Ports and Security Politics: Part Deux

On further thought, it isn't just ridiculous that Democrats were willing to do this. It is outrageous that people actually buy this tripe.

That may fully explain my outrage at this port fiasco.

Hopefully time will pass and people and politicians will forget, but that is a sad thing to look forward to.

-Mr. Alec

Ports and Security Politics

If you didn't believe me that Democrats were shamelessly taking advantage of this port situation, then you should see the latest polling numbers, which seem to indicate that it might have worked.

While it is nice to see the Democrats do something right, it is still upsetting for them to compromise their objectivity in doing so.

I miss Clinton, back when Democrats liked markets. Whatever happened?

-Mr. Alec

Why I <3 FOXNews

This has been floating around the blogosphere, classic (via Balkanization):



Many on the right seem to be getting pretty desperate about the condition in Iraq; especially after Francis Fukayama's essay (which might be the straw the breaks neo-conservatism’s back) in last week's New York Times Magazine. It's never a good sign when founders of neo-conservatism are writing about its downfall.

It also isn't a good sign when the last bit of spin the right has is playing a civil war as a good thing.

-Mr. Alec

Bush got something right

During this year’s State of the Union address, President George Bush made a gratuitous number of references to “isolationists and protectionists.” At the time it seemed like he was merely building a straw man with which he could easily repeat the same points on the war on terror that he has made since 9/11. In the context of recent events, America’s historically isolationist and protectionist tendencies are becoming more realized—an unacceptable trend.

One has to look no further than the sham of a political scandal this week over Dubai Ports—a United Arab Emirates (UAE)-owned port management company—taking over the British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which happens to manage ports across the U.S. News of this prompted politicians to suddenly remember that they are worried about American port security. As a result, many are now calling for a halt to the takeover, even though the takeover has absolutely no implications for port security. The port management company’s responsibilities are limited to marketing the port, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo. The Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and harbor police (which are run independently of the management company) are those tasked with securing our ports. Based on the rationale of many politicians, by allowing the Dubai-based Emirates Airlines to fly into the U.S., we are “outsourcing America’s security.”

But as unsavory as this whole incident has been, propositions to keep foreigners out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the rest of the world are likely to be made repeatedly in next year’s midterm elections. This is because many of the staunchest Bush supporters—and thus supporters of nearly all he does—are those most prone to isolationism and protectionism. They are the conservatives who want to vigorously protect American interests. But when they see internationalism as failed wars in the Middle East and free trade as lost jobs at home, they are likely to be open to rethinking what is the best path of protecting American interests. As a result, many politicians—especially Democrats—are looking to woo this group. This would explain why many of the most liberal Democrats (Chuck Schumer and Rosa DeLauro) have joined some of the most conservative Republicans (Lindsey Graham and Tom Coburn) in denouncing this deal. But this is not a new trend. Last summer, this same group killed the purchase of the California based Oil Company Unocal by a state owned Chinese firm and nearly killed the Central American Free Trade Agreement until the President saved it with some last minute lobbying.

Not only has this group been wedded exclusively to terrible ideas, but they have perpetuated the dangerous proposition that foreigners need approval from Congress to do business in or with the United States. As a result we have come off as jingoistic hypocrites. While we demand that the world open its markets, we try to close ours off to to Latin America, Asia (don’t forget India and the outsourcing clamor two years ago), and the Arabian Peninsula. We can’t possibly continue to play the world like this. Even though it might offer short-term political advantages, politicians have to consider the long-term consequences of their actions. I never thought I would say this, but Bush was spot-on when he said, “the road to isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting—yet it ends in danger and decline.” Washington needs to realize that our relationship with the rest of the world is a two-way street; and when we start blocking that, others will only follow in kind.

Ports and Political Opportunism

You have to be fucking kidding me.

This just screams of political opportunism.

I hate politicians. Expect more on this tonight. I am writing a column for the newspaper on this.

Gar.

-Mr. Alec

Holocaust Denial vs. Freedom of Speech

This is disturbing on many levels. Apparently a Holocaust Denier has been sentenced to three years in jail (it seems in Austria, though the article does make that clear). On one level, this guy is a disgusting provocateur (Europe seems to have lots of those). On another though: what right does the government have to patrol the content of people's statements. It doesn't seem that denying the Holocaust directly harms anyone. On top of that, doesn't three years seems a bit excessive? What is this guy suppose to learn in those three years in jail? Or is the harshness of the penalty purely as a deterrent? Won't this chill speech?

All in all, I guess stuff like this makes me appreciate living in a country where there is no Islamaphobia and antiquated laws prohibiting anti-Semitism. Europe might be exotic, but it has some serious issues.

-Mr. Alec

Iran's big threat

Sorry things have been so slow lately. Debate season is in full swing. Also, the internship hunt is heating up (I got to a final round interview yesterday!). On top of this, it is also really really long problem set season, but hopefully things should be clearing up mid-next week. No promises though.

Anyways, I found this funny, in a twisted sort of way. Apparently an Iranian group is threatening to deploy its suicide bombers if the US or Britain attacks Iran's nuclear facilities. The funny thing is what would you prefer, a group as irrational and, apparently, as connected to the Iranian government as this one to have access to a nuclear bomb or for a group to launch a couple of suicide attacks that the United States is already threatened with.

Nuclear bomb or pipe bomb?

Think about it.

-Mr. Alec

Is the NSA program the tip of the iceberg?

Kudos to Orin Kerr at Volokh for noticing this from Alberto Gonzales' testimony today. The implications are pretty creepy:

SCHUMER: It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program.

Hmmmm...

-Mr. Alec

Zakaria on the world

One of my favorites, Fareed Zakaria has a fantastic essay in Newsweek. It is on Islam, Europe, the Middle East, Iran; basically everything of interest in the post-9/11 International Relations.

On the topic of Iran he is perhaps his most insightful:

Or consider Iran. Many Americans had become convinced that the vast majority of Iranians hated their regime and were trying desperately to overthrow it; all we needed to do was help them foment a revolution. There's little doubt that the regime is brutal and unpopular. But it also appears to have some basis of support, in mosques, patronage systems and poorer parts of the country. And those who do not support it are not automatically Western liberals. After all, there was an election in Iran and, despite low turnout, the eventual vote was free and secret. (Back when the winner of Iranian elections was a liberal, Mohammed Khatami, people often cited the vote as proof that the fundamentalists were failing.) Five candidates took part in the most recent race. The pro-Western liberal came in fifth; the conservative West-basher came in first.

My own guess, and it is just a guess, is that some Iranians—not a majority, but not a tiny minority, either—accept their current regime. This is partly because of its ideology and patronage politics, and partly because of general inertia. (We have only to look at Iraq to see that Shiite religious figures do have some hold on their populations.) Add to this an apparatus of repression and $60-a-barrel oil and you have a regime that has many ways to stay in power. President Ahmadinejad understands these forces. He emphasizes in his daily television appearances not Islamic dogma but poverty alleviation, subsidies, anti-corruption projects and, above all, nationalism in the form of the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad may be a mystic, but most of his actions are those of a populist, using the forces that will work to keep him in power. This picture of Iran, gray and complex, is much less satisfying than the black-and-white caricature. But it might be closer to the truth.

This is a drastic improvement over his column on Iran a couple of weeks ago that was just bizzare.

I would highly recommend reading the whole thing.

-Mr. Alec

Dog food or starvation

I am unsure what to think about this.

-Mr. Alec

Why I Can't Stand This Administration

It is crap like this that drives me wild:

C ommand Sergeant Major Tim Walz is a twenty-four-year veteran of the Army National Guard, now retired but still on active duty when a visit from President George W. Bush shortly before the 2004 election coincided with Walz's homecoming to Mankato, Minnesota. A high school teacher and football coach, he had left to serve overseas in Operation Enduring Freedom. Southern Minnesota is home to a large Guard contingent that includes Walz's unit, the First 125th Field Artillery Battalion, so the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are naturally a pressing local concern—particularly to high school students headed into the armed services.

The president's visit struck Walz as a teachable moment, and he and two students boarded a Bush campaign bus that took them to a quarry where the president was to speak. But after they had passed through a metal detector and their tickets and IDs were checked, they were denied admittance and ordered back onto the bus. One of the boys had a John Kerry sticker on his wallet.

Indignant, Walz refused. "As a soldier, I told them I had a right to see my commander-in-chief," the normally jovial forty-one-year-old recently explained to a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party dinner in the small town of Albert Lea, Minnesota.

His challenge prompted a KGB-style interrogation that was sadly characteristic of Bush campaign events. Do you support the president? Walz refused to answer. Do you oppose the president? Walz replied that it was no one's business but his own. (He later learned that his wife was informed that the Secret Service might arrest him.) Walz thought for a moment and asked the Bush staffers if they really wanted to arrest a command sergeant major who'd just returned from fighting the war on terrorism.

They did not.

Instead Walz was told to behave himself and permitted to attend the speech, albeit under heavy scrutiny. His students were not: they were sent home.

When Bush wants to rework so much of the Country and World, you think he would display a level of candor that could potentially inspire trust.

Perhaps he did not have to do that on the War on Terrorism because the secretive stuff played to his advantage of being a strong, war-time leader, but it is sure as hell not going to work on his domestic proposals this time around. Look no further than Social Security.

-Mr. Alec

Europe and the Mohammed Controversy

Earlier this week a Dutch newspaper ran a set of newspaper cartoons that were extremely offensive to Muslims that can be seen to the right (I know its small, but the basic jist of them is that Mohammed is seen in one with a bomb under his turban and it goes from there).


I think one of the reasons for the outrage that is lost on many is that Islam is strongly against any representation of Mohammed, this is why we don’t see pictures of Mohammed like we do with Jesus in the West. Because this is lost on so many the reaction probably just appears just to be silly, which it is not. I think it is safe to assume that if a prominent paper in the United States published a cartoon of a similarly offensive nature about African-Americans or Jews there would be outrage. But on the other hand, Andrew Sullivan is correct that the blasphemy of these cartoons is nothing compared to the blasphemous murder of innocent civilians that so many protesting Islamists turn a blind eye to.

And even if it is blasphemous, this level of outrage is beyond anything that would be considered acceptable in the United States (think about what Salman Rushdie went through when he wrote the Satanic Verse). You only have to look at the slogans on signs held by protesters in London today (one of them is to the right, but go here for the whole set), not only is it ridiculous but it is scary.

It is one thing to protest the actions and opinions of some, but another to threaten them with violence. Freedom of the press is sacred in the west and newspapers ought to be allowed to publish most anything (there are some exceptions but there is no need to get into them here). This is the argument that is lost on the Islamists. Ironically I just finished reading Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration which is the root of many of our modern feelings on religion. It is the reason that we think to ourselves, "I wouldn't care if someone attacked my god, it's their loss." Getting such sentiment to take hold in the Middle East might go a long way in achieving peace and stability but how the hell we do that seems to be a much more difficult proposition than anyone would have thought 4 years ago.

-Mr. Alec

PS What do you think of the pictures? I might do that more now. We'll see. I might be breaking copyright laws, but who cares, right?

Brief Thoughts on the State of the Union

More than anything, Bush’s State of the Union is the best glimpse of how his presidency may have looked had 9/11 never occurred. With no wars to lead or evil axis to call out, he is nothing but a mediocre speaker who can’t appeal to anyone outside of his circle. His attempt at building a straw man out of supposed isolationists made him seem desperate and defensive, not the bold leader we remember from years past. At its worst, the speech was just bizarre, such as his challenge on Congress to pass the unconstitutional line-item veto and to ban human-animal hybrids.

-Mr. Alec

PS I had a Wal-Mart response written, but Firefox crashed. I'll get around to it later this weekend. Also, expect some comments on the Posner offensive on the NSA program and the talk I saw last week (it was bitchin'!).