Happy New Year!

The best part about every New Year's, I think, is the chance to read Dave Barry's always hilarious "Year in Review" where he pokes fun at the good, the bad, and the ugly from the past twelve months. For example, in his look back at 2005, he had this to say about filling the Supreme Court vacancy:

President Bush, needing to make another appointment to the Supreme Court, conducts a thorough and painstaking investigation of every single female lawyer within an eight-foot radius of his desk. He concludes that the best person for the job is White House counsel Harriet Miers, who, in the tradition of such legendary justices as Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, is a carbon-based life-form.

The nomination immediately runs into trouble when Miers, though reportedly a nice churchgoing person and a good bowler, turns out to be not such an expert on constitutional law, at one point expressing the view that the Fourth Amendment requires restaurant employees to wash their hands after using the restroom. (In fact, it is the Seventh Amendment.) Ultimately Miers withdraws her name. The president, after conducting another exhaustive search, decides to appoint "John Roberts" again, because it worked out so well the first time. Informed by his aides that there could be some legal problem with this tactic, the president finally decides to nominate Samuel Alito. Democrats immediately announce that they strongly oppose Alito and intend to do some research to find out why.

Read the whole thing here, nobody does it better than Dave. Happy New Year everyone, may 2006 be your best yet!

Spying Storm Will Blow Over

Just a quick point to anyone out there who, amidst recent comparisons to Watergate regarding abuse of presidential power, might be thinking of the "i-word": Nixon was impeached for abusing his powers in an attempt to squash the opposition political party; the current president appears to have circumvented existing law in an attempt to secure the country from terrorists.

Breaking the law to do so isn't a good thing, of course, but somehow I don't think that Joe Public is going to make a big fuss about his civil liberties when, like John Dickerson says in the podcast linked to in my previous post, "regular folks...think about bombings at their shopping mall or at their theater, they'll side with the president."

My prediction? Some compromise will be reached and existing laws may be modified, but this is not going to be the major scandal some predict. It is definitely a very, very important issue, and one that needs to be publicly debated, but I suspect that most of the discourse will take place in the editorial pages of major newspapers and unfortunately not on the proverbial "street corners" of this country. Despite what you might see in the New York Times (recently, a full page ad by the ACLU making the Nixon connection), civil liberties just aren't that sexy.

CB Archive: "Spy Games" (December 21, 2005)

The iPod & Podcasting

This Christmas, I had Santa/my parents to thank for allowing me to finally join the ranks of the more than 22 million iPod owners. I've downloaded my music and photos onto my 5th-generation iPod, which can now play videos, but am disappointed that shows like "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" don't yet have episodes available for purchase. (What, you want me to watch "Lost"?) So in the mean time, I've dived into the world of podcasts, which are a kind of downloadable audio broadcast.

Apple's podcast directory offers free subscriptions to all kinds of podcasts, in categories like sports, politics, news, technology, entertainment, and more. I've downloaded commentary from ESPN, entire episodes of Bill Maher's HBO show, news feeds and more. Ricky Gervais, star of the terrific BBC show The Office (now playing in the U.S. with Steve Carrell), has a funny talk show in which he and his friends discuss bizarre stories like the recent Cambodian gladiator match between a lion and 42 midgets. (The fight was called off after 12 minutes, we learn, after 28 of the midgets were killed.) Suffice to say, this brand of comedy may not be for everyone.

I was just listening to Slate.com's "The Year in George W. Bush", an overview of 2005 by John Dickerson covering everything: Social Security reform (remember the staged "town hall" Q&A sessions?), the Iraq war, the battle over Terry Schiavo, the new flap over domestic surveillance, and everything in between. This trip down memory lane is well worth a listen.

If any of you have any favorites I should know about, do tell. I don't yet know whether this podcasting thing is going to take off, or whether it will be a passing fad. (Anyone remember the whole "e-books" push from several years ago? That wound up going nowhere.) For now at least, the idea of informative and entertaining programming that can easily be created and enjoyed by anyone seems like a good idea to me!

More Myths for Ahmadinejad

It's hard to believe that it was only this past summer when the U.S. was worrying that the new Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had participated in the 1979 Hostage Crisis. Since he took power in August, Ahmadinejad has worked quickly to make himself perhaps the most controversial head of state in the entire world. In October 2005, it was a speech he gave at a conference entitled "The World Without Zionism" in which he channeled Ayatollah Khomeini in calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map". This month, he has made repeated comments about Israel and the Holocaust, suggesting that the country should be relocated to the European continent and that the massacre of 6 million Jews during World War II was just a "myth".

A good friend of mine is a Shi'a Muslim who is unfortunately an unapologetic supporter of Ahmadinejad. I hope to convince him otherwise, and by using Al-Jazeera as a source for the president's comments, show that it is not just a case of Ahmadinejad's utterly loathsome remarks being misinterpreted by the Western media. I think Friday's column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times lays out the best case against Iran's would-be hero, with Friedman in this excerpt addressing a couple of real myths:

But since Iran's president has raised the subject of "myths," why stop with the Holocaust? Let's talk about Iran. Let's start with the myth that Iran is an Islamic "democracy" and that Ahmadinejad was democratically elected.

Sure he was elected - after all the Iranian reformers had their newspapers shut down, and parties and candidates were banned by the unelected clerics who really run the show in Tehran. Sorry, Ahmadinejad, they don't serve steak at vegetarian restaurants, they don't allow bikinis at nudist colonies, and they don't call it "democracy" when you ban your most popular rivals from running. So you are nothing more than a shah with a turban and a few crooked ballot boxes sprinkled around.

And speaking of myths, here's another one: that Iran's clerics have any popularity with the broad cross-section of Iranian youth.

This week, Ahmadinejad exposed that myth himself when he banned all Western music on Iran's state radio and TV stations. Whenever a regime has to ban certain music or literature, it means it has lost its hold on its young people. It can't trust them to make the "right" judgments on their own. The state must do it for them. If Ahmadinejad's vision for Iran is so compelling, why does he have to ban Beethoven and the Beatles?

And before we leave this subject of myths, let me add one more: the myth that anyone would pay a whit of attention to the bigoted slurs of Iran's president if his country were not sitting on a dome of oil and gas. Iran has an energetic and educated population, but the ability of Iranians to innovate and realize their full potential has been stunted ever since the Iranian revolution. Iran's most famous exports today, other than oil, are carpets and pistachios - the same as they were in 1979, when the clerics took over.

Sad. Iran's youth are as talented as young Indians and Chinese, but they have no chance to show it. Iran has been reduced to selling its natural resources to India and China - so Chinese and Indian youth can invent the future, while Iran's young people are trapped in the past.

No wonder Ahmadinejad, like some court jester, tries to distract young Iranians from his failings by bellowing anti-Jewish diatribes and banning rock 'n' roll.

(Emphasis added by me.)

Damn, that was harsh. Ahmadinejad's jingoism and belligerence may work as a distraction to Iranians today, but it's not in their best interest to buy into it. And it's not in the best interests of the U.S. to just dismiss him as an idle talker. Charles Krauthammer recently sounded the alarm about Ahmadinejad's messianic ambitions, but it's more than just a neoconservative pundit's shrill cry involved here. Head nuclear watchdog Mohammed El-Baradei, chief of the IAEA and recipient of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize, announced earlier this month that Iran was just "a few months" away from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. "Slam dunk" intelligence or not, in the hands of a guy like Ahmadinejad, there's a WMD I'm worried about!

Damon in Pinstripes

Although I'm a dedicated baseball fan, I've not been one of those caught up in a wave of affection for the Boston Red Sox these past few years. Sure, that 2003 ALCS was scintillating, and the year after, we all rooted for the Sox against the Yankees. Good for them, they finally won a Series. But given Boston's boffo $120+ million team salary last year, I never saw them as the anti-Steinbrennerites they're made out to be.

And now it turns out that even Boston's players didn't buy into the idea. The big news in baseball this week is the defection of Boston's chief "idiot" Johnny Damon to the arch-rival Yankees for $52 million. "I know fans are upset and I'm sorry," Damon said, adding that Boston fans will forever remember his tenure with the team but "I know I'm also going to be remembered for jumping sides." Uh, yeah. Let's see how that next visit to Fenway plays out.

In the era of free agency and big money, it's hardly a surprise when players abandon teams where they are icons. Sports is a business, man. ESPN's Jim Caple writes, "This isn't 1957 anymore, when Jackie Robinson decided to retire rather than accept a trade from the Dogers to the Giants." Sometimes the player doesn't even get a say--just ask Nomar, the BoSox' former franchise icon, who was unceromoniously dumped by the team.

That said, it makes the achievements of some one-team-for-life players, like local legends Cal Ripken and Darrell Green, all the more remarkable. My old Tony Gwynn poster from my San Diego days is hanging on the wall above me as I write this, leaving me wistfully wishing that our favorite athletes today cared about their team identity as much as us fans do. I actually feel sorry for all those New Englanders who'll be dumping their old #18 jerseys!

Spy Games

The reaction of some of my more liberal friends and family to my recent post praising Bush for accepting "responsibility" for the situation in Iraq was predictable, but instructive nonetheless. They were not impressed with what they saw as a bare-bones attempt at rectifying a serious wrong. I'm reminded of that old Simpsons episode where Lisa tells Homer "the first step is admitting you have a problem." Homer responds "Is it the last step?" If only!

Richard Cohen wrote on Tuesday that responsibility needs to be replaced with accountability. It's one thing to say "I am responsible", but like Jay Leno quipped, "Yeah, well, I don't think [Bush] has to worry about other people trying to take credit for that one." I hope that, given the president's sorta-kinda-"mea culpa" on Sunday, he is on the road to reform.

A big test of accountability will be seen with how the whole NSA domestic spying kerfuffle plays out. For those of you who missed it, the New York Times sparked a firestorm a couple days ago with the revelation that after 9/11, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans inside the U.S. without requiring court-issued warrants.

The ensuing uproar has focused on the limits of the power of the president and the further encroachment on civil liberties. Tuesday's Post contained three editorials on the subject, all worth reading. Eugene Robinson decried Bush's convenient dismissal of "strict constructionism" and for bypassing the "legally established procedure to obtain warrants for such domestic surveillance." Conservative commentator George Will is also upset with the president, saying that while the executive does have extraordinary rights during wartime, Bush's bypass of Congress raises the "danger of arbitrary power." In defense of the president, William Kristol and Gary Schmitt laid a convincing argument for the executive's discretion. After all, even Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Thus far, Bush has come out swinging in outspoken defense of the spy program, even charging that the Times has endangered national security with its revelation. While that line of attack is lame and diversionary, I have not yet reached a conclusion as to what to think about this issue. Understandably, these kinds of actions help in the fight against terrorism, and most of us cheer when we see the gang at CTU make full use of them on 24. Yet in real life, I remain wary of the idea of devaluing basic American ideals in order to fight a war--one to maintain our values --against an enemy that has none.

An Intelligent Court Decision

Good news out of Dover, PA today as a Republican, Bush-appointed judge laid the proverbial "smack down" on intelligent design advocates.

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory," [Judge John E.] Jones wrote in a 139-page decision. "It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

In his decision, Judge Jones explicitly stated that "intelligent design is not science" nor should it replace science because of its reliance on the existence of an unprovable supernatural creator. The Post's David Brown and Rick Weiss have written an excellent analysis of Jones' ruling. While anti-science Luddites will no doubt be back soon with yet another assault, I hope the forcefulness and scope of this week's Dover decision will set the precedent for future such cases.

CB Archive: "An Evolving Understanding of Our Origins" (Aug. 13 2005)

CB on BBC!

During my two month hiatus from blogging, one thing I knew I never had to worry about was letting down my readers--as my friends so often helpfully remind me, I don't have any. Nonetheless, I'm quite tickled to notice that this blog was linked to in a BBC News article from September 2005. The oh-so-fleeting two-word reference, buried in an avalanche of other links, is nonetheless enough to drive me into orgiastic revery:

The internet in China, in fact, punctures a few 20th century ways of thinking. Those enamoured of state control of the economy may have cause for thought at the Chinese government's aversion to free speech

(Emphasis added by me.)

Bush on Iraq: Work in Progress

It's been over two months since I last posted here, my busy schedule having convinced me to take a break from the site for a while. In the next couple weeks, however, I hope to get back into the swing of things. I'm considering a new format with more emphasis on sports and pop culture, and adding frequent short posts with links to interesting articles interspersed between my usual essays. That's the plan at least, but first...

President Bush addressed the nation in a live televised speech Sunday night to talk about the situation in Iraq (see full text). To his detractors, it was yet another easy opportunity to dismiss the usual "same old cheerleading." This time, however, I was inclined to disagree. It seems to me that in recent weeks, the administration has been taking a different tack toward handling criticism of the war. Instead of completely ignoring the very idea that opposition to the war even exists, Bush & Co. are now making more of an effort to engage skeptics and convince them of the wisdom of staying the course. And the slogan "Mission Accomplished" seems to have finally been replaced with the more accurate "Work in Progress".

This speech, then, is quite a big deal. Bush was elected as a man whose popularity was derived from a leadership style seen as removed from the fickleness of ratings and poll numbers. While the idea sounded admirable, it didn't work too well when practiced to the extreme, and now it seems the president has realized he has a responsibility to serve the interests of the public that elected him. At a time when the public is increasingly questioning the war, it only seems right that he take the opportunity to address their concerns.

In Sunday night's speech, Bush acknowledged the lack of WMD's in Iraq. saying "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," but with refreshing candor added "as your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." Furthermore, he continued by admitting to the ongoing "danger and suffering and loss" and explicitly stated that the situation has "led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we are solving." He went on to give a compelling answer to that question, citing critical progress while answering key criticisms at each turn.

To the question of whether the Iraq war was hurting the war on terrorism, Bush memorably responded "the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone...We do not create terrorism by fighting the terrorists. We invite terrorism by ignoring them." Bush went on to admit that the reconstruction of Iraq was going slower than expected, but importantly pointed out that progress was being made despite "the grim results [of the insurgency] on the evening news." Judging by events like last week's successful elections in Iraq, I believed the President when he said:

"For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq -- we are winning the war in Iraq."

The last part of Bush's speech was more reminiscent of the triumphant tone and well-worn cliches of the administration's past, but on the whole, I believe the content of the speech definitely merited attention--enough so, at least, to justify the delayed airing of the new Family Guy.

My major concern now is that even with the administration's new, more diplomatic approach, it may be too late. While I share the president's belief in the need to stay in Iraq until the job is finished, Congress and the American public are already deeply entrenched in their own views of the Iraq war, and there is little reason to anticipate that anyone will change their minds now. If only this speech had come a year ago, it might have been so much more meaningful. I'm glad President Bush is doing more to acknowledge the tough reality of the war; I just wish he had done so earlier, at a time when more people were willing to believe the sacrifices are worth it.