If the Bush administration is bad at one thing (just one?!), it's using logic and reason. President Bush is, at least in my mind, famous for ignoring the finer points of a person's resume and instead focusing on how a person is "a good dad," or "a coach for his son's football team." To Bush, your qualifications lie in what kind of person you are inside, and while this is great for self-esteem, it's terrible in terms of hiring people who can do their jobs well.

And so it is with refuting allegations of wrong-doing. As has been reported today, Ron Suskind's new book, The Way of the World, comes with an allegation that Bush & Co. fabricated a 2001 letter between Saddam Hussein and Hussein's director of intelligence, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti. The letter purports to discuss how Mohammed Atta, one of the nineteen September 11 hijackers, trained for the hijacking mission in Iraq. If true, the letter would confirm the White House's previously long-held belief that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which would then provide a rationale for invading Iraq.

Which the letter did. But, according to Suskind, the letter was fabricated at the White House's request. And no operating relationship has ever been found between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Any piece of evidence that has ever been put forward as evidence of a relationship between the two (and thus, a justification for the war) has been refuted as unreliable at best and an outright lie at worst. This letter, if Suskind is right, falls into the latter category.

The White House, true to form, is not using logic and reason to dispel this accusation; rather, it has resorted to name-calling. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called the accusations "absurd" and said that Suskind practiced "gutter journalism."

This is something that the White House still hasn't learned, for all of the whistleblowers that have come from it: Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Scott McClellan, et al. The White House says, through its spokespeople, that these whistleblowers are bad people and calls their motives into question, but never refutes the merits of the arguments beyond calling them something general, like "absurd."

Here in the world of logic and reason, it doesn't matter if a person has an axe to grind or is a gutter journalist; what matters is whether or not the statements are true. Certainly Harriet Miers could have been the nicest, sweetest lady in the country, but that did not make her qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Sorry, White House, you'll have to do better than "absurd" if you want to deal with such an alarming charge.

Posted by Mark at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sure, we all knew it, but how big of a moron could he be?

Today, he writes about the economic stimulus package passed by Congress, which would put cash into the hands of taxpayers. Beck thinks the plan is flawed, but not for the right reasons. The real reason the plan is flawed is that consumers -- who got into this mess by racking up more debt than they could pay off -- are expected to use their $600 tax rebates to buy more stuff, especially durable goods, to boost the revenue of corporations, which will in turn have more money to buy capital goods from each other, invest, and hire new employees.

This will not happen.

For one, consumers will take that $600 and immediately pay down their debt. They're dumb, but they're not cretins. They already bought the 42" plasma TV. Now it's time to pay it off.

Second, with the number of jobs being outsourced, companies will indeed turn around and hire new labor -- in another country! China, Mexico, and India will benefit from this portion of the stimulus package. And it looks like companies don't want more labor, at least, not skilled labor. GM wants to buy out the contracts of 74,000 North American employees and replace them with less-experienced workers because the new workers are cheaper. You'll recall that Circuit City tried this last year, and it was a rousing success.

Just kidding. The fired employees were furious and customers were frustrated by the inexperienced new employees.

Glenn Beck objects to the stimulus package because it doesn't do enough for big business. The old supply-side theory works only if companies are investing in labor in this country. And they're not.

So, Beck's brilliant idea is to issue debit cards -- debit cards! -- for quick spending. Yes, that's the ticket: spend more money. He cites the success of the $2000 debit cards given to victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as an example of why his idea works. But his own precious FOX News reported in 2005 that FEMA scrapped their debit card program after it had existed for only two days. Cards were issued only to evacuees in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio.

See, debit cards give people money now, whereas tax breaks take some time to go into effect. Welcome to fiscal policy, Glenn. He also proposes that the cards have a six-month expiration date, forcing people to spend their money immediately or they lose it. What planet is Glenn Beck from? Does he really think that this is the answer: mandatory spending to fill the coffers of companies that may or may not, in their infinite sense of charity, use the money to make the economy better?

Then again, he is the same person who told Keith Ellison (D-MN), America's first Muslim congressman, "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" He also supports an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting flag burning.

I'd make him a SEDHE Villain of the Forever, but to be a Villain of the Forever, a person has to take actions that harm the United States. Glenn Beck just spouts stupidity, and thankfully, no one listen to him.

Posted by Mark at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By now, pretty much everyone knows that "payday loans" are a big scam. Or, if they don't know already, they should read more. A payday loan is an advance on your paycheck. It's used by people who live paycheck-to-paycheck to support themselves in between paychecks. The problem is that these same people can't secure real loans from normal banks. Banks' interest rates are capped by the federal government, but since payday loan companies aren't banks, they aren't regulated as such. This means they can engage in usury, the practice of charging illegally high interest rates (at least, the rates would be illegal if these payday loan companies were banks).

Most payday loan places are located in low-income areas, where people don't have the collateral or credit score to get real loans. It's a good sign that your city or town is on the outs if payday loan stores start popping up.

You'll recall that this is the same behavior that has caused the bulk of our current financial crisis, except instead of dealing with a thousand or two thousand dollars, we're dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars per person.

Payday loan places charge as much as 400% APR. This means that, in order to get a thousand-dollar loan to tide you over between paychecks, it may cost you four thousand dollars. In this story from The Denver Post, it took four years and $8,000 for Linda Medlock to pay off a $500 payday loan.

Want to sue a payday loan company for usury? If the contract you signed with them contains an arbitration clause, you'd better think again. In 2006's Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cartagena, the Supreme Court denied respondent Cartagena the right to sue Buckeye Check Cashing for usury, since the contract contained an arbitration clause. Since arbitration clauses are severable from contracts, the Court ruled, any issues about the enforceability of the contract go into arbitration, not a court. And we know how fair and balanced mandatory binding arbitration is.

Now, with a new wave of recession coming over the country -- a wave in which even middle-class people are being affected -- companies that you never thought would get into the check-cashing business have found new opportunities. Say's Law is right: supply does create its own demand. In this case, it's tax season and there's a supply of people who need fast money. H&R Block and others have created the "refund anticipation loan," a loan granted to you by H&R Block based on what you think your tax refund will be. Don't be fooled; H&R Block is selling you the same bologna as the variable-rate mortgage companies and the payday loan companies:

What you may not notice is the exorbitant annual percentage rate on that loan. But consumer groups have. They say these short-term, high-interest loans prey on the very people who can least afford them.

Critics of refund loans, as the loans are commonly known, point to the disparity between the tax advances and other credit offerings aimed at wealthier customers.

Tax preparers, both independent operations and major chains, charge interest rates that can run on an annualized basis well into triple figures, all for the privilege of getting money a few days earlier. The IRS further mitigates the risk to lenders with its Debt Indicator service, alerting them to any claims (child support, unpaid federal student loan) against refund-loan applicants' refunds.

What's worse is that many people who get a refund anticipation loan don't understand that it's a loan on their refund, and once they get the refund, they'll need to pay back the loan, plus an exorbitant interest rate. So, if you get that $600 refund from George W. Bush, don't put it into a refund anticipation loan. And for crying out loud, don't go buy a refrigerator like the president wants you to; use it to pay off your debt!

Posted by Mark at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

10:15 AM PST -- I arrived at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) an hour before my flight was to leave. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that this is the holiday travel season, and four million other people were waiting in line just to check in. United’s policy is that no one -- no one! -- can board a flight with checked luggage within 45 minutes of departure. I had missed the deadline by five minutes due to the length of the check-in line. Thankfully, a handy customer service telephone was at the kiosk, and I spoke to someone in Darkest Africa who told that I would be unable to check in, since it was less than 45 minutes before the flight. I told him that I knew that now, was there anything he could do to put me on another flight? He said that it would be $50 to put me on standby to Chicago. “Great,” I said. “I’ll complain later.” He said I would have to talk to a ticket agent to be put on standby.

I flagged down one of the few ticket agents that are employed anymore to stand behind the self-check-in e-ticket kiosks. I labored under the impression that the man from Darkest Africa had somehow used the power of technology to patch my problem through to the nearest computer terminal. No such luck. I explained my problem to the ticket agent, who did the best she could to assist me. Seriously, SFO was a mad-house. The main security checkpoint at Terminal 3 (the United terminal) had a line going all the way down the terminal. What no one apparently knew was that there was another security checkpoint with a much shorter line. Why no one funneled all that traffic down there is a mystery to me. Such are the ways of airlines and airports.

Ticket agent lady put me on standby to a flight to Chicago. My original itinerary was from SFO to Las Vegas to Chicago to Cleveland. San Francisco and Chicago are both United hubs, so I would have ended up in Chicago no matter what.

1:00 PM PST -- The next flight to Chicago was at 9:45. At 9:45, we were informed that the flight was full and there were no standby seats available. Our standby information would be rolled over to the next Chicago flight, at 10:45. So we hauled ourselves to another gate. I noticed that I was in the same boat as two men and a woman. The man at the gate for the second Chicago flight said that the flight had been overbooked (note the interesting use of language here; in the past, it was called “oversold,” but that terminology places the agency on the airline for selling too many seats; when it’s called “overbooked,” it’s the customers’ fault for booking more seats than there are available, those nasty customers!). Don’t expect any first-class upgrades, he said. I asked him what my chances were of getting a seat on standby. “Not good,” he replied. The woman who was standing by on the previous flight said that she arrived at the airport two and-a-half hours before her flight was supposed to leave. And she still didn’t make the flight. She blamed “traffic control” in the ticketing area. What that meant was that she apparently stood in line for an hour and-a-half as time ticked by and her flight closed. She attempted, she said, to get the attention of a ticket agent -- or something -- to let her move up in the line, but no one did anything. The ticket agent only chided her for not arriving four hours early. She went to the customer service center at Gate 80 to see what they could do. I went there, as well.

I was told at Gate 80 that there was nothing she could do. All the flights for all the airlines were full for today; indeed, they were overbooked for today. My best bet, she said, would be to wait on standby for the rest of the day. I accepted this and went back to the 10:45 flight, where there was still the possibility that there might be seats.

No dice. The flight was totally full. I got rolled over to the next Chicago flight, which left at 11:30. The woman from the previous flights, who told me she was an ER nurse and had no problem dealing with patients spurting blood and as a result didn’t understand how they could mess up the logistics down at the ticket counter, got a flight at 2:00. It all depends on who you talk to, she said. I decided that I would wait for the 11:30 flight, and if nothing panned out, I would go to a different ticket counter.

Perhaps in an attempt to weed out the chaff, the 11:30 flight to Chicago changed gates three times. It was fairly easy to tell where the flight had moved, though. Just look for the unhappy mob milling about outside one of the gates. As expected, 11:30 came and went with no space on standby. I walked to the Gate 80 customer service center and found that the line was snaking down the terminal. I looked for another customer service center, figuring the one at Gate 80 wasn’t the only one in this terminal.

Found it! At Gate 76, which is sort of in a separate wing of Terminal 3, there was a smaller -- but no less able -- customer service center. Thank God for lazy people. I spoke to Sylvia . I explained how I had missed the cutoff by five minutes, how I had been placed on standby, and how three flights had come and gone with no standby space. Sylvia understood and took the time to help me out. She searched all flights for all airlines at all airports for today and said that they were booked. All of them. So she searched some more. She met with partial success: there were spaces on flights to Chicago, and there were spaces on flights from Chicago to Cleveland, but never at times that worked with each other. I had two options: I could fly to Los Angeles International (LAX), then to Washington/Dulles International (IAH), and then to Cleveland. The flight to LAX was at 8 PM, so I would have to spend the night in LAX. Or, she said, I could fly from SFO to Chicago O’Hare (ORD) at 2 PM and then fly from ORD to Cleveland at night. Maybe. Only problem was that the 2 PM flight from Chicago was delayed until 9 PM. It was displayed on all the departure screens, but curiously, the delay was not in her system. She found out only when I told her.

While we were haranguing, the spot on the LAX flight disappeared. She booked me on the 2 PM flight to Chicago, which is really a 9 PM flight to Chicago. I would have to spend the night in Chicago and then get on a 7:15 AM flight to Cleveland the next morning. There was a 4:15 PM flight to Chicago, and I probably wouldn’t make any flights out of Chicago by the time that came in, but she said I could check. She put me on standby for the 4:15 flight.

And now I’m waiting for the 4:15 flight. Admittedly, it was my fault that I got there late. I didn’t think that checking in at 7:45 would be such an ordeal -- in fact, I arrived at the check-in kiosk only five minutes late -- but I accept that. At the same time, United has proven once again that its logistics system is crazy, as it permits flights to be solidly overbooked, and during the holidays. The airlines have complex computer programs that guess how many people won’t show up for a flight and they then sell an equivalent amount of tickets beyond the capacity for a given flight. There is no room for error. Unfortunately, during the holiday travel season, things are tight and I wonder how many extra flights United is flying during this time.

I appreciate the hard work of Sylvia in trying to get me on a flight, even though she fully understood that it was my fault for being late. Rather than give me a bogus answer of, “Keep waiting on standby,” she helped me until she found me a way to get to Cleveland. When dealing with customer service people, I always stress that it’s better to be calm and amiable than angry, frazzled, and demanding. Customer service people have the power to give you what you want, and if you treat them like a fellow human being, they will go beyond the call of duty to help you, as another human being. Become demanding, though, and they will treat you the same way, not like a human being but like the belligerent “customer” that you are. If I hadn’t found her, I would still be trying to fly standby. One of the men from the original standby flight finally got a standby ticket to Chicago, but of course, that was only the beginning of his problems. He would be flying standby out of Chicago, as well. I think the only reason I even got a spot on the 2:00 flight was because it moved to 9:00, and undoubtedly several people changed theirs to the 4:15 flight to Chicago, freeing up space on the 2:00 flight. I’m grateful for that; I’ll take a red-eye. I’d sit behind any number of crying babies at this point.

6:00 AM CST -- I spent the rest of the day hanging out with this woman I described before -- whose name I don’t know. I know that she lives in Arcada and works as an ER nurse. We walked around the airport and watched as the line outside Gate 80’s customer service center grew quite long, and went so slowly that people started sitting down in line. We talked about how we would hate to be those customer service people, that today would have been a great day to call in sick.

Our flight to Chicago went well; both of us slept. Once we got to Chicago, we went our separate ways, as our connecting flights were in different concourses. It’s interesting having these one-time friends, these people whom you talk to freely, even though you met them only a few hours ago, and then leave behind, never to see again. Such is the way of the airport.

I’m in Chicago right now, waiting for my connection in Cleveland to leave at 7:35 AM CST. I have a boarding pass in hand, with a seat assignment and everything. I tried to sleep in the terminal, and for a while, it was quiet. I picked what I thought was a shady spot, but it was right next to the major security check-in area. At about 4:15, a whole bunch of TSA screeners gathered there to talk. I slept through it, anyhow. The airport is something I usually think of as running 24 hours. But it doesn’t run 24 hours; the security areas were closed off, all the shops were closed, and only the Christmas music coming through the speakers and the occasional recording warning that taxis can’t solicit rides were signs that any human beings lived there once.

The security line in Chicago, even at 6:15, doesn’t look that long. The problems in San Francisco seemed to be a Perfect Storm of little things. The man who finally got on the standby flight at 9:00 said that a flight to Boston changed to a smaller plane, forcing about 100 people to fly standby. Since they were already booked on a flight, and it was the airline’s fault that they weren’t booked anymore, they got priority when standby seats became available. This is one of the reasons why we had such a hard time finding standby seats.

7:57 PM EST -- I got into Cleveland right on time: 10:00 AM EST. Then I got home and took a nap.

Posted by Mark at 4:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

By a vote of 51% to 49%, Venezuela's constitutional reforms were defeated today.

While there were some good constitutional reforms [en español], like changing the workday from 8 hours to 6, and the work week from 40 hours to 36. But there were more bad reforms, such as:

• President Chavez would be allowed to run for re-election an unlimited number of times;
• The Central Bank would be stripped of its autonomy;
• President Chavez would have control over foreign currency reserves;
• The army would be changed from a "professional" apolitical force to a "popular, anti-imperialist" force (with no mention of its being apolitical);
• The army would be permitted -- and required -- to engage in internal civilian policing;
• High-ranking military officers would be promoted by President Chavez only (as opposed to President Chavez, in concert with the National Assembly)

I have railed against Hugo Chavez before because I feel that he has many dictatorial tendencies.

My friend Alberto suggested that constitutional re-writes in Latin America are not always necessarily bad, since it is often the case that constitutions in that region are written unilaterally to serve the interests of a small group of people. As a result, it may end up that re-writing the constitution is a good thing, since it purges the corruption of previous leaders. While I grant that, the 1999 Venezuelan constitution was definitely not written unilaterally. Half of the articles came from Chavez himself, while the other half of the articles were the result of submissions made by the people. Quite literally, Venezuelans wrote in with their suggestions for constitutional articles. It would be difficult to argue that the 1999 constitution was typical of these dictatorial Latin American constitutions. As a result, I feel confident in saying that a good number of these 2007 reforms are unilateral and unnecessary. There was no corruption that needed to be removed.

Fortunately, the Venezuelan people -- though by a slim margin -- recognized that these reforms were unnecessary and questionable. Why does Chavez need to run for president indefinitely? Why would the military suddenly not be apolitical? And why on Earth does the military need to engage in civilian policing? All of these things can be found in autocratic states, and while Chavez professes democracy (indeed, he claimed that his was the most democratic country in the world), we must judge Chavez against himself, and when we do that, we find that he does not live up to his own standards.

It's also interesting to note that, when facing Chavez supporters, they immediately assume that anyone who is against Chavez is necessarily a neoliberal American imperialist who believes everything the Bush administration says. Chavez himself thinks this. Strangely enough, he has as black-and-white a vision of the world as President Bush does. Whereas President Bush once said that "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," Chavez labels anyone who disagrees with him a "traitor." With Chavez, there is no room for debate and no room for nuance. If you disagree with his policies, then you not only disagree with -- and hate -- him, but you also hate Venezuela and necessarily want to see it taken over by the American empire. Does this sound familiar?

Good work, Venezuela!

Posted by Mark at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared martial law last week in Pakistan, he said it was partly due to a rise in extremism in Pakistan. This is reflected in the official declaration of martial law, which notes:

there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, IED explosions, rocket firing and bomb explosions and the banding together of some militant groups have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan.

After setting out extremism as ostensibly the primary purpose of the declaration, he adds that "some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the government and the nation's resolve diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace." Therefore, the judiciary is partly to blame for the extremism, since it is ineffective due to its working "at cross purposes" with the rest of the government. This explains why Musharraf fired the Chief Justice at the same time he declared martial law. (Actually, it doesn't; he fired the Chief Justice because the Chief Justice has been a vocal critic of his; this declaration just gives a fun pretext for the firing.)

Even if Musharraf can appear to justify martial law by way of cracking down on extremism, that doesn't explain the most recent events coming out of Pakistan. We've learned that, in the aftermath of the declaration of martial law, the police "detained about 500 opposition party figures, lawyers and human rights advocates on Sunday." That's right: "extremists" turn out to be Musharraf's critics and opponents. Surprise! When a president declares martial law, it turns out that he uses the opportunity of the suspension of the constitution to imprison his opponents, critics, and anyone else he doesn't like. Who could have known?

In the meantime, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto has called for protests against Musharraf's declaration. "After the news conference, police officers fired tear gas and beat about 100 of her party workers when they tried to push through police barriers blocking access to the Parliament building." Because that's how you quell terrorist extremism: by beating protesters.

Fortunately, Musharraf doesn't have to suffer the anguish of beating protesters alone. Last Thursday, Venezuelan soldiers "used tear gas, plastic bullets and water cannons to scatter tens of thousands of demonstrators protesting constitutional reforms that would permit Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election indefinitely."

Chavez wants the Venezuelan constitution re-written to, as stated above, allow him to run for re-election indefinitely, but also, the new constitution would degrade the autonomy of the Venezuelan armed forces, placing them under Chavez's sole authority, and degrade the autonomy of the Central Bank of Venezuela. Chavez claims that he needs to remain in power longer in order to complete his project of "21st-century socialism."

At the same time, over in the United States, we're having a surreal discussion about whether or not torture is okay. Scott sent me an article from counter-terrorism consultant Malcolm Nance, who says, definitively, "Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period." Nance, "a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego," has personally experienced and conducted waterboarding as part of SERE's interrogation training. Note, of course, that students are not subjected to waterboarding so that they can use it on suspects, but subjected to it so that they know what it's like.

Nance says that there are a lot of misconceptions about waterboarding. One misconception is that waterboarding is "simulated drowning." Says Nance, "It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. "

Ultimately, he says, this will come back around to bite us. "Now American use of the waterboard as an interrogation tool has assuredly guaranteed that our service members and agents who are captured or detained by future enemies will be subject to it as part of the most routine interrogations," says Nance. "Waterboarding will be one our future enemy’s go-to techniques because we took the gloves off to brutal interrogation. Now our enemies will take the gloves off and thank us for it."

And, all the while, the world is a safer place.

Posted by Mark at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bush administration to children: suck it

Let's start with President Bush vetoing an expansion of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. SCHIP provides health insurance to children whose parents can't afford it. The bill presented to the president would have expanded enrollment from 6.6 million to 10 million by covering children who are just above the poverty line. Those who opposed the bill argued that it's a step toward socialized medicine.

And?

As I pointed out last week, we already have socialized medicine in this country. Medicare, Medicaid, VA hospitals, and those great health plans that members of Congress get -- these are all government-run healthcare programs! Michael Moore's Sicko has undoubtedly frightened Republicans (and Democrats!) who get money from healthcare companies. More than anything else, Moore's film has galvanized popular support for some kind of government-sponsored healthcare program, as poor Republican voters realize that they're being screwed by the private healthcare system. There isn't a single Republican presidential nominee who has a plan for providing some kind of government-backed healthcare; the Democratic nominees, meanwhile, are falling over each other trying to promote their own plans. Of course, in primary season, the goal is to appeal to the base and then, in the general election, try to get everyone else to latch on. It could be that the Republican nominee will succumb to popular demand for healthcare reform after the primaries, so time will tell.

Supreme Court not as conservative as previously thought

Monday, the Supreme Court refused to grant certorari to a case involving birth control, healthcare plans, and religion. Catholic Charities, Inc. -- a private company affiliated with the Catholic Church -- didn't want to provide birth control as part of its healthcare plan to employees. The state of New York disagreed, saying that Catholic Charities is not a "religious employer" as defined by the Women's Contraception Equality Act, and therefore is not exempt from not providing birth control for religious reasons.

This same issue was brought up over three years ago in the California Supreme Court, and they came to the same conclusion. By denying a writ of certiorari, the lower court's ruling stands. And you thought this court was going to be super-conservative!

I thought contractors were contractors

The House of Representatives today passed a bill that would allow prosecution of private contractors in civilian courts. According to NYT, opponents of the bill -- all of whom were Republicans -- argued that "it would insert civilian investigators into areas better covered under military law." But Blackwater contractors are not part of the military. Even though they work under contract for DoD, they're still civilians, and as such should be subject to the same laws as civilians. Giving them a free ticket results in -- oh, guess what? The very kind of activity that occurred last month, prompting the Iraqi government to throw them out of the country.

Thankfully, the bill passed with only 30 "nay" votes, which makes it veto-proof (in that house, anyway) in the event that President Bush vetoes the bill due to his vice president's intimate involvement with Halliburton, Blackwater's parent company. No doubt a veto would be justified with a bunch of BS about contractors needing to do their job effectively without fear of prosecution (although, as we have seen, contractors in Iraq have a nasty habit of not doing their jobs effectively).

UPDATE: Scott, SEDHE's Chief Information Auditor, informed me that Blackwater is not a subsidiary of Halliburton.

Posted by Mark at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After almost six months of haranguing, arguing, disputing, questioning, lying, hearings, ad hominem attacks, and constitutional showdowns, Alberto Gonzales has stepped down as Attorney General, effective Sept. 17. Prior to being Attorney General, Gonzales was White House Counsel. Prior to that, he was President Bush's personal counsel. Prior to that, he was a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. Gonzales has been a Bush man through and through for at least the last ten years. Despite President Bush's assertions to the contrary, Gonzales has handled the Justice Department not with incompetence when it comes to doing his job, but incompetence when it comes to engaging in the lies and cover-ups that are a necessary part of daily life in the Bush administration.

It's no secret that the Bush administration is secretive, going to great lengths to prevent its critics and even the American people from knowing what's really going on in the White House. This tendency first became clear in the summer of 2001, when Vice President Cheney met with unnamed people to craft the administration's official energy policy. Environmental groups suspected that the petroleum-centric nature of the National Energy Policy meant that oil company executives -- who are not strangers to Cheney and Bush -- were involved. Judicial Watch and The Sierra Club sued for the right to know who exactly was involved. The case went to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the administration's justifications of executive privilege in keeping this information secret.

It went only downhill from there. September 11 was a terrific reason to start painting over the White House windows; requests for information could be -- and have been -- rejected due to "national security."

As a Bush acolyte, Gonzales was right up there with Harriet Miers. The two could have been King and Queen of the Bush Loyalty Prom. By all accounts, Gonzales was good at his job. As White House Counsel, it was he who drafted the first legal arguments that the president didn't have to adhere to the "quaint" Geneva Conventions when dealing with enemy combatants. According to former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tried to get a drugged-up John Ashcroft to authorize an extension to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, despite the fact that Ashcroft had transferred the powers of the Attorney General to Comey prior to entering the hospital for pancreatitis. Being bad at his job wasn't the problem. As we'll see, being bad at the Bush cover-up game was his problem.

As Attorney General, Gonzales vetted the roles of U.S. attorneys, removing anyone who was not a "loyal Bushie." But it was these same U.S. attorneys who would ultimately begin his downfall. Questions began: were these people fired for political reasons? The administration and its loyal mouthpieces (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol) quickly fired back that U.S. attorneys served at the pleasure of the president, political reasons or not. And while this is true, the firing of these attorneys -- in the middle of a term, not at the beginning of one like the Clinton purges -- was tacky, nevertheless. And so Gonzales visited the Senate for questioning. From March onward, it seemed like he was testifying every week.

So began his downfall.

Gonzales soon found himself caught in a web of lies of Rumsfeldian proportions. He said he had nothing to do with the firings, that other people below him prepared lists of names and all he, Gonzales, did was sign the paperwork. Then we found out that he had attended meetings about the attorney firings, and it seemed that he was the only one who didn't remember them. Gonzales' faulty memory became chronic as he was suddenly unable to remember where he was on particular days, that he had signed particular documents, or that he had talked to particular people.

This initial investigation spawned spin-off investigations. The original series U.S. Attorney Firings morphed into mid-season replacements like Violations of the Hatch Act, Whose Wiretapping Is It, Anyway? and the favorite prime-time drama of the summer, Wheel of Perjury. Gonzales had lied himself into several corners, and when he wasn't intentionally lying, he was accidentally telling the truth, as he did when he inadvertently revealed the existence of another as-yet undisclosed warrant-less wiretapping program earlier this summer. Gonzales was to Congressional investigations what Norman Lear was to TV sitcoms of the 1970s and '80s.

At the end of six months of investigations, where did we end up? The administration refused to budge on the issue of executive privilege. Harriet Miers and Karl Rove ignored Congressional subpoenas, refusing even to show up on Capitol Hill. (Only former White House political director Sara Taylor testified, and many of her answers included the words "executive privilege," but hey, at least she put in an appearance.) We all knew, in our heart of hearts, that these attorneys were fired for political reasons, not the "performance" problems we had been told back in March. But we had no evidence to prove it. Once Gonzales is no longer Attorney General, he will not be in the spotlight. Another poor shmuck -- perhaps Solicitor General Paul Clement or even Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff (late of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, you know) will get the unenviable task of fixing the Justice Department. It doesn't really matter who gets the job, as long as he or she isn't as much of a Bush lackey as Gonzales was.

Which begs the question: why was Gonzales so loyal? He owed his entire career to George Bush, from his post as Justice on the Texas Supreme Court to Attorney General. He continued riding the Bush Train to Hell even when it became painfully clear what the destination was. That's loyalty.

Republicans will suggest that Gonzales' so-called incompetence was caused by Democrats and their incessant hounding of him. "If only they had let him do his job at Justice instead of calling him in for testimony every other day," they'll say, "the Department wouldn't be in the shape it is." But it's not Congress' fault for exercising its role of oversight. That's like a felon who shot at the police blaming them for a gunshot wound. Gonzales thatched his roof; now he had to live under it. Now that he's moved out of that house, with the way the housing market is going, he won't get back nearly what he put into it.

Posted by Mark at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The BBC reports that Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, "has announced plans to change to Venezuela's constitution, allowing him to stand for office indefinitely." Chavez is limited by Venezuela's constitution to serving two six-year terms. His tenure as president would be up in 2012, but in the tradition of dictators, he has decided that it's best for the country that he rule indefinitely.

There's a belief among leftists that Chavez, heir to the Beard of Fidel Castro, is the one person in the world who is man enough to stand up to the United States. Never mind that he's also crazy. He has dinner-dates with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Robert Mugabe, for crying out loud. Does he think he will be taken seriously in world politics if he hangs out with those losers?

Chavez and his supporters insist that this is necessary to inaugurate his "21st-century socialism," but this futuristic title belies a very old motivation: power! All communist countries have gotten stuck at the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase because once leaders have power, they're unwilling to surrender it. "I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela today," said Chavez. Really? Because I can think of a bunch more, and all of them involve leaders stepping down once their terms are over. If Chavez really wanted a new-age socialism, he would do what other socialist countries have failed to do: namely, engage in a peaceful transition of power using free and fair elections. Chavez's unwillingness to step aside is cause for alarm, as this is Stage One of dictatorship. It appears that Latin America is heading down the same road it took in the 1970s and '80s, only instead of U.S.-installed and supported dicatorships, we have popular dictatorships.

But, as I've often said, the freedom to choose involves the freedom to choose badly.

Posted by Mark at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Imagine that you're Paul Wolfowitz. As a member of the Project for a New American Century, you suggested that the United States should engage in democratic nation-building throughout the world. As Deputy Secretary of Defense, you helped plan and implement the Iraq War. Then, you "cut and run" by becoming the president of World Bank. That sounds great, except that your girlfriend, Shaha Riza, works at the World Bank. In fact, she works in a position that's directly below yours. This would create what most people call a "conflict of interest," right? In fact, even under World Bank's own ethical guidelines, family members and significant others can't work in positions in which one person would be the supervisor of another.

So, Wolfowitz sent Riza off to the U.S. State Department, and on the way out, he gave her a $60,000 salary hike for her troubles. Whoops! Maybe he shouldn't have done that!

Wolfowitz helped write the book on neoconservatism, so he knows just what to do: (1) deny that there's anything nasty going on, and (2) turn the mirror back on the people making the allegations, smear them, and insist that they're just out to get you for being as cool as you are.

Ah, that may work in the United States, but at the grownups' table, that doesn't fly. A report released Monday by a World Bank Committee charged Wolfowitz with violating ethical rules, according to The New York Times:

The report charged that Mr. Wolfowitz broke bank rules and the ethical obligations in his contract, and that he tried to hide the salary and promotion package awarded to Shaha Ali Riza, his companion and a bank employee, from top legal and ethics officials in the months after he became bank president in 2005.

Okay, so he can't exactly get away with trying tactic no. 1, denying that there's anything wrong going on. I mean, he did give his girlfriend an extensive pay package, but he just did so after consulting the ethical committee, right? Oh, no, he didn't do that, either. Xavier Coll, World Bank's personnel director, said that he did not give approval to the pay package and, in fact, tried to cover up the salary increase. In fact, according to the report, Wolfowitz ignored recommendations that he recuse himself from the matter altogether. Furthermore, it is the very definition of "conflict of interest" for Wolfowitz himself to approve a pay increase for his partner.

Okay, okay, so that didn't work. Step number two: smear! As a neoconservative, you've got to make the people who disagree with you pay the price for daring to disagree with you. Your own ballsiness will serve as prima facie evidence that you're right, even if you're wrong. To whit, Wolfowitz took the affair into the Court of Public Opinion, saying Apr. 30 that he was the subject of "orchestrated leaks of false, misleading, incomplete and personal information." (As a veteran of the Bush administration, he knows what a strategic leak looks like!) He continued:

The goal of this smear campaign, I believe, is to create a self-fulfilling prophecy that I am an ineffective leader and must step down for that reason alone, even if the ethics charges are unwarranted. [...] I, for one, will not give in to such tactics. And I will not resign in the face of a plainly bogus charge of conflict of interest.

Take that, World Bank! This is all part of a vast, some-kind-of-wing conspiracy!

But, sadly, Wolfowitz is no longer dealing with the kiddie table. In its report, World Bank rebuked Wolfowitz for his public criticisms:

It is also troubling that some of the pronouncements made by Mr. Wolfowitz and by his counsel on his behalf involve attacks on the Board and a Board process which has been mandated by the Development Committee. The Group believes that pronouncements of this sort cannot be regarded as acceptable from any staff member under any circumstance, much less from the President of a global institution. It is the President's responsibility to impose discipline and good order, and to set an example that other staff should strive to emulate. The Group finds that Mr. Wolfowitz has not done so.

Sha-zam! This report must be troubling for Wolfowitz, who, after six years with the Bush administration, was used to being insulated from actual criticism. I wonder if, after all those years around yes-men, Wolfowitz actually started to believe some of the things he said?

President Bush has insisted this entire time that Wolfowitz has done nothing wrong and that he, Wolfowitz, retains the president's faith. (Maybe these two, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales can all get jobs on the Titanic. Sinking? What sinking? Everything's fine!) Some European governments have insisted that they will not fund World Bank if Wolfowitz stays on as president. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's attitude today was not as staid as the president's and vice president's had been: "Separately, at some point in the future there are going to be conversations about the proper stewardship of the World Bank. In that sense ... all options are on the table," he said, possibly indicating that a Wolfowitz ouster was both (1) a possibility and (2) that such an event wouldn't be challenged by the White House.

Posted by Mark at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From The New York Times, an editorial criticizing the teaching of abstinence-only education, which, at best, is just as effective as contraceptive-based sex education. The federal government has required that, in order to receive federal funding for sex education, that education must be abstinence-based. NYT reports, "At least nine states, by one count, have decided to give up the federal matching funds rather than submit to dictates that undermine sensible sex education."

Next, Think Progress digs up the fact that, during the Bosnian War, then-Governor George W. Bush -- a presidential hopeful -- criticized President Clinton for not having a timetable for getting out of the war: "I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long [troops] will be involved and when they will be withdrawn," Bush said in 1999. Today, President Bush vetoed a military spending bill because it contains a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He reasons that, if a timetable is drawn up, terrorists will wait us out. He admitted last week in an interview on PBS's Charlie Rose that his only rationale for this oft-repeated conclusion was "just logic. [...] I mean, you say we start moving troops out. Don’t you think an enemy is going to wait and adjust based upon an announced timetable of withdrawal?”

Finally, CNN reports that Iraqi Prime Minster Nuri al-Maliki "has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide." It seems that the prime minister -- once a leader of anti-Saddam Shiite groups in Iraq -- may be using his official power to exercise vengeance (or something) against Sunnis. But it's not a civil war.

Posted by Mark at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I got flack from Mike last year about a post in which I wrote that President Bush is quite stupid, uninterested in the world around him, and actively lied to the American people about the Iraq War. In a follow-up post, I wrote, "It's not that I disagree with the way the president has handled this war. It's that I disagree with the war itself; there is no "good" way to operate this war, since it shouldn't have happened to begin with." Today, Joshua Michah Marshall of Talking Points Memo explains Harry Reid's "war is lost" comment this way:

Frankly, the whole question is stupid. Or at least it's a very stilted way of understanding what's happening, geared to guarantee President Bush's goal of staying in Iraq forever. A more realistic description is President Bush's long twilight struggle to see just how far he can go into one brown paper bag.

[...]

It's a huge distortion to say that this means the war was 'lost'. It just means what the war supporters said would happen didn't happen. The premise was bogus. Like I said at the outset, the whole exercise is like getting trapped in a brown paper bag. You can keep going into the bag and into the bag and into the bag and never get out or change anything. Or you can just turn around and walk out of the bag.

To say the war is "lost" would be to say that it had a path from which it strayed. This is not the issue, as the war never had a path that was good and just, anyway.

Posted by Mark at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the Cold War, the United States supported right-leaning dictators in South America for the simple reason that they weren’t communists. Sure, they may have engaged in horrible human rights abuses, put the welfare of the rich over that of the rest of the country, and violently squelched free speech, but at least they weren’t in league with the Soviet Union. Now, it appears, the ousted communists are coming home to roost.

Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa is the third Latin American socialist president to call for an expansion of his own powers. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was recently granted the ability to pass legislation by decree for the next eighteen months. Bolivian president Evo Morales has called for his country’s constitution to be re-written. Now, Correa wants to take the popular “re-write the constitution because the current constitution hinders my political ambitions” approach. When 57 legislators in the Ecuadorean congress objected last month to re-writing the constitution, Correa fired them. Earlier this week, Ecuador’s highest court overruled Correa and re-instated them.

A trend in Latin America is forming, and it is not a good one. Whenever a new president thinks he needs more power, he calls for the constitution to be re-written. Or, whenever rule of law fails for a president’s politics, he has the law re-written. Respect for the rule of law in Latin America doesn’t go very far. This is probably because Latin American countries have only had democracies since the 1980s, at the very earliest. Before then, military dictatorships – backed by the United States – were the norm. And the military dictatorships weren’t stable; lower generals, lusting for power, overthrew the country’s leader and instituted himself. That general, in turn, would be overthrown by another general. And so on.

But violent (or even non-violent) overthrow isn’t in vogue anymore in Latin America. So what is? Legal overthrow. Instead of using the military to force the country’s politics to behave in a particular way, Latin American leaders are using the law to force the country’s politics to behave in a particular way. Whatever the method, whether it’s re-writing the constitution or demanding extra powers, Latin American “presidents” are setting themselves up as de facto dictators.

The case of Andres Manuel López-Obrador (or “AMLO,” as he is affectionately known) is a telling one in the annals of Latin American democracy. In last year’s Mexican presidential race, Lopez-Obrador, of the socialist PRD, was pitted against Felipe Calderón of the more conservative PAN. Calderón won, but only very narrowly. López-Obrador immediately cried foul and demanded recounts, citing election fraud. There were recounts, and those recounts found that Calderón still won. In a country like the United States, with a 200-year history of democracy, the opposition might not like the result, but would have to live with that result nonetheless. (The case even went to Mexico’s election tribunal, which declared Calderón the winner. Does any of this sound familiar?)

AMLO and his supporters decried the ruling, insisting that there was fraud. Liberal critics in the United States similarly declared that there had been fraud, even though no one could cite an instance of the kind of systematic voter fraud that would have to happen in order to rig an election. (Compare this, for example, with the 2004 United States presidential race, in which many instances of systematic fraud were discovered.) Even independent vote-monitoring organizations couldn’t find any irregularities in the Mexican election. Nevertheless, AMLO and his supporters insisted that a conservative candidate could only win by fraud and AMLO vowed to set up his own parallel government in protest.

This is not how democracy works. AMLO vowed to raise such a ruckus in Mexico that no one would be able to do any government business. That’s great that he’s utilizing civil disobedience, but the government still has to operate. Did he think that stopping the government would make Calderón abdicate his position? Did he plan on stopping government for four years? In an election without irregularities, AMLO lost; it was time for him to suck it up and move on.

But, no; in what might be called the typical Latin American fashion, AMLO instead tried to “overthrow” Calderón, insisting that his tenure wasn’t legitimate. This begs the question: what would have happened if AMLO were elected president? Would he use force to get his way then, as well? In Latin American politics, if you don’t get your way, you don’t admit defeat and go home; instead, you try to use all the political machinery at your disposal to get your way. This includes even re-writing the constitution, if necessary. If that doesn’t work, would he have resorted to the old standby – namely, involving the military?

In Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court case that established judicial review, John Marshall determined that laws made by Congress are subordinate to the Constitution:

That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Marshall correctly theorized that the Constitution is “a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means” so that it is not “alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.” This is the only way that a democracy can function: with a supreme, unchangeable (at least, unchangeable as far as normal legislation goes) charter that forms the framework of the government. For two hundred years, the United States has functioned on the principle that our policies must conform to the Constitution. In Latin America, if a president’s policies and the constitution are in conflict, it is the constitution that must change. This leads to instability and ultimately undermines democracy, for if the constitution can be altered at any time, then the distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship has disappeared.

Correa’s justification for re-writing the constitution, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, is that the Ecuadorean congress has “too many vested interests in state companies and the judiciary.” But is there no better way to eliminate these interests than to re-write the constitution? At the end of the day, has democracy won a complete victory, or merely a short-term victory? What happens when the next president (and there have been six presidents in Ecuador in the last six years) decides he wants to re-write the constitution, too? Allowing a constitution to be as malleable as an ordinary law ultimately hurts a country, as it relegates the government to something that is not a long-lasting, durable institution, but something volatile that citizens are loathe to place their faith in.

Posted by Mark at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OAKLAND -- Once again, I will be spending St. Valentine's Day watching a documentary about The St. Valentine's Day Massacre. On Feb. 14, 1929, seven members of George "Bugs" Moran's North Side Gang were murdered by four members of Al Capone's South Side Gang at the SMC Cartage Co. warehouse in Chicago (the SMC Cartage Co. was a front for bootlegging operations; remember, this was still during prohibition). Moran's men thought they were getting some contraband hooch, but in fact they were being set up for a hit.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre was the climax of the Chicago mob wars of the 1920s; after the horrific pictures of the massacre appeared in the papers the next day, the public decided it had had enough of mob violence.

Normally, I watch the Paul Sorvino-narrated History Channel special about this, but I don't have TV. The History Channel special is very thorough -- and about three hours long -- going back years before the Massacre into the history of Capone, Moran, and other various North Side Gang leaders. All I could find on Netflix was the hour-long Discovery Channel special, so I guess that will have to suffice.

Unattached for St. Valentine's Day? Come over and watch the massacre unfold! I'll fill you in on the stuff that the Discovery Channel special misses (like how "Bugs" Moran became the leader of the North Side Gang only because everyone else above him had been killed). You'll have to email me, since I've had to turn comments off again thanks to comment spam robots.

Ooh! Time permitting, we might be able to fit in a screening of The Untouchables, starring Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness, Robert De Niro as Al Capone, and Sean Connery as an Irish policeman.

Posted by Mark at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez won a major battle for socialist dictatorships this week. The Venezuelan legislature granted Chavez sweeping power to enact policy by decree for the next 18 months.

Sure, socialism is great, but dictatorship -- which is the power being granted to Chavez -- is not. And it is never, ever okay to justify dictatorship by claiming that you're only working for the greater good, just as it is never ever okay to rescind freedom of speech or the press under the guise that it is somehow "better" for the country. Taking away rights in the name of freedom is not only ethically wrong, but it means that there is no freedom. History has taught us that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- which is what Chavez has created with his new decree powers -- doesn't end at a socialist utopia; rather, it ends with a crazy dictator and lots of dead people.

Posted by Mark at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OAKLAND -- A few months ago, I saw Tom Waits on The Daily Show. I had heard only the name, and I had no idea what kind of music he played. As it turns out, he's incredibly eclectic, having written and performed dozens of kinds of (mostly experimental) music over the last thirty years. At the end of the show, he played a tremendous version of "The Day After Tomorrow," from his last album.

Yesterday, I got a call from a friend who told me that three different local bands were playing Tom Waits songs on strange instruments at 21 Grand in Oakland. Would I like to go?

Of course!

At 8:30 PM (more or less), we arrived at 21 Grand, paid $10, and watched as three different bands -- all dressed in 1940s-era clothing -- played Tom Waits songs on ukelele, mandolin, kazoo, guitar, organ, and accordion. During one song, they simulated the crackling and popping noises of an old record by crinkling a plastic candy wrapper in front of the microphone. Brilliant! The only problem is that they didn't play my favorite song, "Eggs and Sausage," from his first album (back in 1970-something), Nighthawks at the Diner.

Posted by Mark at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Now that I have a Samson C01U USB condenser microphone, I plan to start offering podcasts on this blog.

People have suggested recording comedy bits and putting them up. Perhaps I'll do that. In any case, look for MP3s in this space in the near future.

Posted by Mark at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's been a year since Ed's Whirlwind Tour of the West, when Elizabeth flew out to Denver and I moved to the Bay Area. On the way back from Denver, we stopped at a few places you might have heard of. They're only giant national parks. Elizabeth was relieved that I liked canyons, because that's a lot of what we saw.

My car just turned 20,000 miles yesterday. Fitting, since it turned 10,000 miles almost a year ago, on our way out of Bryce Canyon National Park.

Now, at last, you can view photos of Ed's Whirlwind Tour of the West as a Flickr set.

Posted by Mark at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

OAKLAND, Ca. -- Upon the insistence of one of my co-workers, I went salsa dancing last night. There's a dance studio about five minutes from where I live, so I went to a beginner's salsa class. I soon discovered what my problem with dancing has always been: I'm easily confused when the steps get too intricate. It's frustrating to be doing something and then suddenly not know what it is you're supposed to be doing. By the end of the night, I was able to do the basic steps -- not sexily, but at least I could do them. As Jared pointed out, the more I do something that I've never done before, the more neural pathways I'll build for that task.

I'm waiting here for the guy from PG&E (the electric company) to come and light the pilot.

Oh, and guess where I'm going the evening of Dec. 9? To see a little guy called Gallagher at Cobb's Comedy Club! I told Jared about the good acts that come through Cobb's, and he went to the website. We were both flabbergasted to see that Gallagher was going to be there, and for only $30. Hells, yes I want to see Gallagher for $30! The only problem is that Cobb's lists this as a "no sledge or no mess" show. Crap! Why go to see Gallagher if he's not bringing the Sledge-O-Matic™? Well, I don't know how much longer Gallagher will be touring, so I figure I'd better see him while I can. And, besides, he has to at least end the show by smashing just one watermelon.

Things in O-Town are humming along. I will need to start rock climbing again so that I don't forget how.

Posted by Mark at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Must be between 5'4" and 5'9" tall, 19-27 years old, slim to average build, and attractive. Women only! With Elizabeth in Ecuador until February, I should try this "casual dating" thing. Here are some of the things my casual partner and I will do together:

• Go to the movies. I don't go to the movies all the time, but occasionally, I'll want to see a new film, and I'll want someone to come with me. Potential date must enjoy action-ey films (e.g. Casino Royale) as well as indie films (e.g. The Science of Sleep) and comedies (e.g. Borat). Date must also like Shakespeare, as I enjoy going to the California Shakespeare Festival in Orinda.
• Go out to dinner. I enjoy food, and there are lots of restaurants in this area. My date and I will go to restaurants every now and then.
• Rock climbing. I like rock climbing, and my date must, as well. I haven't been rock climbing recently because I have no belay partner. Date must be interested in rock climbing as well as hiking, camping, and going to national/state parks for the weekend.
• Discussion. I like to talk politics. Not a lot, but enough. Date must be able to keep up with political conversation and know what's going on in the news. I also like to talk about other things. Date must be able to bring some interesting intellectual background to discussion. Witiness appreciated. Some college education preferred. Liberal-leaning people only, please. Liberal-leaning people preferred, but conservative thinkers are also welcome.

If you know anyone that fits this description, please let me know. I'm at a loss in finding out where to meet new people.

Posted by Mark at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The Wall Street Journal is after Hugo Chavez. Last week, at a speech before the U.N. General Assembly, President Chavez repeatedly referred to President Bush as "the devil." He was congratulated on his speech by such credible figures as Robert Mugabe and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Problem is, I agree with this WSJ op-ed from Alvaro Vargas Llosa, a scholar at the Independent Institute, a right-wing think tank. This is not because I have a vendetta against Chavez for criticizing Bush. This is because Vargas Llosa's criticisms of Chavez are right on-target.

Vargas Llosa parallels Dante's Inferno -- which is about Dante's trip through the nine circles of hell -- with Chavez's own "Inferno." It is true that Chavez has no credibility to assume a higher moral standing than President Bush. While Chavez isn't guilty of starting a war in Iraq (which makes him pretty popular in some circles), neither is he guilty of supporting freedom of speech and the press. Chavez is known, as Vargas Llosa tells us, for pressuring national media companies to write nice things about him. People who protest against him -- or even write unflattering op-eds for national newspapers -- find themselves suddenly imprisoned. Chavez is not only bosom buddies with Fidel Castro, but also Cuba's secret police and spy networks.

As I've written before, this sort of crackdown on what we would call First Amendment rights is astonishing coming from a country that wants to be seen as a democracy. While Western democracies like France, England, and Spain (which are still among the dominant diplomatic powers in the world) certainly disagree with the United States on a number of things -- and have an equal disdain for Bush -- they will not high-five Chavez for his remarks. They are undoubtedly as perplexed by Chavez as some observers in the United States are, and I hope that they take a dim view of Chavez's human rights abuses and resist giving him any credibility in the world until he makes his country truly a democracy.

Posted by Mark at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Not everyone is an administrator

If you find yourself entering the workplace as someone who's not in the IT department, then you'll sooner or later come to the realization that you aren't an administrator on the computer you've been given. You can't install software. You can't change your settings. And it's all for the better. It also means less opportunity for you to mess something up.

But software manufacturers don't seem to understand that. They write software that requires you to be an administrator -- not only to install it in the first place, but also to run it at all. Software developers for the Mac platform have discovered that Mac has true multi-user support. For years, we had to deal with Windows, which had "users," but all those users were administrators by default. And Mac OS 9 had no such distinction. But now that we actually have software restrictions -- non-administrators just don't have write access to certain folders -- we need to invent software that doesn't rely on the outdated notion that the user is always an administrator.

Posted by Mark at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela in 2000, not many people outside the Latin-American Studies circle noticed. In 2002, there was a coup, and the democratically-elected president was replaced. Within hours -- hours -- the Bush administration, which champions freedom and democracy, recognized the un-elected government. The coup lasted for only a few days, and Chavez was rightfully restored to power. The Bush administration suffered an embarrassment; it showed its hand too early, clearly demonstrating that it didn't much care for the Socialist president. It looked like we were heading back to the 1980s, when the U.S. government supported right-leaning dictators in Latin America (like, say, General Augusto Pinochet) instead of left-leaning, democratically-elected presidents (like, oh, President Salvador Allende).

Thankfully, the U.S. government didn't actually returned to its policy of providing weapons and cash to right-leaning paramilitary forces, allowing them to overthrow the elected leaders. (Well, except for Colombia, but that's been going on for a while now.)

This was my first introduction to Hugo Chavez. And we didn't see much of him for a while.

Then, he became bosom buddies with Cuban president Fidel Castro. Castro, of course, is not a "president" in the sense that he was ever elected. He sort of proclaimed himself head of state after the 1959 revolution that overthrew U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. Do two wrongs make a right? Some people seem to think so.

It looked as though Chavez was setting himself up to be the next power broker in the region. Castro has been old for some time, and he will need a successor. Certainly his brother, Raul Castro, will be his successor as head of state, but Raul lacks the charm and tenacity of Ol' Beardy. Thankfully, Chavez is more than up to the task of filling Castro's charm shoes.

But even though Chavez presided over attempts at equalizing the lower and upper classes in Venezuela, he did things that should bother liberal-thinking people. Reportedly, Chavez has no qualms about intimidating or even imprisoning his critics. No matter what your goals are as a leader, or how left-leaning you are, or how much you profess to love the poor, it is never okay to use government power to silence speech.

Last week, Chavez met with other leaders in a summit of the Non-Aligned Nations. These nations were formerly called "third world" nations because they were neither the first (capitalist) world nor the second (communist world). The summit was hosted in Cuba by Raul Castro, currently in charge of Cuba.

Guess who else hangs out at the summit of Non-Aligned Nations? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for one. You'll remember that he's called the Holocaust a "myth" and suggested that Israel should be eradicated. These are both stupid things to say, and Ahmadinejad is stupid for saying them. But why would Chavez want to hang out with Ahmadinejad? It's definitely not good for P.R. Then again, why would Chavez want to hang out with Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe (who, a few years ago, seized white farmers' land in the name of revenge)? Or the Secretary of State of North Korea? Clearly, Chavez doesn't care about angering the United States with whom he associates. But, if he wants credibility from other countries in Latin America and the rest of the world, he needs to stop hanging out with crazies.

Because, clearly, the crazies are starting to affect him. Today, Chavez spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Taking a page out of the Ayatollah Kohmeini playbook, Chavez called President Bush a "devil" several times, remarking of Bush's visit to the UN yesterday, "It still smells of sulphur today."

Even on NPR, that most liberal of forums (unless you talk to liberals, who don't think it's liberal enough), the resident U.N. expert had difficulty believing that Chavez actually called Bush a "devil." It's just not something that's done there.

Does Chavez expect the world to take him seriously? He also took the time to call the U.N. "worthless," echoing the sentiments of what is apparently his new friend, President Ahmadinejad, who called the U.N. "neither [...] legitimate nor effective."

President Ahmadinejad is clearly not someone the West would enjoy being diplomatic with. Ever since the Shah was overthrown in 1979, Iran has been ruled as an oppressive Islamic theocracy. (I mean, the Shah was no treat, but at least his was a secular oppression.)

Is this indeed Chavez's new buddy? Will he indeed team up with Ahmadinejad, Mugabe, and Kim Jong-Il -- the latter three comprising the Coalition of the Oppressive and Deranged? Chavez will never be taken seriously by anyone if he insists on associating with dictators, and he will most likely lose the respect of other legitimate democracies in South America. Even though he's challenging U.S. power, which is not in itself bad, he's going about it entirely the wrong way.

Posted by Mark at 6:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been thinking about security recently, as a result of the foiled London terrorist plots. Many techie websites have been making fun of Britain's and the United States' stringent regulations prohibiting certain types of liquids in carry-on luggage and on your person. Security expert Bruce Schneier says that the only effective way to prevent terrorism is to practice what he calls "anti-terrorism"; that is, don't give in to the terrorists' desire to create chaos and paranoia, ultimately leading to citizens lobbying their government for a change in policy so as to eliminate the terrorist threat. The terrorist's goal is to inspire fear in his or her victims.

This is Schneier's argument, and I've been thinking about it. I like Bruce Schneier; he says a lot of intelligent things about security. But while has considered terrorism as an attempt to instill fear, uncertainty, and doubt (what online types call "FUD"), I don't think he's considered another part of the picture: terror as a publicity stunt.

Mark Jurgensmeyer calls this "theater of terror." In addition to attempting to instill fear in their victims, terrorists will engage in acts that will garner a lot of media attention, focusing the public eye on their cause. Osama bin Laden is considered a master of "theater of terror," as he expertly crafts his own media image so as to portray himself as a single-minded religious militant (have you ever noticed how all of his self-released videos show him brandishing or sitting hear a Kalashnikov assault rifle? Or wearing a camoflauge-colored vest?)

Why do terrorists kidnap high-profile people? Why did terrorists kidnap and behead Americans in Iraq? The only fear it instilled was on the part of family members of the victims; everyone else just avoided traveling to Iraq and the problem was solved. Inspiring FUD requires terrorists to plant in their victims' minds that they could be attacked at any second, no matter where they live. Beheadings were a publicity stunt -- a high-profile action designed to get some demands met. (When terrorists kidnapped journalist Jill Caroll, they wanted something in return for her. Kidnappings aren't just for funsies; there's a pragmatic purpose behind them.)

Schneier has routinely failed to come up with pragmatic security responses to terrorism. In his article, linked above, he says, "[O]ur job is to remain steadfast in the face of