But Do They Heart the War?

Below is a copy of an e-mail I sent to the authors of the popular conservative blog PowerLine:

Dear John (and Scott and Paul),

I'm writing in response to your post "Americans Heart Gitmo", in which you referred to the USA Today/ Gallup poll showing a majority of the public gives the Gitmo center a favorable rating. I think these results are to be expected; common sense tells us that--barring some outrageous scandal, which no evidence yet available suggests--people aren't going to feel sorry about the treatment of terrorists.

However, another question from the poll produces results that merit an inquiry: question 29 asks "Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?" In March, the response was split dead-even at 47% on each side. The ensuing three months have apparently taken a toll though; the public stance is now at only 39% in favor compared to a whopping 59% who oppose.

Don't get me wrong--I was and still am not against U.S. involvement in Iraq. However, if you are going to celebrate when the public view is in accordance with yours, you must also take into account when the opposite is true. This large margin of disapproval for the war in Iraq suggests two things:

1. The Democrats are not just going after the "most liberal 37% of the population"; it is possible they are tapping into a growing segment of the population that is becoming discontent with the current situation.
   
   
2. This discontent, brought about by the lack of progress since the last milestone in Iraq (free elections), indicates that we need to revamp our current strategy. I am not of the opinion that the situation is hopelessly lost; not even close, actually. But I am deeply concerned that we may not be putting enough effort into making sure that Iraq has a secure, sustainable future. As to what needs to be done differently, I can't pretend to be an expert, but I feel sure that it does not merely entail a PR offensive here in the U.S. to convince a skeptical public. After all, this is the future of democracy in the Middle East were talking about here.

I am curious to know whether you think my assessment here is accurate, and in any case, what are your specific recommendations as to our strategy in Iraq?

Danforth's Common Sense Christianity

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

-- JOHN DANFORTH

Gay marriage; PBS; Terri Schiavo: battlegrounds from the rampant "culture war", stoked by extremists on both the left and the right, which has done tremendous damage to the public discourse. With both sides firmly entrenched in their respective ideological positions, the middle ground is hard to come by these days. That's why it was refreshing to read this past week in the New York Times an op-ed by Episcopal minister and former senator John Danforth (R-MO)

In "Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers", Danforth urges a return to the era of civility which, although abandoned only in the past few years, already seems like a distant memory. And Danforth is not shy about confronting those on the right whom he faults as culprits for the current state of the union. "In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics," Danforth says. "With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions."

The reader at this point of the column surely must have shouted "Hallelujah!" and rejoiced to hear someone point out that the fight between "us" and "them" is not between people of faith and godless atheists. Rather, the fight for the future of America's character pits rational-minded people (religious or not) versus intolerant ideologues (Bible-thumpers and secular zealots alike).

To be sure, the role of the religious right is a vital force in shaping American society. But that role looks nothing like the hard-edged, confrontational identity it currently assumes in forcing feeding tubes, assaulting science, discriminating against gays, and trampling all over the separation of church and state. Danforth suggests the responsibility of the faithful as "moderators":

We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

As moderators, the religious community's responsibility is not to seek the merger of church and state but rather to preserve the boundary between the two. Both believers and non-believers are working toward the same goal of a better America. Reverend Danforth shows us that common sense leads us to an intersection where both groups can co-exist peacefully. Amen to that!

Durbin, Gitmo, and What Really Needs to Be Said

This past week, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) made headlines with comments he made about the treatment of prisoners at the Guantanomo Bay detention facility. After quoting an FBI agent's eyewitness report of acts of torture conducted at "Gitmo", Durbin told his colleagues,

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Durbin made the essentialy true statement that American soldiers at Guantanomo Bay engaged in activities one would not normally associate with a country respectful of basic human rights. Note that he did not suggest that American soldiers were the moral equivalent of the perpetrators of the Holocaust, or that the U.S. army has murdered millions of people a la Stalin.

But for his simple observation alone, the backlash against the senator from Illinois was swift. James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal led the assault, immediately charging that Durbin had "likened American servicemen to Nazis." This entire week, outraged conservative commentators have displayed their lack of reading/listening comprehension skills and used the Scare Quote ('Durbin says American soldiers = Nazis!') to indulge themselves in some shameful slander.

Worse, no prominent Democrats raised their voice to defend Durbin and to clarify what was really said. Durbin, for his part, held out for several days before finally apologizing for his "misunderstood" speech. Does anyone in Congress or the media have an above-elementary school education? How does an effort to focus serious attention on the controversial ongoings at Guantanamo Bay turn into an excuse for bloggers to run rampant and unchecked?

Whether or not one agrees with the necessity and usefulness of the Gitmo prison--and this issue does not fall on partisan lines--the debate should not be sidelined by useless metaphors and sideshow theatrics. America needs to decide whether it is in its best interest--as a defender of freedom, democracy, and human rights--to be saddled with the baggage of Gitmo and all its resulting backlash. Gitmo's supporters, for their part, can end the debate by providing incontrovertible evidence of the center's benefits to national security. The last thing we need is to get hung up on petty, irrelevant issues that provide a boost only to the egos of certain congressmen, op-ed columnists, and bloggers.

Enron's "Conspiracy of Fools"

"These people who made $50 million a year, they destroyed the company because of their greed."

"How will I be able to file for unemployment and food stamps?"

-- Enron employees react after the layoff of 4,000 workers in Dec. 2001

We all remember the basic story: Enron Corporation had long been a giant in the business and political world. Its fall came swifter than anyone could have imagined. In 2001, as evidence of staggering corporate malfeasance slowly came to light, Enron's stock fell from $85 to a mere $0.30, ruining the lives of thousands of investors and employees. Enron also turned out to be just the first in a series of high-profile companies whose fraudulent practices were exposed, turning the first half of the decade into the era of robber barons getting their comeuppance. Out of the wreckage, Congress would pass the controversial Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the most important securities reform since the New Deal.

Now in a recently released book, Conspiracy of Fools, New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald recreates the long and twisted saga of the biggest corporate failure ever. In a 750+ page account written in the style of a John Grisham thriller, the book is a blow-by-blow detailed account that chronicles Enron from its very beginning to its disastrous end. Along the way, we are introduced to the whole infamous cast of characters, led of course by Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andy Fastow.

The first 2/3 or so of the book makes for a decent read, but isn't particularly scintillating. Eichenwald starts back more than a decade from the events of 2001, to show how everything came to happen the way it did, but occasionally while I was reading this section I was impatient to get to the thick of the story. Furthermore, Eichenwald's detailed description of Enron's complex financial maneuvering are rife with technical jargon aimed a bit above the average reader. While the laymen such as myself get the general idea that something is going wrong, Eichenwald's efforts here would probably be better appreciated by a reader with a background in accounting or finance. Still, the story of Enron is a long and complicated one, and Eichenwald does a good job (in the space of about 500 pages) to bring all the key pieces of the puzzle together.

With the setup complete, the book dazzles in the last 250 pages, moving at breakneck speed to keep up with Enron's stack-of-dominos collapse. Conspiracy's most page-turning moments come with its "insider" perspective on an out-of-control train wreck. Everything is there: the futile efforts of Enron insiders to notify the company of trouble ahead; the executive coverups and insistence that everything was okay; and of course, the ultimate, tragic demise. The story is well-written and superbly told--as I turned through the last pages of Conspiracy of Fools, I was left profoundly saddened by the culture of incompetence and arrogance Eichenwald reveals.

The book has its share of heroes and villains, though the former group obviously fights a losing battle. Eichenwald's chief protagonist and Bad Guy is Enron's CFO, Andy Fastow, who ruined Enron with his phony financial shenanigans and embezzled millions of dollars for himself, family, and friends. Eichenwald has drawn some criticism for not focusing as much on Enron's president, Jeff Skilling (portrayed as emotionally unbalanced and easily manipulated), and CEO Ken Lay (portrayed as a mostly clueless figurehead). On this note, I too find fault with Eichenwald. Regardless of the level of direct complicity on the parts of Skilling and Lay, they are at fault for allowing what went on to ever happen. Positions of great power come with the necessity to exercise responsible oversight, especially when the stakes are as high as they were.

All in all though, Kurt Eichenwald has done a terrific job in putting together a readable, informative, and entertaining presentation of one of the most important events in recent American history. Conspiracy of Fools tells a story too important for us to forget.

Don't Stymie Stem Cell Research! (Part II)

To clarify a question raised from a comment on my previous post, the president's current law prohibits the use of embryonic stem cells fertilized after 2001; the House bill seeks to overturn this law. And while it is true that there are many people who oppose stem cell research, President Bush cannot count on partisan support in this issue. Prominent Republicans such as Ron and Nancy Reagan, Sen. Orrin Hatch, and Sen. Arlen Specter are representative of a vast multitude of Americans who realize that stem cell research is necessary to save lives.

I think that the people who are opposed to this research are being misled by inaccurate terms, misinformation, and propaganda. Last week, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter published a fabulous essay entitled "The 'Pro-Cure' Movement". This is a must-read, informative article which stated the case for stem cell research brilliantly.

"It's simple enough," says Atler, "reproductive cloning (to create Frankensteins), no; embryonic-stem-cell research (to cure diseases), yes." That basic summation statement needs to be pushed into voters' minds, because it's one that most people can agree with.

Alter also exposed a hole in the conservatives' strategy of tying stem cell research with abortion:

The stem-cell debate has been linked to abortion, as if depriving science of the use of these cells somehow extends "the culture of life." But here the "pro-life" position should argue for therapeutic research. Under Bush's stem-cell policy, 400,000 surplus blastocysts at fertility clinics are eventually thrown in the trash instead of a few thousand being used to enhance life. To be intellectually coherent, Bush would have to shut down all in vitro clinics, depriving millions of infertile couples of the chance for a child. Fat chance.

Also, in backing up my claim above that this is an issue that does not fall along partisan lines, Alter also cited a survey conducted by the Republican Main Street Partnership that found "support for stem-cell research even in very conservative districts" (emphasis added). Now that's encouraging news! Perhaps there's still room for optimism in hoping this debate reaches the right outcome.

Don't Stymie Stem Cell Research!

The first President Bush (#41) vetoed over forty bills during his four-year stay in office. The current president, by contrast, has not yet made use of that power. But the dry streak may soon come to an end. George W. Bush may be about to make a terrible mistake with his threat to veto legislation funding stem cell research. Recently, 50 House Republicans broke with Bush to help overturn a presidential moratorium from 2001 on research using cells from human embryos.

The move appears to have support from both sides of the aisle in the Senate, which has yet to consider the bill. Among the Senate's chief advocates of embryonic stem cell research is Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania who just underwent treatment for Hodgkin's disease. Sen. Specter has stated the effect of a presidential veto would be "simply atrocious" for the millions of people suffering from diseases that might be cured with new research.

Unfortunately, Congress will most likely be unable to override a veto if Bush sticks to his "pro-life" script. Here, his logic is almost perverse. The academic argument for the advancement of science aside, what could be more in line with "pro-life" than developing the ability to save millions of American lives by treating and curing illnesses such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's?

People are in pain and are dying while the cure may be within our grasp. It is unconscionable to pass on this opportunity. Like the discovery of penicillin and the polio vaccine, new discoveries from stem cell research could be the next great scientific achievement for the benefit of all mankind. I sincerely hope that the president will reconsider his position on the issue, and come to see that the use of embryonic stem cells in research is legitimate, even and especially by his "pro-life" ideology.