the instant you do that, your life if forfeit. Maybe that's not the most PC opinion in the world, but if you think of the US as the Great White Satan, chances are our continued existence is mutually exclusive, and I'm okay with somebody else taking the fall. I also don't buy that terrorism is our fault, at all. Terrorism is the fault of, well, terrorists and the horrible dictatorships that spread their lies and give them recruits. Hating the US distracts the masses from the fact that, hey, those Mullahs have it pretty good and our lives suck, what's the deal? It's a classic diversion from the real problem: theocratic, despots or oligarchs.

And that's the reason I'm behind both the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. If we can succeed in establishing functional democracies in those nations by working with the locals who aided our overthrow of two of the world's worst regimes, we can give a decent alternative example to the rest of the Arab world. Iran is ripe for a change, and I wish the students there all the best. The Middle East was once the bastion of civilization, even as recently as the early 20th century, and it's sad state can be undone. I'm optimistic about a sort of democratic domino theory, and hopeful that it succeeds. This is also Bush's opinion, so he and I agree on that and, with the taxes thing, well, that secures my vote.

3) I'd vote for Kerry if I trusted him, at all, to do what I think is the right thing in Iraq. Over thirty years in the Senate, and Kerry has voted against every major defense package that's come across his desk. He came back from Viet Nam and called his comrades in arms war criminals in front of the US Senate. I'm not attacking his record of military service, I'll leave that up to his former boat mates, but he did testify to certain things when he was with Viet Nam Veterans Against The War and his testimony coupled with his voting record give me no confidence, what so ever, in his interest in maintaining a strong military. As a person who believes that the military is one of few duties of government, that's important to me. During peace time I might settle for gridlock, that's why I voted for Gore in 2000, but there's a war on. Kerry is essentially running the Mondale platform (I'm going to raise your taxes and make the government bigger, dammit!) but it'd never get through a Republican controlled congress, but I think he'd do exactly the wrong thing with Iraq...if he managed to make his mind up about it at all.

So, for the above reasons, I'm going Bush in the fall. Which doesn't really matter anyway, because I live in Texas now and it's not like GWB isn't going to win here. The electoral college may be pretty genius, as it makes small states actually matter in an election, but some places are certainly easily predictable. Anyway, that's the pocket synopsis of my Bush vote, play nice kids. Play nice, self.

Definitely Maybe

For all of you still trying to justify a vote for John Kerry this November, it should come as some relief that he eagerly took on Bush's challenge about whether Kerry as presdident would have invaded Iraq, based on what we know now. But you may be distressed to hear his response:

"You bet we might have!"

You bet we might have? You bet we might have? As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up. It's too soon to tell yet, but this could be a gaffe on the level of "I actually voted for it before I voted against it." Has he yet said something that so perfectly encapsulated his nonexistent vision for US foreign policy? I know one thing -- he's never said anything so pithy that would reassure someone about the vision thing.

Good thing John Kerry is so darn electable! Because if he wasn't, he'd be a major embarrassment.

P.S. Hey! It's been awhile. I'm on hiatus from my other blogs, which means the OC is the lucky beneficiary of my near-compulsive musings. Or unwilling recipient. Whichever.

Insomniatic Political Ravings

Well, I guess somebody here should cover the Kerry Speech. Because it is a couple days past, and I am lazy, I'm simply going to direct everyone to The Prophet's ruminations on the subject: here, here, and here.

The only things not given enough coverage elsewhere are the likely outcomes of Kerry's tax plan, and a throw away line about nuclear disarmament. The nuke thing, well, it was a one-minute toss off to the far-left of the Democratic party: the part that thought we should've have bothered with that whole Cold War because the Communists were such nice people. Not surprised, and I think whomever it was that hypothesized Kerry might become an instant Carter (completely ineffectual and generally unliked) is probably right.

The tax thing just doesn't add up. You cannot raise taxes on people who make over $200,000 a year and lower taxes on small businesses. Why? Well, you see, small businesses are owned by people we like to call "small business owners" most of these folks make barely over $200,000 a year, and are what we like to call "self employed." See, a lot of money they have to count as income goes toward things like, I dunno, the goddamn businesses they own. Most small business owners are hardly sitting around on fortunes inherited from their wives dead first husbands; most of them are working pretty hard to keep the business afloat, but the kids through college, pay the bills, etc. I guess it's too much to expect Kerry to understand something that simplistic, I mean, his wife doesn't even know what chili is.

In other news, Dad is hypothesizing that Bush41 will be at the wedding I am ushering in Houston next Saturday, as he is a close friend of the bride's father. I will undoubtedly post pictures and tales if this is the case. If this is not the case, as Mom seems to assume, then I will be taking full advantage of the open bar.

Horribly Politicized Government Agency Launches Smear Campaign

The 9-11 Commission? The FCC? Those tricky bastards over at the NSA? Nope, NASA! As it's from Drudge you've all seen it already, but seriously, I can't believe that this woman from the DNC actually thinks that NASA of all agencies is trying to smear John Kerry. By my estimation, Kerry is more likely to throw massive amounts of cash at everyone's favorite complete waste of time, so NASA is probably more likely to support. But then again, Bush did propose that "man on mars" thing, so maybe the DNC has a point. Conspiracy!

I Wonder How Long Till "RedOregon.com" is Registered

BlueOregon is a new "progressive" team blog that features several contributors including popular Portland blogger and Lewis & Clark tax law professor Jack Bogdanski (who is currently on sabbatical from his main blog), pseudonymous political observer Isaac Laquedem and City Commissioner Randy Leonard. B!x is also a frequent commenter.

It's certainly the largest team effort I've seen in an Oregon-based blog, and it will be interesting to see what sort of opinions come out of a blog with so many different liberal and Democratic perspectives.

Shameless Theft

From The Blogfather, but you simply must read this Lileks piece in all its screedy goodness. From the Intro:

Believing in Bush’s perfidy gives some people the same comfort and emotional nourishment others get from believing in Jesus. It validates them, cements their view of the world – venal, conspiratorial, run by capering chimps who are somehow ten times less intelligent than Usenet posters but somehow able to yank strings on a global scale.

More On "The Common Good"

Verdon sums things up pretty nicely regarding Sen. Clinton's (D-NY) remarks regarding the "Common Good" the other day. Take a look, Verdon really understands the principle.

Best Graphic Ever

Courtesy Steven Den Beste:

This in response to his latest post which I have not read. I'll probably get to the whole thing, but it appears to be about chaos theory, medicine, and the economy.

Jumpin' Jesus Christ On A Pogo Stick

I can't believe that Hillary Clinton actually said this:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Just read that last sentence over again a few times and think about what it means. Clinton, apparently, does not believe in individuals; that is, she's a collectivist. Meaning that one of the Democratic Party big-wigs thinks in that horrible and perverse way. No, the Dems haven't moved leftward, not at all...

Nader's Second Try In Oregon

Looks like Ralph Nader gave Oregon a second shot last Saturday. Nader hosted a convention to collect the 1,000 signatures to get his name on the ballot in November. State law dictates that Nader must gather those signatures at a single event and this time about 1,150 people showed up, compared to the paltry 750 who came to the April convention.

Results should be available in a few days. If Nader fails a second time to get on the ballot, he can still qualify if he gathers enough signatures during a summer signature gathering drive. However, it will be obvious that most of Oregon doesn't give a crap about him any more.

Check This Out

"This" being a short post by Steve Verdon that isn't econ related and contains two pretty good cartoons I didn't feel like trying to find in the Cox&Forkum archive on my own.

So It Begins Again

I was reading a rather interesting Hitchens piece about how much he dislikes Michael Moore, and it seems that one of the clamis of Moore's new film is that:

Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

Well, I decided to do a little investigating. This BEA Report is the most recent I could find, and has data up through 2001. On a historical-cost basis, "Middle East" Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the US makes up about 0.045% of FDI. By contrast Canada makes up about 8.22% and "Europe" makes up about 71.7%.

On a capital flow basis, the "Middle East" as a region actually recieves more FDI from the US than it sends here. Middle East capital inflows in 2001 were -$159 million, meaning that US businesses sent $159 million more of capital to the Middle East than the entire region sent to the US. Middle Eastern FDI only accounts for about 1.95% of income from FDI in the US.

But wait, there's more! That only covers the income/production side of FDI, what about Middle Eastern holdings? Well, the second table in that same document has information about non-bank foreign affiliates in the United States. Of total assets held by foreign non-bank affiliates, Middle Eastern investment makes up 0.66%.

The other data in the tables points the same direction, that Middle Eastern investment in the United States is a relatively small proportion of FDI and, even assuming that ALL of that investment is Saudi, Saudi investment in the United States is a tiny proportion of the FDI that happens here, which is in turn a tiny proportion of the economy (10-15%).

It should be noted that in a lot of cases a "foreign firm" is sort of a nebulous term, but IIRC the US reporting standard is that being 15% foreign-held makes a firm "foreign" for the purposes of FDI reporting. A brief summary of the reporting requirements for FDI in the United States can be found here.

I'll cover the personal investment side later, because that data isn't really as interesting, is far afield from my areas of knowledge, and will take a lot longer to dig up.

Nader Campaign Update (Whoopdedoo.)

Portland-area blogger Michael Totten links to this post by The Nation's Marc Cooper on Ralph Nader's pick for VP. As Totten puts it, Nader has "jumped the shark" with his choice of Green Party figure Peter Camejo, a former Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate.

Cooper has some interesting final words on Nader's campaign and his re-alliance with the Greens:

Nader could very well then finish this weekend as, once again, the official Green nominee. But the Party itself is almost certain to emerge from the convention weakened and split.

I don’t think much of this matters very much as I wrote earlier this year. The Green Party, like Western Civilization, is a good idea that never really got off the ground. Nader, meanwhile, seems to be rapidly squandering a lifetime’s worth of well-earned respect. Running a third party campaign during this election cycle would have been tough enough even if conceived and implemented in the most thought-out, strategic, and serious manner. Now, with Camejo as his running mate, Nader’s lonely quest threatens to turn into nothing more than a carnival sideshow.

TAX INVADERS!

Wow. If you want to talk about poorly made political video games, look no further than the Republican National Committee's JOHN KERRY: TAX INVADERS!

Fight the encroaching menace of John Kerry's tax increases as the laser-shooting head of George W. Bush! Watch as evil tax bullets destroy your blocky blue bases! (Shouldn't they be red?) Be amazed at the fact that when the bullets hit you they don't flash your head or make it turn red or in anyway indicate that you've taken damage.

Hat tip: Game Girl Advance and Lauren

"It's the Jews, stupid."

I should have linked to this earlier this week, but I didn't get to reading it until yesterday. Portland political blogger Michael Totten says he's glad he got the hell out of Eugene, especially if it is following the lead of Berkeley (Totten is a UO alum). He links to an long but interesting article about the rise of anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism at Cal, and the lack of interest in any rational debate on Palestine by people on both sides of the issue.

Fisk Me! And Me!

Steve Antler over at Econopundit gives a pretty good fisking to this horribly misguided Robert Reich column. I don't have much to add, other than to really go after the paragraph below.

Yet many liberals have been silent about patriotism. They seem wary of it or, at best, embarrassed by it. Perhaps that's because, in recent decades, patriotism has so easily morphed into crass "America first" chauvinism. But that's not the only form patriotism can take. Liberals must promote a "positive patriotism" that stands tough against terrorism and genocide, yet doesn't need a foreign enemy to define itself or in order for it to flourish. At its best, the American tradition of liberal internationalism has reflected our drive to expand our founding ideals of liberty, equality, and democracy.[emphasis mine]

Let me get this straight, it's chauvanism for our leaders to put the concerns of America before all other concerns? We should let the concerns of the rest of the world bend our policy and keep us from making decisions that are the best choice for America? Apparently Reich has no concept of the social contract, nor the obligations and duties of government. The American government is elected by and for Americans and as such has exactly no duty to citizens of other nations. This transnational progressivism will not stand!

Nader a hypocrite? You don't say...

Apparently St. Ralph is pretty bad at practicing what he preaches. Typical. [Hat Tip: Luskin]

What The Hell?

If you think the OC is right-wing, you've obviously never seen this little blog. You'll be [verbing] with [adverb/adjective] in no time.

Minor Celebrities and Other Forest Creatures for Kucinich

According to an e-mail from the College Democrats' mailing list, guitarist Tim Reynolds and actress Mimi Kennedy (from ABC's Dharma and Greg) will be at the EMU Amphitheater at 6 p.m. tonight to show support for, who else, Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

I foresee spew and the smell of patchouli.