Politics

Demand Question Time

An online petition calls for more question sessions like we saw with Obama and the Republicans last week. That session was one of the best things I’ve seen in politics in a decade. I would love to see more debate between our President and the opposing party (and his own).

Online petitions mean shit, of course. But a signed petition will get bloggers talking, will get the media talking, will generate some support for this.

The best result of regular question times? It will mean that future Presidents are screened by the ability to respond coherently to questions and their mastery of the issues. Thing of all the horrible things this could have prevented, like Bush 43.

Law and Order, Politics, War on Terror

Midweek Linkorama

  • Andrew Sullivan dismantles Bill Kristol. How this charlatan (Kristol, not Sully) came to be a leader in the conservative movement baffles me. Oh, wait. His dad was a big conservative voice. Never mind.
  • And then Megan McArdle dismantles Sullivan on the impending doom of the United States.
  • Meanwhile, Obama continues to attack the Taliban more aggressively and more successfully than Bush did. The GOP just can’t seem to squeeze the idea into their heads that you can use both military force and political skill at the same time.
  • Also, more on the reign of terror in Arizona. This is, quite literally, a police state.
  • And no, Virginia, Gmail is not safe.
    • War on Terror

    Greenwald Again

    Destroys the idea that foreigners do not have legal rights in this country. Read the whole thing. Indeed, this is why Gitmo is just a huge political deal. If you move those guys to the US, they are, under our Constitution, guaranteed more legal protection than they are outside of our nation’s borders.

    What amazes me is how much the party of “law and order” and “rigorous adherence to the Constitution” has shredded these ideas because of the abject terror with which they respond to Islamic extremism. From ignoring Common Article 3, to hiding their eyes from the Convention Against torture, to asserting unlimited Presidential power in direct contradiction to the express written language of our Constitution, they are willing to put the entire structure of law to the sword if it might protect us from a bombing.

    Shameful.

    'Culture'

    Calvin

    Ack. A very very short interview with Bill Waterson just makes me miss Calvin and Hobbes so much more. I can still remember when I first discovered it. We were in Chicago visiting my mom’s friend and she suggested I read it. From then on, I was hooked. I can remember, in college, that reading Calvin in the morning newspaper was one of the highlights of the day. We had just entered the golden phase of Calvin, where Watterson threw off all restraints and made comics that were so wonderful and original and different from anything else.

    But he owes us nothing. If he wants to spend the rest of his life in seclusion, more power to him.

    War on Terror

    Radicalism on Terror

    Glenn Greenwald shows, once again, how unworthy the current GOP are of the mantle of Reagan. The problem is that the Democrats are completely spineless on War on Terror issues.

    I do disagree with Greenwald in one respect: there are aspects of the conflict that do require the war model. Afghanistan, for example, was a nation state that basically existed to foment radicalism and terrorism. It needed a war to deal with it (although, as always, the duration was longer than the war). But with the Taliban broken and few states willing to be official terrorist harbors, we need to shift back to a legal framework.

    This is not an either-or question. Sometimes we use the tools of war; sometimes those of the law. Yes, that false dichotomy rears its ugly head again.

    'Culture', Politics, Science and Edumacation

    Weekend Linkorama

  • For the record, giving the panty-bomber his rights did not cost us intelligence info.
  • In the end, we’re all gonna die.
  • More from the global warming front. On the flip side, here’s a valid reason to be skeptical of climate change models. Now that’s skepticism I can get behind.
  • Heh. (NSFW)
  • Nice to know that Culpeper, Virginia, is protecting girls from their own vaginas.
    • 'Culture'

    iPad and the Salvation of Writing

    I was just watching the presentation of the iPad (I want, but I have no money). I’ve been reading for a while about the death of the written book thanks to Kindle and other devices. I think it’s exaggerated for reasons I outlined in my previous post on movie streaming. As long as big business thinks digital copies are licenses, not ownership, people will not give up their hard copies. But I do think we’re going to see a bigger shift toward e-books.

    The reason? The advent of the e-book is going to slowly shift an enormous amount of power away from publishers and toward writers. Think about it. If Apple runs their ibook store like they run, say, their iphone aps, the effect will be to shatter the strangehold big publishers have over publication. If a writer can upload his book to ibooks and get $1 per download (as app writers do), it becomes possible to make a living as a writer without having to play pattycake with the big publishing houses.

    In the end, I still don’t think the physical book will die. But I see a shift of publishing from the editing/marketing/soliciting business into a straight forward printing directly from e-books — i.e., publishers will become more like Easton Press — selling you any book you want in a beautiful robust edition.

    Cool Stuff, Law and Order, Politics, Science and Edumacation, Taxes and Spending

    Midweek Linkorama

  • I am always amazed by how close the human race has come to extinction in the past.
  • How stupid are people? This stupid.
  • The logic of Pac-Man. Cool.
  • Why am I not surprised that the ACORN-busting guy got pinched for breaking the law.
  • Balko on assert forfeiture. Scary stuff.
  • It’s rare that I link to American Progress, but their guide to identifying deficit “peacocks” is very interesting. There’s simply no way we’re going to balance the budget without raising taxes. But Republicans are too wedded to mindless tax cut ideology and Democrats are too scared.
  • How dare you discriminate against the unreliable!
  • Man, do I love me some photography.
    • Politics, Science and Edumacation

    Weekend Linkorama

  • Sometimes I really like Glenn Greenwald who defends a Court decision that clearly makes him uncomfortable.
  • I do like Gary Johnson as the Republican future; although I’ve said that before and gotten burned.
  • More from our disappearing polar ice.
  • Why is Air America closing? Quite simple. With Bush gone, they don’t have anyone to attack anymore. Attacking the GOP at this point is like beating a dead horse. A stupid dead horse.
  • This is an absolutely appalling story. Laws intended to stop child molesters are being used to make life impossible for prostitutes in New Orleans. Gee, guys. What do you think these women are going to do when they are shut out of any legitimate employment?
    • Politics

    The Minority Majority

    This is … a strange point:

    Counting the new Republican Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts, the 41 Republicans in the Senate come from states representing just over 36.5 percent of the total US population. The 59 others (Democratic plus 2 Independent) represent just under 63.5 percent. (Taking 2009 state populations from here. If you count up the totals and split a state’s population when it has a spit delegation, you end up with about 112.3 million Republican, 194.7 million Democratic + Indep. Before Brown’s election, it was about 198 million Democratic + Ind, 109 million Republican.)

    Let’s round the figures to 63/37 and apply them to the health care debate. Senators representing 63 percent of the public vote for the bill; those representing 37 percent vote against it. The bill fails.

    Except that your assuming the states vote as one big glop. There are 37 million people in California. They are not all Democrats, but they count as such in this logic. The reality is that the country is slightly more Democratic right now than it is Republican (although more conservative than it is liberal). So by party, you’d go something like 51-43, splitting the independents. By philosophy, you’d go something like 60-30 against, against splitting the moderates.

    But that still assume all conservatives or Republicans oppose the bill and all liberals or Democrats favor it. In fact, the polling would indicate that you’d have something like 55-45 against. Or more.

    But we don’t vote based on opinion polls, thank God. Or party identification or anything else. We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic and that Republic works a certain way.

    Don’t like it? Change it. But don’t whine about how unrepresentative it is. It’s not designed to be representative. It’s designed to be bound by law and the Constitution.

    Astronomy, Sports, Mathematical Malpractice, Whatever Else Pops Into My Head