K-Squared Ramblings

Politicians in Washington

Yesterday, President Bush reportedly said, “Politicians in Washington shouldn’t be telling generals how to do their job.”

I guess he’d better recuse himself from any further military decisions for the rest of his term. Commander in Chief or not, the President of the United States is a politician in Washington.

Hmm, maybe he can give orders while traveling?

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran an article on Justice Antonin Scalia and how his opinions may represent the majority as the Supreme Court hears cases about race, religion, abortion and campaign finance. Apparently, conservatives are really looking forward to the possibility that the court might restrict abortion, outlaw affirmative action, strike down the separation of church and state, and get rid of limits on campaign finances.

In other words, conservatives are hoping for a bunch of activist judges to legislate from the bench.

Below the second page of the article, there’s a short bit about Senator John McCain appealing to the religious right by saying he wants the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade…but that he doesn’t like judges who legislate from the bench. Sorry, Senator, you’re going to have to pick one or the other.

I liked McCain back in 2000. He seemed to be a moderate Republican with some integrity, and a more interesting person than Al Gore. Over the last year or so, he’s leaned more and more rightward. Either he’s changed his views, or is finally showing his true colors, or he’s sacrificing his integrity for power. In none of those cases would I want him as President.

Stubbornness, or Just Staying the Course?

President Bush is complaining about “stubborn obstructionism” in trying to get John Bolton appointed permanent ambassador to the United Nations. I find this odd because for the last 6 years, Bush has made his own stubbornness a selling point in his political career. I’d expect someone who thinks it’s better to stick to your guns than reevaluate your position in the face of new, contrary evidence to appreciate stubbornness.

Holding the Center

California is an interesting state. We just re-elected Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 55% to 39%, but also re-elected Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein 60% to 35%. All but one of the remaining state offices went to Democrats (some by larger margins than others).

The Governator is talking about a mandate. Politicians always do that when they win. 55% is a bit shaky, but with ~15 percentage points between him and Angelides, he’s at least more justified in claiming it than a certain Republican winner two years ago who only had a three-point lead.

Meanwhile Congress has returned to its natural state—namely, with at least one house controlled by the party not holding the Presidency—as the Democrats have taken back the House for the first time in 12 years. There’s an analysis in the Los Angeles Times suggesting that the Republicans’ mistake was in focusing too heavily on their base over the last few years and alienating the center.

Schwarzenegger is actually a good example of this. He’s a Republican, but a moderate one. During the 2003 recall election, the Republican party actually ran a second candidate, Tom McClintock, because Arnold wasn’t Republican enough. Admittedly you can chalk some of it up to name recognition and charisma, but the moderate Schwarzenegger not only won the recall handily, he had no problem holding onto the office this year when California voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.

Representative Nancy Pelosi, practically guaranteed to be the next speaker of the House, promised “to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history” [note: originally linked to Forbes] and run things in a more bipartisan way than the Republicans have for the past 12 years. I’m jaded enough to say I’ll believe it when I see it, but encouraged enough that I think there’s at least a chance they will.

The real shocker, though, is Donald Rumsfeld stepping down as Secretary of Defense. I think it’s long overdue—this administration has generally rewarded loyalty over competence, and I’ll agree with many that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been mismanaged. Here’s hoping Robert Gates, if confirmed, does a better job.

Flip-Floppers, all of ’em!

Spotted on a school marquee:

Gee, I hope none of them ever runs for office. Some opposing PAC group will dig this up as evidence of constant flip-flopping!

Convicted…huh?

I was listening to the news this morning, and I caught a reference to “Convicted Lobbyist Jack Abramoff.” It occurred to me that the phrasing is a bit odd. It makes it sound like he was convicted of being a lobbyist, which, last I heard, was still legal.

I suppose “Convicted corrupt lobbyist” sounds too unwieldy… and there are people who might consider it redundant!

Probably not how they meant it

I saw a bumper sticker today that read, “The road to hell is paved with liberals.”

That would explain a lot. I mean, conservatives have been walking all over liberals for the past six years. Now we finally know where they’re going with it!

Troll Bridge

Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney’s op-ed piece on net neutrality, No Tolls on The Internet, is making the rounds. But for some reason, every time I look at the title, I keep misreading it as “No Trolls on The Internet.”

I guess the internet/troll combination is just too ingrained in my brain…

(via Slashdot)

Executive Power

The Orange County Register has an ad campaign going in which people stand around on street corners holding banners with controversial topics printed on them. The latest is, “Is Bush abusing executive power?”

Given that the Register is known to have a conservative bias (you can often guess a person’s political affiliation from whether they read the Register or the Los Angeles Times), chances are that their answer is “No.” However, it’s undisputed that Bush has been expanding executive power over the past six years.

The trick with expanded power is that people often don’t object when the person wielding it is someone with whom they agree. Even if you think it’s OK for President Bush to insist on greater powers, eventually, someone you don’t like will be in the Oval Office. Even if the Democratic party implodes, there are different factions in the Republican party, and chances are either the Republicans would split, or another party would rise to fill the gap. And if no one did… well, a one-party system isn’t much of a democracy, is it?

So whether it’s 2 years from now, 6 years, or 10 years, someone you disagree with will end up with all the powers Bush has pushed for. If there’s anything you don’t want that President to have…are you sure you want the current President to have it?

Left and right

Just saw Snopes’ post on Ben Stein’s commentary on the Oscars and the politics of Hollywood, including this rather disingenuous statement:

Basically, the sad truth is that Hollywood does not think of itself as part of America, and so, to Hollywood, the war to save freedom from Islamic terrorists is happening to someone else.

Sure, he’s talking about Hollywood specifically, but it’s the kind of “You’re not really American” rhetoric we see a lot in political polemic.

Has it occurred to people on the right that us “lefties” (which seems to mean anyone who is less conservative than President Bush) do think that fighting terrorism is a good thing, but that our nation is currently going about it the wrong way? That maybe invading Iraq wasn’t the best way to curtail global terrorism? That it might be possible to spy on terrorists without bypassing that Constitutionally-guaranteed “due process of law” in a way that sets precedent for warrantless spying on citizens who aren’t terrorists?

We don’t hate America, but we’re not particularly thrilled about some of the things our government has been doing lately.

I do agree that the Academy Awards are pointless in the grand scheme of things, but I’m sick and tired of the false dilemmas rampant in what passes for political discourse these days.

Smoking Dutch Cleanser

Here’s something I just don’t understand about the whole electronic eavesdropping controversy.

Given that FISA warrants are:

• Easy to obtain
• Secret
• Obtainable retroactively, so you can legally start listening in immediately

Why is it necessary to eavesdrop without one? What’s so hard about getting a warrant?

While we’re at it, given that the bad guys almost certainly knew we were spying on them as much as we could already, what’s so dangerous about revealing the warrantless spying program?

Instead of these endless self-justifications, it would be nice to see President Bush or Attorney General Gonzales say, “You’re right, we should have gotten warrants. From now on, we will.” End of story. Instead of digging in their heels and insisting on powers that should scare the hell out of anyone, no matter what their party affiliation.

Christmas is still safe

Salon has a great piece on how there is no left-wing war on Christmas. This “OMG the blue staters want to ban Christmas” tripe was idiotic last year, and it’s back with a vengeance this year.

Honestly, all this fuss over things like “Happy Holidays,” an expression designed to avoid offending people? Remember, in most cases a store clerk has no way of knowing your religion ahead of time. If you happen to be buying a wreath, a stand-up Santa, a pair of decorated red-and-green stockings and a nativity set, then it’s probably a fair guess that you’re celebrating Christmas, but if you’re buying an Xbox, how are they supposed to know?

(I’m also rather partial to the descriptions of the ACLU defending Christians’ religious freedoms! That ought to make some people question their assumptions.)

Get a grip, people! Christmas is not in any danger, and hysterical whining and knee-jerk boycotts aren’t going to accomplish anything except making you look like a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist.

Vote!

If you live in California and you’re a registered voter: vote!

If you like the initiatives on the ballot, vote them in.

If you don’t like them, vote them out.

If you’re disgusted with the way the initiative process has been subverted by the very political machines and special interest groups it was supposed to circumvent, protest it by voting them down, not by abstaining.

Flu Fighters

According to Marketplace, critics of President Bush’s flu pandemic preparedness proposal contend that it’s too focused on vaccines and antiviral drugs, and that the money would be more effectively used by monitoring outbreaks and trying to stamp out bird flu in the third world.

In other words, they say we should take the fight to the flu abroad so we don’t have to fight it at home. Why does that sound familiar?

Who invented the gay artist?

Over the weekend, Something Positive’s Monette met her girlfriend’s half-brother, who wants to write showtunes when he grows up. Friday’s Real Life featured Tony taking Greg to task over singing a song from Monty Python’s Spamalot. Where did the showtunes=gay (or at least effeminate) stereotype come from? While we’re at it, where did the art=gay stereotype come from?

I mean, most of the people who actually write musicals are probably straight. Not all of them, of course, and some of the exceptions (Cole Porter, for instance) are rather prominent. And I would guess that a majority of the actors and audience are probably straight, also.

I have no doubt that the percentage of gays in the arts is higher than in the general population. I studied drama in college—all I had to do was look around to see that. But that’s a far cry from “most.” I mean, to pull some numbers out of thin air, let’s say it’s 20%, or even 30%, instead of the commonly-cited 10%—that would be like saying an industry with 30% women is primarily female. Read the rest of this entry »