Politics

Over at redblueamerica, the question is asked.  Unfortunately they miss one of the more interesting angles on this question in their analysis.  Obama has admitted attending a Muslim school in his childhood (he also attended a Catholic school), and that his father and stepfather are both Muslims.  Currently Obama claims an association with the United Church of Christ, which is itself somewhat problematic on non-religious grounds.  And, of course, Obama says he is a Christian, not a Muslim.

In the United States we treat religion as a matter of choice and conscience; it's not appropriate to impose religious tests on candidates for public office, and while voters may of course consider a candidate's religion in their decisions, it's usually more of a proxy for political beliefs than any true desire for theocracy.

But in Islam, renunciation is impossible.  Once a Muslim, always a Muslim.  According to doctrine, the only thing necessary to convert to Islam is the recitation of the sentence "There is no God except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" with understanding.  It's entirely possible that Obama has said exactly those words in his lessons as a youth.  Yet conversion from Islam is considered impossible.  In Eqypt, for example:

"The state does not recognize conversions from Islam and refuses to allow citizens to legally change their religious affiliation," the report stated. It noted that because family law is governed by religion, converts face difficulties in the areas of divorce, marriage, inheritance, and their children's mandatory religious education.

So, whatever Obama may consider himself, it seems that at least some Muslims would consider him either a Muslim still or an apostate.  That could produce some fairly extreme reactions from Islamic nations either way.

Is this a meaningful criteria on which to base a vote for or against Obama?  Not really.  But it could have some interesting consequences if he wins the general election.

It seems that Ron Paul survived a nasty primary battle against the Spawn of Sinatra, and now faces his Democratic challenger with a substantially depleted warchest.  Read about the situation, or just go straight to his website to donate.

If you're wondering whether Ron Paul believes what you believe, here is what his primary opponent said about him:

• Known as Dr. No because he refuses to vote for anything unconstitutional;
• has never voted to raise taxes;
• has never voted to give himself a pay raise;
• wants to get the US out of the UN.
• voted against the $80 billion Katrina bailout

When you can use your opponent's description of yourself in your own campaign ads, and win, that's saying something about who is out of touch with the people. 

It is disturbing to me that the Republican party would present a primary challenge to Ron Paul, who has long stood for everything a libertarian should.

... but I'm not sure that running fake political campaigns to entice corrupt campaign workers into breaking the law is necessarily going to help.  The government needs to stay out of the electoral process, because the risk of abuse is far, far too high.  What if the fake campaign had won?

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Like Bowling for Columbine, this film is a win-win proposition for Moore; if the audience finds it convincing, he wins, and if the entire audience is there only to write an article trashing it on the internet, they still bought a ticket. The only way to see this movie is if you can find a way to do it for free. In that spirit, rather than debunk it myself, I'll just post this link to someone else's debunking.

The disturbing "de-democratizing" patterns inside the country have profound consequences for the durability of the U.S. partnership with Russia. In the United States, our democratic society is built upon the rule of law and a set of core beliefs which are derived from our Bill of Rights. Among these are the freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable search and seizure of personal property, and freedom of speech.

What is troubling is that there are dark forces at work inside the Kremlin, many of which come from the FSB, the former KGB, who want to roll back freedoms within Russia, and in doing so, undo much of the democratic progress made since the fall of Communism.

These actions represent a dangerous turn of events, and many believe that these issues indicate that Russia is at a turning point -- one that can follow the path to a real democracy or return to a police state. At risk are no less than fundamental human rights in the country, the viability of Russia as an economic partner to the U.S. and the national security interests of the United States.

I haven't examined this in any detail, but any risk of Russia returning to the practices of its past is a serious matter deserving of attention and opposition.

The link is to the full ruling; Clayton Cramer summaries thusly:

As transparently political as their decision is (putting off voting on Prop. 54 until the primary election), so far, from my reading, it looks to be correct. I haven't checked their footnotes (always useful with the Ninth Circus), but the essential arguments are:

1. Punch cards are very inaccurate compared to modern voting methods.
2. Because some counties still use them, voters in those counties will be disenfranchised relative to voters in counties that don't use them, thus violating equal protection.
3. The California Constitution does require a recall election within 60-80 days after the recall has been certiified, and this will be violated--but the California Constitution is clearly inferior to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause in terms of authority. Therefore, with the choice of ignoring the California Constitution, or the 14th Amendment, the California Constitution's requirement goes by the wayside.

A News10/SurveyUSA poll found that 30 percent of California voters felt McClintock won the debate. Twenty-two percent of those questioned said Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was number one, while 12 percent named Peter Ueberroth as the winner. Arianna Huffington was favored by nine percent of those surveyed, while three percent said Peter Camejo won.

Just so we are all on the same page, McClintock is generally considered the most pro-gun candidate available. The other leading Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, did not participate in the debate. Even so, simply not participating was viewed as a substantial negative by those polled. The question this should be raising for California's Republican voters is this: is Arnold's fame enough of an advantage to offset his apparantly anti-gun views?

For several years I've been listening to folks of the conservative persuasion going on about the liberal bias in the media, in Hollywood and among elites on the West and East coasts. There's no denying that liberals outnumber conservatives on the two coasts. It is also apparent if you work in certain fields like education, the arts, or high tech that liberals also greatly outnumber conservatives there, too.

I'm all for open and free discussions on the subject, but from all the anecdotal evidence around, one thing seems to be obvious: Liberals are where the brains are, and the brains are where liberals are.

Yup. A newspaper actually printed an opinion piece arguing that people who don't agree with the author are stupid. If this isn't evidence of liberal bias in the media, I don't know what is.

I suspect that this is wishful thinking, not a real poster, but damn.

Those shifting away from the Democratic Party are not necessarily becoming Republicans. An overwhelming majority of blacks still vote Democratic. But an increasing number, especially those 18 to 35, are identifying themselves as independents. Some 24 percent of black adults now characterize themselves that way. Among those 35 and under, said David Bositis, a senior researcher at the Joint Center who conducted the survey, the figures are 30 percent to 35 percent, with men leaning more heavily independent than women.

I wonder how many of those "independents" are actually libertarians?

As 11 Democratic state senators from Texas fled to New Mexico on Monday, their desire to stave off a Republican redistricting effort led them to forget some personal needs.

This is getting to be a fairly regular occurrance, and that's somewhat unfortunate.

Have you ever committed a felony?

If you've ever written a lewd comment on a postcard, you have committed a felony (which is generally defined as a crime punishable by more than 365 days in prison). Or if you refused to register for the draft after turning 18, or said " fuck" on the radio, or knowingly mis-valued the items in your suitcase, or smuggled an abortion pill from France, or taken a baseball bat to a mailbox.

Then there's the drugs. Use a crack pipe, commit a felony. Snort a line of coke? Felony in 37 states, according to this nifty Robert Wood Johnson Foundation chart. Possession of meth is felonious in 36 states; a single hit of ecstasy in 26.

Guilty yet? If somehow not, then look up your state criminal code and check twice. For what I'm guessing is the vast majority of us who have committed a felony at least once, here's a question: Should we be banned from voting in elections, forever?

Have you noticed that some of your friends and relations who perch on the extreme Left of the political see-saw are currently trembling with outrage and trepidation over some actions of the federal government which, they predict, could deprive us all of some precious Constitutional rights?

Our present government could best be described as a race to the bottom. Whichever side wins violates the rights of the other's primary constituencies; there is no box to check for "stop the growth of government", much less "reduce the size of government".

California officials said on Wednesday they had verified enough voter signatures to force an unprecedented special election to determine whether unpopular Gov. Gray Davis will keep his job. The Secretary of State's office said it had certified well above the threshold of 897,158 voter signatures needed to put a popular no-confidence vote on the governor onto a ballot to be held as soon as September.

Candidates to replace Gov. Gray Davis held their third debate Wednesday without Arnold Schwarzenegger, while Davis campaigned to hold on to his job accompanied by presidential contender Sen. John Kerry.

Four of the major candidates sparred over gay rights and campaign finance while uniting in their criticism of Schwarzenegger for skipping the forum and for agreeing to appear in only one debate. In that debate, on Sept. 24 in Sacramento, candidates will receive questions in advance

While I started out feeling fairly positive about Schwarznegger as governor, on the grounds that as a socially-liberal Republican he might resemble the libertarian viewpoint, the way he has handled this campaign is embarassing. Candidates need to get out in front of the people and be willing to put their views up against those of the opposition in open debate; no matter how good an actor you are, there's more to governing than reciting the lines your political handlers feed you.

Arnold Schwarzenegger moved quickly Wednesday to prepare for governing, naming a prominent Republican congressman to run his transition and strongly suggesting that he would call on President Bush to provide federal aid to California, now in Republican hands.

This is Arnold's master plan, his ace-in-the-hole, his will-not-raise-taxes secret? Even though he wasn't my favorite to win the race, I am ashamed to have ever said anything positive about it.

It would not surprise me at all to find that federal aid was a pre-arranged condition of Arnold's run in the recall.

The press is suggesting that Pataki, governor of NY, may run for President in 2008.  But before anyone gets too excited, let's remember who he is:

While he has been a tax-cutter and death penalty supporter, Pataki has also been a backer of abortion and gay rights, and of tough gun-control legislation, positions that do not sit well with conservatives who have controlled the GOP nominating process in recent years.

No thanks.  I don't need a Republican president who favors gun control.  Republicans who claim to oppose gun control are bad enough.

The New York Times reports on Hillary's fundraising speech:

Left unchallenged, especially if Democrats fail to pick up seats in next year's Congressional elections, she said, Republican leaders could ram through extremist conservative judges, wreck Social Security and make unacceptable concessions to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations that are needed to finance the United States budget deficit.

This would be the same Hillary Clinton whose husband presided over technology transfers of ballistic missile technology to China (allegedly) in return for illegal campaign contributions, yes?

There are reports (from anonymous, but supposedly reliable, sources making phone calls to bloggers) that Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist will retire in the next month or so.  Judge McConnell is apparantly being floated as his replacement.

It's time to do some background checks in a hurry, to see whether McConnell has his head in the right place on the firearms issue.

I picked up the story from Powerline. 

... and I think this survey by the Pew research center needs glasses.  I came out an Enterpriser, which is only a reasonable result when you consider that "libertarian" isn't an option.  For that matter, neither are "Small-Government Conservative" or any of the other categories that represent the libertarianish arena.  Still, there's some interesting data.  Lots of other prominent bloggers got the same result:

1. Michelle Malkin
   
2. SaysUncle
   
3. AlphaPatriot
   

Unfortunately, SaysUncle makes a classic mistake in interperting surveys; he wants to add "likely to blog" to the characteristics for the Enterpriser type, and while it does seem like a good fit, we don't know that Enterprisers are more likely to blog than other types.  If a large number of bloggers are Enterprisers, then we could establish the reverse: bloggers are likely to be Enterprisers.  Yeah, it's nitpicking...

For a long time, I've hosted a mailing list called ctforum. It sprung up from a different mailing list, focused around an author by the name of Daniel Keys Moran. His books feature a repressive near-future government, a surprisingly-accurate depiction of the effect of computer and network technology on society, and an overdose of style. They are some of the best written books around, but they also hard to find. (If you're interested, I recommend starting with The Long Run, then Emerald Eyes, then The Last Dancer).

But at any rate, the mailing list had so much political discussion that a second list was formed to keep the topic separate. The participants are articulate, knowledgable, and mostly liberal (with a few exceptions, myself included). If you're finding that civilized debate with the honorable opposition is a rarity, than I invite you to join the discussion. You can look over some of the discussions in the list archives.

Since it's an old-style mailing list, you have to join it by email, rather than a web form. Send a message to ctforum-subscribe@lists.infodancer.org and reply to the confirmation message you are sent to join the list. Be aware that traffic is sporadic, but tends to be fairly high once it gets going.

... the problem is, he's claiming it on the abortion issue. I'm not concerned about the abortion issue. I'm concerned about the gun issue. But he's feeling the heat and he's trying to speak out to counter it. He claims he was the victim of "artificial controversy" and that he never "warned" the President of anything. The original article that started the controversy put the "warning" in the first paragraph, but doesn't provide a quote for it.

So it may be that he was "spun", or it may be that he was taken out to the woodshed by party leaders and is now expressing his willingness to toe the party line. Either way, I've expressed my opinion and so have the Gun Owners of America. Having done so, I'll let the party leaders decide whether he can be trusted.

UPDATE: By way of Clayton Cramer, the White House has chimed in, indicating that while Specter is in line for the chairmanship, "his colleagues may make an exception to protect the health of the Constitution". Ouch. That's gotta sting. The Bush folks aren't too happy with Specter either, it seems.

It seems the left is sufficiently pissed off at the Fox News Channel to try a really dirty trick in the form of a sexual harassment lawsuit against Fox and O'Reilly. Presumably, they are pissed that Fox didn't fall for the forged documents like CBS did, and is also doing far, far better than the other cable news channels -- especially in the month before the 2004 election. Fox is calling it blackmail, and that's what it looks like to me, too.

Bear in mind that this is only one side of the story, so it's best not to make solid judgements until we hear the other side. But I find the amount of the "settlement request" and the timing of the problem suspicious, along with the lack of any attempt to use internal procedures to resolve the problem.

Interestingly, although we don't know what "alleged statements" have been made, Fox doesn't appear to be denying that they were made, or that inappropriate conduct occurred. I'm guessing that means that comments were made that could be objectionable, but without "inappropriate contact". I'm no expert on sexual harassment law, nor even a lawyer, but I don't see the claims being made amounting to anywhere near what was being asked.

As for O'Reilly personally, on the rare occasions when I would watch his news show, I would get annoyed by his tendency to yell at his guests rather than letting them talk, and his occasional obvious errors on topics I have some knowledge of; therefore, he has no personal credibility with me to damage. I'm not sure what sort of damage this could do to his credibility with viewers, though, as that will depend on the details of the allegations.

Recently, I pointed to an article contrasting the position of John Ashcroft and John Kerry on civil liberties issues. Surprisingly, Ashcroft has better credibility than Kerry on many civil liberties issues. As the Attorney General on 9-11, it's easy to understand how Ashcroft's position on these issues may have changed. Kerry's primary motivation for stumping about civil liberties (despite his lousy record) is the election: the Bush administration is vulnerable on civil liberties, and so Kerry must attack on those grounds. That the Democratic party nominated someone with so little depth on this core issue is a serious tactical error, but that's not what I'm here to talk about.

I think the juxtaposition of Ashcroft and Kerry reveals something interesting about politics. Not so much about Kerry's position, but more about Ashcroft's. That shift in opinion on civil rights leads me to believe that there may be something more going on... something as simple and obvious as serving as the head of a federal agency.

When Ashcroft was responsible for opposing the privacy invasions of the FBI and the Department of Justice during the Clinton Administration, he was an elected member of Congress. His political opponents were in power. They wanted more power for the government, so naturally he opposed it, and did so on civil liberties grounds.

But when his party is in power, and his agency is requesting legal authorization for many of those same things, Ashcroft's response has changed. All of a sudden he's on the other side of the issue, pressuring Congress to pass empowering legislation to support his agency's agenda. In a way, that's his job -- but it's revealing that someone who previously resisted such efforts could be turned around so completely.

It almost leads me to question who is setting the agenda. Is it Ashcroft, or is it the career DOJ employees?

Although the political appointees theoretically have the power to set policy, it is the career employees who actually know in depth what the job entails. Those employees are the people with the real interest in expanding the power of their agency; they set their own policies, with regard to what they tell and ask the political appointees who are nominally in charge. Unless the appointee is unusually experienced or competent, the supposedly-subordinate employees will have the ability to control what the appointee learns about "his" agency, and manipulate that information in order to push for their own policies.

In other words, the politicians take the blame, while the agency itself sets the agenda. The invisible man in government policy discussions is the government itself -- advocating to a captive audience for increased funding, increased authority, and increased prestige. And it's a not so insignificant factor that those increases will also benefit the appointee's career.

It's time America realized that the Presidential election is a relative sideshow. The greatest advocate for increasing the size and power of government is government itself. Party based opposition is naive; we must recognize and oppose the real opponent, regardless of the figurehead at the top.

Really, since everyone is blogging about Berger, there's not much more to be said. My take on it is mainly that someone who was formerly a National Security Advisor to the President surely knows better than to mishandle classified material. Inadvertent? Yeah, right. More likely he figured that his status would allow him special privileges. That's also something worthy of a 2 year old. My only question is why he hasn't been arrested yet.

AOL.

And since you asked... they are trying to figure out if his status actually does allow him special privileges. "Like us, only better", remember?