« October 2002 | Main | December 2002 »

November 2002 Archives

November 1, 2002

SUICIDE BOMBERS ARE WAR CRIMINALS


...according to Human Rights Watch. The L.A. Times today runs this story:

A leading human rights organization charged today that Palestinians who order and dispatch suicide bombers, including senior leaders, are guilty of war crimes and should be brought to justice.

In a comprehensive, 170-page report, the New York-based Human Rights Watch also says that Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat bears "significant political responsibility" for the "repeated deliberate killing" of Israeli civilians in the last two years of blood-soaked conflict.

"The scale and systematic nature of these attacks in 2001 and 2002 meet the definition of a crime against humanity," the report states. "When these suicide bombings take place in the context of violence that amounts to armed conflict, they are also war crimes."

Damn.

I'm not sure how they went from groundless accusations about Jenin to this, but it certainly seems like a positive step...

ELECTION WATCH, DAY 5; KEEPING THEM AFTER SCHOOL


Proposition 49 is officially the “Before and After Schools Programs” initiative, but it ought to be the “Arnold Schwartzenegger platform for Public Office” initative. The proposition would set aside up to $550 million/year from the General Fund (the amount is formula-driven) for before and after school programs centered in the public schools, based on the argument that for many kids, the schools are the most stable productive environment they have.

The sad reality is that this is true.

One of the key omissions of welfare reform and the entire new job-oriented form of government social programs, is the simple question: “But what about the kids?” We have a nanny three afternoons a week, and I’d estimate that she brings her children over (they get to play with the Littlest Guy, so it’s all good from my point of view) twice a week. She does it because a) she needs to work; and b) her costs for child care are close to or exceed what she can earn. So someone explain to me exactly how, absent a tolerant employer, she is supposed to participate in the labor market, even if she wants to?

I lived in Paris for a while, and one interesting feature of the French social welfare system is the neighborhood crèche, a combination day care center and kindergarten. They are local, free, open during working hours, and generally (in the better neighborhoods where I hung out) good.

Looking at the problems of poverty and broken low-income urban and rural culture in the U.S., I am more and more convinced that the schools will play an increasing role in focusing and delivering social services, not only to the children, but to their parents. (Yeah, yeah, I know…the public schools today can barely teach kids to read…)

This proposition is a first step in that direction, and based on that, I’ll be voting ”yes”.

Plus I want to see a Meathead/Terminator gubernatorial race in ’06.

Check out the Leg. Analyst on this.

November 3, 2002

PACK-ING


N.Z. Bear is talking about ‘pack vs. herd’ mentality (hint: packs can protect themselves, herds can’t). His comments are general – the points he covers are:

First Aid training: Do you know how to deal with severe burns? How to stop major bleeding? Your local Red Cross most likely offers both introductory and advanced training in first aid . It is a near certainty that in future terrorist attacks, the first assistance available to victims will come from fellow citizens, not EMS. And of course, while the absolute probability that you will be on the scene at an attack is tiny, training in emergency medical techniques is a skill that would certainly be good to have even in a world totally lacking in terrorists.

Self-Defense: Being able to defend yourself doesn't necessarily mean carrying a weapon. From women's self-defense courses to full-blown martial arts studies, the options here are near limitless.

Firearms training: And yes, if guns don't bother you, by all means, get trained on their proper use and (if your state permits it) obtain a concealed carry permit.

Now, here at Casa de Armed Liberal, we’re certainly not going to argue against first-aid or self-defense. But I think there are a few things to put into the hierarchy before we get there.

I’ll suggest that the most important civil-defense tool any of us can have, we already have…a cell phone.

What’s missing is two things: some work to help educate us what to look for; and someone on the other end who can answer the phone, filter and integrate the information into data and figure out how to act on the data.

Now this doesn’t preclude personal action – where sensible, or where there are few alternatives.

Had the Beltway shooters been discovered by an armed Gunsite grad who was out jogging, there would have possibly been a more positive end to the whole tragedy.

And the passengers on Flight 93 certainly had few options.

But there’s an old phrase in the self-defense business, which says that in most cases, vigilantism isn’t the answer…the answer is to retreat to safety and “be a good witness”.

We need more good witnesses, and systems to allow what they see to be used effectively.

I know this sounds suspiciously like operation TIPS. And while I had issues with this, I always felt stronger about the way this was being sold than what it was. I think that basic training in some things to look out for (I’ve always noted places near my kids’ schools where a shooter would logically be…and if I see someone hanging out there, I pay very careful attention…); and someone on the other end of the phone who can filter, understand, and act on the calls (note that if I saw someone with a gun covering one of my kids’ schools, my reactions might diverge from ‘being a good witness’…but not everyone has the tools and training that I do) would be damn useful.

Some obvious starters: Sadly, most of the ‘casual terrorists’ – the LAX and Beltway shooters included – have given plenty of warning of their attitudes and intentions.

Maybe if someone had called them in? Maybe if someone had taken the call, and done some preliminary investigation?

Gavin de Becker’s book The Gift of Fear points out that while the stunned neighbors interviewed after a spree killing almost always say “He was such a quiet guy…who knew?” But on investigation, there were a lot of reasons someone should have known.

The places we are vulnerable ought to be obvious.

The characteristic behavior of people we ought to be scared of ought to be obvious.

All we need to do is learn to look.

[Addendum: Just did a bit more surfing (between reading “The Phantom Tollbooth” with the Littlest Guy), and have to point to a few more posts: Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who says:

As Jim Henley has remarked, one wonders why, in urgent cases like this, the authorities don't help us be -- not a herd, but a pack.

The answer, of course, is that doing so goes against the institutional DNA of most law-enforcement operations and "security" professionals. Success, to their way of thinking, comes from having information that other people don't. Of course, in the real world, success also often comes from adding your information to other people's information. But when the chips are down, this idea doesn't stick in the minds of law enforcemeent types, unless repeatedly administered with a very large bat.

Well…yes…but it’s not just here. We’ve ceded vast parts of our lives to professionals…we have trainers at the gym, career counselors, marriage counselors, social workers, etc. etc. The veneer of ‘professionalism’ hides some serious rot, and it’s a topic for a later discussion.
Jim Henley launched the metaphor, and takes it a few steps further down the road. A sample:
I see two problems that we need to think about. The first, obvious one, is vigilantism. Now, call me a fire-breathing right-winger (please!) but I'm not convinced that vigilantism is the unalloyed calamity Progressive Humanity considers it to be. At which point the reader demands, But what about the whole, abominable history of lynching in the Jim Crow South? What about mobs with pitchforks shouting "She's a witch!" What about avengers gunning down acquitted molestation defendents on their front lawns?
And Instapundit takes off on it in a TechCentralStation column:
Regardless of whether or not the D.C. snipers count as "terrorists" under your particular definition (they do under mine, but the authorities seem to be shooting for a much narrower standard) there seems little question that in coming weeks, months, and years we're going to be dealing with a lot of fast-moving, dispersed threats of the sort that bureaucracies don't handle very well. (Every domestic-terrorism victory so far, from Flight 93 to bringing down the LAX shooter to spotting the D.C. killers was accomplished by non-law-enforcement individuals, after all). Rather than creating new bureaucracies, we need to be looking at ways of promoting fast-moving, dispersed responses, responses that will involve members of the public as a pack, not a herd. Even if doing so reduces the career satisfaction of shepherds.
Obviously, this calls for a more thoughtful expansion, but in the chance you haven’t read these, read them, and let’s see if I can’t add something to the mix later tonight or tomorrow.]

November 4, 2002

EAGLE EYES


Below, I talk about 'opening the eyes' of the citizenry as a part of defending ourselves against terrorism. Sounds like someone’s ahead of me on this issue.

From my local paper, today’s Daily Breeze (article not online):

Locals asked to aid base security
Uncle Sam wants to enlist the help of South Bay residents in the war against terrorism.

In a move to increase security at Los Angeles Air Force Base, officials have created a program using residents as the front line of defense for the military installation in El Segundo.

Under the Eagle Eyes program, implemented at U.S. Air Force bases around the world since the 9-11 attacks, base personnel educate nearby residents to look out for possible terrorist-related activities and urge them to call in anything suspicious to the military installation via a hotline.

“Every act of terrorism given off some indicators and warnings people can see,” said Special Agent Randall Redlinger, who will oversee the Eage Eyes program at the base. “We want to engage all the Air Force resource and the community’s resources to catch those early indicators and warnings before a terrorist can strike.”

Now multiply this by a thousand, with the neighbors of power stations, hospitals, and airports all attentive and trained on what to be attentive for; add to that someone on the other end of the phone who won’t tell them they have called the wrong number and hang up, and you have the beginnings of a program that will empower the average citizen and leverage government resources without violating civil rights or risking vigilantism.

I believe that we could go further, but am confident that pretty much all parties…the NRA and the VPC…Ted Nugent and Paul McCartney…could agree on something like this.

ALL BALLOT ISSUES ALL THE TIME


The other initiatives are:

46 (housing- YES) As I discussed here, the housing crisis is real, and while these bonds will get spent and won’t solve the problem, a few tens of thousands of people will be better housed because we spent this money.

47 (school bonds – NEUTRAL) I know that our public school infrastructure is decaying (I see it every day at my son’s schools, which are relatively good), but I’m uncertain about spending this money now. On one hand, the needs are real, as with housing above; on the other many of the school districts (L.A. Unified) haven’t done a very good job with the money they’ve been given already. I’m probably going to toss a coin tomorrow morning on this one.

48 (combine courts – YES) This makes ministerial changes to state law to reflect the fact that all 58 of California’s counties have combined their Municipal and Superior courts in an effort to streamline and cut costs. This simply changes the state law to eliminate references to ‘Municipal’ courts when there aren’t any.

49 (afterschool care –YES) As noted below this is about positioning Ah-nold to run for Governor (which I think would actually be kinda fun…he’s not an idiot), and incidentally may improve the lives of a few hundred thousand kids. So I’m for it.

50 (water bonds – NO) I’d support 2/3 of the projects in this (excluding the purchases of wetlands in a private and negotiated process from major developers), but the other 1/3 just isn’t palatable at a time when the budget is as crunched as it really is.

51 (‘transportation’ bonds – NO) This is a scam, and the people responsible (yes, Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, this means you) ought to be ashamed.

L.A. County A (Museum and Parks Bonds – NO) I’d love to see a cool new Rem Koolhaas L.A. County museum. Some group of rich people should get together and fund it. At a time when we can’t afford decent schools, police, or a health system, building monuments to high culture (or cathedrals, for that matter) ought to be on the back burner.

L.A. County B (Healthcare – YES) Vote early and often for this one, or in fact your children may die. It is not only my local Level 1 Trauma Center, it is one of three for the entire region. The health finance systems in this country are broken. We need to fix them. While we’re fixing them, we ought to keep the hospitals open. Period.

LINKAGE


Someone's sending a fair amount of traffic my way via my old site (http:armedliberal.blogspot.com), and I can't get the referrer data to see who it is.

So if you came here via a link to there (how's that for preposition use?) can you let me know and I'll get the mysterious them to fix their link...

DOWNBALLOT CHOICES


Lt. Governor. This largely ceremonial job has only one real benefit…if Davis leaves the state to run for President, the Lt. Governor takes over. Mike Curb (of Lyle Lovett fame) was the Republican Lt. Governor when Jerry Brown was the Democratic Governor, and it definitely kept Jerry home.

To that end, although Cruz Bustamente was a great Assemblyman, my conviction that Gray “ATM” Davis will win the Governorship – albeit without my vote – and immediately start campaigning for President means that I’ll be supporting Bruce McPherson, a Republican in name only from my old stomping grounds at Santa Cruz, CA. Again, I consider Bustamente to be a good guy (as is McPherson), but the only benefit of the seat is that the national Dems will think twice about allowing Davis to even think of moving up in the event it would leave the state house in the R column.

Secretary of State. This campaign for two mid-level pols on the ladder is fairly dull. Neither one has much specific to say…they will both ‘modernize’ the polling process (as a technology professional, I can’t tell you how nervous that makes me…). Kevin Shelley, the Democratic candidate lists Handgun Control Inc. as his first endorsement, so I’m mildly inclined to vote against him. I’ll make this call in the voting booth.

Controller. Steve Westley was a professor of business who went to work for eBay at the right time and did a credible job. I’ve read some of his speeches, and he seems a cut better than most of the candidates. He has teamed up with Phil Angelides to advocate investment in infrastructure, while his opponent is touting his connections to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, so the Democrat gets my nod.

Treasurer. I actually knew Phil Angelides a long time ago, and absolutely would have written him off as a grasping, unimaginative career politician until his election to the State Treasurer’s office. His conduct during the energy crisis, his emphasis on intelligent investment of the State’s funds, and his belief in investing in infrastructure put him far at the head of this group of statewide electeds. If he was running for Governor, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, and he deserves a ride in this post until he can.

Attorney General. Bill Lockyer has been (with the exception of gun issues) a good AG for the state, and deserves another term.

Insurance Commissioner. Tough choice. Support the insurance companies, or the trial lawyers? I’ll go with the lawyers and support John Garamendi, the Democrat. He did a credible job in the office once before, and his Republican successor disgraced himself.

Superintendent of Public Education. I’ll go with Jack O’Connell, the Democrat, as he has been both a teacher and a school board member, and those are the two constituencies that this job needs to reach.

November 5, 2002

VOTE EARLY & OFTEN...


We had our pre-election dinner last night (turkey and beef enchiladas mole), where a bunch of us get together and argue our way through the ballot. Nothing really changed my mind on any of the votes, except that a friend who is an elementary school teacher explained that she was voting against 47 (school bonds), because she considers the various administrations she works for totally inept. So I voted “no” on that.

During dessert, she & I started talking about gun registration. She is a true moderate; doesn’t have a lot of issues with people owning guns, would prefer that they had some training and that they were checked for lunacy and stupidity. But she and I kept going back and forth on registration. She couldn’t see why I had a problem with it, and when I told her about the various go-rounds in which well-meaning SKS and other ‘bad gun’ owners in CA had registered, had their then-legal ownership retroactively made illegal, and then were targeted for confiscation under threat of felony conviction because they had registered, she began to understand my concern. She still favors it, though.

I wish I’d sent her over to this from the Instapundit, for an example of how a) ineffective and b) intrusive this becomes.

I believe that there ought to be a way for the authorities to know if a designated individual has guns, and it would be handy to know what guns s/he has. This would be useful if someone was convicted of a crime, or was under a restraining order, etc. etc.

But until some way can be determined to keep them from being used in small-scale fishing expeditions like these, not to mention large-scale confiscations, I’ll oppose centralized registration.

Don't forget to vote; drag someone else and get them to vote, too.

APPROPRIATE FOR TODAY


New blogger 'Martial' is running a poll: How do you know a legitimate authority when you see one?

I can't think of a more appropriate election-eve activity than to respond.

What is legitimacy to you? On what basis can the government legitmately make demands of you, or is the only demand that can be made @gun -- at the point of a gun, as James Fallows once said.

I'd like to know how this comes out.

22% reporting...


in case you don't have better data yet...obviously I don't have good data on which precincts have reported, hence what the projected outcome would be...but this is a lot closer than I predicted, and the GOP is doing much better than I anticipated.

Davis - 44.7
Simon - 46.9

Bustamente - 46.3
McPherson - 46.5

Shelley - 43.0
Olberg - 47.4

Westley - 41.7
McClintock - 50.5

Angelides - 46.3
Conlon - 45.5

Lockyer - 48.1
Ackerman - 45.3

Garamendi - 43.7
Mendoza - 45.9

O'Connell - 59.6
Smith - 40.4

46 - 54.7/45.3

47 - 54.0/46.0

48 - 75.1/24.9

49 - 53.9/46.1

50 - 50.6/49.4

51 - 43.1/56.9

52 - 38.3/61.7

November 6, 2002

NOW WHAT??


My first thoughts on looking at the election results this morning:

“Damn, Davis is still going to be Governor…it wasn’t a bad dream…” I’m working on two post-election posts this morning, one an open letter to Davis on what he can do to salvage his reputation, and one a look at what this means for party politics.

I’ll give you the lede for the party politics one:

There is only one political party today. It is the party of SkyBoxes, limos, and private planes.

I choose those as symbols…and they are both real manifestations of how the politically powerful live today as well as powerful symbols of what is wrong with the political system that empowers them. They manifest the continued isolation from anything resembling the real life lived by the rest of us.

Hillary Clinton’s limo can run toll booths and her entourage can bypass airport security, where they wait in VIP lounges. Bush Senior can’t run a supermarket scanner, because he hasn’t been to a grocery store in most of his adult life.

The issue isn’t simply one of social class and stratification…it is one in which the political class in this country, which has often run against and been a check on the economic upper classes, has been bought by them, and has been a good investment because as has been true for much of American history, and as Prop 50 shows, the course of government action is often diverted to put our cash in someone’s pocket.

This is as true of the Democrats as it is of the Republicans.

And the answer isn’t as simple as the class warriors would make it.

November 7, 2002

POST-ELECTION


If you’ve read this blog at all, you’ve noted my disdain for what I call the “SkyBox” political culture we’ve created.

Moxie saw a taste of it Tuesday night, at the victory party for Gray Davis:

Davis' speech was really very gracious and all the poor homeless folks they let into the hotel really seemed to enjoy the balloon drop and ice sculptures.

But really -- while I had a good time -- I wasn't overly impressed.
What *would* have impressed me is if the Dems had said, "oh no....we'll forego the 15 ice sculptures of the California bear."

One would have been more than enough to satiate the public's craving for an out-of-style yet opulent party decoration. Seeing more than a few on every floor of the Democratic HQ's really bothered me. I would have been very impressed indeed had Gray Davis said, "Take that money and donate it to a social service. If we can't find one of those have your assistants round up some homeless guys. Take them for dinner at Sizzler and put 'em up at a Holiday Inn for a night. We're for the poor after all."

And that's what struck me most.

My first job out of grad school was as a legislative aide in Sacramento. It was just what I thought I wanted to do, and to be sure I learned a lot and actually got to do some cool stuff. There are several laws in CA that are there because I thought them up and made them happen.

I’d pretty much planned on politics as a career through most of college; I speak well, people seem to like me, and I desperately wanted to make the world a better place.

Oh, and I wanted to have my name written on that better place as well.

Working in politics was exhilarating. Powerful people would take my call … me, a young, inexperienced kid right out of grad school. I got to sit in front of legislative committees and argue with older, powerful people, and sometimes win.

And I was immersed in a community of people just like me. I had a team, even if we were sometimes rivals and even opponents.

And I could have stayed there in all the intervening time, going from administration to administration, from legislator to legislator, occasionally stepping out to work in a think tank or lobbying firm, and maybe, if I was good at it and played my card right, stepped up and ran for office myself.

And many of my peers did just that.

Thomas Kuhn wrote a groundbreaking book a number of years ago…The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he examined the sociology of science; the ways in which ideas propagate as groups within the scientific community gain prestige and power.

What we need to do is to look at politics and policy in a similar light; a number of books have, and I’ll list some titles (and would be interested in seeing more). But here’s the short, Armed Liberal version:

Politics in the U.S. has always been interest-group driven. The power of the interest groups was checked, in part by the inefficiency and limited scope of government, which made very few fights worth taking on, and the cost of taking those fight on relatively high. For the most part, rational investors looked elsewhere.

But in the post-WW2 world, we began to see the scope of government expand; first in the military sector, and then in infrastructure, and then in healthcare, and so on until regulation began to interpenetrate the economy pervasively.

That made investment in government extremely profitable, and legal, in that instead of influencing procurement decisions (obviously illegal), businesses could profit by influencing policy and regulation.

The increasing complexity of laws, policies, and regulations meant that you needed a group of people who knew them and who could navigate the process of creating and interpreting them. They became professionals, and more so began to see themselves as professionals.

Socially, they became increasingly isolated, as professionals often do, because the work is involving and demanding and to a large extent social – it demands interaction with others, so your social and professional lives begin to blend and become indistinguishable.

And suddenly we have a political class, often self-selected as college students or younger, who have structured their entire adult lives around the demands of this system and their hopes to succeed on its terms.

Please note that what I’m describing is ‘content-neutral’; it applies to Rockefeller Republicans, Blue Dog Democrats, and everyone in between. The investments may be made by individuals…Howard Hughes was a huge investor in this sphere, and profited from it…or by corporations, here ADM is a good current example…or by labor unions or environmental groups.

But you need to think of our government as investor-driven, and management-driven. Obviously, we the customers can force change. But while our power is great, it's channelled by the managers and investors, who...among other things...manage us by choosing who we get to vote for.

I’ll add more later today, in two broad areas:

So what’s the problem with this?

So what can we do about it?

CHECK OUT THE BLOVIATOR


Great stuff today:

Here:

The new "International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification" for 2003 (or ICD-9-CM, for short), the federally mandated bible of medical diagnosis and treatment codes, includes a rather regrettable new category: Section E979, which describes deaths from terrorist acts, including nuclear attacks.
and here
Those who put together the APHA Guiding Principles, which were, in part, meant to help spark interest in increased funding for public health interventions, saw these as the top 3 public health priorities (at least, that's how they numbered them in the report):
1) Address poverty, social injustice and health disparities that may contribute to the development of terrorism.
2) Provide humanitarian assistance to, and protect the human rights of, the civilian populations of all nations that are directly or indirectly affected by terrorism.
3) Advocate the speedy end of the armed conflict in Afghanistan and promote non-violent means of conflict resolution.
#4 was strengthening the public health infrastructure, workforce, and other components of the public health system.

Do I think the public health community can serve as a voice for issues 1 through 3? Sure. But I would argue that, when the foundation of our own house needs to be completely refurbished, that describing those three priorities as our top 3 priorities will not only hinder our effectiveness in taking care of what needs to be done in case of a bioterror attack, but also may hamper our efforts to advocate for, acquire and maintain funding for other non-terror-related core functions of public health.

All the soccer moms and dads who thankfully voted "yes" on B and took a step toward saving the trauma system didn't vote to support airy generalizations about social justice and conflict resolution.

Those issues are certainly damn important, but in a world where institutions are failing to deliver on their basic goals, and more importantly where their legitimacy is compromised by their failure to deliver, this is a awfully stupid thing to do.

"DING!!-DING!!"


Commenter Michael Ladd pointed me at this article ... "From Citizens To Customers, Losing Our Collective Voice" ... in the Washington Post.

Now our government no longer needs us. The citizen-soldiers have given way to the professional all-volunteer military and its armada of smart bombs and drone aircraft. The citizen-administrators have disappeared, too, replaced long ago by professional bureaucrats. Americans may still regard each other as fellow citizens with common causes and commitments. But the candidates seeking votes on Tuesday see us as something less: not a coherent public with a collective identity but a swarm of disconnected individuals out to satisfy our personal needs in the political marketplace. We see them, in turn, as boring commercials to be tuned out.

It would be a mistake to conclude, as many commentators do, that Americans are apathetic citizens gone AWOL. But there's no question that the fundamental relationship between citizen and government has changed. Increasingly, public officials regard us as "customers" rather than as citizens, and there are crucial differences between the two. Citizens own the government. Customers just receive services from it. Citizens belong to a political community with a collective existence and public purposes. Customers are individual purchasers seeking the best deal. Customers may receive courteous service, but they do not own the store.

Michael chastised me for using the term 'customers' instead of citizens, and he was exactly right.

The problem is that the politicians and investors in politics think of us as customers, and we're buying that presumption.

FIRE McAULIFFE. HIRE ARIANNA


TAPPED thinks Terry McAuliffe is doing just fine:

DUMP TERRY MCAULIFFE? That's what Arianna Huffington, along with lots of other people, has begun to say. We're not so sure. Look, McAuliffe is the Democrats' party chairman. His main jobs are to raise money, support candidates, repair the party's grassroots machinery and rebuild the Dems' small-donor program. He's done a pretty fair job on all counts; in fact, by those measures, he's a pretty good chairman. Yes, his job is also to help win elections. But Terry McAuliffe is not the Democrats' problem. The Democrats are the Democrats problem. They're timid, disorganized and bereft of energy and ideas. Tapped is not sure how to fix the Democratic Party, but firing Terry McAullife is surely a band-aid at best
No, dipshits, Terry “Eighteen Million from pre-IPO Global Crossing Friends and Family Shares” McAuliffe is exactly the problem the Democrats face. How seriously can he speak out in opposition to corporate interests when it’s clear as hell where his interests are aligned.

DIVERSIONS


So in my obsessive search through my referrer logs, I discover The Bitch Girls, a multiauthor blog from a secret location at a haughty northeastern university...and they're bright. interesting, and funny as hell.

...so do any of you guys ever make it down to VA where the Biggest Guy is in school?...

...and what does it mean that I'm trolling for my son rather than myself?? It's some weird sign of aging or something...

...during the post-divorce Dating Flurry(tm), I happened to go out with a few of the young dot-commies that I'd met on projects.

That ended when I was at a bar with one who, when asked, explained that she was almost twenty-five. I started thinking, "Hmmm, she and Biggest Guy would get along...she's a little old for him, but..." and immediately started feeling like a very creepy old guy...you know, the ones you see in 'decent' restaurants with young overdressed women who are obviously not their daughters.

Sigh. Now I'm not sure if I should feel highly moral or depressed.

THAT'S SMART


Kevin Drum, the alarmingly clean-cut author of CalPundit, has a damn smart post up about, of all things, tax policy. OK, where is the party leadership on this?

Oh...on the phone to their brokers...

A TWO-PIPE PROBLEM


Oz economist John Quiggin (note the corrected spelling) has a blog, where he is hosting a discussion on judging the work of philosophers in the context of their lives (inspired by Nazi-functionary philosopher Heidegger).

First, I'm a believer that philosophy influences politics.

But I'm not convinced that an author's work cannot be greater than they are.

I need to think about this...

FORGIVE ME FOR NOT SINGING


Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you, Happy Biiiirthday, dear Devra...

...returns of the day...

November 8, 2002

INVESTMENT ANALYSIS


Yesterday, I talked about ‘investors’ in the political process.

Today, in the L.A. Times (registration required, or use ‘laexaminer’/’laexaminer’), there’s a good analytical article: ‘Drug Industry Poised to Real Political Dividends’.

WASHINGTON -- Few industries campaigned harder than pharmaceutical manufacturers to elect Republicans to the new Congress, and few industries are better positioned to reap the rewards of the election returns, analysts said Thursday.

"The pharmaceutical industry may be at the front of the line of groups looking at the next two years as an opportunity to make a lot of progress on their issues," said Larry Makinson, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington.

Read the whole article, but do it before lunch.

They have a neat table of individual and PAC contributions to congressional campaigns broken out by industry and party. Check this out:

Lawyers and Law Firms
$59.3 million 72% D 28% R

Retired Persons
$50.2 million 36% D 64% R

Securities
$39.4 million 46% D 54% R

Real Estate
$38.5 million 47% D 53% R

TV/Movies/Music
$29.4 million 77% D 23% R

Insurance
$26.2 million 31% D 68% R

Health Professionals
$24.7 million 37% D 62% R

Computer Equipment & Services
$18.2 million 49% D 51% R

Pharma
$18.1 million 27% D 73% R

Oil and Gas
$17.6 million 20% D 80% R

It’s interesting to note how the party’s policies (pro-pharma in the case of the Republicans, anti-tort reform in the case of the Dems) neatly line up with 73%/27% and 72%28% splits in funding.

There’s a chicken-and-egg issue here; do the interest groups support the parties because they naturally align with them? Or do the parties shape their positions to accommodate the interest groups? But the result hatches all the same…

SORRY, ANN


Regular visitors will know that I'm a huuuge fan of Ann Salisbury's. She's smart, committed, cute (and AFAIK, all you Orange County guys, single!), and a rabid, serious Democrat who in a better world ought to running for office.

But even the best of us sometimes step in it.

Ann points out this strip from Frazz (a personal favorite comic BTW):

frazz2002166251107.gif

There is a bunch wrong with this, sadly. My comment to her points out one side of it:

and you know, I have to wave a hand here. The redneck truck-driving, Kid Rock-listening, reality-TV-watching guy you're happy to see off the polls is the same guy or girl who's sitting on a ship headed to the Gulf right now, and their redneck, know-nothing grandparents won WWII as well.

Until the Democratic Party figures out how to trust and reach them, we'll be the party of the coastal elites.

I don't want to pile onto Ann, but those two points need a bit of elaboration.

If I'm a Hispanic minimum-wage worker at a resort hotel in Santa Monica, the Dems might have something to say to me. But if I'm a furniture factory worker in North Carolina...white or black...the Democratic contempt for my gun-toting, pickup-truck-driving, country-music-listening ways is as loud as the Eminem song I'm playing in the CD player as I drive by the local latte shop.

The Democrats will never win unless they find a way to reconnect with that voter, and they will never reconnect with that voter until they find a way to treat him or her with respect.

And, bluntly, they may not deserve to win unless they find that reconnection.

For all the sympathy that the liberal core constituency exudes for the working class, they always seem awfully uncomfortable when they have to deal with real, breathing examples.

[Update: A Shot In The Dark shows it in another light:

Garrison Keillor illustrates in this Salon piece why the DFL not only got clobbered last Tuesday, but probably hasn't learned its lesson.

Contempt? He's got it!

To choose Coleman over Walter Mondale is one of those dumb low-rent mistakes, like going to a great steakhouse and ordering the tuna sandwich.
That's right - going to a steakhouse and ordering tuna, to escape a friggin' Lutheran church basement lutefisk social.
Yeah, because the lumpenproles just don't get it That's why the Dems lost this cycle...]

KULTURKAMPF


Ann replied:

And I don't know about LA County, but out here in the Big Orange the folks with the fake Calvin's defiling something, isn't limited to "The redneck truck-driving, Kid Rock-listening, reality-TV-watching guy."

And that Ashcroft guy who's all bashful about the partially nude statutes? Yeah, I'm sure his party is rather attractive to "The redneck truck-driving, Kid Rock-listening, reality-TV-watching guy."

And, I could be wrong here, but the Labor folks, they pretty much uniformly vote Democratic and I think quite a few of them are "The redneck truck-driving, Kid Rock-listening, reality-TV-watching guy [or gal]," and we've reached them rather well. (Although we had to suffer a big spanking awhile back to get the picture.)

And don't talk to me about military or veterans. No one in my party called multiple amputee Sen. Max Cleland unpatriotic.

Ann, let’s take a look at the numbers.

The Times had a great graphic yesterday (not available on the web, dammit) showing the counties in CA and how they broke out for Davis/Simon.

In Southern CA, it was LA and Imperial for Davis. That was it.

All the commuter ring counties, all the places where the blue and pink collar workers who are getting screwed by GOP tax and labor policies?? They went for Simon.

Ask yourself why.

Nixon’s political masterstroke was to have split the rank-and-file union members off from the union leadership, using race and culture as a lever. A lot has been done to try and bridge that split, but it’s still wide and deep.

Now on the face of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the union folks to go GOP. They are facing huge structural economic problems, and it may not look that way from where you and I live…but I’ll tell you that the crisis of the middle manager forced to ‘downsize’ his lifestyle isn’t anything compared to the crisis of the help-desk worker whose job is going to Ireland or the machinist who can’t afford to send his kid to U.C.

So while the culture clash is there…think ice sculptures and SkyBoxes…there are real issues there too.

And I’m staying the hell out of the Burton/Acidman fight. But you can’t paper over the ‘clash of cultures’ we have within our country with that one.

You saw this email, right?:

From: Peter Kirstein
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:46 PM
To: Kurpiel Robert C4C CS26

Subject: Re: Academy Assembly

You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage. Help you recruit. Who, top guns to reign death and destruction upon nonwhite peoples throughout the world? Are you serious sir? Resign your commission and serve your country with honour.

No war, no air force cowards who bomb countries with AAA, without possibility of retaliation. You are worse than the snipers. You are imperialists who are turning the whole damn world against us. September 11 can be blamed in part for what you and your cohorts have done to Palestinians, the VC, the Serbs, a retreating army at Basra.

You are unworthy of my support.

Peter N. Kirstein
Professor of History
Saint Xavier University.

Ann, if you don’t think there is a cultural chasm in this country, (and this email shows is loud and clear) and that the core constituencies of the Democratic party aren’t sitting on one side of it, you’re just not looking.

And while I think the Dems core issues ... for justice, for the little guy, for the powerless … should be objectively in the interests of and dammit, they ought to buy us some respect in RedNeck Town, the cultural baggage we’re carrying…and what was expressed by Jef Malett and echoed by you … shuts us Right Out.

And as part of creating the New Model Democrats that I want to join up with, and that I think can win, we are going to have to find a way across that cultural chasm.

November 9, 2002

SCHOOLING


Matt “unarmed” Welch (Matt – Living in L.A., do you really want to announce that?) comments below and takes me to school with links two columns he wrote years ago on the Culture War. In case you’re too sleepy this morning to go click through, I’m excerpting them here. Go read the real things and get reminded of why he gets paid to do this stuff (while I get to buy a free CD on Amazon every three months from my referral fees).

From here:

There was a time in our politics, and in most countries' politics, where a natural two-party divide would gather around Capital and Labor. I am not at all sad to see that grouping dissipate, since it led to the kind of mutual distrust and rancor that countries like France still suffer from (endless and frequently pointless strikes, the mistaken notion that all Business is Evil).

But there is definitely room in post-ideology politics for a party that is supposed to stand for -- and articulate -- the needs and rights of the working class vis-à-vis those who hold more power in this country. Unfortunately, what we get instead is a dispiriting divide based around abortion, guns and code words masking attitudes toward race.

So now the privileged young gather around Al Gore out of tired habit and aesthetic allegiance (except, fleetingly, when John McCain shook them out of their lethargy), while working class whites spread the vote, but still based on issues that have precious little to do with the condition of their lives. It's not surprising that American politics are giving people the same feeling they have after a long day of barbecuing -- tired, filled with crap, and ready for a long nap.

and from here:
I, like I guess a lot of people, have that incredible red/blue county-by-county presidential vote map on the wall in front of me, the one where Bush country is basically everywhere except the 100 miles along either coast and the banks of the Mississippi. It has been tempting, living here in L.A. and watching the Beltway/New York teevee shows, to dismiss the "flyover zone" as some kind of vast, inbred swamp of gun-waving Bible nuts with no brains, despite my personal experience to the contrary.

But I wonder if the real Cultural War in this country is actually the Great Frat Divide. After all, even San Francisco is full of bright sports bars pumping out Coors Light, and the GOP talent pool would be mighty shallow if it could only draw from Utah and Kansas. Anyone who thinks Hollywood is overrun with rich gay leftists hasn't been to a rock club thick with "industry people" -- invariably guys named "Marshall" who always look like they're late for the next intramural flag-football game.

Look, even Matt wasn’t even the first to write about this (read The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Phillips) and I’m sure that an hour spent going through the books on my shelves would come up with four or five others.

But read what Matt has to say.

And take it damn seriously.

WHAT WOULD OLIVER STONE HAVE DONE?


From the New York Post:

MAVERICK director Larry Clark beat up the distributor for his movie "Ken Park" after the jerk declared that America deserved to get attacked on 9/11.

Clark, who helmed "Kids" and "Bully," delivered a brutal beat-down to Hamish McAlpine after the screwy Scotsman started spewing anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments during dinner at London's posh Charlotte Street Hotel Thursday night.

An enraged Clark, 59, punched McAlpine several times in the face - breaking his nose - choked him, then overturned the dinner table on the bloodied big mouth.

Clark was arrested by London police - and now McAlpine is pulling "Ken Park" from the London Film Festival, where it was supposed to unspool tonight.

"He says he's not going to distribute the film now and he's pulling it from the film festival," Clark told us from London yesterday. "He can be mad at me for punching him in the nose, but don't take it out on 'Ken Park.' "

Clark said he lost it when McAlpine ranted that 9/11 "was the best thing that ever happened to America" and declared that innocent Israelis blown up by Palestnian suicide bombers "deserved to die."

"I was wrong," Clark said. "I shouldn't have punched him. I shouldn't have lost it. But at the same time, I wouldn't have been able to look myself in the mirror the next morning if I hadn't done anything. I'm not gonna let this [bleeping] idiot talk about supporting terrorism and the killing of innocent people. I am an American!"

Ya know, sometimes being a good witness just isn't enough. And I know I shouldn't approve of this, as Ann said about something else, but...I'm sure as hell glad I haven't been put into the same situation.

[Link via Instapundit]

November 10, 2002

IN TODAY'S PAPERS


First, some damn good news. Here's the 'lead editorial' in today L.A. Times (registration required, 'laexaminer'/'laexaminer'):

There wasn't much mystery last week about who would be elected to the state Legislature or California's delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. Party leaders in the Legislature stacked the deck last year when they drew new district lines to reflect population shifts on the basis of the 2000 census.

Those 153 districts were carved into enclaves of heavy Democratic and Republican voter registration to provide "safe" seats. Maps in hand before a single vote was cast, you could have picked the winner in virtually every district -- 80 in the Assembly, 20 in the state Senate and 53 in the House. Only five of the 153 were true contests. All but one of the 49 California incumbents in Congress won by a landslide, with at least 60% of the vote. The other, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara), won with 59%. Democrats remain strongly in control of all three houses.

This cynical deal may serve the pols well, but it's bad for California. It becomes virtually impossible to hold lawmakers accountable at the next election. The Legislature is increasingly polarized between Republican conservatives and liberal Democrats. In spite of their majorities, Democrats need some GOP votes to pass the budget and any other fiscal bill. That's why this year's budget was deadlocked for two months beyond the deadline.

It's in the public interest to have clear lines of opinion and vigorous debate. But the Legislature is so fractured now, it's virtually impossible to reach a compromise on any major issue, particularly on spending and taxes. The result of Tuesday's election will be even more gridlock.
...

Sign me up!!

And in today's Daily Breeze (the local paper), something that has me scratching my head...

Mixed feelings over SP film event

NO SHOW: Insensitivity to Japanese-Americans is cited. Vets are stunned.


It was going to be a night to remember.

Ushers dressed in World War II military uniforms, vintage cars pulling up to the curb, Pearl Harbor survivors and a recently restored 1940s military searchlight would be on hand Dec. 7 to greet the crowds at a special anniversary showing of “Tora! Tora! Tora!” at San Pedro’s historic Warner Grand Theatre.

The 1970 film — a joint American and Japanese production — is considered one of the most accurate depictions of events leading up to the 1941 Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Expected to attract hundreds, the showing on the 61st anniversary of the attack was to serve as a fund-raiser for the Fort MacArthur Military Museum in San Pedro.

But now the show is off.

Why? Veterans and museum members say it’s simply a case of political correctness run amok.

While there was a previous theater booking for Dec. 7, according to theater manager Lee Sweet of the city’s Department of Cultural Affairs, which manages the facility, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn concluded that the event would have been insensitive to the Japanese-American community.

“I wanted to be very sensitive to the Japanese-American community,” Hahn said. “Dec. 7 is a tough day, especially for the second and third generations of Japanese-Americans. Why do we want to do something that makes it more difficult?” The showing was planned this year to take the place of the Fort MacArthur Military Museum’s annual Pearl Harbor Day observance.
...

My knee-jerk reaction tends to be againt faux displays of sensitivity ('faux' being defined as those that have no real impact on people's lives...as opposed to things like access to jobs, schooling, etc.). And Pearl Harbor is, like it or not, a part of our and Japan's history. So I'm tilted toward the 'this is stupid' camp. Tenacious G, my SO, is Japanese-American, and on showing her this, she pretty much agrees...her comment was "I feel vaguely bad every Dec. 7, but it's a part of all our history. This is just a way for people to pretend to be sensitive."

But this one still has me thinking in circles...I'm interested in what other folks think.

YGLESIAS AGAIN


Go read this great post by Matthew Yglesias on 'tactics and strategy' and what the Democrats need to do.

MY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA


So we had to go to the Valley for a funeral this morning. We were early, so we stopped at a Starbuck’s near the freeway exit, to sit and relax for a little while before going up to the memorial service and burial.

When we walked in, I immediately noticed two Latino kids sitting at a table arguing heatedly. They were dressed in Full Thug; baggy jackets, low-cut t-shirts, identical watch caps; and each had various words in script tattooed up their muscular necks.

My ‘threat assessment’ went from yellow to orange, as I watched them and started to follow their loud argument, and violent gesturing. The argument was being held in Spanglish, and while I understand Spanish pretty well, and given some warmup can speak a fair amount, this one had some words that took me some time to mentally translate.

“pointer”?
“set”?
“thread”?

…damn, they’re arguing over how to write a computer program in C.

Two years from now, they’ll be wearing polo shirts and Dockers and sitting in a cube somewhere.

And that’s what I love about this country.

I STARTED TO WRITE ABOUT VETERAN'S DAY...


…and to thank the veterans alive and dead for protecting me and mine.

And worried that what I wrote kept coming out sounding either too qualified or would be interpreted as being too nationalistic.

And I realized something about my own thinking, a basic principle I’ll set out as a guiding point for the Democrats and the Left in general as they try and figure out the next act in this drama we are in.

First, you have to love America.

This isn’t a perfect country. I think it’s the best county; I’ve debated this with commenters before, and I’ll point out that while people worldwide tend to vote with their feet, there may be other (economic) attractions that pull them. But there are virtues here which far outweigh any sins. And I’ll start with the virtue of hope.

The hope of the immigrants, abandoning their farms and security for a new place here.

The hope of the settlers, walking across Death Valley, burying their dead as they went.

The hope of the ‘folks’ who moved to California after the war.

The hope of the two Latino kids doing their Computer Science homework at Starbucks’.

I love this country, my country, my people. And those who attack her…from guerilla cells, boardrooms, or their comfy chairs in expensive restaurants…better watch out.

I don’t get a clear sense that my fellow liberals feel the same way. And if so, why should ‘the folks’ follow them? Why are we worthy of the support of a nation that we don’t support?

So let me suggest an axiom for the New Model Democrats:

America is a great goddamn country, and we’re both going to defend it from those who attack it and fight to make it better.

And for everyone who is going to comment and remind me that ‘all liberals already do that’…no they don’t. Not when the chancellor has to intervene at U.C. Berkeley to get ‘permission’ for American flags to be flown and red-white-and-blue ribbons to be worn. Not when the strongest voices in liberalism give lip service to responding to an attack on our citizens on our soil.

Loving this country isn’t the same thing as jingoism; it isn’t the same thing as imperialism; it isn’t the same thing as blind support of the worst traits of our government or our people.

It starts with recognizing the best traits, and there are a hell of a lot of them.

They were worth defending in my father's time, and they are worth defending today.

So thanks, veterans. Thanks soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen. Thanks for doing your jobs and I hope you all come home hale and whole, every one of you.


(11/12: edited for clarity and grammar)

November 11, 2002

SLIPS OF THE TONGUE


...are dangerous. Dave Yaseen, of the usually smart blog A Level Gaze, posts what I pray to Woodie Guthrie is a slip of the liberal tongue. His post concludes:

Yes, this debacle of an election is the media's fault. But it's our fault as well, and we need to drastically change the way we do things in the Democratic party, not diddle around with how to phrase things to make them palatable to the electorate. If we have to drag American voters, kicking and screaming to chose their own interests, so be it.

(emphasis mine)

Well, damn. That's the way to reach the poor uneducated voter and get them onto your side...

...or not. My comment to him was to say that I hoped this was a slip of the tongue (which all of us are subject to) and if not, that if this really represented the philosophy of the leadership of the Left, they'd better be prepared to be sleeping outside on the porch for the full length of a long, cold winter.

DUUUDE...


Ann Salisbury and Jeff Cooper want me to adjust my medication. They think that I am misreading the Democratic Party in my post below, and ask me (thoughtfully, as friends do) to step back and reconsider.

I need to do some homework; it’ll take some time with Google and if I can get into it, Lexis. This is a crazy week, and I’m going to try and go to Comdex for a day next week, so give me a few days for a concrete reply. But here’s the deal.

I know a bunch of Democrats. I know people who run Democratic campaigns. I know people who are Democratic elected officials. They’re my friends, and I love them, and genuinely believe they are trying to do good, and often succeeding.

Every day, I read the L.A. Times, the Daily Breeze, and the Wall Street Journal cover to cover. I read CNN.com and all the blogs on my blogroll pretty much daily (all the ones with *’s every day, and many others); I probably spend an hour or so a day reading. I subscribe to The Atlantic, Harper’s, Granta, and Scientific American, along with a bunch of business, technology, and motorcycle magazines, and I read them all as soon as I get them. I pick up The Economist every other month.

I don’t say this to make myself out as some kind of font of knowledge, but to say both that I’ve got some direct knowledge and that I’m a pretty voracious media consumer (with the exception of TV and talk radio), and I’ll tell you now that when I think of Democratic patriotism, I still somehow can’t get the image of Michael Dukakis sitting in a M-1 Abrams out of my mind.

The ‘brand impression’ that I have of the Democratic Party includes many things; it includes compassion, justice, equality…but it doesn’t include patriotism.

The very word ‘patriotism’ makes me cringe a little bit as I say it, and that’s a problem.

This was triggered as I started to write an appreciation to all the American soldiers who had served. As I wrote, I started worrying about my phrasing. I was worried about being criticized for not qualifying my praise for the ones who had served in unjust wars, or who had somehow acted badly, or who had extended imperialism.

Maybe the folks I know are just a little to ‘left’ liberal. Maybe my filters, because of my personal history are just set in a certain way so I see that a little more.

Maybe this is a problem that exists only in my head.

…or maybe not. And if not … if I’m right, and the anti-American left has managed to create the brand all liberals have to live with … then we liberals have a much bigger problem to deal with, and we'd better start dealing with it.

Let’s dig a little and see.

(11/12: fixed dumb error re Dukakis' name, added some emphasis, cleaned up some grammar)